It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama urges Companies to break Federal Law for his re-election

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
For Obama and the left, the law is merely a suggestion for what they can do. Can't get something through Congress? Simply issue an executive order. Can't get an appointment through the Senate? Simply "declare" the Senate in recess and appoint away. Act now and let the judges sort it out later.



For the past few weeks, several defense contractors made it clear they would have to send out layoff notices to thousands of workers due to automatic budget cuts set to take effect in January. The cuts are triggered by the debt ceiling "deal" hatched last year. The layoff notices are required under federal law.

Understandably, the Obama Administration was panicked by this. The notices would hit in the last month of his reelection campaign and have a huge impact in the critical swing state of Virginia, home to hoards of defense contractors. What to do? Simple. Ignore the law.

Yesterday, Lockheed Martin, a massive contractor, announced it had reached a "deal" with the White House and would not send out the legally required layoff notices.

The Obama Administration had "interpreted" the law and found it would be "inappropriate" to send out the layoff notices. More amazingly, the White House promised to pay any fines or penalties that might be leveled against the company for violating federal law. Read that again.

Yes, the White House just told companies to violate federal law and that, if they get in trouble for it, the government, i.e. taxpayers, will cover their fines.


www.breitbart.com...

For companies who violate these provisions:


Penalties
An employer who violates the WARN provisions by ordering a plant closing or mass layoff without providing appropriate notice is liable to each aggrieved employee for an amount including back pay and benefits for the period of violation, up to 60 days. The employer's liability may be reduced by such items as wages paid by the employer to the employee during the period of the violation and voluntary and unconditional payments made by the employer to the employee.
An employer who fails to provide notice as required to a unit of local government is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for each day of violation.
This penalty maybe avoided if the employer satisfies the liability to each aggrieved employee within 3 weeks after the closing or layoff is ordered by the employer.


www.doleta.gov...


Maybe some one can explain to me why Obama saw fit to ignore the law and deem it "unfit"?

And who is gonna pay for any fines imposed that the White House claims that they will cover??

Some say he's not for big corps. Yeah right. He's only for those who will help him.

Let's give GE a pass on taxes.....
Lets appoint people to positions that have ties with Monsanto....
Let's cover up the Libyan mess...
Let's pass the NDAA....


Just playing Devils Advocate for those that bash Romney....




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


Just reaffirms what I've been thinking for the last 10 years. laws are for cattle...

"Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi"



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


The OPs link is not working for me. Care to share the link you used to confirm? I wanted to see what executive order the op is referring to. President Obama is averaging below the norm in that area so it is interesting to see what he does manage to do despite a lousy, lousy congress. Thanks in advance!



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I think this may be the link your after:

www.breitbart.com...

Whats left to say??
Do as i say, not as i do.

Seig Heil Obama!
Bow to your Emperor!!

Amerika you had chance (RP) and blew it, your bed is made......



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
The law would only apply if the company were to lay people off. The automatic cuts in the Federal budget would not necessarily force Lockheed to close; they have civilian contracts as well. The Administration simply persuaded the company to post-pone a final decision until after the election. Perfectly legal, and very smooth.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


WOW. Did you actually think your excuse out, before typing it?
A layoff is just that. Typically due to lack of funds for the company. SO.........With the knowledge of budget cuts coming, the company has planned to conduct LAYOFFS at a certain time, all documented in their board meetings. Now, since 0abam and ilk have found this out, they, just like Libya and Fast and Furious, want to postpone it until after the election.

NICE!! Just another law 0bama thinks he is above.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



WOW. Did you actually think your excuse out, before typing it?


Did you think through your response before typing it?


A layoff is just that. Typically due to lack of funds for the company. SO.........With the knowledge of budget cuts coming, the company has planned to conduct LAYOFFS at a certain time, all documented in their board meetings. Now, since 0abam and ilk have found this out, they, just like Libya and Fast and Furious, want to postpone it until after the election.


Why not? The company does not have to notify its employees of layoffs until the decision is finalized.


NICE!! Just another law 0bama thinks he is above.


No law has been broken. You can object to the administration pressuring a corporation on principle, but it is perfectly legal. It's just politics.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The decision was discussed and more then likely finalized during the Board meeting to discuss the up coming Quarters and Budgets. Why else would the 0bama admin push to have them delay?
Why has it been brought up that is is more than likely a violation of the WARN act?

