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  
•       •       •

3398 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
 
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.
 
2012-10-03 05:18:44 AM

FitzShivering: 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.


It isn't that bad where I am at. Most Lockheed people are really good folks and the ethics that they preach make you proud to work for them. They actually practice what they preach at all management levels I have been exposed to and it makes the political differences insignificant when you realize that you have a common goal of kicking ass for your customer and taxpayers, the ultimate customer.  And no, they don't pay me to say that.
 
2012-10-03 05:25:16 AM

impaler: This shat is greenlit?

.

 

It's greenlit so you Farkers have something to get fired up about again today. You know how the game is played.
 
2012-10-03 05:32:07 AM
How the hell did you get any of that from the article? Cool off, subby, you're going to hurt yourself.
 
2012-10-03 06:00:49 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 ...


You're wrong! Because... Shut up! Also, Racist!
 
2012-10-03 06:03:46 AM
Considering that Spmkk's wall of lies has already been debunked...

Has anybody else got the sneaking suspicion that all (or, at least, most) of the posters agreeing with him are his own alts?
 
2012-10-03 06:04:02 AM

thamike: How the hell did you get any of that from the article? .


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-03 06:04:32 AM

wademh: It's clearly blackmail. I'm doing the only thing I can do as a citizen, boycott Lockheed.


Lockheed Martin made the brakes on my car. As much as I'd like to join you, I'd also like to live, so no.
 
2012-10-03 06:05:36 AM

dfenstrate: You're wrong! Because... Shut up! Also, Racist!


YOU'RE the REAL racist for bringing up racism!!1!
 
2012-10-03 06:09:47 AM

dfenstrate: You're wrong! Because... Shut up! Also, Racist!


He is wrong because he cites a dept of labor law and not how Lockheed actually implements it.

Lockheed is made op of a couple dozen companies each of which has worldwide reach.

WARNs at Lockheed are program specific because that is how they interpret the dept of labor law in the legal department at Lockheed corporate headquarters.

He is wrong because he does not know what he is talking about.
 
2012-10-03 06:11:29 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...


THIS.

Now it is also clearer to my why the "compromise" was rejected by House Republicans. I do not feel itis a stretch considering all the other job creating legislation they have blocked to try to sabotage the recovery.
 
2012-10-03 06:14:38 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Has anybody else got the sneaking suspicion that all (or, at least, most) of the posters agreeing with him are his own alts?


maniacbastard: He is wrong because he does not know what he is talking about.


It seemed to me that he presented a coherent and logical argument. However, the other posters have certainly shown that he did not supply all of the relevant facts, i.e., that WARN Act notices are program specific.

I wouldn't fault anyone that found his premise reasonable at the point in the thread at which he made it, since other relevant facts had not been presented at that point. I do fault him for leaving out those relevant points, however.
 
2012-10-03 06:19:02 AM

heavymetal: Now it is also clearer to my why the "compromise" was rejected by House Republicans. I do not feel itis a stretch considering all the other job creating legislation they have blocked to try to sabotage the recovery.


Isn't Romney promising to increase defense spending? So, wouldn't defense contractors be better off if he won and then actually went by his campaign promises?

In other words, it seems as if it is upper management (who, on account of stock ownership and options, stand to profit quite a bit if military spending increases) is using their own interpretation of the law to bring pressure on their own employees (who, due to unionization, stand to be better off in a Democratic administration) to vote Republican?
 
2012-10-03 06:32:23 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 ...


That's what makes your entire point invalid. So please do admit how the White House..., err obstructionist
 
2012-10-03 06:34:20 AM
...republicans are at fault.


/Damned add comment button.
 
2012-10-03 06:35:55 AM
Our "open benifits" meeting is tomorrow morning. I figure they'll try to scare the crap out of everyone about insurance. I know our wingnuts will be fretting about something the hear differently than 90% of the group. Happens every year.
 
2012-10-03 06:37:32 AM

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


I'm afraid you will be, like it or not, unless you can somehow convince your personal shopper (i.e., congressman) to stop buying the damned things.
 
2012-10-03 06:42:11 AM

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

I'm afraid you will be, like it or not, unless you can somehow convince your personal shopper (i.e., congressman) to stop buying the damned things.


Depends. If I see one on Amazon Deal of the Day, I'll get it for 33% off.
 
2012-10-03 06:43:01 AM

ox45tallboy: heavymetal: Now it is also clearer to my why the "compromise" was rejected by House Republicans. I do not feel itis a stretch considering all the other job creating legislation they have blocked to try to sabotage the recovery.

Isn't Romney promising to increase defense spending? So, wouldn't defense contractors be better off if he won and then actually went by his campaign promises?

In other words, it seems as if it is upper management (who, on account of stock ownership and options, stand to profit quite a bit if military spending increases) is using their own interpretation of the law to bring pressure on their own employees (who, due to unionization, stand to be better off in a Democratic administration) to vote Republican?


Yep, and despite the fact that Romney's increases are not realistically sustainable in today's economic conditions. Well unless you screw the working class big time.
 
2012-10-03 06:44:19 AM
So now government paid jobs are "real jobs"? Republucans have kept telling me they are not. I guess only teachers jobs don't count.
 
2012-10-03 06:48:24 AM

Corvus: So now government paid jobs are "real jobs"? Republucans have kept telling me they are not. I guess only teachers jobs don't count.


Real Americans don't need ejamacations, they need a big military crewed by the brightest immigrants.
 
2012-10-03 06:50:14 AM
www.troycitydesign.com
 
2012-10-03 06:56:20 AM

spmkk: 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.


Yeah it can.

The white house, throught he pentagon has a tremendous amount of discretion on where money is spent.
 
2012-10-03 07:02:49 AM

Corvus: So now government paid jobs are "real jobs"? Republucans have kept telling me they are not. I guess only teachers jobs don't count.


No, no, no! See, when the government pays an employee directly, that's a "government job". But when the government contracts out labor or goods production so that a business owner takes a chunk off the top for being a business owner, and then pays the employees whatever he has to, well, that's the free market at work! Capitalism the way God intended, my friend!
 
2012-10-03 07:06:15 AM
Lockheed: We'll lay people off right before the election because there are defense cuts coming!
White House: Hold on. The cuts you're anticipating might not happen. Let's calm down and be rational.
Lockheed: Okay, okay. Maybe you're right.
Time Columnist: SCANDAL! IT'S ILLEGAL TO COOPERATE AND FIX PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY HAPPEN
 
2012-10-03 07:06:53 AM

heavymetal: Yep, and despite the fact that Romney's increases are not realistically sustainable in today's economic conditions. Well unless you screw the working class big time.


I see you've got a handle on the Republican platform. I really believe these guys are envious of the way China and other emerging manufacturing hotspots are able to treat their workers.

Must be why they want to repeal minimum wage on American soil.
 
2012-10-03 07:26:42 AM

spmkk: 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.


It is almost as if this is no different than continuing the existing contracts. Oh to the fainting couch!
 
2012-10-03 07:27:12 AM
So this is what Limbaugh has been raging about the last couple of days.

He had a great segment yesterday where he was aghast at the possibility that the government would give money to a private company, and that the defense contractors should have to compete in the market just like everyone else. Then he went on to talk about how a 5% cut in defense spending would allow the terrorists to take over America.

All that aside - the government shouldn't t be offering to cover the costs, they should say "if you start messing with elections you can look forward to a real tough time when contract renewal comes around and then you really will have to send out those notices". Of course that's not really possible with the prevalence of low information voters.
 
2012-10-03 07:28:44 AM

FitzShivering: Depends. If I see one on Amazon Deal of the Day, I'll get it for 33% off.


That's understandable... I mean, who can pass up saving $50 million?
 
2012-10-03 07:30:52 AM

PreMortem: " 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.


Uh, no, not dozens. There are over a thousand employees where I work in NOVA. We were told ALL would be getting the notices.
 
2012-10-03 07:31:43 AM

incendi: That's understandable... I mean, who can pass up saving $50 million?


indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com
"What? If I want one, I'll buy the goddamned factory!"
 
2012-10-03 07:35:09 AM

Katolu: Uh, no, not dozens. There are over a thousand employees where I work in NOVA. We were told ALL would be getting the notices.


www.abqjournal.com
"I will burn this place to the f*cking ground."
 
2012-10-03 07:37:22 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: All that aside - the government shouldn't t be offering to cover the costs, they should say "if you start messing with elections you can look forward to a real tough time when contract renewal comes around and then you really will have to send out those notices". Of course that's not really possible with the prevalence of low information voters our current aquisition laws.


The struck portion may be a contributing factor.
 
2012-10-03 07:42:52 AM

maniacbastard: about


so when you get fired next year, you won't be upset about the whole 60 days notice thing because no SPECIFIC program was named beforehand?

Something tells me you'll be filing grievances and lawsuits.
 
2012-10-03 07:45:02 AM
Just link to The Blaze.

It has more credibility than the Washington Times.
 
2012-10-03 07:52:48 AM

ox45tallboy: heavymetal: Yep, and despite the fact that Romney's increases are not realistically sustainable in today's economic conditions. Well unless you screw the working class big time.

I see you've got a handle on the Republican platform. I really believe these guys are envious of the way China and other emerging manufacturing hotspots are able to treat their workers.

Must be why they want to repeal minimum wage on American soil.


Yep we are on the exact same page here. Their accusations of Obama wanting to turn the U.S. into a 3rd world country is mostly projection in my opinion. Who wants to increase infrastructure and expand education, while in contrast who wants to gut labor laws, public education, and enviromental regulations? The actions of the GOP speak for themself.
 
2012-10-03 08:05:19 AM

Mrbogey: maniacbastard: about

so when you get fired next year, you won't be upset about the whole 60 days notice thing because no SPECIFIC program was named beforehand?

