• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

After White House assurances, Lockheed won't send out layoff notices

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I thought I saw something on this here, but searched on lockheed and didn't find it. Please post the link if this has been reported about already.

I do believe most courts would call this a BRIBE!!!!!!!



After White House assurances, Lockheed won't send out layoff notices

Lockheed Martin is backing down from threats to issue employee layoff notices days before the November election based on new guidance from the Obama administration and the Pentagon.

The defense giant's decision ends a stand-off with the administration over the impact of deep automatic cuts set to begin hitting defense spending Jan. 2, if Congress can't find a solution to the impasse.

The layoff notices, required by law, would have gone out to dozens of employees in Northern Virginia, a hotbed for defense contracting in a state Mr. Obama took in 2008 and wants to keep in his win column on Election Day. Democrats were worried that sending out a slew of layoff notices in the state just days before voters went to the polls would have suppressed the vote for Obama.

Lockheed Martin's decision not to send them out comes after reassurances from the Office of Management and Budget that the Pentagon didn't plan on killing any contracts on Jan. 2, and also said the government would pay for severance costs mandated under a federal layoff notices law, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has repeatedly warned about the economic and national security fallout of the pending defense cuts, labeled the Obama administration's latest attempts to stop the layoff notices a purely political attempt to win the election at the expense of job security for employees in the defense industry.

"This is typical Barack Obama politics — being supportive of the WARN Act when convenient and against it when it creates a political downside," Mr. Graham said Monday in a release. "This is the most outcome-based White House in memory."

In 2007, Mr. Obama, then Senator of Illinois, wanted to extend the WARN Act notices to 90 days, up from 60, to ensure workers were treated fairly, Mr. Graham noted.

"Now, President Obama is trying to suppress the issuance of WARN notices, which will hit mailboxes right before the election," he said. "The Obama administration's legal advice is dubious at best."

In June, Bob Stevens, Lockheed's CEO, said he was following his lawyers' advice and planning to send out notices of potential layoffs to all 123,000 of his employees on Nov. 2, just four days before the election. But, over the summer, the Obama administration repeatedly told contractors the layoff notices were "inappropriate" because the effects of budget sequestration were only hypothetical. Lockheed and several other contractors said the legal issue was so clear they believed they were forced to send them out or face legal retribution from employees for not doing so.

But the new guidance sent Friday provided assurances to defense companies that the federal government wold cover the costs of employee terminations if the contracts ended up being canceled — but only if the companies did not issue the notices.



Read more: After White House assurances, Lockheed won't send out layoff notices - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...d-wont-send-out-layoff-notices/#ixzz28LmywkRE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
So basically the White House said they want Lockheed to break the law. Then the WH said they will protect them if they do break the law.

The WH is doing this as a political move so people don't get layoff notices until AFTER THE ELECTION.

Did I miss anything?
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
So basically the White House said they want Lockheed to break the law. Then the WH said they will protect them if they do break the law.

The WH is doing this as a political move so people don't get layoff notices until AFTER THE ELECTION.

Did I miss anything?
I don't think you missed anything.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
So basically the White House said they want Lockheed to break the law. Then the WH said they will protect them if they do break the law.

The WH is doing this as a political move so people don't get layoff notices until AFTER THE ELECTION.

Did I miss anything?



Nope, you got it Bob.
The white house advised them or I should say bribed them not to send out 123,000 layoff notices before the election, especially since a whole lot of the notices would have went to workers in the battleground state of Virginia. 60 days before Jan 1st would have forced Lockheed to send out the notices by the end of October.

Why is it okay for the white house to bribe like this?
 

mak2

Active member
I dont think any contracts have been cut, the pentagon says none will be. Soooo why is lockheed trying to lay them off in advance? Maybe Lockheed is playing a little politics?
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
If they were playing politics and wanted to send out the notices they would have sent them.

Due to the inaction by congress massive defense cuts are set to go in place Jan. 1. It could happen. Knowing that, to be within the law Lockheed should send out notices to those who would lose their job due to these cutbacks.
 

mak2

Active member
Ok, I am sure sending out layoff notices because contracts could be cut is a good idea. Sounds like politics to me, Lockheed is just trying to lock in the contracts, hey, maybe it is blackmail. Oh well...

"Lockheed Martin's decision not to send them out comes after reassurances from the Office of Management and Budget that the Pentagon didn't plan on killing any contracts on Jan. 2, and also said the government would pay for severance costs mandated under a federal layoff notices law, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act."
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Ok, I am sure sending out layoff notices because contracts could be cut is a good idea. Sounds like politics to me, Lockheed is just trying to lock in the contracts, hey, maybe it is blackmail. Oh well...

