Obama offers to compensate companies that ignore law

[Quantum Windbag]

The WARN act requires companies to give 60 day notice of all layoffs. For some reason that totally escapes me Obama doesn't want any layoff notices to go out. They are even offering to pay the legal cost incurred if an employee sues under the law.

The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.
The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.
But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.
The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

Obama administration tells contractors again: Don

Strangely enough, I can't find anything on the DOL sight that justifies not telling employees about layoffs.

Compliance Assistance By Law - The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN)

 

[VaYank5150]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

 

[VaYank5150]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

No. "Planned" is the word in the law, not foreseeable, presumable, possible, fathomable, etc.....PLANNED. None of these companies to my knowledge have PLANNED a plant closing or massive layoff 60 days out, have they?

 

[VaYank5150]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

Because if the companies TELL their employees of an impending plant closing or layoff that has not in fact been planned, then the employer would be lying to the employees in an attempt to force our government to do something about the impending bipartisan spending cuts, which would be illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

No. "Planned" is the word in the law, not foreseeable, presumable, possible, fathomable, etc.....PLANNED. None of these companies to my knowledge have PLANNED a plant closing or massive layoff 60 days out, have they?

The layoffs are, currently, planned.

Idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

Because if the companies TELL their employees of an impending plant closing or layoff that has not in fact been planned, then the employer would be lying to the employees in an attempt to force our government to do something about the impending bipartisan spending cuts, which would be illegal.

That is an amazingly disingenuous interpretation of the facts.

 

[VaYank5150]

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

No. "Planned" is the word in the law, not foreseeable, presumable, possible, fathomable, etc.....PLANNED. None of these companies to my knowledge have PLANNED a plant closing or massive layoff 60 days out, have they?

The layoffs are, currently, planned.

Idiot.

REALLY? Please show me the facts on these PLANNED plant closings and/or layoffs. Be specific with links to News stories or company memos, please.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

This move by the corrupt Administration of Obama and company is nothing more than bribery. The WARN Act was put in place for this very reason and yet the dictator Obama see's himself above the law. I hope the House moves to impeach his ass.

 

[Katzndogz]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

No. "Planned" is the word in the law, not foreseeable, presumable, possible, fathomable, etc.....PLANNED. None of these companies to my knowledge have PLANNED a plant closing or massive layoff 60 days out, have they?

Yes they did, that's why they were required to send out the notices.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. "Planned" is the word in the law, not foreseeable, presumable, possible, fathomable, etc.....PLANNED. None of these companies to my knowledge have PLANNED a plant closing or massive layoff 60 days out, have they?

The layoffs are, currently, planned.

Idiot.

REALLY? Please show me the facts on these PLANNED plant closings and/or layoffs. Be specific with links to News stories or company memos, please.

Since they haven't been officially announced yet, and I do not have access to company records, how am I supposed to do that?

 

[eflatminor]

Bribes from our central planners in order to secure their continued control? Color me shocked.

 

[Caroljo]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

Because if the companies TELL their employees of an impending plant closing or layoff that has not in fact been planned, then the employer would be lying to the employees in an attempt to force our government to do something about the impending bipartisan spending cuts, which would be illegal.

WHAT company would ever tell their employees about a plant closing or layoff if it wasn't already PLANNED???? That's just a stupid comment.

So......
He's telling these companies IF they are planning a mass layoff in the next 60 days, don't tell the employees about it, because if they knew then they would take it out on Obama at the elections, and he couldn't have that!

So just don't say ANYTHING until after elections. And to make it ok with the companies, Obama will use our tax dollars to pay the legal fees when they do let the people go without the 60 day warning and they get sued.

Gee, that's really nice of him. And VERY illegal.....

 

[WillowTree]

You should try actually READING the law before making yourself look even more ignorant in front of everyone for not understanding it.

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

No. "Planned" is the word in the law, not foreseeable, presumable, possible, fathomable, etc.....PLANNED. None of these companies to my knowledge have PLANNED a plant closing or massive layoff 60 days out, have they?

It was planned for them by obama and the democrats cutting military spending dumbass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We got one company that took the bribe.

At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices - ABC News

 

[VaYank5150]

The law requires notices to g out 60 days in advance of all plant closings if they are foreseeable. Can you explain how these would not be foreseeable? Can you explain why there would be any need for taxpayers to cover legal costs if there was no possibility of liability under the law?

Because if the companies TELL their employees of an impending plant closing or layoff that has not in fact been planned, then the employer would be lying to the employees in an attempt to force our government to do something about the impending bipartisan spending cuts, which would be illegal.

WHAT company would ever tell their employees about a plant closing or layoff if it wasn't already PLANNED???? That's just a stupid comment.

So......
He's telling these companies IF they are planning a mass layoff in the next 60 days, don't tell the employees about it, because if they knew then they would take it out on Obama at the elections, and he couldn't have that!

So just don't say ANYTHING until after elections. And to make it ok with the companies, Obama will use our tax dollars to pay the legal fees when they do let the people go without the 60 day warning and they get sued.

Gee, that's really nice of him. And VERY illegal.....

And also one helluva conspiracy theory. NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY PROOF of any such planned layoffs. All the President is doing is trying to keep the companies from causing panic IF they do not have a PLANNED plant closing or mass layoff already in place.

 

[VaYank5150]

We got one company that took the bribe.

At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices - ABC News

So, has the DoD already decided how they will implement the bipartisan $500B cut to it's budget? What programs are they cutting? What contracts are they cutting? What weapons systems are they cutting? What is it that Lokcheed Martin makes that is being cut?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We got one company that took the bribe.

At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices - ABC News

So, has the DoD already decided how they will implement the bipartisan $500B cut to it's budget? What programs are they cutting? What contracts are they cutting? What weapons systems are they cutting? What is it that Lokcheed Martin makes that is being cut?

Lockheed is planning layoffs, which is what you wanted me to prove, now you want me to tell you what cuts the Pentagon is planning.

 

[VaYank5150]

We got one company that took the bribe.

At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices - ABC News

So, has the DoD already decided how they will implement the bipartisan $500B cut to it's budget? What programs are they cutting? What contracts are they cutting? What weapons systems are they cutting? What is it that Lokcheed Martin makes that is being cut?

Lockheed is planning layoffs, which is what you wanted me to prove, now you want me to tell you what cuts the Pentagon is planning.

Well, aren't YOU the one trying to tie the two together? Why would Lockheed Martin be planning layoffs, if the DoD hasn't a clue what they intend to cut to meet the $500B decrease in their budget?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, has the DoD already decided how they will implement the bipartisan $500B cut to it's budget? What programs are they cutting? What contracts are they cutting? What weapons systems are they cutting? What is it that Lokcheed Martin makes that is being cut?

Lockheed is planning layoffs, which is what you wanted me to prove, now you want me to tell you what cuts the Pentagon is planning.

Well, aren't YOU the one trying to tie the two together? Why would Lockheed Martin be planning layoffs, if the DoD hasn't a clue what they intend to cut to meet the $500B decrease in their budget?

The Pentagon has plans for an invasion from outer space and what to do it Canada invades us, what makes you think they don't have plans on where to cut spending next year? What makes you think Lockheed, which is full of people that are military, and have feelers out to people in the military who are going to retire, don't have an idea what those plans are.

Unlike you, I don't think that, because I don't have the answer, that is proof it does not exist.