• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama to Lockheed Martin – don’t announce layoffs till after election

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Because your a liberal, you'll defend him no matter what, as well he shares the same race so your more likely to support him

Totally wrong,

I can outline 10 very real things I dislike about Obama. Issue is they will look nothing like the 10 things you would list.

Your focused on Apologies, bowing, Muslims, overgeneralities and platitudes, and thats why and what outs you as the nut you are.

Real critism is important you simply offer no real critism.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Totally wrong,

I can outline 10 very real things I dislike about Obama. Issue is they will look nothing like the 10 things you would list.

Your focused on Apologies, bowing, Muslims, overgeneralities and platitudes, and thats why and what outs you as the nut you are.

Real critism is important you simply offer no real critism.
I do have real reasons for my opposition to the man

What are your 10 things you dont like about him?
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
That disgusting pos and excuse for a human being obama needs to be kicked out for this nonsense. He only cares about winning not about jobs
You don't even try any more do you? I know you know that Obama doesn't pass the budget or legislation so stop sounding like an idiot.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
I do have real reasons for my opposition to the man

What are your 10 things you dont like about him?

Lets go one at a time.

My #1 - Bringing in the same people that created the financial mess to fix it.

Your turn lets hear something real
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
Lets go one at a time.

My #1 - Bringing in the same people that created the financial mess to fix it.

Your turn lets hear something real
We are going to bring in Bill Clinton and the 1999 Congress?
 
Last edited:

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
Sometimes I get the feeling there is one lonely guy sitting in a room full of computers conducting their own sock puppet show...
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Where is my number 1 did I infer it was wallstreet and not the government?
The way I read it suggests Wall Street and the fact that you support obama in some ways means your more likely to blame Wall Street

If your blaming government I totally agree with you
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
The way I read it suggests Wall Street and the fact that you support obama in some ways means your more likely to blame Wall Street

If your blaming government I totally agree with you
I blame both really, Wallstreet via lobby contributing to deregulation perpetrated by the government.

Lawrence summers specifcally shoulders a lot of the blame along with Bill Clinton.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
Sometimes I get the feeling there is one lonely guy sitting in a room full of computers conducting their own sock puppet show...
It seems like it, doesn't it.

It reminds me of my admin days on Wikipedia when people would get banned and come back as "somebody else". Some were very good at pretending to be a different type of person...it was almost scary.

Sometimes, I think Matt, Spidey, Incorruptible, and Mono are all the same people...just increasing smarter at times or woefully dumb. I don't know if it fluctuates on purpose or what.
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,152
161
106
The way I read it suggests Wall Street and the fact that you support obama in some ways means your more likely to blame Wall Street

If your blaming government I totally agree with you
That is a large part of your problem right there (notice the correct usage of your and there). You interpret everything you want to make it conform to your beliefs and preconceived notions.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
Faux outrage troll thread.

If for one second anyone thinks that Defense spending is going to be allowed to get hammered by sequestration you should have your posting privileges revoked. And if you think that DoD contractor employees don't already know about it, you probably have to be reminded to breathe.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
In fairness it seems likely this will be resolved through negotiations following the election, regardless of the outcome of the election, because as much as the Republicans in Congress love sticking their thumb in the President's eye, they love defense spending even more. There doesn't seem to be much point in announcing layoffs that will most likely never occur.
Yes, the Obama administration should be pleased with the ABC report confirming Lockheed won't send the letters out, and thus preventing workers from finding out they may lose their jobs. Brilliant plan! Unless some of them happen to actually read the news or something.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Please, you have never met Obama in your life. Its obvious you don't understand the article. Run along and play with the other kids while the adults talk.

“We will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year,” Lockheed announced in a written statement. “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. The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.
You don't understand what is being said here, do you?
Maybe not, then again perhaps it is you who don't understand.

At this point it looks pretty likely that based upon current conditions/knowledge those notices ARE required. I see no disagreement about that.

Obama is promising something he has very little control over - a budget deal. He can kill one by refusing to sign it, but he can't make one happen. Spending must, under the Constitution, originate in the House, neither Obama or the Dems have control over the House. And I was under the impression that part of what the Dems are demanding in a budget compromise is a substantial reduction in Defense spending. Surely those expected cuts require notice?

If this weren't an election year I don't think there's any realistic chance that Obama does this. The prudent course is to issue the notice as required.

That Obama promises to reimburse the businesses for their non-compliance is telling - it means they should be issuing the notices or there's no need for such a promise.

I also doubt the constitutionality of Obama's promise. For one, the power to spend rests with Congress not the President. For another, he has taken the oath to uphold the law and he is clearly calling for it to be ignored here.

Fern
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
Maybe not, then again perhaps it is you who don't understand.

At this point it looks pretty likely that based upon current conditions/knowledge those notices ARE required. I see no disagreement about that.

Obama is promising something he has very little control over - a budget deal. He can kill one by refusing to sign it, but he can't make one happen. Spending must, under the Constitution, originate in the House, neither Obama or the Dems have control over the House. And I was under the impression that part of what the Dems are demanding in a budget compromise is a substantial reduction in Defense spending. Surely those expected cuts require notice?

