Actually, they’d already told them to break the law, but now they are offering to compensate businesses if they get sued for breaking the law.
**The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.
The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.
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.**
Change! Actually, this might qualify since I’ve never heard of an administration going this far to delay bad news until after the election.
Looks to me more like an administration that’s trying to maintain a knowledge base and experience within an industry in the fact of obstructionism and sabotage, but hey, whatever rocks your boat.
The GOP has offered more domestic cuts to replace the defense cuts. The President values domestic programs more, and that’s fine. Just don’t try to hide the results until after the election using means of questionable legality. It’s a far cry from what he portrayed himself as when he first ran for election.
It’s funny how the OP is so focused on what the Obama administration is doing. You can make a pretty plausible argument that the Republicans in Congress and the defense companies got together and arranged to have hundreds of thousands of people receive layoff warnings days before the election. You know, as a “reminder” about what could happen if the election goes the wrong way.
All irrelevant. If the administration thinks it’s Republicans’ fault, then they should campaign on it being Republicans fault. Using shady means to hide the layoffs until after the election is not change we can believe in.
Under WARN rules, layoffs require notice. The administration is telling employers not to give this notice. But if they end up having to lay off employees and get sued, don’t worry, the taxpayers will cover it.
The reasoning being used by some defense companies is that if Congress fails to act, there will be a 9% across-the-board cut to defense spending in January. Therefore, one company in particular is issuing layoff notices to every single one of its 123,000 employees over this 9% cut. The defense contractors say they can’t predict what Congress will do, therefore must issue the layoff notices.
However, if in any given year, Congress fails to act in passing an appropriations bill by September 30, the whole government shuts down. If the “we have to warn employees that they might be laid off unless Congress does something” legal reasoning were valid, then the defense industry should issue WARN notices every year if Congress hasn’t passed appropriations bills by July 30, two months before a potential government shutdown that could only be averted if Congress does something in the future.
adaher, if defense contractors have the legal responsibility to warn workers of impending budget cuts that would happen if Congress can’t get its act together, why have defense companies been breaking the law by failing to issue WARN notices every July 30 of every year since… forever?
Keep flinging it, adaher. Maybe one of these days you’ll find something that sticks. It seems to me that the number of your Obama-bashing posts are in inverse proportion to Romney’s chances of winning.
Sequestration was supposed to be a deal where if both parties didn’t come to a deal, then they would have to punch themselves in the face. Any deal brought forth was scuttled. Now it’s time to take the punch like a man.
In other words, the GOP is saying, “I don’t really want to take a punch. Can I have a light slap instead?”
I fully agree. I’m surprised Obama hasn’t made this a primary issue in this election. I expected him to campaign against the Republicans in Congress the way Truman did in 1948. Make his primary message something like “Sure, the country’s had some problems in the last four years. But don’t blame me. It’s Congress that’s been stopping me from fixing things. I tried working with Republicans but all they want to do is shut down the country if they can’t run things. So if you want to get things done, give me a filibuster-proof majority in Congress and stand back.”
But there’s an legitimate issue about whether the layoffs are real. It appears likely some companies are sending out false warnings just to scare people. There’s no reason that should have legal protection.
Serious question here…since the defense contractors in question don’t know which employees might or might not be affected since they don’t know which contracts might or might not be affected or how much they will be affected, who exactly SHOULD these guys be warning? No one? A random selection of their employees? Dart board or goat entrails? No one knows what is going to happen, or to what extent any given company might be affected since nothing has been decided…except that, if there is no compromise then automatic cuts are going to go into effect. Cuts to what though? AFAIK, no one really knows the details wrt which contracts and contractors might be affected. Is that or is that not the case?
(Note, assume that there won’t BE a compromise, instead of the standard assumption around here that of course there will be one.)
Then the law should be changed. The law requires notice, so if a company anticipates having to lay people off, they have to give notice. Period.
In the case you mention, it’s the same deal. If a defense company lays people off suddenly, they are in violation. Normally, the government doesn’t urge them to not give notice. But there’s an election, so this time it’s different.
There’s nothing the administration can do to companies that send out the notices. It’s the opposite of illegal, it’s required. They just really hope they won’t, and even admit that the companies in question face legal problems if they don’t do it. So the administration assures them that taxpayers will cover that for them.
No, the administration assures the workers and the electorate that no such skulduggery is afoot, save that the Pubbies are hoping to assure the vote of defense contractor’s employees will go their way. The Pubbies offers the same justification that you do, that they are legally compelled to do so. The administration pretends to take them at their word, and assures them that prosecutorial discretion will ensure that no such consequences are likely.
Of course, they already know that, and are bluffing. The admin is simply undercutting their bluff. The aim is not to assure the contractors, they already know they are full of shit. The aim is reassure the rest of us.
Because DoD is providing no guidance yet on what the cuts may be it would be completely impossible to identify who to issue notices to, or even in what functions at this time.
No, it’s more like, “If we couldn’t agree then we were supposed to both get punched in the face but can we change it so that only you get punched in the face and I don’t?”