Any of you Obama worshipers want to defend this?

[Pelado]

What is the problem? The WH thinks sequestration won't happen and they don't want people to lose jobs needlessly if it is avoided at the end. But contractors have legal liabilities they could incur if they wait and try to lay large groups off when sequestration hits (leading some companies to conclude it may be economically safer to fire now). To avoid that issue and protect jobs, the Feds will pay for legal costs if it comes to it. So, now an incentive to fire has been removed. Isn't that... a good thing?

This doesn't stop people from being laid off. It only stops them from being notified in advance that they might be laid off. And then costs taxpayers if they do actually get laid off.

This is just the WH saying that they really don't want the most vulnerable to be aware of the consequences of sequestration until after the election.

[TripletDaddy]

Good political strategy. I'm glad they are doing this.

[Surfah]

This doesn't stop people from being laid off. It only stops them from being notified in advance that they might be laid off. And then costs taxpayers if they do actually get laid off.

This is just the WH saying that they really don't want the most vulnerable to be aware of the consequences of sequestration until after the election.

Exactly. Cali doesn't know what he it's talking about on this subject. This is nothing more than Obama and the White House not wanting a few hundred thousand unhappy voters with layoff notices just a week before they vote.

Internally I have heard that Lockheed plans to remain compliant with the WARN Act and send the notices. Other companies including my own are still contemplating what to do but are leaving towards sending the notices as a CYA. There is an office park near me that houses General Dynamics, BAE Systems, Mitre, URS, Lockheed, and a few other contractors. All around it are Virginia is Romney and Ryan country signs. Kind of funny.

[calicoug]

This doesn't stop people from being laid off. It only stops them from being notified in advance that they might be laid off. And then costs taxpayers if they do actually get laid off.

This is just the WH saying that they really don't want the most vulnerable to be aware of the consequences of sequestration until after the election.

No, it doesn't stop them from being laid off. But it does mean the process for laying them off can be delayed and hopefully then avoided completely. The WARN Act requires 60 days notice of mass layoffs. Consequently, if contractors think the sequester will hit, they may think they need to start giving people notice now of the layoffs. That increases their job uncertainty (significantly) and obviously all for no good reason if Congress ultimately reaches a deal in the next 60 days to avert the sequester.

There is nothing sinister about this.

I am pleased, however, to see Republicans suddenly realizing that cutting back on government spending during an economic downturn can have serious economic consequences.

[calicoug]

Exactly. Cali doesn't know what he it's talking about on this subject. This is nothing more than Obama and the White House not wanting a few hundred thousand unhappy voters with layoff notices just a week before they vote.

Internally I have heard that Lockheed plans to remain compliant with the WARN Act and send the notices. Other companies including my own are still contemplating what to do but are leaving towards sending the notices as a CYA. There is an office park near me that houses General Dynamics, BAE Systems, Mitre, URS, Lockheed, and a few other contractors. All around it are Virginia is Romney and Ryan country signs. Kind of funny.

Right. Because if they get laid off they are all going to rush out and vote for... Romney- the guy who likes to look out for the workers. Or something.

[Surfah]

No, it doesn't stop them from being laid off. But it does mean the process for laying them off can be delayed and hopefully then avoided completely. The WARN Act requires 60 days notice of mass layoffs. Consequently, if contractors think the sequester will hit, they may think they need to start giving people notice now of the layoffs. That increases their job uncertainty (significantly) and obviously all for no good reason if Congress ultimately reaches a deal in the next 60 days to avert the sequester.

There is nothing sinister about this.

I am pleased, however, to see Republicans suddenly realizing that cutting back on government spending during an economic downturn can have serious economic consequences.

Like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about on this subject.

[Pelado]

No, it doesn't stop them from being laid off. But it does mean the process for laying them off can be delayed and hopefully then avoided completely. The WARN Act requires 60 days notice of mass layoffs. Consequently, if contractors think the sequester will hit, they may think they need to start giving people notice now of the layoffs. That increases their job uncertainty (significantly) and obviously all for no good reason if Congress ultimately reaches a deal in the next 60 days to avert the sequester.

There is nothing sinister about this.

I am pleased, however, to see Republicans suddenly realizing that cutting back on government spending during an economic downturn can have serious economic consequences.

