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

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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


-snip-
I wonder if that's a legal 'CYA' move?

(You're not being "warned", yet for legal purposes you are, in effect, being warned.)

Fern
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Unless the administration had a way to pay for three months of unfunded work, this is smoke and mirrors. Gov contract of the type that covers a large chunk of workforce have exit payments and retraining costs. Those go into effect when the contract is canceled. 90 days prior to being cancelled at convenience of government, companies are to notify employees.

In this case, either the government is not planning on cancelling the contracts on the anticipated schedule as dictated by Congress, or they are going to play word games regarding contract cancellations.

Word games can lead to legal battles for LM and any other big guys unless the government covers the extra 90 days on the contract.

Very possible that other PMOs will have cuts beyond their size to free up the 90 day charges if it comes to pass.

LM and Obama are gambling that Congress will blink.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,935
594
126
I wonder if that's a legal 'CYA' move?

(You're not being "warned", yet for legal purposes you are, in effect, being warned.)

Fern
Speaking strictly as someone that's been through the WARN process, I do not believe that counts. A letter that effectively says, "we will not send WARN notices this year", does not constitute warning people simply because it talks about The Sequestering. (I feel like that could be well said in some rather ominous voice.)

I actually feel pretty bad for the area where I used to live. The area was rather bustling throughout the era of the World Wars and beyond because of IBM's huge presence. Most probably aren't aware of it, but IBM started in Endicott, NY, and it's rather common to hear large office buildings being referred to as "the old IBM building." Both of my grandfathers worked as engineers for IBM. In a real sense of "The American Dream", one of them actually worked himself up from being a janitor to that position of engineer. Anyway, that business was mostly sold off to Loral. That specific division of Loral was purchased by Lockheed Martin. Well, Lockheed has been shedding jobs in that area like crazy. Any friends that I know that worked for them either don't anymore or are afraid that they won't by the end of the year (there are rumored November layoffs).

EDIT:

Unless the administration had a way to pay for three months of unfunded work, this is smoke and mirrors. Gov contract of the type that covers a large chunk of workforce have exit payments and retraining costs. Those go into effect when the contract is canceled. 90 days prior to being cancelled at convenience of government, companies are to notify employees.
Some contracts do have provisions where the government has to pay a fee for cancelling the contract.
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
My opinion: EVERYTHING needs cut. Short term pain in higher taxes and lots of cuts but we'll be better off for it. I say off the fiscal cliff we go.

Sorry people get laid off when we cut but that's just the way it is. Obama, Dems and Reps should just hold their stubborn ground and let it go on through. Better now than later.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,614
218
106
We are ending two unpaid for wars ... yes defense contractors should be shedding jobs. The military budget should not be off the table in budget talks. Everything needs to be on the table. What types of military hardware do we need in this new century fighting new types of enemies? Do we need the next generation of fighter jets or nuclear submarines if our enemies are guys in a cave plotting roadside attacks?
The military should not be another stimulus program.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
66
91
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.
Seems like you didn't read my post, which you quoted. Why are you Elite again?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
Misleading title. The Obama admin told them not to announce layoffs because the budget would be resolved after the election which would make layoffs unnecessary.

The reason sequestration would happen is due to Republican obstructionism... which makes it extremely ironic that they're trying to make it sound like Obama is trying to delay a layoff announcement for political gain.
So there is a guaruntee that if a company does not issue a notice and the budget is not fixed, obama will cover the cost of the legal fees resulting from that action? Does the Obama white house have a crystal ball? This is still illegal. I mean what negative press would come from a bunch of contractors announcing layoffs?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-19.pdf

Oh yeh, to save money and avoid any action because if Obama is elected all will be rosy.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,126
14,318
136
So there is a guaruntee that if a company does not issue a notice and the budget is not fixed, obama will cover the cost of the legal fees resulting from that action? Does the Obama white house have a crystal ball? This is still illegal. I mean what negative press would come from a bunch of contractors announcing layoffs?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-19.pdf

Oh yeh, to save money and avoid any action because if Obama is elected all will be rosy.
The notion that this move is political, that it favors the Obama admin is absurd. Everybody and their dog already knows that the threat of sequestration is entirely of Repub manufacture, a consequence of their pandering & posturing in their contrived debt ceiling fracas, with additional obstructionism in the super committee.

Obama has more to gain from playing it up & beating them over the head with it than by minimizing it...

Sheesh.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The notion that this move is political, that it favors the Obama admin is absurd. Everybody and their dog already knows that the threat of sequestration is entirely of Repub manufacture, a consequence of their pandering & posturing in their contrived debt ceiling fracas, with additional obstructionism in the super committee.

Obama has more to gain from playing it up & beating them over the head with it than by minimizing it...