Something tells me you'll be filing grievances and lawsuits.


Well if the law is about "specific" programs his lawsuit will fail.

If he is filing a grievance then he is in a union that may have other legal obligations that aren't tied to this law.
 
2012-10-03 08:07:07 AM
Wait...

Do you mean to tell me the self-imposed Sequestration is being used for political gain?

Get outta town!
 
2012-10-03 08:10:26 AM

RedPhoenix122: 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?


Let's not cloud the issue with facts, now...
 
2012-10-03 08:11:04 AM

Snapper Carr: thamike: How the hell did you get any of that from the article? .

[imageshack.us image 420x294]


They know Romney is going to lose, so they've upgraded from butt hurt, to butt furious.
 
2012-10-03 08:11:34 AM
"Lockheed Martin is backing down from threats ..."

I hate being tempted to advocate for immoral interventions like, for instance, some hot, illegal CIA action in the form of a drone strike on Lockheed executive offices. It makes me realize how peaceful I'm not. It just disturbs me.
 
2012-10-03 08:15:12 AM

Codenamechaz: Snapper Carr: thamike: How the hell did you get any of that from the article? .

[imageshack.us image 420x294]

They know Romney is going to lose, so they've upgraded from butt hurt, to butt furious.


Heh.... Does Preparation H come in Industrial Strength?
 
2012-10-03 08:20:45 AM
How hilarious is that some people are getting worked up over taxpayer dollars being used to cover Lockheed's expense of paying severance as if Lockheed's expense of paying their employees hasn't come directly from taxpayer dollars since forever.
 
2012-10-03 08:21:12 AM

Katolu: PreMortem: " 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.

Uh, no, not dozens. There are over a thousand employees where I work in NOVA. We were told ALL would be getting the notices.


And just like Lockheed, someone in your management doesn't know wtf they are talking about. Unless of course your NOVA was getting mass layoffs unrelated to the debt ceiling debacle.

Ask whoever in your NOVA started this fear mongering to seek further clarification from your legal/gov't affairs dept.

And I really can't tell what this "dozens...required by law" has to do with Lockheed's 129,000. It's a crappy article.
 
2012-10-03 08:32:26 AM

theknuckler_33: How hilarious is that some people are getting worked up over taxpayer dollars being used to cover Lockheed's expense of paying severance as if Lockheed's expense of paying their employees hasn't come directly from taxpayer dollars since forever.


It's additional money. The money Lockheed would not spend does not magically go back into taxpayer's pockets.

Either way, "They already use our tax dollars, so why complain about giving them more" is pretty moronic reasoning.
 
2012-10-03 08:34:08 AM

WhyteRaven74: 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.


Of those that figure it out, about half of them will find a way to continue to blame Obama and the Dems while supporting the party that has spent the last couple years demonizing them as union thugs, lazy welfare public sector employees, etc.

/and the Republic takes another step towards the grave
 
2012-10-03 08:37:21 AM

theknuckler_33: How hilarious is that some people are getting worked up over taxpayer dollars being used to cover Lockheed's expense of paying severance as if Lockheed's expense of paying their employees hasn't come directly from taxpayer dollars since forever.


That is an excellent point. Frankly, if it were part of a plan to decrease our military industrial complex and overall defense spending, I would strongly favor paying former defense workers severance pay, providing grants for job retraining, providing career counseling, possibly even, providing loans or even grants for the start-up costs of small, non-defense related businesses. I would consider it an investment in an economy less dependent on military contracts to maintain employment levels. It makes more sense to me than having employees in 48 states, who philosophically aren't really pro-war, voting for the guy most likely to keep certain weapons purchases going just to preserve their own jobs.
 
2012-10-03 08:37:54 AM
TO ALL: READ MANIACBASTARD
 
2012-10-03 08:39:08 AM
M-O-O-N. That spells NGTRTFA.
 
2012-10-03 08:40:14 AM

ox45tallboy: heavymetal: Yep, and despite the fact that Romney's increases are not realistically sustainable in today's economic conditions. Well unless you screw the working class big time.

I see you've got a handle on the Republican platform. I really believe these guys are envious of the way China and other emerging manufacturing hotspots are able to treat their workers.

Must be why they want to repeal minimum wage on American soil.


Don't forget about Newt Gingrich wanting to relax child labor laws so we can put children from poor neighborhoods to work earlier. After all, they're not going to make anything of their lives anyway. Gingrich suggested that present laws are too rigid. "You have a very poor neighborhood. You have kids who are required under law to go to school," Yeah, Mr. Gingrich, taking them out of school and putting them to work will solve our poverty problem. It's not like the next generation needs to be able to read or do basic arithmetic or anything.
 
2012-10-03 08:42:26 AM
Subby, irony is funny. Outright lies make you an oxygen thief. Know the difference.
 
2012-10-03 08:42:37 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: ox45tallboy: heavymetal: Yep, and despite the fact that Romney's increases are not realistically sustainable in today's economic conditions. Well unless you screw the working class big time.

I see you've got a handle on the Republican platform. I really believe these guys are envious of the way China and other emerging manufacturing hotspots are able to treat their workers.

Must be why they want to repeal minimum wage on American soil.

Don't forget about Newt Gingrich wanting to relax child labor laws so we can put children from poor neighborhoods to work earlier. After all, they're not going to make anything of their lives anyway. Gingrich suggested that present laws are too rigid. "You have a very poor neighborhood. You have kids who are required under law to go to school," Yeah, Mr. Gingrich, taking them out of school and putting them to work will solve our poverty problem. It's not like the next generation needs to be able to read or do basic arithmetic or anything.


I was hoping that school quote was out of context, but sheesh, what an awful thing to say. It's hard to even give him the benefit of the doubt he meant something else.
 
2012-10-03 08:42:43 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: ox45tallboy: heavymetal: Yep, and despite the fact that Romney's increases are not realistically sustainable in today's economic conditions. Well unless you screw the working class big time.

I see you've got a handle on the Republican platform. I really believe these guys are envious of the way China and other emerging manufacturing hotspots are able to treat their workers.

Must be why they want to repeal minimum wage on American soil.

Don't forget about Newt Gingrich wanting to relax child labor laws so we can put children from poor neighborhoods to work earlier. After all, they're not going to make anything of their lives anyway. Gingrich suggested that present laws are too rigid. "You have a very poor neighborhood. You have kids who are required under law to go to school," Yeah, Mr. Gingrich, taking them out of school and putting them to work will solve our poverty problem. It's not like the next generation needs to be able to read or do basic arithmetic or anything.


Missouri legislature tried to do that a couple of years back. Tried to remove all restrictions on child labor.
 
2012-10-03 08:44:57 AM

3StratMan: impaler: This shat is greenlit?



It's greenlit so you Farkers have something to get fired up about again today. You know how the game is played.


Can you or your Republican buddies submit non-derp articles?

Thanks.
 
2012-10-03 08:44:58 AM
This is a blatant lie.

That being said, MOST things conservatives say anymore are blatant lies. I often wonder if, in the darkness of night, when they're wrapped snugly in their sheets, they have moments of weakness where they stop and ask themselves "If I'm actually right.... why do I always have to lie?"

But I'm guessing not. Conservatives seem like they're all pretty bad people.
 
2012-10-03 08:46:58 AM
I submitted this story yesterday with a non-moonie link It, of course, did not get greenlit. Not trolly enough.

Still, as someone in "the business", I can tell you that last time through the debt-ceiling debacle, large numbers of layoffs ensued. Even though contracts were not being out-right cancelled, my company did not hang on to people on the promise of "you'll get paid someday". If it even appears we are heading in the same direction, I have no doubt they'll do it again.
 
2012-10-03 08:48:00 AM
So workers get to keep their jobs for a few more months and WHO has a problem with this???
 
2012-10-03 09:00:18 AM
This is the wasteful government spending that the GOP has been talking about.
 
2012-10-03 09:00:37 AM

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


This distinction seems only relevant when defending Obama. It has little effect when talking about Bush, the only person in Government for those 8 years!
 
2012-10-03 09:03:44 AM

Brandyelf: I submitted this story yesterday with a non-moonie link It, of course, did not get greenlit. Not trolly enough.

Still, as someone in "the business", I can tell you that last time through the debt-ceiling debacle, large numbers of layoffs ensued. Even though contracts were not being out-right cancelled, my company did not hang on to people on the promise of "you'll get paid someday". If it even appears we are heading in the same direction, I have no doubt they'll do it again.


Of course they will.

They can "trim the fat" get rid of employees they don't like (for whatever reason), higher peopel back at a lower price, and then charge the govt more as the because of all the problems it causes.
 
2012-10-03 09:05:50 AM
this will piss the GOP off. they were counting on those notices. it's why they are holding the budget hostage.
 
2012-10-03 09:07:31 AM

Katolu: PreMortem: " 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.

Uh, no, not dozens. There are over a thousand employees where I work in NOVA. We were told ALL would be getting the notices.


you were told lies by people it would benefit to scare you.
 
2012-10-03 09:07:37 AM

Lunaville: "Lockheed Martin is backing down from threats ..."

I hate being tempted to advocate for immoral interventions like, for instance, some hot, illegal CIA action in the form of a drone strike on Lockheed executive offices. It makes me realize how peaceful I'm not. It just disturbs me.


Is a drone strike the usual response on your planet to a company trying to adhere to Federal employment law?
 
2012-10-03 09:08:44 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: This is a blatant lie.

That being said, MOST things conservatives say anymore are blatant lies. I often wonder if, in the darkness of night, when they're wrapped snugly in their sheets, they have moments of weakness where they stop and ask themselves "If I'm actually right.... why do I always have to lie?"

But I'm guessing not. Conservatives seem like they're all pretty bad people.


they have no honor
 
2012-10-03 09:09:39 AM
www.troycitydesign.com
 
2012-10-03 09:10:11 AM

liam76: Yeah it can.

The white house, throught he pentagon has a tremendous amount of discretion on where money is spent.


Most DoD funding is via Senate appropriations, and then there are color of money issues on top of that with the executive just deciding to re-appropriate money. Congress gets pissy when that happens, as that discretion is their purview.
 
2012-10-03 09:11:34 AM

sprawl15: Lunaville: "Lockheed Martin is backing down from threats ..."

I hate being tempted to advocate for immoral interventions like, for instance, some hot, illegal CIA action in the form of a drone strike on Lockheed executive offices. It makes me realize how peaceful I'm not. It just disturbs me.

Is a drone strike the usual response on your planet to a company trying to adhere to Federal employment law?


I would suggest writing their congressman and tell him that his holding the debt ceiling hostage so the 1% can keep their tax cuts is unacceptable.

but it's their call
 
2012-10-03 09:13:50 AM

s2s2s2: impaler: The White House is a different branch of government you idiot blog.

This distinction seems only relevant when defending Obama. It has little effect when talking about Bush, the only person in Government for those 8 years!


But but Bush!
 
2012-10-03 09:14:25 AM
From the Lockheed Martin Memo issued yesterday

"After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan."

So any action now would be premature. Nothing to see here, let's move along.

Link
 
2012-10-03 09:19:23 AM

htotheova: From the Lockheed Martin Memo issued yesterday

"After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan."

So any action now would be premature. Nothing to see here, let's move along.

Link


Gee, it's almost as if what went on here was not nearly as nefarious as the Washington Times made it out to be. But that couldn't be it, right? The Washington Times is a paper with the journalistic ethics of a saint, isn't it?
 
2012-10-03 09:21:01 AM

wademh: 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?


Canceling my orders as I type this!
 
2012-10-03 09:21:42 AM

sprawl15: Lunaville: "Lockheed Martin is backing down from threats ..."

I hate being tempted to advocate for immoral interventions like, for instance, some hot, illegal CIA action in the form of a drone strike on Lockheed executive offices. It makes me realize how peaceful I'm not. It just disturbs me.

Is a drone strike the usual response on your planet to a company trying to adhere to Federal employment law?


No, it's just me being all "A-c-k-h!" this morning. Still, I don't want to know I can be that unreasonable. I just don't want to be that self aware. Also, I don't really think Lockheeds' true intent is to "adhere to Federal employment law" possibly because I'm "suspicious to the point of paranoia."
 
2012-10-03 09:27:29 AM

Lunaville: Also, I don't really think Lockheeds' true intent is to "adhere to Federal employment law" possibly because I'm "suspicious to the point of paranoia."


HeartBurnKid: Gee, it's almost as if what went on here was not nearly as nefarious as the Washington Times made it out to be.


Nowhere close.

Basically, it's all a matter of perceived risk. If Lockheed is under the impression that there will be random firings of employees on day X, the only real way to provide WARN compliant notices is to just jizz potential layoff notices all over everyone and then 'retract' most of them once they know what the hell is going on. Despite all their lobbyists, nobody knows just how hard Congress will go full retard.

But from Lockheed's perspective there are three choices: give WARN compliant notices, pay people after they've been laid off, or be liable for lawsuit. If paying people is unfunded by contract (which is the only part I find fishy, in that I would think it would be covered by T/L or program shutdown costs), the only business sensible option is A.
 
2012-10-03 09:33:06 AM

sprawl15: HeartBurnKid: Gee, it's almost as if what went on here was not nearly as nefarious as the Washington Times made it out to be.

Nowhere close.


Wow, I need coffee. This should have been before the Lunaville quote.
 
2012-10-03 09:33:41 AM
List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America
(LOPCATGOPATA for short):
Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Community Organizers
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Climatologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Little Green Footballs
Video Games
The Bible
CBO
Bruce Springsteen
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity
Comedy Central
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is
Small Business Owners
Math
CPAC
Navy SEALs
The Economist
The Muppets
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets
Breast Cancer Screenings
Chrysler
Clint Eastwood.
Robert Deniro
Tom Hanks
Glenn Frey
Norman Rockwell
James Cameron
Dr. Seus
Nuns
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
Jonathan Krohn at age 17
Fact Checkers
Australia
Mitt Romney
Rasmussen
Fox News
Lockheed Martin
 
2012-10-03 09:34:26 AM
What a terribly written article. The only thing that's clear is that Lockheed is playing politics.
 
2012-10-03 09:35:27 AM

sprawl15: Lunaville: Also, I don't really think Lockheeds' true intent is to "adhere to Federal employment law" possibly because I'm "suspicious to the point of paranoia."

HeartBurnKid: Gee, it's almost as if what went on here was not nearly as nefarious as the Washington Times made it out to be.

Nowhere close.

Basically, it's all a matter of perceived risk. If Lockheed is under the impression that there will be random firings of employees on day X, the only real way to provide WARN compliant notices is to just jizz potential layoff notices all over everyone and then 'retract' most of them once they know what the hell is going on. Despite all their lobbyists, nobody knows just how hard Congress will go full retard.

But from Lockheed's perspective there are three choices: give WARN compliant notices, pay people after they've been laid off, or be liable for lawsuit. If paying people is unfunded by contract (which is the only part I find fishy, in that I would think it would be covered by T/L or program shutdown costs), the only business sensible option is A.


Or option D - those lobbyists can work with the OMB and the DOD to assess their exposure and provide the company executives with information to base their decisions on. It appears that is what they did.

/lobbyists also talk to Agencies and not just Congress
 
2012-10-03 09:39:37 AM

htotheova: Or option D - those lobbyists can work with the OMB and the DOD to assess their exposure and provide the company executives with information to base their decisions on. It appears that is what they did.


Of course. I'm talking, though, about the perspective going in to the mess, and why Lockheed "threatened". Without such information, option D simply doesn't exist. The OBM/DOD provided the information, Lockheed took it. QED.
 
2012-10-03 09:42:20 AM

s2s2s2: impaler: The White House is a different branch of government you idiot blog.
This distinction seems only relevant when defending Obama. It has little effect when talking about Bush, the only person in Government for those 8 years!


Yes, we must be fair. We don't KNOW that Bush was in favor of those wars he started.
 
2012-10-03 09:43:59 AM
So I was wondering what a random commenter on a pajama-wearing blog was thinking about this very situation, and this is what I saw:

lockheed is a fool if they play this illegal game. the kenyan is going down and lockheed is going to be left holding an empty promise. nobody in a new administration is going to honor this corrupt p.o.s. illegal promises. it will cost lockheed billion$ and nobody is going to be in any mood to honor graft and bribery. hopefully the last crew will be watching from prison where they belong.

So, there's that.
 
2012-10-03 09:45:00 AM

Brandyelf: So I was wondering what a random commenter on a pajama-wearing blog was thinking about this very situation, and this is what I saw:

lockheed is a fool if they play this illegal game. the kenyan is going down and lockheed is going to be left holding an empty promise. nobody in a new administration is going to honor this corrupt p.o.s. illegal promises. it will cost lockheed billionTexas$ and nobody is going to be in any mood to honor graft and bribery. hopefully the last crew will be watching from prison where they belong.

So, there's that.


FTFH.
 
2012-10-03 09:46:20 AM

PanicMan: What a terribly written article. The only thing that's clear is that Lockheed is playing politics.


the entire military-industrial-media-complex is all about politics.
it's why they put them in every state and almost every district.
 
2012-10-03 09:48:13 AM
 
2012-10-03 09:49:13 AM

Brandyelf: So I was wondering what a random commenter on a pajama-wearing blog was thinking about this very situation, and this is what I saw:

lockheed is a fool if they play this illegal game. the kenyan is going down and lockheed is going to be left holding an empty promise. nobody in a new administration is going to honor this corrupt p.o.s. illegal promises. it will cost lockheed billion$ and nobody is going to be in any mood to honor graft and bribery. hopefully the last crew will be watching from prison where they belong.

So, there's that.


Have you seen this from the Wired thread? Seems relevent.

www.wired.com
 
2012-10-03 09:51:26 AM

Hobodeluxe: PanicMan: What a terribly written article. The only thing that's clear is that Lockheed is playing politics.

the entire military-industrial-media-complex is all about politics.
it's why they put them in every state and almost every district.


Oh believe me I know. I see it every day from the government side.
 
2012-10-03 09:51:43 AM

Somacandra: 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.


The notices are a requirement to the WARN Act...so they want to follow the law and you have a problem with it?
 
2012-10-03 09:52:13 AM

PanicMan: Brandyelf: So I was wondering what a random commenter on a pajama-wearing blog was thinking about this very situation, and this is what I saw:

lockheed is a fool if they play this illegal game. the kenyan is going down and lockheed is going to be left holding an empty promise. nobody in a new administration is going to honor this corrupt p.o.s. illegal promises. it will cost lockheed billion$ and nobody is going to be in any mood to honor graft and bribery. hopefully the last crew will be watching from prison where they belong.

So, there's that.

Have you seen this from the Wired thread? Seems relevent.

[www.wired.com image 660x557]


Spreading Homeland Security's information is a sign of terrorism! To Gitmo with you.

/if you also spread it on Twitter, it will be worse for you -- we'll send you to Jersey.
 
2012-10-03 09:54:03 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.


I had to slap down some friends because of this thing. They posted it to my fb wall all gloating like. It is kind of easy. The WARN Act does not apply here because there is no guarantee that the layoffs will happen. If a budget is passed or an interim agreement is reached, there is no layoff or deletion of these government contracts. So the WARN Act SHOULDN'T apply given the fact that it could result in layoff notices being sent to people who are NEVER GOING TO BE LAID OFF.

