Defense Industry Threatens Layoffs right before Election Day

[Enkel]

What I don’t get is why anyone sees this as a bad thing?

Don’t the far right want a smaller government? Well, how do you think you shrink the government? You lay people off. Obama should use this in his campaign ads announcing that come Jan 2013, the government will be xx% smaller.

[adaher]

I can’t speak for all conservatives, but I do favor the defense sequestration. However, being a responsible conservative, I also favor NOT hiding the tradeoffs that my favored policies involve. Supporting defense cuts means supporting defense industry layoffs. There’s no way around that.

[TheSlapIsBack]

@XT

Well, who’s supposed to be doing the extortion?

So, is it Congress that is doing the extortion? Who are the thugs? Again, Congress?

-XT

Seriously I am confused. I was under the impression that the request by the administration to hold off on pink slips until after the election was the unethical part.
We are aware that these cuts are a response of policy failures and they are going to wait to fire people until after the election for political reasons right? I hope so. If not- do your homework people

[Bricker]

@CJJ

Defense contractors are the extortionists. They are threatening to send layoff notices in a manner such that current members of Congress are threatened with losing their office.
.
.
.
IMO the sequestration is–and always has been–a joke; Congress will just ignore it or set up some escape hatch. I also think this is a fairly conventional position, one of those “everyone knows” policies that will be part of the lame duck negotiations–just like the Bush tax cut “expiration” in 2010. But this isn’t enough for the defense industry, so they’re threatening re-election efforts with an aim toward getting their congressional caucus to at least get the cuts off the table in advance of the expected negotiations–and perhaps angling for little bit more in the process.

@Bricker

But you do understand that the law requires those layoff notices, right?
.
.
.
That’s fine. But your opinion is not money. If your prediction comes to pass, the only thing you have to do is shrug your shoulders and say, “Wow, I was wrong. Never thought this would happen!”

For the companies, it’s a matter of being on the hook to continue to pay workers when they have no funding to do so. That’s a huge cost. They shouldn’t have to absorb it because your opinion turned out to be wrong.

Let’s renew this conversation.

[Little_Nemo]

I smell a gotcha.

[Richard_Parker]

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL_3a_12_acc.pdf

and

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

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

Let’s renew this conversation.

You first.

[Ravenman]

@Bricker

Let’s renew this conversation.

News.

Lockheed Martin said first-quarter earnings beat analysts’ estimates while cautioning that 2013 sales may fall at the low end of its prior forecast because of automatic U.S. budget cuts. . . .

The Bethesda, Maryland-based company said the budget cuts known as sequestration, which began March 1, may trim full-year sales by about $825 million, holding 2013 revenue to the low end of the range from $44.5 billion to $46 billion forecast in January. It maintained its forecast for a profit of $8.80 to $9.10 a share.

“While the impact of sequestration on our business has been limited to date, we continue to work closely with our customers to better understand the future impact sequestration may have on our programs,” Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed’s chief executive officer, said in the statement.

The company’s decision not to revise its profit forecast may be a good sign for other defense contractors. . . .

“If Lockheed has this small an impact because of sequestration, that probably bodes well for the rest of the group,” said Ruttenbur, who rates Lockheed as “fairly valued.” “I don’t think that everybody is going to fare as well as Lockheed, but it gives you an indication that things aren’t that bad.”

Discuss away.

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL_3a_12_acc.pdf

and

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

That’s pretty damn definitive. I would have argued that the DOL guidance alone is insufficient, because the DOL is not a party to the cause of action allowed an employee laid off in violation of WARN requirements. But the September 28th White House memo seals the deal by obligating the contracting agency to absorb those costs as allowable.

[CJJ]

@Bricker

Let’s renew this conversation.

Sure. The sequestration negotiations did turn out to be part of the lame duck negotiations–as predicted. The White House sent memos basically stating the WARN notices were not required at the time in question. The fact that the sequestration was eventually triggered in March doesn’t alter any of this–if anything, it took the air out of the defense industry threat to Congress-critters re-election implied by the WARN notices.

The sequestration is still a joke, even if it isn’t a very funny one now that it’s implemented. But never fear, Congress is working hard at the horse-trading to carve out exemptions for their favorite lobbyists. If only the defense industry had as good a PR as the FAA, maybe they’d get their free-government-money fire hose back up to full blast sooner instead of having to suffer a slightly-less-than-full-blast torrent that will, sadly, trim their revenue from a projected $46 billion to $44.5 billion will still maintaining their profit forecast. But I’m sure a few well-placed phone calls will take care of that soon enough.

Let me be clear: Congress should end the farce by simply repealing the sequester, and perhaps I underestimated how lethal things get when true believers and political cowards run the show. But I’m convinced the defense industry has never had anything to worry about with sequestration, and that the WARN notices were a failed and ham-fisted attempt at extorting Congress.