"Lockheed Martin's decision not to send them out comes after reassurances from the Office of Management and Budget that the Pentagon didn't plan on killing any contracts on Jan. 2, and also said the government would pay for severance costs mandated under a federal layoff notices law, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act."
Does the WARN act require the government to pay for severance costs? I don't think so. So why is the administration assuring Lockheed that they will no incur no loss if they violate the act? And, if the government is not anticipating contract cuts, why does Lockheed need the assurance?

Barry and company agreeing to pay a fine for violating a law if the violator will just hold off until after the elections sounds like a bribe to me, and probably an illegal one at that.
 

mak2

Active member
Could have been part of the contracts. I dont know and dont really care, just pointing out there could be another side to the story.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Could have been part of the contracts. I dont know and dont really care, just pointing out there could be another side to the story.
The left's favorite words: could, might, may. I care. Apparently the administration has agreed to pick up the fines of lawbreaking companies if they will agree to ignore the law until after the election.

Here's the link to the Washington Times story:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/2/grassley-ayotte-want-answers-omb-promise-cover-def/

If you have the other side of the story, I would like to hear it.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
No, I did not say I cared, I said I dont care.
I know you don't care. I said I care.

Little things like violating the law, offering bribes, ignoring voter intimidation, et al, mean nothing in the quest to further the left agenda. I understand that.
 

mak2

Active member
I rationally pointed out there could be another side to the story. You are too ate up with Obama/left hate to even think it over. When people quit thinking is when they start mindlessly hating. That is the problem on the right, at least as I see it.
I know you don't care. I said I care.

Little things like violating the law, offering bribes, ignoring voter intimidation, et al, mean nothing in the quest to further the left agenda. I understand that.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I rationally pointed out there could be another side to the story. You are too ate up with Obama/left hate to even think it over. When people quit thinking is when they start mindlessly hating. That is the problem on the right, at least as I see it.
Post 10 excerpt:

"If you have the other side of the story, I would like to hear it."

Like I said, I'm all ears, and waiting.
 

mak2

Active member
The contracts have not been cut, the Pentagon says they do not plan to cut them. The company wants to send out lay off letters right befoe the election. See post 13.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Ok, I am sure sending out layoff notices because contracts could be cut is a good idea. Sounds like politics to me, Lockheed is just trying to lock in the contracts, hey, maybe it is blackmail. Oh well...

"Lockheed Martin's decision not to send them out comes after reassurances from the Office of Management and Budget that the Pentagon didn't plan on killing any contracts on Jan. 2, and also said the government would pay for severance costs mandated under a federal layoff notices law, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act."

Companies over 500 employees do send out 60 day noticer of coming lay-offs. Not because it is a "good idea" It is the Law of the land.
But yo are right, it is politics.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Congress is in charge of this not the pentagon. I believe the pentagon is not planning on cutting but congress, due to their lack of action has in place a law which will require across the board cuts.

Why else would the administration need to insure Lockheed that IF they do end up having to lay off workers without giving them the required 60 day notice that the administration will cover any fines? That is because it is possible the cuts will happen.

Did you notice this part in the OP?

In 2007, Mr. Obama, then Senator of Illinois, wanted to extend the WARN Act notices to 90 days, up from 60, to ensure workers were treated fairly, Mr. Graham noted.

Sure is a flip flopper isn't he? :yum:

Note, this WARN notice does not mean the workers will be laid off for sure, but it means there is a chance it would happen. Lockheed was playing by the book, until the administration talked them out of sending the notices.
 

mak2

Active member
The contracts have not been cancelled. I have never heard of a company wanting to lay off employees because contrats might be cancelled. Again, I dont think Obama changed his stance on worker notification.
Congress is in charge of this not the pentagon. I believe the pentagon is not planning on cutting but congress, due to their lack of action has in place a law which will require across the board cuts.

Why else would the administration need to insure Lockheed that IF they do end up having to lay off workers without giving them the required 60 day notice that the administration will cover any fines? That is because it is possible the cuts will happen.

Did you notice this part in the OP?

In 2007, Mr. Obama, then Senator of Illinois, wanted to extend the WARN Act notices to 90 days, up from 60, to ensure workers were treated fairly, Mr. Graham noted.

Sure is a flip flopper isn't he? :yum:
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
The contracts have not been cut, the Pentagon says they do not plan to cut them. The company wants to send out lay off letters right befoe the election. See post 13.
The way I read the story, the WH issued the assurances after Lockheed stated that they would be issuing layoff notices as required by law in anticipation of a cut in contracts, but went on to state that even if they did cancel contracts, they (the WH) would make Lockheed whole by paying or waiving the fines if the administration then decided to cancel. That sounds like a bribe to me, and unless there is some policy in government that fines will paid in this event, then it is most probably illegal.