Sheesh.
A person is told the day before election that their job is going away.
that job is dependant on government contracts.
Who is the figurehead of the US government.
Who figuratively signs the check.

No job - anger will be directed at the one that is felt to be responsbile.
that is what Obama wants to avoid.

As Truman stated, there stops the buck; the president has to take the responsibility, not pass the blame.

You are allowing Obama to pass the blame - his job is to lead the nation - not generate excuses.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,126
14,318
136
A person is told the day before election that their job is going away.
that job is dependant on government contracts.
Who is the figurehead of the US government.
Who figuratively signs the check.

No job - anger will be directed at the one that is felt to be responsbile.
that is what Obama wants to avoid.

As Truman stated, there stops the buck; the president has to take the responsibility, not pass the blame.

You are allowing Obama to pass the blame - his job is to lead the nation - not generate excuses.
Not if Dems take a strong & vocal stand today, right now, putting the blame on Repubs where it belongs.

"If you're one of the unfortunate workers who may be laid off due to sequestration, you need to understand that Repubs insist on it & that we have bent over backwards to avoid it. They've deliberately stymied recovery all along attempting to return to the failed policy of the Bush years. Don't fall for it- vote for Democrats- vote for a new New Deal."
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Not if Dems take a strong & vocal stand today, right now, putting the blame on Repubs where it belongs.

"If you're one of the unfortunate workers who may be laid off due to sequestration, you need to understand that Repubs insist on it & that we have bent over backwards to avoid it. They've deliberately stymied recovery all along attempting to return to the failed policy of the Bush years. Don't fall for it- vote for Democrats- vote for a new New Deal."
The Dems and Republicans signed off on the sequester.

The President is the leader of the governent; that is where the fault/blame will fall
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
25,679
1,200
126
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
Wow, if you feel this badly about a generally good president, I'd hate to see how you felt about a bad president such as George Bush....
 

DietDrThunder

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2001
2,262
326
126
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/03/mccain-vows-to-block-funds-linked-to-possible-warn-act-suits/

Sen. John McCain vowed Tuesday to block any money intended to help defense contractors elude the provisions of a layoff notification law, objecting to financial assistance that McCain and other Republicans have criticized as politically motivated.

The Obama administration has advised defense contractors not to warn employees of looming layoffs 60 days in advance, as specified in the law, as Congress and the White House hurtle closer to a deadline for avoiding severe defense spending cuts in January. Both sides of the aisle say they intend to prevent those cuts from happening, though they face an uphill climb to reaching an agreement.

Republicans particularly object to promises made to the contractors to pick up the cost -- at taxpayer expense -- of any financial liability the contractors incur for withholding the layoff notifications.

"Companies have a choice whether to rely on (the Office of Management and Budget's) politically-motivated guidance or to comply with the law," McCain, the Arizona Republican, said. "But I can assure them that I will do everything in my power to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to compensate contractors who do not comply with the law."

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the notice amounted to a "threat" to contractors. And warned that the administration was using tax dollars to win over companies to follow the "dubious" and "politically motivated" guidance to ignore the federal law known as the WARN Act.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., also said it was "troubling that the Obama administration would openly encourage the violation of federal law and offer to pay the legal fees that resulted."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., claimed Obama was trying to prevent layoff notices from hitting mailboxes "right before the election."

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

Lockheed Martin has reportedly already backed off threats to issue thousands of layoff warnings ahead of the election, in response to the administration's latest assurances and guidance.

The offer to pay the legal fees was included in a memorandum issued by the administration Friday that also restated the Labor Department's position from July that contractors should not issue written notices to employees because of the "uncertainty" over the across-the-board cuts to the defense budget and other federal spending that will occur Jan. 2 unless Congress reaches a new deal.

The notices are required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and generally require employers with more than 100 employees to provide 60-day notices of "mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable."

The projected $500 billion in Pentagon cuts under the so-called sequestration will occur because Congress failed to agree on a deficit-reduction plan in the wake of the deal last summer to raise the debt ceiling. The guidance issued by the Labor Department this summer stated "it is neither necessary nor appropriate" for federal contractors to issue the warnings.

The latest memorandum states the federal government would cover employee compensation under the WARN Act -- "irrespective of the outcome" as long as the contractor follows the Labor Department guidelines.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/03/mccain-vows-to-block-funds-linked-to-possible-warn-act-suits/#ixzz28FwEkouz
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,126
14,318
136
The Dems and Republicans signed off on the sequester.

The President is the leader of the governent; that is where the fault/blame will fall
Rational people will sign off on most anything that preserves the full faith & credit of the govt in the face of contrived hostage taking by the GOP. And they'll even work to compromise in the super committee sessions, unlike the GOP who function exclusively under the Norquist pledge.

So long as they do, there is no real answer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY