Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, Lockheed Martin, President Obama, White House, South Carolina Republican, layoffs  
•       •       •

3416 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2012 at 3:10 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report