If the policy is to ignore or pay the fines, then why do we need the law in the first place?
 

mak2

Active member
WARN does not apply to closure of temporary facilities, or the completion of an activity when the workers were hired only for the duration of that activity.WARN also provides for less than 60 days notice when the layoffs resulted from closure of a faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, or natural disaster.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
WARN does not apply to closure of temporary facilities, or the completion of an activity when the workers were hired only for the duration of that activity.WARN also provides for less than 60 days notice when the layoffs resulted from closure of a faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, or natural disaster.
Apparently WARN also does not apply when the government guarantees that you will not suffer any downside if you fail to notify prior to an election.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
WARN does not apply to closure of temporary facilities, or the completion of an activity when the workers were hired only for the duration of that activity.WARN also provides for less than 60 days notice when the layoffs resulted from closure of a faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, or natural disaster.

1. The companies are NOT faltering.
2. The circumstances are NOT unforeseeable.
3. There is NO natural disaster.

Further there is no indication that the funds to pay for the contracts will ever be reinstated so this cannot be claimed to be temporary.


:tiphat:
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Geeze mak, if they waited until the contracts were canceled then they would have to pay the employees for 60 more days of work before laying them off. It's called planning.

If there is no chance of the cuts then why would the administration even need to give such a guarantee?

mak said:
The contracts have not been cancelled. I have never heard of a company wanting to lay off employees because contrats might be cancelled. Again, I dont think Obama changed his stance on worker notification.
 

mak2

Active member
Can't any contract be cancelled with the conditions set in the contract? Do you know those conditions? Why, if the contracts arent cancelled, lay off the workers just in case? Sounds like a good idea to me. no this cant be lockheed playing plolitics. Looks to me like it is a lot more likely this is blackmail instead of bribery. But hey, have it your way.

Wasnt there a thread a while back about Obama being the AntiChrist or Satan or something? Why dont we just go with that?
 

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
I worked for a defense contractor for 18 years. These type of contract cancellations and the resulting notices were SOP. My cousin used to get a notice every time the contract was winding down and waiting for an extension. Sometimes it happened and other times it was just a formality. This was required by union contract even before this federal law was enacted. Bribe=likely. Illegal=?? Politics=for sure!
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Can't any contract be cancelled with the conditions set in the contract? Do you know those conditions? Why, if the contracts arent cancelled, lay off the workers just in case? Sounds like a good idea to me. no this cant be lockheed playing plolitics. Looks to me like it is a lot more likely this is blackmail instead of bribery. But hey, have it your way.

Wasnt there a thread a while back about Obama being the AntiChrist or Satan or something? Why dont we just go with that?
Mak, you are attempting to confuse the issue by confusing layoffs with notifications of potential layoffs. They are not the same. The purpose of WARN is to alert the interested parties of a potential issue, not serve as the last paycheck.

But, then, I would guess that you already knew that.
 

mak2

Active member
Actually I thought it was for an impending or probably lay off. I did not realize they were issued routinely even with little likelyhood of lay offs. If true that would beg the question why this is suddenly big news? I will go read WARN again.
Mak, you are attempting to confuse the issue by confusing layoffs with notifications of potential layoffs. They are not the same. The purpose of WARN is to alert the interested parties of a potential issue, not serve as the last paycheck.

But, then, I would guess that you already knew that.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Actually I thought it was for an impending or probably lay off. I did not realize they were issued routinely even with little likelyhood of lay offs. If true that would beg the question why this is suddenly big news? I will go read WARN again.
I think you are getting close. No one demands that you lay off employees after sending out the letters.

I've read WARN, but I do not know if there is a penalty for excessive use of the letters. I don't remember reading about any penalties. If there is none, and I ran an affected business, I would send the letters with every paycheck just to keep myself covered.
 

mak2

Active member
They are suppose to be so your workforce can retrain and find other employment. It looks to me like if they are sent out all the time they would be worthless, and skilled employees would leave if they believed them. I dont know, I just think it is problaby pure politics on both sides. But you guys can say Obama is bribeing them if you want. He is satan you know. :yum:
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
They are suppose to be so your workforce can retrain and find other employment. It looks to me like if they are sent out all the time they would be worthless, and skilled employees would leave if they believed them. I dont know, I just think it is problaby pure politics on both sides. But you guys can say Obama is bribeing them if you want. He is satan you know. :yum:
I would agree with you. The threat from Lockheed was to extract tribute from the WH in exchange for holding off for a couple of days The reaction from the WH was to prevent it from happening.

I also agree about the act being mostly worthless. If too many letters are sent, then it becomes a case of crying wolf until no one pays attention However, that policy by a company keeps them in compliance.
 
Top