It doesn't postpone the process of the layoffs. It is assurance from the administration that not only will they not enforce the law (sound familiar?), they will cover the legal costs of those who don't follow the law.

[calicoug]

It doesn't postpone the process of the layoffs. It is assurance from the administration that not only will they not enforce the law (sound familiar?), they will cover the legal costs of those who don't follow the law.

Of course this postpones the process of layoffs. What is step one in a layoff process? Notify the employees. Is that going to happen as soon now as it otherwise would? There's your answer as to whether the process is being postponed.

[Pelado]

Of course this postpones the process of layoffs. What is step one in a layoff process? Notify the employees. Is that going to happen as soon now as it otherwise would? There's your answer as to whether the process is being postponed.

You must not have read the article. The administration is telling contractors not to give the 60 day notice, and that the feds (the taxpayers) will pick up the tab for the employee compensation costs - but only if the contractors forego the 60 day notice period. In other words, "don't tell your employees that they may be laid off soon (as the law requires), and we'll have your back."

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.

[Moliere]

You must not have read the article. The administration is telling contractors not to give the 60 day notice, and that the feds (the taxpayers) will pick up the tab for the employee compensation costs - but only if the contractors forego the 60 day notice period. In other words, "don't tell your employees that they may be laid off soon (as the law requires), and we'll have your back."

Why does anyone care about this stuff? There won't be mass layoffs regardless of who is in office. They'll pass some budget at the last minute that allows for us to continue to finance defense and welfare spending just like they always have. No one is going to cut spending because it's political suicide to even suggest such a proposal in any sort of serious manner.

[Pelado]

Why does anyone care about this stuff? There won't be mass layoffs regardless of who is in office. They'll pass some budget at the last minute that allows for us to continue to finance defense and welfare spending just like they always have. No one is going to cut spending because it's political suicide to even suggest such a proposal in any sort of serious manner.

The administration is shifting the potential liabilities from non-public entities to the taxpayers without authority - constitutional or otherwise. If they want to prevent the notices, then pass a budget.

[Tim]

The administration is shifting the potential liabilities from non-public entities to the taxpayers without authority - constitutional or otherwise. If they want to prevent the notices, then pass a budget.

If the administration was the party responsible for holding up the budget I think we'd all agree with you. But at this point the budget is being held up by Republicans intent on creating as much drama as possible. The administration, however, bears the sole responsibility for dealing with the mess created upon the contractors as a results of the obstructionist Republican budget hold-up. I don't blame them one bit for taking action to protect our contractors from the negative actions of the Republicans in holding up the budget.

LOL @ your suggestion that the administration "just pass a budget." I looked for a white-text smiley afterward because I assumed you were joking. Now I'm horrified by the idea that you post so much in the political categories while it's becoming clear that you actually... well... you're kindof dumb.

[dabrockster]

What is alarming and seems to be the MO for Obama is his desire to circumvent the laws of our country for his own purposes. I think the posturing by the Admin. in this is what is bothersome more than anything..

The WARN Act is detailed in this event, but the WH is saying.. "Don't worry about that law, we got your back"..

This WH and this congress are both to blame and are doing this for political reason.. And THAT is what is I believe many find disgusting about this whole thing...

[Pelado]

If the administration was the party responsible for holding up the budget I think we'd all agree with you. But at this point the budget is being held up by Republicans intent on creating as much drama as possible. The administration, however, bears the sole responsibility for dealing with the mess created upon the contractors as a results of the obstructionist Republican budget hold-up. I don't blame them one bit for taking action to protect our contractors from the negative actions of the Republicans in holding up the budget.

LOL @ your suggestion that the administration "just pass a budget." I looked for a white-text smiley afterward because I assumed you were joking. Now I'm horrified by the idea that you post so much in the political categories while it's becoming clear that you actually... well... you're kindof dumb.

Which house of the government has failed to pass a budget for at least 3 years? Which branch of the government could not get a single vote in favor of its budget - even members of their own party. The budget is not a winning argument for Democrats.

[Moliere]

The administration is shifting the potential liabilities from non-public entities to the taxpayers without authority - constitutional or otherwise. If they want to prevent the notices, then pass a budget.

A budget will be passed and I doubt there will be any real cuts to spending either in welfare or defense. It's just how this democracy works.

I'm still interested to find out the real debt ceiling. As I've stated before, I hope we don't get there until I've blown through my retirement savings.