If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Obama: Hey Lockheed, can you break the law and not give out layoff notices until after the election? Lockheed: Sure, but what if we get sued? Obama: the taxpayers will pay for it   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 210
    More: Asinine, Lockheed Martin, President Obama, White House, South Carolina Republican, layoffs  
•       •       •

3394 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2012 at 3:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 09:05:34 PM
Your blog sucks. I have seen this around the Conservarageasphere. I assume there is a missing part here that defuses this. Anyone care to shut this whole thing down like a raped woman's fertility?
 
2012-10-03 12:20:22 AM
Washington Times?

Shouldn't they still be mourning the death of that Moonie guy?
 
2012-10-03 12:20:54 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: Your blog sucks. I have seen this around the Conservarageasphere. I assume there is a missing part here that defuses this. Anyone care to shut this whole thing down like a raped woman's fertility?


Sure Link

From the link: "Allen also noted the guidance's mention that contract cancellations are not anticipated."

Maybe because there's no sense in laying off a bunch of people when they're not planning on cancelling the contracts in the first place?
 
2012-10-03 12:55:44 AM
I'm not sure about the administration's promise to cover severance in liue of notice. That seems like that might be an overreach. But..

More than likely, some sort of deal is going to be made to stop, or at least delay sequestration. That said, I don't think anybody really expects any contract funding to be cut off on Jan 2nd, even if no deal is found to stop sequestration. Presumably, even if funding is cut, programs will be wound down, not immediately ended, thus the Nov notices are premature.

Politics is driving all the actors. Lockheed is threatening to send notices to their ENTIRE workforce in order to spur action. The GOP wants that to happen to affect the election. The admin doesn't want that to happen for the same reason. So if you want to call out everyone involved for playing political footbal with the lives of defense workers, that would be fair, but the administration is the only one arguing against needlessly scaring the shiat out of workers for political reasons...
 
2012-10-03 12:57:34 AM
The defense giant's decision ends a stand-off with the administration over the impact of deep automatic cuts set to begin hitting defense spending Jan. 2, if Congress can't find a solution to the impasse.


The White House is a different branch of government you idiot blog.

This shat is greenlit?

Why not the blog about the Supreme Court's opinion on congressional obstruction?
 
2012-10-03 01:07:07 AM

impaler: Why not the blog about the Supreme Court's opinion on congressional obstruction MY BIG HONKER COCK?


Let's get right to the most important political story of this election cycle.

/BIG HONKER COCK
 
2012-10-03 01:25:05 AM

impaler: This shat is greenlit?


It's going around on Facebook and places, and there, well good luck explaining reality to some people.
 
2012-10-03 01:25:05 AM
Hey Lindsey Graham, if your side hadn't decided to play chicken with the economy, your state wouldn't be facing defense cuts.
 
2012-10-03 01:25:48 AM
FTFA: In June, Bob Stevens, Lockheed's CEO, said he was following his lawyers' advice and planning to send out notices of potential layoffs to all 123,000 of his employees on Nov. 2, just four days before the election.

So his "legal advice" said that if any defense cuts happened on January 2nd, the company would somehow immediately up and vanish like a fart in the wind? Sounds like EXTORTION to me. Because that's the stupidest legal advice I've ever heard.
 
2012-10-03 01:26:05 AM
" The layoff notices, required by law, would have gone out to dozens of employees in Northern Virginia..."



Well, there's you're problem right there.
 
2012-10-03 01:26:39 AM
Yawn, as usual, the right wing rage-o-matic kicks into high gear.

Whenever the possibility of DoD contractor layoffs pops up, the standard procedure if for the government to ask the contractor to delay sending layoff notices until they are 1000% sure that layoffs will actually occur.

Once those notices are sent, it sets off a huge row of dominoes that are very hard to put back after the fact. It's far easie rto delay as long as possibler, especially since a deal is always made before layoffs actually occur.
 
2012-10-03 01:30:37 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: a deal is always made before layoffs actually occur.


She's gotta feed the monkey, man. God help us if international heavy weapons manufacturers went out and had to get real jobs.
 
