Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama told Defense Contractors to break the law, and not pass out layoff notices (they are required by law to give 60 days notice) before the election. He tells them that the government will pay for their legal fees (when they are sued).
This is because of automatic budget cuts that go into effect in January because Democrats failed to pass a budget.
Obama has no problem ignoring the law when it works in his favor to do so. But, I thought a President was not above the law?
Which law are we talking about here? Our company had 7-8 rounds of lay-offs but never issued any notices? Could the people who were laid off sue the company?
Which law are we talking about here? Our company had 7-8 rounds of lay-offs but never issued any notices? Could the people who were laid off sue the company?
The WARN Act but there are lots of loopholes in it and big companies with offices spread out in states can use that to their advantage and not have to issue WARN.
The WARN Act but there are lots of loopholes in it and big companies with offices spread out in states can use that to their advantage and not have to issue WARN.
Yes and there is a certain baseline on the number of total employees a company has to have in their employ before they are subject to the WARN act as well.
Lockheed, BAE say they won't issue layoff warnings:
Quote:
...The WH issued a memo late last week that directs contractors to follow the guidance of the Labor Department. In a July letter, the department said the Warn Act does not require contractors facing sequestration to send notices to their workers that they could be let go.
...if sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or changes a contract that results in a plant closing or a mass layoff, the contractors' liability and litigations costs under the Warn Act would be allowable costs.
...The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January 2013 and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan, said a Lockheed in a statement."
I'm sure the WARN Act and Labor Dept. guidelines are mired in loopholes and crazy text. Bottom line, the president has not broken the law. If he had, he would be outed. Lockheed Martin is a HUGE company. Do you not think that they lawyered up before making their decision? If they even think they are doing something illegal they are going to check it out first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