/caps because fun.
 
2012-10-03 09:59:28 AM

FitzShivering: Spreading Homeland Security's information is a sign of terrorism! To Gitmo with you.

/if you also spread it on Twitter, it will be worse for you -- we'll send you to Jersey.


Not Jersey! Anywhere but there!
 
2012-10-03 10:07:42 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.



Or if they are 100% sure the notices would have a negative impact on the incumbents reelection hopes in that State.
 
2012-10-03 10:08:09 AM

RichieLaw: So the WARN Act SHOULDN'T apply given the fact that it could result in layoff notices being sent to people who are NEVER GOING TO BE LAID OFF.


"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"

RichieLaw: The WARN Act does not apply here because there is no guarantee that the layoffs will happen.


Why do you think a guarantee matters?

If there is a plant closure or mass layoff, it falls under the WARN Act regardless of any forewarning. The goal of the act is worker protection, and it doesn't matter one bit what management knows in that regard. Here's the law, take a gander.
 
2012-10-03 10:09:47 AM

Hobodeluxe: PanicMan: What a terribly written article. The only thing that's clear is that Lockheed is playing politics.

the entire military-industrial-media-complex is all about politics.
it's why they put them in every state and almost every district.


Yes, lots of politics being played here. Including by politicians.
 
2012-10-03 10:10:16 AM
PreMortem

And just like Lockheed, someone in your management doesn't know wtf they are talking about. Unless of course your NOVA was getting mass layoffs unrelated to the debt ceiling debacle.

Ask whoever in your NOVA started this fear mongering to seek further clarification from your legal/gov't affairs dept.


It's adorable when you kids act like you have the first understanding of what is being discussed...
 
2012-10-03 10:11:46 AM

FitzShivering: CujoQuarrel: spmkk:

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.


Exactly, also no other contractor is threatening to give layoff notices. In fact even if budget cuts his Jan 2nd, contracts wouldn't be immediately canceled, they would be spun down. You can't just shut down a contract, otherwise the federal government could be sued by these companies for not following its part of the contract (generally notification of cancellation of contract is required ), in which Lockheed would then sue the government for contract dollars. Generally these contractors don't lay off workers immediately after cuts as well, generally they try to find them other jobs/task. Laying off workers is an expensive complicated process, you don't do it the day you lose the contract.
 
2012-10-03 10:13:35 AM
You know, the GOP and GOP fanboys have lied about Obama so often in the past five years that I find I'm not even interested in examining the accusation, let alone digging out the reality.

/ Sort of like walking past the tabloids in the supermarket checkout lines.
// Wolf!
/// Woooooolf!
 
2012-10-03 10:16:50 AM
So this is just Standard Operating Procedure?
I'm sure someone here will post all the other times that the White House has given a contractor assurances that it shouldn't follow the law because , well, because...????

Right. It's got nothing to do with the election.
 
2012-10-03 10:17:43 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?


You don't like reality do you?
 
2012-10-03 10:23:49 AM
I could have been a Lockheed Martin employee, but they found out my parents were married.

www.slate.com
a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
 
2012-10-03 10:29:07 AM

impaler: 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.




In other words, the cuts are inevitable.
 
2012-10-03 10:31:10 AM

Somacandra: 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.


Especially since a little bird told me that Lockheed is ramping up production like farking crazy. Chicken Farking Littles - THE WHOLE DEFENSE INDUSTRY. Most businesses don't overforecast, juke their stats, or use math so fuzzy the slightest miscalculation causes chaos in accounting. These clowns worry about shiat like contract availability through the next 12 years the way farmers worry about the weather for the next 12 weeks. It keeps them up at night.
 
2012-10-03 10:36:35 AM

BeesNuts: Especially since a little bird told me that Lockheed is ramping up production like farking crazy. Chicken Farking Littles - THE WHOLE DEFENSE INDUSTRY. Most businesses don't overforecast, juke their stats, or use math so fuzzy the slightest miscalculation causes chaos in accounting. These clowns worry about shiat like contract availability through the next 12 years the way farmers worry about the weather for the next 12 weeks. It keeps them up at night.


A large part of that is the restrictions against long term defense budgeting. It breeds an atmosphere of paranoia.
 
2012-10-03 10:38:56 AM

sprawl15: RichieLaw: So the WARN Act SHOULDN'T apply given the fact that it could result in layoff notices being sent to people who are NEVER GOING TO BE LAID OFF.

"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"

RichieLaw: The WARN Act does not apply here because there is no guarantee that the layoffs will happen.

Why do you think a guarantee matters?

If there is a plant closure or mass layoff, it falls under the WARN Act regardless of any forewarning. The goal of the act is worker protection, and it doesn't matter one bit what management knows in that regard. Here's the law, take a gander.


Plant closures and mass layoffs do not occur without a guarantee they need to be done. There is no such thing there. Read it again. They have no idea what would need to be closed, and they do not need to notify every employee they have, even if they did -- just the ones affected.
 
2012-10-03 10:40:49 AM

FitzShivering: 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.


The sad problem is in addition, if the power brokers at Lockheed are playing chicken, not with their own salaries/stock options/retirement packages but with the jobs of rank and file workers.

If the DoD said, OK, you want to play this, we will look harder at moving work to other contractors, Lockheed can lay off 10 or 20,000 people in retaliation, huge PR problem, no effect on bottom line of upper management.

To a degree, the laid off workers can end up at other contractors if the work still is there, but what a disruption to their lives, and the older workers are as usual the most exposed.

Dirty business all around.
 
2012-10-03 10:46:51 AM

FitzShivering: Plant closures and mass layoffs do not occur without a guarantee they need to be done.


I'd suggest you get a cup of coffee, because this makes no farking sense.

FitzShivering: They have no idea what would need to be closed, and they do not need to notify every employee they have, even if they did -- just the ones affected.


That's the problem - nobody knows exactly what would be cut. But the burden of proof is simply 'reasonable grounds' for a cut, and becomes a positive act - Lockheed would have to go to court and make the case that they didn't have reasonable grounds to expect a cut to their programs. Here's the relevant section:
(4) If an employer which has violated this chapter proves to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission that violated this chapter was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of this chapter the court may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of the liability or penalty provided for in this section.
Note that this is a reduction of liability, not an exemption from liability. To even get to this point, the company has to have already been found liable of violation of the WARN act. After they have been found liable, they may make the case that there was no way they could have known cuts were happening, but that's a difficult case to make when they know damn well that sequestration is a huge looming risk.
 
2012-10-03 10:49:04 AM

Flaming Yawn: The sad problem is in addition, if the power brokers at Lockheed are playing chicken, not with their own salaries/stock options/retirement packages but with the jobs of rank and file workers.


This isn't a game of chicken.

This is a game of chicken.
 
2012-10-03 10:57:25 AM
I thought government spending didn't create jobs...
 
2012-10-03 11:04:39 AM

YoungSwedishBlonde: I thought government spending didn't create jobs...


they are entitled to that spending.
 
2012-10-03 11:10:46 AM

impaler: 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.




The WARN act requires the letters go out 60 days prior to lay offs. These layoffs are scheduled to happen in 60 days. That the government may act to stop the layoffs is immaterial. If the layoffs DO happen, since they were foreseen, the contracting companies will have violated the WARN act.

What is lost in all of this is that should the congress not act, and the WARN notices not go out, the actual people who are on the layoff list won't know they are on the layoff list until they are laid off... but no worries! Obama will pay the legal fees of the companies that failed to give these people ample notice to prepare!
 
2012-10-03 11:12:56 AM
Warning, long post coming in.
I've been reading about this for a couple days, and heard a bit about it way back when. I'm not going to lie....it is issues like this that have started to turn me off from the GOP narrative. Looking stuff up shouldn't be something you do only when you don't agree with something. There are actual, logical reasons for what happened, not that Rush would want you to know that. Step by step, here we go. 30 minutes and Google.

1. What is the WARN act? "The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) is a United States labor law which protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide sixty- (60) calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs of employees." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notifica tion_Act Basically, if you have a large number of employees, you can't just lay a significant number of them off suddenly, you have to give advance notice.

2. "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." http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/oct/1/lockhee d-wont-send-out-layoff-notices/ Why would they do this? Clearly nothing political.........

3. Yeah, right. The 2011 Budget Act which will supposedly cut some defense spending is the ONLY thing Lockheed is basing their decision to potentially lay off their entire work force here. There is literally nothing in the bill suggesting that Lockheed will lose all government contracts, and indeed nothing certain that says the new DoD budget cuts will even affect most contractors, OR EVEN THAT THE CUTS WILL DEFINITELY TAKE PLACE. "DoD officials have repeatedly said they did not anticipate many contract cancellations even if the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration take effect. The sequestration procedure as legislated in the Budget Control Act does not target funds that have already been obligated to contracts, instead requiring a percentage cut that would impact future contract actions and new contracts." Link

4. So what's going on then? What Lockheed is doing here is just playing politics, with the stakes being it's employees jobs. What they're wanting is a government guarantee that the new budget will not affect any of their contracts regardless of who gets in office or what budget cuts get through Congress. They are basically in no danger of losing any important contracts, or having to lay off any employees, but they're threatening this because they want guarantees that nothing this administration does is going to affect them.

5. The White House, understandably imo, is basically face-palms all around. It's just a political game that they lose regardless of what they do. Do nothing? Lockheed lays off thousands of workers.....only to hire them back in a month when nothing happens and they still have contracts to fulfill. They look bad, for zero reason, for a critical month. Or, guarantee nothing is going to happen to the contracts by promising to fulfill the legal requirements should they have to lay off workers(which there is no actual danger of whatsoever) in November. They look bad. Why is this guarantee basically meaningless, aka, why should Lockheed not have to worry about laying people off?