2012-10-03 01:59:21 AM

Type_Hard: I'm not sure about the administration's promise to cover severance in liue of notice. That seems like that might be an overreach. But..

More than likely, some sort of deal is going to be made to stop, or at least delay sequestration. That said, I don't think anybody really expects any contract funding to be cut off on Jan 2nd, even if no deal is found to stop sequestration. Presumably, even if funding is cut, programs will be wound down, not immediately ended, thus the Nov notices are premature.

Politics is driving all the actors. Lockheed is threatening to send notices to their ENTIRE workforce in order to spur action. The GOP wants that to happen to affect the election. The admin doesn't want that to happen for the same reason. So if you want to call out everyone involved for playing political footbal with the lives of defense workers, that would be fair, but the administration is the only one arguing against needlessly scaring the shiat out of workers for political reasons...


Nicely put. It'll be interesting to see the Derp Brigade try to spin this one.
 
2012-10-03 03:12:21 AM

WhyteRaven74: impaler: This shat is greenlit?

It's going around on Facebook and places, and there, well good luck explaining reality to some people.


AM radio started kicking it around yesterday. The Fark Independents weren't far behind.
 
2012-10-03 03:13:00 AM

Somacandra: impaler: Why not the blog about the Supreme Court's opinion on congressional obstruction MY BIG HONKER COCK?

Let's get right to the most important political story of this election cycle.

/BIG HONKER COCK


images3.makefive.com
 
2012-10-03 03:13:24 AM

Mentat: Hey Lindsey Graham, if your side hadn't decided to play chicken with the economy, your state wouldn't be facing defense cuts.


This.
 
2012-10-03 03:14:52 AM

impaler: This shat is greenlit?


The modmins have a hard-on for the Moonie Times. Whether or not it's a paid-for hard-on, I can't say.
 
2012-10-03 03:16:37 AM
Hows that scorched earth policy working out for you GOP? It's not working out well for the U.S. is it, but you didn't care about that aspect did you? Idiots forgot where they lived.
 
2012-10-03 03:18:44 AM
Wasn't the fault for this at the door of the House? Did they flip this on Obama again?
 
2012-10-03 03:22:37 AM
"Lockheed Martin's decision not to send them out comes after reassurances from the Office of Management and Budget that the Pentagon didn't plan on killing any contracts on Jan. 2, and also said the government would pay for severance costs mandated under a federal layoff notices law, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act."

So, not at all what the headline says, then.

Got it.
 
2012-10-03 03:25:40 AM
So Lockheed plans on sending out layoff notices before the election to people who won't be laid off, and it's a scandal for the Obama Administration that they told Lockheed not to do this because it's not true?
 
2012-10-03 03:39:28 AM
It's clearly blackmail. I'm doing the only thing I can do as a citizen, boycott Lockheed.
I shall not be ordering any F-22 Raptors or F-117 Nighthawks. Who's with me?
 
2012-10-03 03:41:15 AM

NobleHam: So Lockheed plans on sending out layoff notices before the election to people who won't be laid off, and it's a scandal for the Obama Administration that they told Lockheed not to do this because it's not true?


For God's sakes, yes! Can't you see that Little Lord Mittleroy needs this to be a scandal so he could look like a big strong man when it comes to national defense? Great, now he's crying on his pretty prancy pony! I hope you libtards are happy.
 
2012-10-03 03:45:40 AM
Trollie headline on the WT? It must be a day ending in "day".
 
2012-10-03 03:50:52 AM
So the Obama administration is delaying notification until after the election so as not to dissuade employees from voting for him?

Well, it's a good thing nobody who works there can read or talk to their co-workers, otherwise this cunning plan might not work.
 
2012-10-03 03:58:48 AM

WhyteRaven74: impaler: This shat is greenlit?

It's going around on Facebook and places, and there, well good luck explaining reality to some people.


Explaining reality wouldn't matter anyway.

They're already running around going DON'T VOTE FOR THAT THAR N*GGER!! HE'S GONNA CUT AR JERBZ N TAKE AR GUNZ!!
 
