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  
•       •       •

3399 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2012 at 3:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 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.
 
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 »






Report