If this weren't an election year I don't think there's any realistic chance that Obama does this. The prudent course is to issue the notice as required.

That Obama promises to reimburse the businesses for their non-compliance is telling - it means they should be issuing the notices or there's no need for such a promise.

I also doubt the constitutionality of Obama's promise. For one, the power to spend rests with Congress not the President. For another, he has taken the oath to uphold the law and he is clearly calling for it to be ignored here.

Fern
Right, except your forgot the part where Lockheed said that there would be no decisions made about the budget in Janurary which runs contrary to the except Matt sensationalized in the OP.

Instead, what they said was if the Government made a decision to alter the DOD budget, their employees would be protected under the WARN act

Ie. Obama is not cutting any damn corners and forgoing any laws. Its written right there in the statement. Holy moly
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Right, except your forgot the part where Lockheed said that there would be no decisions made about the budget in Janurary which runs contrary to the except Matt sensationalized in the OP.

Instead, what they said was if the Government made a decision to alter the DOD budget, their employees would be protected under the WARN act

Ie. Obama is not cutting any damn corners and forgoing any laws. Its written right there in the statement. Holy moly
No, reread it.

The Obama admin (of which the DoD is part) is gambling there won't be any sequestration.

Then read the part, in the last sentence, about how costs of noncompliance would be "recoverable". I.e., the Obama admin is promising to pay them.


The whole "if the govt made a decision to alter the DoD budget" is laughable. As of right now the govt HAS made a decision to "alter". It passed Congress last year!

The Obama admin is asking them to avoid issuing notices as required by law based on some idea that budgetary changes won't happen, that too is laughable. The Dems want to substantially cut defense spending. So if Obama is requesting no notices based upon a hypothetical budget, he should at least request they issue notices based upon a realistic hypothetical budget - I.e., one that has cuts which require some notices.

Fern
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
No, reread it.

The Obama admin (of which the DoD is part) is gambling there won't be any sequestration.

Then read the part, in the last sentence, about how costs of noncompliance would be "recoverable". I.e., the Obama admin is promising to pay them.


The whole "if the govt made a decision to alter the DoD budget" is laughable. As of right now the govt HAS made a decision to "alter". It passed Congress last year!

The Obama admin is asking them to avoid issuing notices as required by law based on some idea that budgetary changes won't happen, that too is laughable. The Dems want to substantially cut defense spending. So if Obama is requesting no notices based upon a hypothetical budget, he should at least request they issue notices based upon a realistic hypothetical budget - I.e., one that has cuts which require some notices.

Fern
There is really no point in debating this as it will go nowhere. Lets just agree to disagree. You have your interpretation of the statement and I have mine.
 

DietDrThunder

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2001
2,262
326
126
DATE: October 1, 2012

TO: All Lockheed Martin Employees

FROM: Bob Stevens, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Chris Kubasik, Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer

SUBJECT: An Update on Sequestration-Related WARN Notices



For the better part of this year, we and others in industry and government have worked to raise awareness in Congress as to the devastating effects of sequestration -- the federal law passed last year through the Budget Control Act that forces automatic across-the-board cuts in government spending. In July, we informed you that, without clear direction from the government about how these cuts would be implemented, the corporation could issue conditional Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notices to a substantial number of employees.

We have been working closely with the government to understand our obligations under the WARN Act and to ensure our employees are provided fair treatment and appropriate notice, if their jobs are impacted by sequestration. On Friday afternoon the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD) released guidance clarifying responsibilities under the WARN Act and outlining their timeline for making sequestration-related program decisions.

After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. 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. The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.

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.

If sequestration were to happen, we are compelled to comply with the law and will do so as respectfully and as ably as we can. While we work to stop sequestration we will also continue to petition the government to outline exactly how sequestration will be implemented so that we can responsibly prepare for the impact to our employees and our business. We will keep you informed through direct communication and our LM News series.

Your commitment to delivering to our customers has never wavered despite the uncertainty that sequestration has caused. We’re proud of your resilience and appreciate your continued focus on our global security mission. Our values and integrity distinguish us, and will continue to distinguish us into the future.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
No, reread it.

The Obama admin (of which the DoD is part) is gambling there won't be any sequestration.

Then read the part, in the last sentence, about how costs of noncompliance would be "recoverable". I.e., the Obama admin is promising to pay them.


The whole "if the govt made a decision to alter the DoD budget" is laughable. As of right now the govt HAS made a decision to "alter". It passed Congress last year!

The Obama admin is asking them to avoid issuing notices as required by law based on some idea that budgetary changes won't happen, that too is laughable. The Dems want to substantially cut defense spending. So if Obama is requesting no notices based upon a hypothetical budget, he should at least request they issue notices based upon a realistic hypothetical budget - I.e., one that has cuts which require some notices.

Fern
Why is it laughable? Conventional wisdom seems to be that the defense cuts will at the very least be scaled back during the lame duck session. Maybe they won't, but it's hardly laughable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY