Obama to workers...

On Friday, the Obama administration reiterated that federal contractors should not issue notices to workers based on “uncertainty” over the pending $500 billion reduction in Pentagon spending that will occur unless lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, negotiations over which will almost definitely not begin until after the election.

In July the Labor Department issued legal guidance making clear that federal contractors are not required to provide layoff notices 60 days in advance of the potential Jan. 2 sequestration order, and that doing so would be inconsistent with the purpose of the WARN Act.
In Friday’s memo, the Office of Management and Budget reiterated that notice, urging agencies’ contracting officials and CFOs to “minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices.”“We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry. We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation’s challenges,” Lockheed said.
– Jake Tapper and Mary Bruce

A little context for you there, super-pinhead.
 
Rune said:
On Friday, the Obama administration reiterated that federal contractors should not issue notices to workers based on “uncertainty” over the pending $500 billion reduction in Pentagon spending that will occur unless lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, negotiations over which will almost definitely not begin until after the election.

In July the Labor Department issued legal guidance making clear that federal contractors are not required to provide layoff notices 60 days in advance of the potential Jan. 2 sequestration order, and that doing so would be inconsistent with the purpose of the WARN Act.
In Friday’s memo, the Office of Management and Budget reiterated that notice, urging agencies’ contracting officials and CFOs to “minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices.”“We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry. We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation’s challenges,” Lockheed said.
– Jake Tapper and Mary Bruce

A little context for you there, super-pinhead.
Click to expand...

Dear little Rune... I read the notice. Did you? It states that if they don't warn their employees as is required, the government will make taxpayers cover the costs of any litigation that might arise. They are giving the companies an out from their legal obligation because Obama doesn't want notices going out right before the election.
 
Superfreak said:
Dear little Rune... I read the notice. Did you? It states that if they don't warn their employees as is required, the government will make taxpayers cover the costs of any litigation that might arise. They are giving the companies an out from their legal obligation because Obama doesn't want notices going out right before the election.
Click to expand...

Dear Lovey, I read AND understood the notice, unlike you.

The upshot, since you are unclear: The layoffs are only possible, not set in stone. Notice, therefore, would be pre-mature.

Regardless, this is the fault of the super commitee, not Obama, but keep swinging, you may hit something eventually.
 
Superfreak said:
Dear little Rune... I read the notice. Did you? It states that if they don't warn their employees as is required, the government will make taxpayers cover the costs of any litigation that might arise. They are giving the companies an out from their legal obligation because Obama doesn't want notices going out right before the election.
Click to expand...


Aren't you omitting the whole part where they say that the notice is not required 60 days before the sequestration is triggered because the effects of the sequestration will not kick in immediately?
 
Rune said:
Dear Lovey, I read AND understood the notice, unlike you.

The upshot, since you are unclear: The layoffs are only possible, not set in stone. Notice, therefore, would be pre-mature.

Regardless, this is the fault of the super commitee, not Obama, but keep swinging, you may hit something eventually.
Click to expand...

Dear Dune... no, you did not understand. If the layoffs are possible within the next 60 days, then law requires them to notify the employees that a layoff is possible within the next 60 days. If they do not do so and layoffs occur, then they can be sued. This memo is telling the companies that the government is going to stick the tax payer with the bill if that happens.
 
Rune said:
On Friday, the Obama administration reiterated that federal contractors should not issue notices to workers based on “uncertainty” over the pending $500 billion reduction in Pentagon spending that will occur unless lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, negotiations over which will almost definitely not begin until after the election.

In July the Labor Department issued legal guidance making clear that federal contractors are not required to provide layoff notices 60 days in advance of the potential Jan. 2 sequestration order, and that doing so would be inconsistent with the purpose of the WARN Act.
In Friday’s memo, the Office of Management and Budget reiterated that notice, urging agencies’ contracting officials and CFOs to “minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices.”“We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry. We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation’s challenges,” Lockheed said.
– Jake Tapper and Mary Bruce

A little context for you there, super-pinhead.
Click to expand...
Its like this troll,
Its nothing more than subtle extortion by Obama....and the threat is not lost on those federal contractors, whose jobs rely on military contracts....
thousands of jobs are at risk, very well paying jobs at that.
 
Superfreak said:
Dear Dune... no, you did not understand. If the layoffs are possible within the next 60 days, then law requires them to notify the employees that a layoff is possible within the next 60 days. If they do not do so and layoffs occur, then they can be sued. This memo is telling the companies that the government is going to stick the tax payer with the bill if that happens.
Click to expand...


Surely you can quote the portion of the WARN Act that says the bold. I don't think "possible" is the trigger.
 
Superfreak said:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/

Obama admin to workers... you may lose your jobs, but to protect mine, I am going to ask companies to violate the 60 day rule so that you don't know it until after you re-elect me.

Obama admin to taxpayers... if those workers do get laid off, you get to pay the bill if they sue.
Click to expand...

strawman.jpg
 
Damn that black man for trying to save people's jobs!

The sequestration won't happen, so why worry about it?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Surely you can quote the portion of the WARN Act that says the bold. I don't think "possible" is the trigger.
Click to expand...

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) protects workers, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs.

Employee entitled to notice under WARN include managers and supervisors, as well as hourly and salaried workers. WARN requires that notice also be given to employees' representatives, the local chief elected official, and the state dislocated worker unit.

Advance notice gives workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain other jobs, and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to compete successfully in the job market.
Click to expand...

now it says 'prospective loss'... meaning there is a likelihood/chance of a loss of job. Are you going to play word games?
 
You obviously aren't quoting the WARN Act. Here's a hint, it doesn't say anything about "possible" job losses. It applies where a mass layoff or plant closing is "reasonably likely." The DOL is saying that WARN Act notices aren't require, because there are no reasonably likely mass layoffs or plant closing 60 days prior to January 2, because the effects of the sequestration are not likely to kick in immediately and no one knows exactly what impact the cuts will have on specific federal contract.
 
Also, too, it's not word games. WARN Act notices are only required in certain specific circumstances. Where those circumstances are not present, there is no notice requirement. You assume that notices are required when that is simply not the case and your assumption is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the circumstances under which notice is required (i.e. "possible")
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You obviously aren't quoting the WARN Act. Here's a hint, it doesn't say anything about "possible" job losses. It applies where a mass layoff or plant closing is "reasonably likely." The DOL is saying that WARN Act notices aren't require, because there are no reasonably likely mass layoffs or plant closing 60 days prior to January 2, because the effects of the sequestration are not likely to kick in immediately and no one knows exactly what impact the cuts will have on specific federal contract.
Click to expand...

So you ARE going to play word games. possible/reasonable likely... hilarious. I will assume you have nothing further to offer given the stupidity of your above post.

Also Dung...

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-warn.htm

Is where I got that... so, not surprising, but once again you are wrong.
 
Howey said:
Damn that black man for trying to save people's jobs!

The sequestration won't happen, so why worry about it?
Click to expand...


So, when the Dept. of Def. budget is slashed, as promised by the Democrats for years and Obama for months, just where will the cuts be....in the pay scales of the troops, cut back on the food budget, maybe the medical coverage?.....it will be the federal contractors that take the heat and that will mean lost jobs....
 
Superfreak said:
So you ARE going to play word games. possible/reasonable likely... hilarious. I will assume you have nothing further to offer given the stupidity of your above post.

Also Dung...

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-warn.htm

Is where I got that... so, not surprising, but once again you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Uh, I'm not wrong. It's an interesting question as to whether layoffs are reasonably likely, and on this reasonable minds could probably differ. But starting with the premise that WARN Act notices are required any time there is a "possible" plant closing or mass layoff, as you are, is stupid.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Also, too, it's not word games. WARN Act notices are only required in certain specific circumstances. Where those circumstances are not present, there is no notice requirement. You assume that notices are required when that is simply not the case and your assumption is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the circumstances under which notice is required (i.e. "possible")
Click to expand...
Do you have a corral in your back yard where you keep all the wingnuts you've pwned? :)
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us genius... if those circumstances for the 60 days notice DO NOT EXIST as Dung proclaims... then why is the government saying they will cover any potential litigation?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if you know any lawyers, but they are generally pretty risk adverse creatures. So, where these is some risk, albeit quite remote, that it is reasonably likely for a mass layoff or plant closing (note that I said reasonable minds could probably differ on this point) on January 2, 2013, some lawyers might advise clients to issue the WARN notices in any event, just to be sure. The cost of issuing the warnings when you don't have to is negligible as compared to not issuing the warning when you had an obligation to do so.

So, basically, you take a generally tendency to be risk adverse coupled with a cost-benefit ratio that strongly favors issuing unnecessary warnings and you end up with lawyers telling their client companies to send out the warnings. The government saying they will cover costs helps on the cost-benefit ration front to make it cheaper to not end the warning then to send it unnecessarily.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I'm not sure if you know any lawyers, but they are generally pretty risk adverse creatures. So, where these is some risk, albeit quite remote, that it is reasonably likely for a mass layoff or plant closing (note that I said reasonable minds could probably differ on this point) on January 2, 2013, some lawyers might advise clients to issue the WARN notices in any event, just to be sure. The cost of issuing the warnings when you don't have to is negligible as compared to not issuing the warning when you had an obligation to do so.

So, basically, you take a generally tendency to be risk adverse coupled with a cost-benefit ratio that strongly favors issuing unnecessary warnings and you end up with lawyers telling their client companies to send out the warnings. The government saying they will cover costs helps on the cost-benefit ration front to make it cheaper to not end the warning then to send it unnecessarily.
Click to expand...

Psychobabble at its best......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top