# Defense Industry Threatens Layoffs right before Election Day **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 14, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175 "2012-06-14T20:27:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/41 "2012-06-17T03:02:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If the law in place at the moment mandates cuts, in my opinion it would be very difficult to argue I was reasonable in ignoring it out of a conviction that things would get settled. No, the argument is quite simple. You rely on the precedent that exempts companies that will become insolvent in 60 days unless they can talk their creditors into forbearing a few payments. It is not legally relevant that in one case we’re talking about a change in legislation and in the other case about a change in a private lender’s position – in both cases the outcome turns on the scope of a reasonable business prediction. And here, you have the additional element of uncertainty that I was discussing above. > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, you could, but if the company was your client, what would you advise them, as a prudent legal adviser, to do? Risk having to defend their reasonable decision to wait, or send the notices? Well, as you know, that’s a very different question. My position is that the law is not open-and-shut here, and so the claim that this is clearly compelled by the law is suspect. Whether it nevertheless makes sense as a prudent business decision in light of the uncertainty in the law depends on the costs of sending the notices. Among the many things that distinguishes this scenario from the typical WARN Act case, everybody including the workers knows about the circumstances underlying the notices. The notices are an empty formality here, so it may not have any business consequences to send them out. And since doing so probably inures to the company’s political benefit (the very motivation being questioned here), I imagine it’s a no-brainer as a business decision. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/42 "2012-06-17T03:11:05Z")
By the way, it isn’t just the greedy defense industry, what with their penchant for lighting cigars with $100 bills, that is trying to blackmail Washington into balancing the budget. [Leon Panetta](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-panetta-pentagon-layoffs-this-fall-if-congress-fails-on-budget-deal-20120613,0,7944166.story), Obama’s own Defense Secretary, is trying to pull one over on the Federal government. But it isn’t just defense that’s going to have job losses. A non-partisan report shows that domestic agencies will be “impossible” to run efficiently under a sequester: > [@](#): > > Finally, personnel-heavy PPAs, many of which are found in non-defense government agencies, will require officials to make difficult decisions while staying within the confines of the law. Salaries of federal employees cannot be cut, terminating their employment is exceedingly difficult, and in order for departments to lay off substantial civilian personnel – termed a reduction in force (RIF) – the Office of Personnel Management stipulates that at least 60 days notice must be given. > > This could force agencies to issue RIF warnings just days before the November elections. The more likely scenario for accounts like “Border Security and Control,” which only contain funds used to pay salaries and benefits, is that > some employees will be laid off, while many others will face furloughs, and any work that is contracted out would be cut even more sharply. > > Running a federal agency efficiently under these circumstances – with general planning, contracting, and personnel uncertainty – will be impossible. [Link.](http://www.scribd.com/doc/96321047/Indefensible-The-Sequester%E2%80%99s-Mechanics-and-Adverse-Effects-on-National-and-Economic-Security) Those non-partisan bastards! How dare they threaten our border security by telling the American people what will happen if there’s a budget armageddon! ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/43 "2012-06-17T03:18:18Z")
Does the WARN Act compel notices to go out exactly 60 days in advance, or could they go out earlier? If they can go out earlier, does it suggest political motivation to threaten to send them out on Nov. 2? Assuming the law does not change, how much certainty is there that a given employee receiving a notice would actually be laid off? Are we talking 80%+ certain? Because I suppose if that end of the calculation is so certain, then the only wiggle room is on reasonable predictions about Congressional (in)action. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/44 "2012-06-17T03:28:56Z")
(And just in case any of the above rhetoric is directed at me, please don’t take me to be arguing that this is somehow political extortion. I think it’s probably a mix of prudent legal caution and clever politics. Nothing untoward about it, for the reasons you highlight – namely, that failing to change the law will be bad. I just don’t think issuing WARN Act notices in the days before the election is a move clearly compelled by the law.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/45 "2012-06-17T04:24:34Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? :mad: I’ll stop beating her when she wises up, thank you very much! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/46 "2012-06-17T04:27:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just to be clear, are you moving the goalposts from “extortion” to “political bullying”? It ain’t much of a move. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/47 "2012-06-17T11:29:32Z")
I don’t want those donks with their puffed-up jargon-filled resumes competing for non-defense jobs. Some of us made a conscious decision to not work for defense and carefully build our careers in civilian areas. These guys will come in and take up space, the whole time wishing they could get back to their remote control brown people annihilation roles instead of doing that pansy do-gooder skirt work. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/48 "2012-06-17T14:50:19Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > (And just in case any of the above rhetoric is directed at me, please don’t take me to be arguing that this is somehow political extortion. I think it’s probably a mix of prudent legal caution and clever politics. Nothing untoward about it, for the reasons you highlight – namely, that failing to change the law will be bad. I just don’t think issuing WARN Act notices in the days before the election is a move clearly compelled by the law.) i’m not sure I’m seeing a distinction, though. Clever lawyers like yourself can argue about wiggle room in almost any law, so how is this situation unique? But if 90% of the legal counsels would advise their clients to issue the warnings, then it might as well be that the law compels action. Saying that a company is always free to risk a lawsuit they most likely will lose isn’t much of an out. If the effect of the law is that most companies will feel compelled to act as a wise business decision, then the law might as well compel them act, period. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/49 "2012-06-17T17:46:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > i’m not sure I’m seeing a distinction, though. Clever lawyers like yourself can argue about wiggle room in almost any law, so how is this situation unique? But if 90% of the legal counsels would advise their clients to issue the warnings, then it might as well be that the law compels action. Saying that a company is always free to risk a lawsuit they most likely will lose isn’t much of an out. If the effect of the law is that most companies will feel compelled to act as a wise business decision, then the law might as well compel them act, period. Sometimes the law compels actions, and sometimes we aren’t sure what the law compels so we take into account business judgment and other factors. In one case, you can blame the law. In the other less so. There’s a simple test to tell the difference: would the businesses have done the same thing if the decision to issue the notices was politically damaging? Or if it harmed their business interests? Maybe they would in this counterfactual. If so, then you’re right that there’s no distinction at all. But if the answer is uncertain, or no, then the distinction matters. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/50 "2012-06-18T14:30:56Z")