2012-10-03 03:59:23 AM
Hmm...People who are government dependent voting against the demoncraps after the government takes away their paychecks. Man, I just got cut off from the government, better vote for the party who's presidential candidate specifically labelled me as a lazy victim.
 
2012-10-03 04:00:54 AM
BTW Lockheed is going to lay off everyone is defense funding stops? Even the people they have doing non-defense work? Boy howdy I think those people are gonna be a bit pissed when they find out Lockheed is trying to play political hot potato with their jobs.
 
2012-10-03 04:06:39 AM
Most of my Facebook friends are sane, or just don't post much of anything, but I saw one link to this story already.
 
2012-10-03 04:22:46 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: The modmins have a hard-on for the Moonie Times.


You can't prove that Moon wasn't the Messiah. Your stridency makes you just like the fundamentalists.
 
2012-10-03 04:24:20 AM

wademh: I shall not be ordering any F-22 Raptors or F-117 Nighthawks. Who's with me?


I've still got my old P-38. It still works fine. No need to upgrade. Suck it Lockheed!
 
2012-10-03 04:24:34 AM
Wow - there is a LOT of reading comprehension fail in this thread, coupled with a comprehensive ignorance of the WARN act. Let's clear it up:

1. The WARN act stipulates that a company employing more than 100 workers that lays off more than a certain share of its workforce at any location (more than 49 and more than 33% if between 50 and 500, or 500+ regardless of percentage) must give those workers facing termination 60 days' notice before termination, or must pay said workers' salaries in lieu of notice upon termination such that 60 days elapse between the time a worker receives notice of termination and the time they stop collecting their regular salary.

2. Lockheed is facing a strong possibility that it will lose certain DoD contracts on Jan. 2nd, necessitating a layoff that is subject to WARN act requirements. Loss of these contracts MAY be averted by Congressional action, but this is not - and cannot be - guaranteed by the White House.

3. In order to avert liability for costs incurred through mandatory salary payments in the absence of revenue (in the event that the contracts are indeed lost), Lockheed planned to issue POTENTIAL layoff notices to those workers whose employment will be terminated upon the loss of said contracts.

4. The White House deman...err, asked that Lockheed not issue such notices 60 days prior to the potential layoffs, because this would result in the notices being received by workers several days before the election and could negatively impact the pro-Obama vote.

5. When Lockheed pointed out that meeting the administration's dema...err, request would expose them to substantial financial risk (i.e. if the contracts are lost and affected workers have not received the requisite 60 days' notice of termination, Lockheed will be obligated to continue to pay their salaries in the absence of DoD revenue), the White House sweetened the pot by assuring Lockheed that the federal government would shoulder that risk. Meaning, that the federal government -- i.e. taxpayers -- will cover any costs that Lockheed incurs through in-lieu-of-notice payments to employees as mandated by the WARN act.

In other words, if Lockheed agrees not to warn its workers before the election that they may lose their jobs soon after, the White House will pay Lockheed off with taxpayers' money by assuming financial responsibility for honoring the "pay in lieu of notice" provision of the WARN act. Or, put more succinctly, the administration is bribing Lockheed with taxpayers' money to boost (rather, to conceal reality from workers so as not to lower) Obama's ratings ahead of the election.

tl;dr: The Obama administration is indeed asking Lockheed to violate federal law (the WARN act), and underwriting the financial liability of this violation with taxpayer money. In other words, the headline is 100% accurate.
 
2012-10-03 04:29:29 AM
Politicians playing...politics right before the election?

image.spreadshirt.com
 
2012-10-03 04:38:53 AM
First, the Executive branch doesn't have the right to promise our tax money in that way.

That said, this is a completely stupid non-issue, and they shouldn't have had to tell Lockheed that to begin with.
 
2012-10-03 04:46:00 AM
FTA: Mr. Graham said Monday in a release "This is the most outcome-based White House in memory."

Being concerned about outcomes is a bad thing now?
 
