Let’s say I find it difficult to believe that Lockheed thinks it might be laying off all 123,000 of its workers.
I understand you not wanting to answer the questions.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
Romney might win in November. Is the government justified in sending WARN notices to every single USDA meat inspector, park ranger, Amtrak employee, Peace Corps volunteer, and every other government employee not in the Department of Defense, before Romney is elected? You know, just so that if the government has to lay people off, they are given fair warning? If not, why do YOU oppose the intent of the law?
I said I understand you not wanting to answer the questions. Really. Can’t say I blame you.
But from the way you phrase things, you do seem to have some contempt for the law. So that’s something.
Oh, and you do realize that Romney, should he win, won’t be in office until the end of January, right? And your notion that he’ll be cutting all those departments, even in part, is you just making shit up. I’m sure you’re employing some hyperbole, and again, can’t say I blame you. Anything but answer direct questions in a legitimate debate forum. Like I said, If I were you, I might be playing the same games.
WAIT! Did you mean to say, that if there is good evidence that nobody is going to be laid off at a certain time, then employers aren’t allowed to use the WARN Act as political cover for layoffs that aren’t actually going to happen?
Where did you get such a novel position? Holy cow, this changes everything! magellan01, you have totally and completely changed my mind. The WARN Act is a good thing as long as employers notify their employees 60 days before the date at which they have a reasonable expectation that layoffs will actually occur. I fully concur with your position that employers can’t just randomly send out layoff warnings if there is no reasonable basis to conclude that layoffs are likely to occur, or if the potential for layoffs is many months (perhaps years?) in the future so that they cannot be reasonably foreseen.
Can we hold hands and sing pro-labor movement songs now? I never imagined we would have common ground on a worker’s rights issue.
And if you don’t quite understand the irony here, re-read post 72.
Ah, so we believe Lockheed is trying to manipulate the election. Now who believes in conspiracy theories?
And Lockheed wasn’t the only one feeling they needed to comply with WARN. Lockheed is just the only one that made firm plans to issue layoff notices and got singled out for special attention by a political campaign.
I have answered your questions. Other people have answered your questions. We posted the law that answered your questions. You posted the law that answered your questions.
I think it’s time to admit you don’t want to hear the answers.
It’s a conspiracy theory?
If you go back and check the OP, you’ll see you were the one who started this thread and said Lockheed was planning on sending out the layoff notices.
Are you now saying you don’t believe your own post?
[emphasis added]
So I quoted the law, included the section that said,
You responded by quoting a part of the law about EMPLOYERS, not EMPLOYEES. Your question, however, was about which EMPLOYEES get the warning, not which EMPLOYERS issue them. An employer who’s required to issue them is required to issue them to specific employees. If there are no specific employees to whom they should be issued, then there are no employees to whom they should be issued.
Do you disagree with that assessment? That is, if there are no specific affected employees, under the law that I quoted, do you believe that the employer is nonetheless required to issue notices under the law? If so, which employees should receive those notices, and what support do you find for that interpretation of the law?