6. The budget bill, even were it worst case scenario for Lockheed, wouldn't even take effect until Jan, and probably even far later, making the Nov timetable for layoffs even MORE indicative of Lockheed's intention of just playing political games with the elections rather than just trying to follow the law like they claim."The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DoD [Department of Defense] actions under sequestration, indicating that DoD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan,". Link

7. This is 100% political posturing by Lockheed, trying to use the elections for their own profit. Rush, predictably enough, jumps in head first without looking a single thing up. If there's a bad guy here, it's Lockheed, playing games with their employees jobs, like any good job creator would. No tax payer money is going to end up backing a thing on this, as nothing will happen to Lockheed in November for sure, and probably never. Silly political games is all this is. Should the White House make an ultimately empty promise to maybe "save votes"? Perhaps not.....but the "promise" is basically meaningless, and just a political response to a company abusing their political connections.

Just typed this up.
 
2012-10-03 11:27:20 AM

Sm3agol85: Yeah, right. The 2011 Budget Act which will supposedly cut some defense spending is the ONLY thing Lockheed is basing their decision to potentially lay off their entire work force here.


There's a pretty serious misconception here. They never, ever thought they were laying off their potential workforce. They are, however, required to give 60 days notice to whoever does get laid off. Lets take a stripped down and oversimplified example.

Premise: you, as an employer, are required to provide 60 days notice to employees who will be laid off or the government will cut your balls off. You run 20 different departments, all equally funded and all funding from the government. You know that in 60 days there's a very, very good chance that at least some of these departments will be closed, but you won't know until 60 days from now. What is your solution?

The safest method is to provide notices of potential layoffs to everybody, even if your expectation is that between zero and 2 departments will be closed. Then, when 60 days rolls around, you actually lay off only those people who are getting cut. The rest, you don't.

Sm3agol85: What Lockheed is doing here is just playing politics, with the stakes being it's employees jobs.


Incorrect. This has nothing to do with actual jobs. These are entirely liability issues to do with surrounding job losses. If Lockheed does not give notice, they either have to pay a bunch of money out of pocket or go to court and argue they had no way of knowing program cuts were coming. Both of those cost money. Giving out layoff notices costs nearly no money.

Sm3agol85: Why is this guarantee basically meaningless, aka, why should Lockheed not have to worry about laying people off?


If you look at what the White House actually provided, the main thrust is that the cuts wouldn't happen in 60 days, but closer to 120 days. That gives Lockheed more time until they enter that 60 day window.

Sm3agol85: The budget bill, even were it worst case scenario for Lockheed, wouldn't even take effect until Jan


This information is what is causing them to not issue notices. They were not given this assurance until very recently.
 
2012-10-03 11:39:29 AM
Names Floated for Top Defense Jobs Under Romney

With the U.S. presidential election just over a month away, the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is quietly accumulating the names of potential candidates who could fill out Defense Department leadership roles - including current and former defense executives.

Names circulating among Romney aides include former SAIC CEO Walt Havenstein, CACI Chairman Jack London, EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe and Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO Robert Stevens. Senior Romney defense advisers John Lehman, a former Navy secretary; former Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn.; and former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim also are frontrunners for top defense posts if Romney wins.
 
2012-10-03 11:44:09 AM

RolandGunner: The WARN act requires the letters go out 60 days prior to lay offs. These layoffs are scheduled to happen in 60 days. That the government may act to stop the layoffs is immaterial. If the layoffs DO happen, since they were foreseen, the contracting companies will have violated the WARN act.

What is lost in all of this is that should the congress not act, and the WARN notices not go out, the actual people who are on the layoff list won't know they are on the layoff list until they are laid off... but no worries! Obama will pay the legal fees of the companies that failed to give these people ample notice to prepare!



A Republican worried about the laws. I wonder what changed.
 
2012-10-03 11:46:24 AM

sprawl15: Premise: you, as an employer, are required to provide 60 days notice to employees who will be laid off or the government will cut your balls off. You run 20 different departments, all equally funded and all funding from the government. You know that in 60 days there's a very, very good chance that at least some of these departments will be closed, but you won't know until 60 days from now. What is your solution?


If you don't have some sort of contingency plan for a sudden loss of revenue, you are one shiatty employer. Show me anywhere else that an employer sees a drop in profits and decides to inform their entire workforce, "Well shiat, I just have no idea what programs we currently have are most valuable or viable for future endeavors, so we're going to play Russian roulette with your departments. Good luck!"
 
2012-10-03 11:51:04 AM

GranoblasticMan: If you don't have some sort of contingency plan for a sudden loss of revenue, you are one shiatty employer.


The loss of revenue regarding the WARN act is not mandatory unless they fail to act. It's easily avoidable by providing notices. Only a total farking idiot would incur liability for months of unfunded operations because they didn't want to not issue potential layoff notices in advance of potential layoffs.

GranoblasticMan: Show me anywhere else that an employer sees a drop in profits and decides to inform their entire workforce, "Well shiat, I just have no idea what programs we currently have are most valuable or viable for future endeavors, so we're going to play Russian roulette with your departments.


You really don't know how this works, do you?

The government chooses which programs to cancel. The layoffs are based on that. Lockheed isn't "playing Russian roulette". If Congress decides to shiatcan the F-22's and dump them all in the ocean, the engineering departments that are working F-22 issues will go away. Lockheed has zero choice in any of that.

The only choice they have is if they're going to comply with the WARN act or be liable for employee layoffs.
 
2012-10-03 11:51:40 AM

sprawl15: didn't want to not issue


farkin' double negatives how do they work
 
2012-10-03 12:01:10 PM

sprawl15: Sm3agol85: Yeah, right. The 2011 Budget Act which will supposedly cut some defense spending is the ONLY thing Lockheed is basing their decision to potentially lay off their entire work force here.

There's a pretty serious misconception here. They never, ever thought they were laying off their potential workforce. They are, however, required to give 60 days notice to whoever does get laid off. Lets take a stripped down and oversimplified example.

Premise: you, as an employer, are required to provide 60 days notice to employees who will be laid off or the government will cut your balls off. You run 20 different departments, all equally funded and all funding from the government. You know that in 60 days there's a very, very good chance that at least some of these departments will be closed, but you won't know until 60 days from now. What is your solution?

The safest method is to provide notices of potential layoffs to everybody, even if your expectation is that between zero and 2 departments will be closed. Then, when 60 days rolls around, you actually lay off only those people who are getting cut. The rest, you don't.


That's the "threat"...your entire workforce. Who knows what's going to happen...so.... threaten to fire everyone? That isn't a good logical response. If your narrative is the only thing going on here, then why is Lockheed the only one doing this? They're the only company with a government contract threatened by cuts or something? Threatening to issue WARN statements to your entire company based on potential cuts that may or may not happen or even exist is not being careful, it's making a political statement.

Sm3agol85: What Lockheed is doing here is just playing politics, with the stakes being it's employees jobs.

Incorrect. This has nothing to do with actual jobs. These are entirely liability issues to do with surrounding job losses. If Lockheed does not give notice, they either have to pay a bunch of money out of pocket or go to court and argue they had no way of knowing program cuts were coming. Both of those cost money. Giving out layoff notices costs nearly no money.

This has nothing to do with liability, other than officially, according to Lockheed. They're obviously not going to actually lay off everyone in their company, but sending the warning to your entire company that they could be laid off in November sends a powerful, well-timed political message. That's the only intent here. There has to be something forseen to warrant being liable for this, and nothing the DoD has said up to this point about the bill could provide any kind of definite proof that a definite loss of contracts was coming. Again....political games.

Sm3agol85: Why is this guarantee basically meaningless, aka, why should Lockheed not have to worry about laying people off?

If you look at what the White House actually provided, the main thrust is that the cuts wouldn't happen in 60 days, but closer to 120 days. That gives Lockheed more time until they enter that 60 day window.
Ok, maybe I just worded that badly. I meant what you said. Timing their layoffs for November is what got the White House roiled up, because nothing they had said up to now could provide a really good reason that kind of convenient timing for Lockheed to make their "statement". The White House has nothing to worry about when promising to back them up because nothing is going to happen until, as i said myself, Jan 2 and probably even months after that.

Sm3agol85: The budget bill, even were it worst case scenario for Lockheed, wouldn't even take effect until Jan

This information is what is causing them to not issue notices. They were not given this assurance until very recently.
Basically......they got called on their November 2 bluff. Aka, "No you farkheads, you can't use this to try and affect the elections for your advantage".
 
2012-10-03 12:03:17 PM

sprawl15: Sm3agol85: The budget bill, even were it worst case scenario for Lockheed, wouldn't even take effect until Jan

This information is what is causing them to not issue notices. They were not given this assurance until very recently.




Well that's the point, though. If the layoffs might not even happen until January then November is when those notices would be going out.
 
2012-10-03 12:04:50 PM
So Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, GD, Pratt Whitney, et all they're all doing the same thing, right?

right?
 
2012-10-03 12:07:06 PM

Misch: Names Floated for Top Defense Jobs Under Romney

With the U.S. presidential election just over a month away, the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is quietly accumulating the names of potential candidates who could fill out Defense Department leadership roles - including current and former defense executives.

Names circulating among Romney aides include former SAIC CEO Walt Havenstein, CACI Chairman Jack London, EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe and Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO Robert Stevens. Senior Romney defense advisers John Lehman, a former Navy secretary; former Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn.; and former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim also are frontrunners for top defense posts if Romney wins.


So Romney, by way of the CEO of Lockheed Martin and the Saucer People forced Obama to issue this memo extending the WARN act dead line for layoffs that may happen as a result of a bit of compromise legislation that he signed into law a year ago?

That Romeny, his powers are boundless...
 
2012-10-03 12:08:09 PM

Sm3agol85: That's the "threat"...your entire workforce.


They're not threatening to fire everyone. I just said that, and gave a simple example of what they did. If you think that's what they did, then you're a moron. I would suggest you go back and actually read my example so you at least vaguely sound like you know what the fark you're talking about.
 
2012-10-03 12:09:10 PM

RolandGunner: If the layoffs might not even happen until January then November is when those notices would be going out.


Budget bill passing != immediate layoffs.
 
2012-10-03 12:21:10 PM

sprawl15: RolandGunner: If the layoffs might not even happen until January then November is when those notices would be going out.

Budget bill passing != immediate layoffs.



This is not even the same argument. The compromise stated that the $600 billion in DOD cuts would be effective January 1st 2013, not debated beginning 2013.

The chance of getting a budget passed this year are slim given that it's an election year and also since a continuance in this case would have to incorporate the $60 billion in cuts to DOD slotted for the 2013 fiscal year since no agreement would have been reached. If December rolls around with no Federal budget then all of these DOD contractors will be looking at reduced contracts effetive 1/1/2013 and will need to start making cuts to meet budget on January 1, which means, if they hadn't notified all employees of the possibility of a layoff in January then they will be in violation of the WARN act.
 
2012-10-03 12:23:32 PM

RolandGunner: Well that's the point, though. If the layoffs might not even happen until January then November is when those notices would be going out.


Actually, I take back what I said. After doing some more digging, I found the content of the advice.

The Labor Department, months ago, said that cuts due to sequestration would automatically qualify for exemptions from the WARN act. Lockheed's team apparently disagreed, and pushed ahead with WARN notices. Then the administration pushed back, and reiterated the earlier guidance and re-emphasized that any costs relating to potential litigation wouldn't be considered unallowables.
 
2012-10-03 12:41:29 PM

fusillade762: 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.


It would have to be unspun first
 
2012-10-03 12:47:17 PM

sprawl15: FitzShivering: Plant closures and mass layoffs do not occur without a guarantee they need to be done.

I'd suggest you get a cup of coffee, because this makes no farking sense.


Which part of this doesn't make sense to you? Do you think companies just random lay people off and close plants for no reason? They aren't laying anyone off unless there is a guarantee they need to do so. Every independent observer with a lick of sense has admitted there is virtually no chance they will have to lay anyone off.

Companies do not lay people off and close plants without there being a reason to do so, whether it's cutting costs, re-alignment, or some other business necessity. Politicians who all readily admit that they're playing chicken and will eventually cave, combined with every business observer saying it will not happen, combined with every economic observer saying it won't happen, means there is no logical reason whatsoever for Lockheed to send out layoff notices to everyone in their company.

This is lawyers doing what lawyers do, and politicians, who also happen to be lawyers, all playing along.
 
2012-10-03 12:51:36 PM

Danger Mouse: So Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, GD, Pratt Whitney, et all they're all doing the same thing, right?


I can speak for one of those companies. There's been a few the-world-is-ending-call-your-congressman mass emails, but they're hard to take seriously when we're, at least in my small part of the company, also hiring more people than we have in the last three years.
 
2012-10-03 12:53:42 PM
"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."


OMG NOBAMAS FAULT!!!!111!!!!!!1
 
2012-10-03 12:55:33 PM

Type_Hard: Lockheed is threatening to send notices to their ENTIRE workforce in order to spur action.


TFA mentions Virginia, but Lockheed Martin (and many other defense contractors) has quite a few employees in Colorado as well.
 
2012-10-03 12:55:46 PM

FitzShivering: Which part of this doesn't make sense to you?


The part where nobody anywhere is arguing that plant closures are going to happen for no reason.

Did you intend to just say a whole bunch of irrelevant nonsense? I would assume so, since you're continuing to vomit it out....an action that makes no sense to me.

FitzShivering: Every independent observer with a lick of sense


Ah, the old 'some people say' argument. Sadly, I do not have my care chair around, so I will not be able to muster concern for vague, uncited assertions.

FitzShivering: means there is no logical reason whatsoever for Lockheed to send out layoff notices to everyone in their company


You're a total farking idiot if you think sending out a layoff notice to everyone is the same thing as actually laying off everyone. They never planned to execute any more notices than necessary to deal with the sequestration.
 
2012-10-03 01:30:15 PM

FitzShivering: I was hoping that school quote was out of context, but sheesh, what an awful thing to say. It's hard to even give him the benefit of the doubt he meant something else.


Alphax: Missouri legislature tried to do that a couple of years back. Tried to remove all restrictions on child labor.


I made sure to grab one of the less damning quotes from the article, simply because I knew if I didn't that someone would scream about how I was trying to spin it. You should see some of the videos of him lobbying for this during the primaries. He was talking about how children could spend their mornings in class, then spend the afternoon doing janitorial work at the school if their parents thought that was better for them than another 3 hours of classes. And it would help them pay their bills, so it would help them out. At one point he tried to spin it as him trying to help the black community by teaching their children a better work ethic at a young age. Nothing like praying on poor parents to screw their children into a life of slavery... Oh wait. We don't call it slavery, so it totally wouldn't be like that at all.

Let's not even get into how dangerous something as mundane as janitorial work can be for a child. Hmm, this floor needs a bleach-based cleaner, and this glass and porcelain needs an ammonia-based cleaner. I'll save some time and money by just combining these so I don't have to OHH MY GOD MY FARKING LUNGS AND THROAT AND EYES HOLY SHIAT I'M BURNING AND EVERYONE ELSE IS GRABBING THEIR THROATS AND STUMBLING INTO THE WALL AND FALLING DOWN OMGWTF IS HAPPENING!!!???!!

/Yay slavery!
//sorry, "unfettered free market," whatever
 
2012-10-03 01:36:49 PM

wademh: 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?


By God, you're right! I just called my broker and cancelled my order. I made sure to sound very cross and indignant. I think they got the message.
 
2012-10-03 01:37:48 PM

Somacandra: 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.


Hey leave Moochelle out of this!
 
2012-10-03 01:47:03 PM

sprawl15: RolandGunner: Well that's the point, though. If the layoffs might not even happen until January then November is when those notices would be going out.

Actually, I take back what I said. After doing some more digging, I found the content of the advice.

The Labor Department, months ago, said that cuts due to sequestration would automatically qualify for exemptions from the WARN act. Lockheed's team apparently disagreed, and pushed ahead with WARN notices. Then the administration pushed back, and reiterated the earlier guidance and re-emphasized that any costs relating to potential litigation wouldn't be considered unallowables.


This post seems significant.
 
2012-10-03 02:16:03 PM

Lunaville: sprawl15: RolandGunner: Well that's the point, though. If the layoffs might not even happen until January then November is when those notices would be going out.

Actually, I take back what I said. After doing some more digging, I found the content of the advice.

The Labor Department, months ago, said that cuts due to sequestration would automatically qualify for exemptions from the WARN act. Lockheed's team apparently disagreed, and pushed ahead with WARN notices. Then the administration pushed back, and reiterated the earlier guidance and re-emphasized that any costs relating to potential litigation wouldn't be considered unallowables.

This post seems significant.


Keep in mind, the ultimate decider of violations of the WARN Act isn't the executive branch, it would be decided by a judge. The administration claiming it isn't a violation of the WARN Act is certainly helpful, but not ironclad. By allowing the costs related to potential litigation to be rolled into the company's G&A, it negates the practical effect of that risk should the administration turn out to be wrong, making it effectively ironclad.

I haven't been able to find if that last part about litigation being an allowable is in the earlier letters or not yet.
 
2012-10-03 02:23:36 PM

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..


They're not violating federal law by theoretically paying the workers in lieu of notice. Like if they don't do _either_ they're violating the law, but here they're simply (possibly) taking option #2.
 
2012-10-03 02:46:51 PM

sprawl15: BeesNuts: Especially since a little bird told me that Lockheed is ramping up production like farking crazy. Chicken Farking Littles - THE WHOLE DEFENSE INDUSTRY. Most businesses don't overforecast, juke their stats, or use math so fuzzy the slightest miscalculation causes chaos in accounting. These clowns worry about shiat like contract availability through the next 12 years the way farmers worry about the weather for the next 12 weeks. It keeps them up at night.

A large part of that is the restrictions against long term defense budgeting. It breeds an atmosphere of paranoia.


That is true, and fair. But it's been this weird paranoia spiral over the last 15 years. They know that as an industry they are unpopular, and being so tied to politics, being unpopular is dangerous. Their solution, however, of continuing to do unpopular things in an attempt to justify their own paranoia, is counterproductive and short-sighted.
 
2012-10-03 02:53:24 PM

BeesNuts: That is true, and fair. But it's been this weird paranoia spiral over the last 15 years. They know that as an industry they are unpopular, and being so tied to politics, being unpopular is dangerous. Their solution, however, of continuing to do unpopular things in an attempt to justify their own paranoia, is counterproductive and short-sighted.


It's a combination of a lot of things. One of them is a natural result of information asymmetry; they pay so much more, they can generally out-think the majority of government regulators. You can see serious problems within the DCAA because of this, in that the government asks the DCAA to be more thorough and have stricter regulation while not spending any more money on training, hiring, etc.

There is, on one hand, a whole massive legal structure built up to ensure the government is getting a fair deal through the FARs/DFARs/etc., and on the other hand a pricing structure that incentivizes as large a price tag as they can get away with. Then there's the sunk cost fallacy that the companies have little problem using. Defense contracting is largely a total farking mess and ultimately it's the ability of companies to better navigate the wreckage that leads to dickbag moves and shiat like the Druyun scandal.
 
2012-10-03 02:54:34 PM

gaspode: 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.