2012-10-03 04:47:50 AM

spmkk: Wow - there is a LOT of reading comprehension fail in this thread, coupled with a comprehensive ignorance of the WARN act. Let's clear it up:

1. The WARN act stipulates that a company employing more than 100 workers that lays off more than a certain share of its workforce at any location (more than 49 and more than 33% if between 50 and 500, or 500+ regardless of percentage) must give those workers facing termination 60 days' notice before termination, or must pay said workers' salaries in lieu of notice upon termination such that 60 days elapse between the time a worker receives notice of termination and the time they stop collecting their regular salary.

2. Lockheed is facing a strong possibility that it will lose certain DoD contracts on Jan. 2nd, necessitating a layoff that is subject to WARN act requirements. Loss of these contracts MAY be averted by Congressional action, but this is not - and cannot be - guaranteed by the White House.

3. In order to avert liability for costs incurred through mandatory salary payments in the absence of revenue (in the event that the contracts are indeed lost), Lockheed planned to issue POTENTIAL layoff notices to those workers whose employment will be terminated upon the loss of said contracts.

4. The White House deman...err, asked that Lockheed not issue such notices 60 days prior to the potential layoffs, because this would result in the notices being received by workers several days before the election and could negatively impact the pro-Obama vote.

5. When Lockheed pointed out that meeting the administration's dema...err, request would expose them to substantial financial risk (i.e. if the contracts are lost and affected workers have not received the requisite 60 days' notice of termination, Lockheed will be obligated to continue to pay their salaries in the absence of DoD revenue), the White House sweetened the pot by assuring Lockheed that the federal government would shoulder that risk. Meaning, that the federal gov ...


How dare you use truth and facts in this argument!!

This is FARK.
 
2012-10-03 04:48:41 AM

one small post for man: FTA: Mr. Graham said Monday in a release "This is the most outcome-based White House in memory."

Being concerned about outcomes is a bad thing now?


Sounds like praise to me.. but I doubt he meant it to.
 
2012-10-03 04:50:44 AM
My boss was spinning this derp all week. It doesn't help that we are a tiny contractor working for the Navy.

Personally, everyone responsible for this budget "crises" can EABD. And by everyone, I mean the Republicans in the House. Where was your "fiscal restraint" from 2000-2008? Why the fark are you concerned with the deficit if your only goal is to lower taxes?
 
2012-10-03 04:53:56 AM

CujoQuarrel: spmkk: Wow - there is a LOT of reading comprehension fail in this thread, coupled with a comprehensive ignorance of the WARN act. Let's clear it up:

1. The WARN act stipulates that a company employing more than 100 workers that lays off more than a certain share of its workforce at any location (more than 49 and more than 33% if between 50 and 500, or 500+ regardless of percentage) must give those workers facing termination 60 days' notice before termination, or must pay said workers' salaries in lieu of notice upon termination such that 60 days elapse between the time a worker receives notice of termination and the time they stop collecting their regular salary.

2. Lockheed is facing a strong possibility that it will lose certain DoD contracts on Jan. 2nd, necessitating a layoff that is subject to WARN act requirements. Loss of these contracts MAY be averted by Congressional action, but this is not - and cannot be - guaranteed by the White House.

3. In order to avert liability for costs incurred through mandatory salary payments in the absence of revenue (in the event that the contracts are indeed lost), Lockheed planned to issue POTENTIAL layoff notices to those workers whose employment will be terminated upon the loss of said contracts.

4. The White House deman...err, asked that Lockheed not issue such notices 60 days prior to the potential layoffs, because this would result in the notices being received by workers several days before the election and could negatively impact the pro-Obama vote.

5. When Lockheed pointed out that meeting the administration's dema...err, request would expose them to substantial financial risk (i.e. if the contracts are lost and affected workers have not received the requisite 60 days' notice of termination, Lockheed will be obligated to continue to pay their salaries in the absence of DoD revenue), the White House sweetened the pot by assuring Lockheed that the federal government would shoulder that risk. Meaning, that the fede ...


This would normally make sense. But the WARN act is specifically in regards to when you know that you're going to have to lay off workers, not when you think it might happen, though realistically will not. If you want to use that line of reasoning, then you'd have to issue WARN notices any time you internally predict your market might contract.