I found a 2-week old article on [Politico](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77005.html) discussing more of the potential effects on sequestration. > [@](#): > > An October 2011 study from George Mason University showed that the planned cuts, combined with defense reductions already set to go into place, would cause more than 1 million job losses across the nation in just one year. > California, where a number of congressional seats are in play, would lose the most jobs of any state, with 125,800 in projected job losses, according to the analysis. > > Another vulnerable state is Virginia, a key swing state, where 122,800 jobs could disappear. Florida would be hit hard with nearly 40,000 in job losses, the study said. The majority of jobs lost would come not directly from defense but from businesses that are reliant on the robust military presence in these local communities — think mom and pop restaurants, beauty shops and convenience stores. The sequestration cuts are the “planned cuts” mentioned above. There are also defense reductions slated for 2012 related to the new “one war” policy, which are outside the sequestration itself. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/51 "2012-06-18T15:10:17Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > There are also defense reductions slated for 2012 related to the new “one war” policy, which are outside the sequestration itself. I don’t think so. The 2012 budget was approved six months ago. There are no new reductions to this year’s budget; and has been stated, sequestration would occur next year. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/52 "2012-06-18T16:57:19Z")
An employer that has been through an announced layoff, or done any research on same will avoid it if possible. Productivity drops between the announcement and the layoff are huge: 50% or more IM(limited)E. It will be a huge blow to the economy as well. NONE of the workers that receive a “layoffs coming” notice will spend one damned discretionary cent until after they know they still have a job or not. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/53 "2012-06-19T15:46:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t think so. The 2012 budget was approved six months ago. There are no new reductions to this year’s budget; and has been stated, sequestration would occur next year. My point was that the George Mason study (from 2011) lumped both reductions together to get the 1 million job losses. If I’m reading it correctly, only about half of thoses then could be plausibly caused by just the sequestration. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/54 "2012-06-19T15:56:43Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > My point was that the George Mason study (from 2011) lumped both reductions together to get the 1 million job losses. Ah. You know that study was sponsored by the defense industry, right? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/55 "2012-07-30T23:32:27Z")
Here’s an interesting update: the Labor Department has examined the WARN Act and the potential for these defense cuts, and found that issuing layoff notices shortly before the election would actually be an abuse of the law, because the notices would be impermissably “overbroad.” [News at 11.](http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/30/no-need-to-send-sequestration-layoff-notices-sez-labor-dept-m/) Since I thought the defense industry had no choice in the matter, I will have to eat some crow, man. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/56 "2012-07-31T00:17:02Z")
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the defense contractors are doing. If they have to do layoffs and wait until after the election, wouldn’t that effectively be contributing to the President’s campaign? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/57 "2012-07-31T00:22:58Z")
This reminds me of the Medicare Advantage cuts, moved to January from October. The administration is manipulating scheduled budget cuts to have them fall after the election. The guidance issued basically tells companies they don’t have to comply with the law. But as the link shows, they may still face liabiliy if they do indeed have to lay people off in january but didn’t give notice in November. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/58 "2012-07-31T02:49:12Z")
> [@XT](#): > > So, what you are saying is that the contractors shouldn’t follow the law and send out notifications when they are required to do so? Actually, in today’s global operations, yes these contractors are being very vocal about this. Just look at the employment history of companies like IBM and Walmart. They “lay off” thousands of people that would trigger these notices, but avoid actually having to give notice because they claim to be “right sourcing” the jobs to off shore locations. So, for most of these contractors (e.g. IBM, CSC, etc), there is no reason that they have to give any sort of notice and they are well versed in how to downsize without laying off. One example, IBM after having moved about 20k jobs off shore, told a massive number of employees that in order to keep their jobs, they had to move to an alternate location at a lower wage and with no moving expenses from the company. This caused nearly 20k to “quit their jobs” because they were unwilling to move. Even the US government uses this tactic to downsize without laying off. I personally saw one agency move all their GS14s to the opposite side of the country in the middle of the school year. Nearly 75% quit as a result. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/59 "2012-07-31T03:03:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This reminds me of the Medicare Advantage cuts, moved to January from October. The administration is manipulating scheduled budget cuts to have them fall after the election. October is not after the election. The election is in December. shhh! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175/60 "2012-07-31T12:03:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > October is not after the election. The election is in December. shhh! The Medicare Advantage cuts were moved to January. They were in October. But the President realized there was an October Surprise coming up that would cost him the election, so he contributed $8 billion of taxpayer money to his own campaign by unilaterally moving the cuts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-industry-threatens-layoffs-right-before-election-day/625175.md?page=4)