This. Lockheed was playing chicken with the government. By sending out these notices just before the election they basically conned the government to 'guarantee' their contracts will be extended.
 
2012-10-03 02:54:50 PM

taliesinwi: 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..

They're not violating federal law by theoretically paying the workers in lieu of notice. Like if they don't do _either_ they're violating the law, but here they're simply (possibly) taking option #2.


Is it legal for Obama to promise to cover their losses? I don't know. I'm asking.
 
2012-10-03 03:02:29 PM

jigger: taliesinwi: 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..

They're not violating federal law by theoretically paying the workers in lieu of notice. Like if they don't do _either_ they're violating the law, but here they're simply (possibly) taking option #2.

Is it legal for Obama to promise to cover their losses? I don't know. I'm asking.


This is kind of a bad question because taliesinwi is factually wrong. They are violating federal law, but the violation simply opens the company up to litigation. It's not a criminal violation.

Obama isn't promising to cover the losses, but rather stating that they will be allowable expenses. It's a contracting term, but basically you have direct costs (things that go specifically for the contract) and indirect costs (things like overhead). If you pay a mechanic $10 for an hour of labor on $50 of material, it's $60 direct costs for one Widget. But you're also paying for all kinds of other shiat, from power to toilet paper to your legal department, so when the government asks how much to make one Widget, the cost is $60 + rates (say, a total of 40%), or $84.

Certain things are not allowable. If you pay for a business dinner, for example, you can be reimbursed for that...but alcohol purchases are not allowable, and you wouldn't be paid back for that portion. Obama is basically saying that the legal costs can be rolled into their forward pricing indirect rates (likely G&A) and their price on contracts will go up until the legal costs of the suits are covered.
 
2012-10-03 03:16:12 PM
All the politcal spinning put aside, the biggest problem stemming from this whole ordeal is the assertion that contractor costs relating to their not following the law (WARN Act) would be covered by the Government. Essential unallowable costs would become allowable and the program K.O.s have to try to push through the costs. Where the K.O.s are going to find the money that has been promised by OBM M-12-19 is ayone's guess. How anyone can think that an OMB-issued direction to disregard the WARN Act without risk of contractor financial penalty is a good idea? Just another mess put on the taxpayer's tab.
 
2012-10-03 03:22:07 PM

Three-Headed Dog: How anyone can think that an OMB-issued direction to disregard the WARN Act without risk of contractor financial penalty is a good idea?


It's a farking awful idea.

The very fact that there's so much wavering over the applicability of the WARN Act to upcoming layoffs is pretty good evidence that there were "reasonable grounds" to expect layoffs. Why WARN Act related costs weren't included in term liability or program shutdown costs in the first place is totally beyond me.
 
2012-10-03 03:26:15 PM

sprawl15: Why WARN Act related costs weren't included in term liability or program shutdown costs in the first place is totally beyond me.


Eh, after thinking for a minute, I take that back. If they know a program is shutting down, they should give notice. If they don't know, they don't need to.

This is just a bizarre situation in that they aren't sure which, if any, programs are shutting down but are expecting SOME losses, and the law isn't flexible enough for this situation. Farking clownshoes.
 
2012-10-03 03:28:09 PM

sprawl15: BeesNuts: That is true, and fair. But it's been this weird paranoia spiral over the last 15 years. They know that as an industry they are unpopular, and being so tied to politics, being unpopular is dangerous. Their solution, however, of continuing to do unpopular things in an attempt to justify their own paranoia, is counterproductive and short-sighted.

It's a combination of a lot of things. One of them is a natural result of information asymmetry; they pay so much more, they can generally out-think the majority of government regulators. You can see serious problems within the DCAA because of this, in that the government asks the DCAA to be more thorough and have stricter regulation while not spending any more money on training, hiring, etc.

There is, on one hand, a whole massive legal structure built up to ensure the government is getting a fair deal through the FARs/DFARs/etc., and on the other hand a pricing structure that incentivizes as large a price tag as they can get away with. Then there's the sunk cost fallacy that the companies have little problem using. Defense contracting is largely a total farking mess and ultimately it's the ability of companies to better navigate the wreckage that leads to dickbag moves and shiat like the Druyun scandal.


Good post is good.
 
2012-10-03 03:29:32 PM

the_geek: gaspode: 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.

This. Lockheed was playing chicken with the government. By sending out these notices just before the election they basically conned the government to 'guarantee' their contracts will be extended.


So what I said in my post then?
 
2012-10-03 03:33:31 PM

sprawl15: sprawl15: Why WARN Act related costs weren't included in term liability or program shutdown costs in the first place is totally beyond me.

Eh, after thinking for a minute, I take that back. If they know a program is shutting down, they should give notice. If they don't know, they don't need to.

This is just a bizarre situation in that they aren't sure which, if any, programs are shutting down but are expecting SOME losses, and the law isn't flexible enough for this situation. Farking clownshoes.


Good luck trying to get those costs covered. DCAA would have a field day. Bottom line is contractors can either follow the law or cross their fingers and hope that the Government will follw through. Good farking luck.
 
2012-10-03 03:39:01 PM

gaspode: the_geek: gaspode: 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.

This. Lockheed was playing chicken with the government. By sending out these notices just before the election they basically conned the government to 'guarantee' their contracts will be extended.

So what I said in my post then?


They didn't receive contract extensions. They received relief from the potential cost, employee compensation and litigation, of not issuing WARN Act notices should any of the programs be cut due to sequestration. Follow the OMB memo and you are covered. The employees...not so much.
 
2012-10-03 03:51:11 PM

Sm3agol85: Warning, long post coming in.
I've been reading about this for a couple days, and heard a bit about it way back when. I'm not going to lie....it is issues like this that have started to turn me off from the GOP narrative. Looking stuff up shouldn't be something you do only when you don't agree with something. There are actual, logical reasons for what happened, not that Rush would want you to know that. Step by step, here we go. 30 minutes and Google.

1. What is the WARN act? "The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) is a United States labor law which protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide sixty- (60) calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs of employees." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notifica tion_Act Basically, if you have a large number of employees, you can't just lay a significant number of them off suddenly, you have to give advance notice.

2. "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." http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/oct/1/lockhee d-wont-send-out-layoff-notices/ Why would they do this? Clearly nothing political.........

3. Yeah, right. The 2011 Budget Act which will supposedly cut some defense spending is the ONLY thing Lockheed is basing their decision to potentially lay off their entire work force here. There is literally nothing in the bill suggesting that Lockheed will lose all government contracts, and indeed nothing certain that says the new DoD budget cuts will even affect most contractors, OR EVEN THAT THE CUTS WILL DEFINITELY TAKE PLACE. "DoD officials have repeatedly said they did not anticipate many contract cancellations even if the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration take effect. The sequestration procedure as legislated in the Budget Control Act does not target funds that have already been obligated to contracts, instead requiring a percentage cut that would impact future contract actions and new contracts." Link

4. So what's going on then? What Lockheed is doing here is just playing politics, with the stakes being it's employees jobs. What they're wanting is a government guarantee that the new budget will not affect any of their contracts regardless of who gets in office or what budget cuts get through Congress. They are basically in no danger of losing any important contracts, or having to lay off any employees, but they're threatening this because they want guarantees that nothing this administration does is going to affect them.

5. The White House, understandably imo, is basically face-palms all around. It's just a political game that they lose regardless of what they do. Do nothing? Lockheed lays off thousands of workers.....only to hire them back in a month when nothing happens and they still have contracts to fulfill. They look bad, for zero reason, for a critical month. Or, guarantee nothing is going to happen to the contracts by promising to fulfill the legal requirements should they have to lay off workers(which there is no actual danger of whatsoever) in November. They look bad. Why is this guarantee basically meaningless, aka, why should Lockheed not have to worry about laying people off?

6. The budget bill, even were it worst case scenario for Lockheed, wouldn't even take effect until Jan, and probably even far later, making the Nov timetable for layoffs even MORE indicative of Lockheed's intention of just playing political games with the elections rather than just trying to follow the law like they claim."The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DoD [Department of Defense] actions under sequestration, indicating that DoD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan,". Link

7. This is 100% political posturing by Lockheed, trying to use the elections for their own profit. Rush, predictably enough, jumps in head first without looking a single thing up. If there's a bad guy here, it's Lockheed, playing games with their employees jobs, like any good job creator would. No tax payer money is going to end up backing a thing on this, as nothing will happen to Lockheed in November for sure, and probably never. Silly political games is all this is. Should the White House make an ultimately empty promise to maybe "save votes"? Perhaps not.....but the "promise" is basically meaningless, and just a political response to a company abusing their political connections.

Just typed this up.


That's good work. Thank you and please do more of this.
 
2012-10-03 03:53:51 PM

Three-Headed Dog:

They didn't receive contract extensions. They received relief from the potential cost, employee compensation and litigation, of not issuing WARN Act notices should any of the programs be cut due to sequestration. Follow the OMB memo and you are covered. The employees...not so much.


They received assurances that they are not going to lose contracts (they were never going to, but they wanted paperwork) and even if they did lose contracts they wouldn't suffer as a result. Should have been told to go swing of course, but they got what they wanted.
 
2012-10-03 04:23:43 PM

sprawl15: jigger: taliesinwi: 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..

They're not violating federal law by theoretically paying the workers in lieu of notice. Like if they don't do _either_ they're violating the law, but here they're simply (possibly) taking option #2.

Is it legal for Obama to promise to cover their losses? I don't know. I'm asking.

This is kind of a bad question because taliesinwi is factually wrong. They are violating federal law, but the violation simply opens the company up to litigation. It's not a criminal violation.