If Lockheed knew for 100% certain they will have to lay people off, they are obligated to do this. They were seeking to limit their own liability in the event of a dispute that they knew based on the cutoff date, but the fact that they have to lay them off is not set in stone, and is unlikely based on virtually every intelligent observer's analysis. The administration wants Lockheed to hold off, as they are not technically obligated to do so.

Now, the administration's bribery is absolutely wrong, and I cannot support that. If that ends up happening, I hope it gets challenged in court.
 
2012-10-03 04:54:50 AM

spmkk: Wow - there is a LOT of reading comprehension fail in this thread, coupled with a comprehensive ignorance of the WARN act. Let's clear it up...


I like what you said. Tell me again how it's Obama's fault and in his interest to ensure that voters aren't influenced by Congress sitting on their hands and dithering about the sequestration, again?
 
2012-10-03 04:55:04 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: My boss was spinning this derp all week. It doesn't help that we are a tiny contractor working for the Navy.

Personally, everyone responsible for this budget "crises" can EABD. And by everyone, I mean the Republicans in the House. Where was your "fiscal restraint" from 2000-2008? Why the fark are you concerned with the deficit if your only goal is to lower taxes?


It hurts our industry, too. But, once you get the "let's stop talking politics" over, absolutely no one thinks it is actually going to happen, and no one other than the lawyers are really bothering planning for it, excluding one large defense contractor I know of that has to, by mandate, account for all eventualities as if they were true.
 
2012-10-03 04:55:45 AM

starsrift: spmkk: Wow - there is a LOT of reading comprehension fail in this thread, coupled with a comprehensive ignorance of the WARN act. Let's clear it up...

I like what you said. Tell me again how it's Obama's fault and in his interest to ensure that voters aren't influenced by Congress sitting on their hands and dithering about the sequestration, again?


Obama has a lever on his desk that allows him to control Congress. It goes from "GO!" to "Stall."
 
2012-10-03 04:56:33 AM

CujoQuarrel: spmkk: Wow - there is a LOT of reading comprehension fail in this thread, coupled with a comprehensive ignorance of the WARN act. Let's clear it up:

1. The WARN act stipulates that a company employing more than 100 workers that lays off more than a certain share of its workforce at any location (more than 49 and more than 33% if between 50 and 500, or 500+ regardless of percentage) must give those workers facing termination 60 days' notice before termination, or must pay said workers' salaries in lieu of notice upon termination such that 60 days elapse between the time a worker receives notice of termination and the time they stop collecting their regular salary.

2. Lockheed is facing a strong possibility that it will lose certain DoD contracts on Jan. 2nd, necessitating a layoff that is subject to WARN act requirements. Loss of these contracts MAY be averted by Congressional action, but this is not - and cannot be - guaranteed by the White House.

3. In order to avert liability for costs incurred through mandatory salary payments in the absence of revenue (in the event that the contracts are indeed lost), Lockheed planned to issue POTENTIAL layoff notices to those workers whose employment will be terminated upon the loss of said contracts.

4. The White House deman...err, asked that Lockheed not issue such notices 60 days prior to the potential layoffs, because this would result in the notices being received by workers several days before the election and could negatively impact the pro-Obama vote.

5. When Lockheed pointed out that meeting the administration's dema...err, request would expose them to substantial financial risk (i.e. if the contracts are lost and affected workers have not received the requisite 60 days' notice of termination, Lockheed will be obligated to continue to pay their salaries in the absence of DoD revenue), the White House sweetened the pot by assuring Lockheed that the federal government would shoulder that risk. Meaning, that the fede ...


Wait, someone using "facts" and "logic" in the politics tab. This cannot possibly end well.
 
2012-10-03 04:57:58 AM

FitzShivering: Obama has a lever on his desk that allows him to control Congress. It goes from "GO!" to "Stall."


Screw the nuke codes, that's the real power!
 