Couldn't be that 0bama does not want this on his hands, could it?

It is the current Admin trying to pressure Companies to do something, so that the admin is seen in a favorable light.
Gotta love intrusive Govt.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Good Lord.

These automatic cuts can be avoided, and they most likely will be avoided, by Congress prior to going into effect. That is what they were working on before they recessed, and it's what they will complete upon return. Now, knowing that this can be averted, would you want layoff notices going out?

Trust me, feds and contractors are all aware of the potential impacts of the automatic cuts.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The law would only apply if the company were to lay people off. The automatic cuts in the Federal budget would not necessarily force Lockheed to close; they have civilian contracts as well. The Administration simply persuaded the company to post-pone a final decision until after the election. Perfectly legal, and very smooth.


"29 USC § 2102
(2)
(A)An employer may order a plant closing or mass layoff before the conclusion of the 60-day period if the closing or mass layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required. "

Sequestration kicks in before the election. That is foreseeable.
If it is reasonably foreseeable that the layoffs will occur, notice is required by law.

Obama bashes the law again...nothing unusual here.



edit on 3-10-2012 by Nite_wing because: Busy eating a popsicle.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The law would only apply if the company were to lay people off. The automatic cuts in the Federal budget would not necessarily force Lockheed to close; they have civilian contracts as well. The Administration simply persuaded the company to post-pone a final decision until after the election. Perfectly legal, and very smooth.


What Barack Obama is doing is practicing a sneaky way of firing people from their jobs without them knowing until AFTER he’s reelected.
His labor department is, in effect, bribing defense contractors to wait until after the November election to announce the certain layoffs that will occur as a result of Obama’s sequestration.

And any expenses incurred due to fines levied against the contractors will be compensated by the White House..... er, well, us taxpayers.

Like you said, very smooth....
And sneaky...





edit on 3-10-2012 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I have to wonder why this came up again if the DOL said back in July that federal contractors didn't have to do the layoff notices.


In July the Labor Department issued legal guidance making clear that federal contractors are not required to provide layoff notices 60 days in advance of the potential Jan. 2 sequestration order, and that doing so would be inconsistent with the purpose of the WARN Act.


It seems to me that Lockheed are the ones being sneaky here by using pre-election timing to cover their asses just in case things don't go as planned. With their poker hand, they were able to get additional assurances to protect their employees and potential costs.


After “careful review” Lockheed announced today that it will abide by the administration’s guidance.

The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.


Source

So, this wouldn't have happened at all if it weren't for Lockheed pushing the issue.

Don't give Obama any credit for being sneaky. He got blackmailed.


edit on 3-10-2012 by Zarniwoop because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



The decision was discussed and more then likely finalized during the Board meeting to discuss the up coming Quarters and Budgets.


Were you present at these board meetings? I'd love to see your transcript.


Why else would the 0bama admin push to have them delay?


Technically, this is a non-sequiter. It is perfectly obvious that the Democrats do not want massive layoffs during the election season, and Republicans do not want massive layoffs in January, should their presidential candidate win. Government contractors have been using this self evident fact to pressure both parties. Executives like to be able to plan for the next quarter; they want the sequestration resolved, one way or the other, as soon as possible. The fact that they are deferring to the current administration suggests that they have resigned themselves to an Obama victory. The President will "owe them one."


Why has it been brought up that is is more than likely a violation of the WARN act?


Because some people want to believe that the President is a criminal, even if the law does not apply to the situation.


Couldn't be that 0bama does not want this on his hands, could it?


Just as Romney doesn't want it on his hands if it comes down in January, should he win.


It is the current Admin trying to pressure Companies to do something, so that the admin is seen in a favorable light.


Duh.


Gotta love intrusive Govt.


Actually, the government is LockMart's biggest customer. The customer is always right.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Were you present at these board meetings? I'd love to see your transcript.

They are publicly traded and a Govt contractor. The info is made public.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



They are publicly traded and a Govt contractor. The info is made public.


Then you should have no trouble providing a link to LockMart announcing that they are going to lay people off. No, wait! That would mean they are in compliance with the law, wouldn't it? Which is it?



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join