Obama isn't promising to cover the losses, but rather stating that they will be allowable expenses. It's a contracting term, but basically you have direct costs (things that go specifically for the contract) and indirect costs (things like overhead). If you pay a mechanic $10 for an hour of labor on $50 of material, it's $60 direct costs for one Widget. But you're also paying for all kinds of other shiat, from power to toilet paper to your legal department, so when the government asks how much to make one Widget, the cost is $60 + rates (say, a total of 40%), or $84.

Certain things are not allowable. If you pay for a business dinner, for example, you can be reimbursed for that...but alcohol purchases are not allowable, and you wouldn't be paid back for that portion. Obama is basically saying that the legal costs can be rolled into their forward pricing indirect rates (likely G&A) and their price on contracts will go up until the legal costs of the suits are covered.


Apologies, it was explained to me wrong, but I'm curious how you know _that_ fact and _not_ the exemption requirement for sequestration.
 
2012-10-03 04:27:05 PM

gaspode: Three-Headed Dog:

They didn't receive contract extensions. They received relief from the potential cost, employee compensation and litigation, of not issuing WARN Act notices should any of the programs be cut due to sequestration. Follow the OMB memo and you are covered. The employees...not so much.

They received assurances that they are not going to lose contracts (they were never going to, but they wanted paperwork) and even if they did lose contracts they wouldn't suffer as a result. Should have been told to go swing of course, but they got what they wanted.


No, they did not. Read the memo. Here is the applicable portion "...provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation notices associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirement, and (2) that the contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance, then any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attourney's fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable:"

There is no assertion or implication that the cuts will not be made. The purpose of the memo is to provide relief to the contractor should the cuts be made and that those cuts would be significant enough to have warranted WARN Act notice issuance.
 
2012-10-03 04:53:54 PM

ox45tallboy: "Fluorescent Testicle: Has anybody else got the sneaking suspicion that all (or, at least, most) of the posters agreeing with him are his own alts?

maniacbastard: He is wrong because he does not know what he is talking about.

It seemed to me that he presented a coherent and logical argument. However, the other posters have certainly shown that he did not supply all of the relevant facts, i.e., that WARN Act notices are program specific.

I wouldn't fault anyone that found his premise reasonable at the point in the thread at which he made it, since other relevant facts had not been presented at that point. I do fault him for leaving out those relevant points, however."



The "program specific" claim was made by one person, purporting to be an insider, who openly qualifies it with, "I honestly didn't know that until I was in the thick of it". He then goes on to denigrate everything I said on the grounds that anyone who doesn't have his inside perspective on this technicality "does not know what he is talking about", writ large. Classy.

To be clear: the WARN act, as a law, is NOT program-specific. It is location-specific and company-size-specific. It is hardly reasonable to accuse someone of "leaving out" information about a federal law that is (a) not part of the law, (b) unconfirmed, and (c) would only be known by an insider to a specific corporation. Whatever relevant facts I "did not supply", I had no way of knowing; moreover, a Google search fails to turn up any confirmation of any company, Lockheed or otherwise, interpreting or applying the WARN act as a program-specific measure. If anyone flinging feces in my direction has such a citation, I would be curious to see it.

Further: whether Lockheed "interprets" the WARN act as program-specific or not *does not matter*. Since the White House can't be bothered to tell its vendors which programs are subject to be cut, but does confirm that cuts will likely be made, vendors have to assume that it could be anything. On one hand I don't disagree that, as CYA moves go, sending out potential layoff notices to all workers because some may be let go is a bit heavy-handed. On the other hand, employees are not as interchangeable as some would believe; Lockheed has to choose between making a best guess at who they may have to cut -- risking the expense of re-training workers from a totally different department if their crystal ball was wrong -- or cast a broader safety net. It's hard to fault them for favoring the latter.


NobleHam: "P.S. Even if the fiscal cliff comes, we're looking at roughly 7% cuts for defense which isn't that much..."


memedepot.com 


theknuckler_33: "How hilarious is that some people are getting worked up over taxpayer dollars being used to cover Lockheed's expense of paying severance as if Lockheed's expense of paying their employees hasn't come directly from taxpayer dollars since forever."


If our taxes are funding Lockheed either way, don't you think it makes sense to actually get some military supplies in return, rather than paying them to throw money into a black hole that could have been averted by sending a few letters?
 
2012-10-03 05:36:42 PM

spmkk: To be clear: the WARN act, as a law, is NOT program-specific.


I'm pretty sure the person who said that is getting confused in perspective. In terms of establishing scope, it is program specific - if Lockheed cut 1,000 workers by cutting a half dozen/dozen from every program and subsidiary, it wouldn't qualify as WARN-relevant activity. If they shiatcan all 1,000 people who work at a certain operation, though, it triggers WARN.

He was looking at it in the sense that his specific program was issued WARN notices because of layoffs specific to his program and assumed that other programs didn't get the same notices because WARN's general applicability is specific. From that perspective, it very much is a program-specific thing, even if every other perspective views it differently.

taliesinwi: Apologies, it was explained to me wrong, but I'm curious how you know _that_ fact and _not_ the exemption requirement for sequestration.


Could you be more specific?
 
2012-10-03 05:54:31 PM

sprawl15: spmkk: To be clear: the WARN act, as a law, is NOT program-specific.

I'm pretty sure the person who said that is getting confused in perspective. In terms of establishing scope, it is program specific - if Lockheed cut 1,000 workers by cutting a half dozen/dozen from every program and subsidiary, it wouldn't qualify as WARN-relevant activity. If they shiatcan all 1,000 people who work at a certain operation, though, it triggers WARN.

He was looking at it in the sense that his specific program was issued WARN notices because of layoffs specific to his program and assumed that other programs didn't get the same notices because WARN's general applicability is specific. From that perspective, it very much is a program-specific thing, even if every other perspective views it differently.

taliesinwi: Apologies, it was explained to me wrong, but I'm curious how you know _that_ fact and _not_ the exemption requirement for sequestration.

Could you be more specific?


I would have, had the damn link actually posted. Sorry about that.

Key quote: ""[w]hile the limit on spending authority will be imposed at the beginning of the year, the actual reductions in spending will occur over the course of the year and into subsequent fiscal years." Basically since - if the money even _gets_ cut off - it will take months for the decisions to be made about what to actually stop paying and thus months for the money to actually stop flowing, there's no way to know what jobs will be impacted and thus mass layoff notices covered under the WARN Act are not remotely appropriate at this point.
 
2012-10-03 05:56:50 PM

taliesinwi:

I would have, had the damn link actually posted. Sorry about that.

Key quote: ""[w]hile the limit on spending authority will be imposed at the beginning of the year, the actual reductions in spending will occur over the course of the year and into subsequent fiscal years." Basically since - if the money even _gets_ cut off - it will take months for the decisions to be made about what to actually stop paying and thus months for the money to actually stop flowing, there's no way to know what jobs will be impacted and thus mass layoff notices covered under the WARN Act are not remotely appropriate at this point.


ARGH. Repeated link fail. http://tinyurl.com/8bryxj3
 
2012-10-03 06:04:44 PM

taliesinwi: I would have, had the damn link actually posted. Sorry about that.

Key quote:


I've mentioned that several times upthread:

sprawl15: If you look at what the White House actually provided, the main thrust is that the cuts wouldn't happen in 60 days, but closer to 120 days.


sprawl15: Budget bill passing != immediate layoffs.

As I mentioned later, though, the main takeaway from the White House letter was not a change in when the limits were imposed, but a complete absolution of liability. They're categorically saying that sequestration layoffs are not subject to the WARN Act, and even if a judge disagrees the government will consider those costs as allowables and let companies recoup them.

With those two assertions, it really doesn't matter when the layoffs happen, as far as WARN Act compliance is concerned.
 
2012-10-03 08:57:04 PM
The Moonie Times? Um, ok.
 
2012-10-03 09:07:45 PM

sprawl15: spmkk: To be clear: the WARN act, as a law, is NOT program-specific.

I'm pretty sure the person who said that is getting confused in perspective. In terms of establishing scope, it is program specific - if Lockheed cut 1,000 workers by cutting a half dozen/dozen from every program and subsidiary, it wouldn't qualify as WARN-relevant activity. If they shiatcan all 1,000 people who work at a certain operation, though, it triggers WARN."



So...that's precisely the point I was refuting. This is factually incorrect. Think about it - if the WARN act worked that way, every company with more than 100 employees would structure its divisions such that every program within it would be safe from the act's restrictions.

I'm not sure about subsidiaries, but if a company cut 1,000 workers by cutting a half dozen/dozen from every program, it absolutely WOULD trigger the WARN act. Lockheed may not see it that way and I suppose it's possible their legal team has figured out a loophole of some kind, but in general the WARN act's scope is at the company - not program/project - level.
 
2012-10-03 09:35:44 PM
Obama just slammed the F-22 during the debate. Maybe lockheed should send those notices after all.
 
2012-10-03 11:14:09 PM

spmkk: This is factually incorrect.


I know. I'm just explaining the perspective. That it's incorrect is irrelevant.

spmkk: I'm not sure about subsidiaries, but if a company cut 1,000 workers by cutting a half dozen/dozen from every program, it absolutely WOULD trigger the WARN act.


Eh, I was just pulling numbers out my ass. 499 would be a better number to use for that purpose.
 
2012-10-04 09:45:40 AM

spmkk: If our taxes are funding Lockheed either way, don't you think it makes sense to actually get some military supplies in return, rather than paying them to throw money into a black hole that could have been averted by sending a few letters?


Which is why programs would be wound down. They aren't going to be shut down on Jan 2nd . Lockheed would sue for breach of contract if programs were shut down on Jan 2nd without warning, the contracts all require some warning anyways. So even if they did shut down on Jan 2nd the government by contract law would have to pay one way or another. Lockheed could layoff workers and pocket the money I guess if they gave their workers enough notice.
 
Displayed 210 of 210 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report