2012-10-03 05:00:15 AM

spmkk: . Lockheed is facing a strong possibility that it will lose certain DoD contracts on Jan. 2nd, necessitating a layoff that is subject to WARN act requirements. Loss of these contracts MAY be averted by Congressional action, but this is not - and cannot be - guaranteed by the White House.


Except, no. The government is pledging that Lockheed will NOT lose those contracts. The DoD is facing cuts and Lockheed assumed that those cuts might affect them, but the DoD is saying that they will not cancel any Lockheed contracts even in the case of those cuts. So the rest of your points are void.
 
2012-10-03 05:02:04 AM
The person that wrote that article can suck my dick.

I work at Lockheed and we got the rescind about the WARN notice today via email and it is not due to politics or the election.

It is quite simple, a WARN notice must be issued (IIRC, it is 4 am here and I haven't had coffee yet) if there will be more than 20% of the employees laid off on a SPECIFIC PROGRAM within 60 days of the lay off.

No SPECIFIC PROGRAM has been or will be named. Until the holders of the purse strings get their thumbs out of their collective frigging monkey holes no SPECIFIC PROGRAM will be targeted. But they won't because sequestration is a political tool that the house is using to make the administration look bad.

Ergo the assholes in congress that are trying to play politics with MY FRIGGING JOB can watch this moderate conservative kinda guy fark them in the mouth like Rush Limbaugh in a Dominican hooker, and I will cum on November 6th. Stupid assholes. 

Many in the defense industry are too smart to be fooled by the continual asshole politics of the right. But sadly, many more get sucked in.
 
2012-10-03 05:03:38 AM

maniacbastard:

Many in the defense industry are too smart to be fooled by the continual asshole politics of the right. But sadly, many more get sucked in.


I feel for you. I have friends in the defense industry who have told me stories about some of the political bullshiat that doesn't make the news. I don't know how you all put up with it without going nuts.
 
2012-10-03 05:07:47 AM

beefoe: Wait, someone using "facts" and "logic" in the politics tab. This cannot possibly end well.


He is using neither. Dont be fooled by his word-count, his representation is entirely misleading.

Lockheed were saying they might be sending 'possible' notices out, even though they have no actual real reason to think they will be making layoffs, and if they did then the vast majority of the people recieving notices would not be laid off. If they sent notices they would be fake notices intended to cover their asses, but primarily to apply political pressure to protect their contracts. They actually never had any intention of sending the notices at all of course, it was a gambit to get guarantees, which pretty much worked.
 
2012-10-03 05:10:23 AM

NobleHam: spmkk: . Lockheed is facing a strong possibility that it will lose certain DoD contracts on Jan. 2nd, necessitating a layoff that is subject to WARN act requirements. Loss of these contracts MAY be averted by Congressional action, but this is not - and cannot be - guaranteed by the White House.


Except, no. The government is pledging that Lockheed will NOT lose those contracts. The DoD is facing cuts and Lockheed assumed that those cuts might affect them, but the DoD is saying that they will not cancel any Lockheed contracts even in the case of those cuts. So the rest of your points are void.


P.S. Even if the fiscal cliff comes, we're looking at roughly 7% cuts for defense which isn't that much and may not affect contractors at all, but even if that percentage were applied directly to Lockheed Martin contracts they would only lose less than 6% of their income, which for a company which has profit (profit, not revenue) in excess of $20,000 per worker would not necessitate any layoffs.
 
2012-10-03 05:12:14 AM

spmkk: tl;dr: The Obama administration is indeed asking Lockheed to violate federal law (the WARN act), and underwriting the financial liability of this violation with taxpayer money. In other words, the headline is 100% accurate.


Bullshiat. Having been subject to a WARN act on a NASA program at Lockheed in the past several years (I survived BTW), you failed to notice a critical component, it is PROGRAM SPECIFIC.

That is why when Lockheed in Houston issued the WARN Notice it only hit certain email in boxes, specifically those related to constellation program work. Those working ISS and Shuttle were not affected and did not receive any notice even though they are part of the same Lockheed company in the same location. The difference is the program.

But I honestly didn't know that until I was in the thick of it, but now I do. So I share.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report