White House Moves To Head Off Sequester Layoffs

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Employee Compensation Costs, Attorneys Fees Could be Treated as 'Allowable Costs'


The White House moved to prevent defense and other government contractors from issuing mass layoff notices in anticipation of sequestration, even going so far to say that the contracting agencies would cover any potential litigation costs or employee compensation costs that could follow.

Some defense companies—including Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and EADS North America—have said they expect to send notices to their employees 60 days before sequestration takes effect to comply with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires companies to give advance warning to workers deemed reasonably likely to lose their jobs. Companies appeared undeterred by a July 30 guidance from the Labor Department, which said issuing such notices would be inappropriate, due to the possibility that sequestration may be averted. The Labor Department also said companies do not have enough information about how the cuts might be implemented to determine which workers or specific programs could be affected should Congress fail to reach a compromise to reduce the deficit, triggering $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, half from defense, half non-defense. For 2013, that would amount to $109 billion in spending cuts.


www.nationaljournal.com...


So essentially, at the starting of next year 109 billion will have to be cut (mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act) but instead of giving notice to hundreds of thousands of people that may lose their jobs....the Obama administration is telling contractors not to send any notices and that the government will cover any loses due to any litigation (WARN Act liability) from doing this.

www.whitehouse.gov...


So essentially this is a cover up to prevent a wave of layoffs before election time and the taxpayer has to foot the bill.
edit on Sun Sep 30 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Not saying I am against reducing government spending, it has to be done....but don't lie about it.

edit on 30-9-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
So essentially this is a cover up to prevent a wave of layoffs before election time and the taxpayer has to foot the bill.

EXACTLY. They are playing shuffle the paperwork to make Obama look better before elections.
And it's going to cost us all a pile of money. But no one seems to care ..



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
It sounds like the defense contractors are the ones playing politics.

Why are these companies threatening to send these notices if they don't know who will be effected.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So why is the government telling them not to send anything, and all potential liabilities will be covered?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


The offer is to cover possible litigation cost or emotes compensation that might need to be cover, and most likely because they intend to prevent any such costs.

The defense contractors are the ones playing politics.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


It sounds like the defense contractors are the ones playing politics.

Why are these companies threatening to send these notices if they don't know who will be effected.
Because the WARN Act requires them to. Obama has said, if you fail to send out the notices, thus breaking the law, we will grant you waivers. And if the workers sue you, they'll win, but we'll get the taxpayers to pay your costs and expenses.

All this so that people won't be reminded of Obama's economic failures just before the election.





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join