• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Nothing like encouraging others to break the law so you can get re-elected...

Surprising that this has not gotten more play as it is a purely political ploy. Also, considering that in 2007, he wanted it extended to 90 days so as to hurt Bush in the 2008 election.

Using government funds to cover his political ass is BS.
 
Not good that Obama is tying money to a contractor's decision to abide by the request that they not provide notice -- but you should read the advice memo. I deal with the WARN Act on a regular basis as part of my job. We wouldn't send the notice unless we knew exactly who and how many people we were terminating (the when part can change). You don't want to, don't have to, and shouldn't send it to someone who is not being terminated. Here, it sounds like they don't know if sequestration will occur at all, or which and how many employees will be terminated as a result, and it looks like Obama is trying to avoid sequestration altogether.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Here, it sounds like they don't know if sequestration will occur at all, or which and how many employees will be terminated as a result, and it looks like Obama is trying to avoid sequestration altogether.
Click to expand...

This. The usual right-wing suspects are talking out of their asses. No one in any agency or on any side of the aisle has the first clue who will be specifically affected by sequestration. Yet. If Congress and the White House don't cooperate, the deadline is coming.
 
As usual the usual suspects taking their marching orders from loony RW talking heads and emails. You can't send out those notices unless you know who specifically is being fired. Given those decisions haven't been, the point of this thread is moot.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Not good that Obama is tying money to a contractor's decision to abide by the request that they not provide notice -- but you should read the advice memo. I deal with the WARN Act on a regular basis as part of my job. We wouldn't send the notice unless we knew exactly who and how many people we were terminating (the when part can change). You don't want to, don't have to, and shouldn't send it to someone who is not being terminated. Here, it sounds like they don't know if sequestration will occur at all, or which and how many employees will be terminated as a result, and it looks like Obama is trying to avoid sequestration altogether.
Click to expand...

Don't try to detract from the misdirection with your facts.
 
If this is all Standard, I have 2 questions...

1) Why were the letters going to go out in the first place?

2) Why did the Admin feel the need to offer tax payer money to the companies if they got sued?

If it is as Shoo says, then the letters should not go out (but they were w/out white house interference) and if they were to go out mistakenly, then the companies would be liable, not the taxpayers.
 
If this is all Standard, I have 2 questions...

1) Why were the letters going to go out in the first place? They shouldn't have been, but it's up to the Company if it wants to send them out erroneusly -- there wouldn't be a penalty for doing so, I don't think. A company could send letters out to all of its employees giving them notice they'll be terminated, knowing full well that not all of them (or perhaps none of them) would be, and then would not be able to be sued for lack of WARN notice by any of them. Say they have 10,000 employees, and think they're going to have to lay off 1,000 -- but not sure whom or if any at all. They can send the WARN notice to all of them to cover themselves. It's bad business and not required by WARN for good reason

2) Why did the Admin feel the need to offer tax payer money to the companies if they got sued? Admin shouldn't have done it, but anyone can sue alleging lack of WARN notice. That doesn't mean they win, and it doesn't look like they should win here, but there are massive legal costs even for frivolous claims, and always corresponding incentives to settle.

If it is as Shoo says, then the letters should not go out (but they were w/out white house interference) and if they were to go out mistakenly, then the companies would be liable, not the taxpayers.
 
Probably because, as usual, Shoo is wrong. The sequestration is scheduled to occur on Jan 2 if Congress fails to Act. So, if Congress has not acted by the notice date, then the contrators need to figure out who is getting cut and send out the notices. If Congress ends up taking action and they don't get cut then great, but if Congress has not acted by the notice date then the decisions must be made and the notices must go out. Otherwise, if no action is taken and the sequestration goes through, then the contractors have violated the Act.

If Obama thinks the sequestration should not occur and is worried about the ramifications of sending the required notices, then it is his job to make sure that action is taken by the notice date. Just one more instance of a pussy being a pussy.
 
While the administration appears to be utilizing some legal gymnastics here to their benefit (yet again), in fairness, I'm pretty sure that the affected employees know that their jobs are hanging by a thread.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Probably because, as usual, Shoo is wrong. The sequestration is scheduled to occur on Jan 2 if Congress fails to Act. So, if Congress has not acted by the notice date, then the contrators need to figure out who is getting cut and send out the notices. If Congress ends up taking action and they don't get cut then great, but if Congress has not acted by the notice date then the decisions must be made and the notices must go out. Otherwise, if no action is taken and the sequestration goes through, then the contractors have violated the Act.

If Obama thinks the sequestration should not occur and is worried about the ramifications of sending the required notices, then it is his job to make sure that action is taken by the notice date. Just one more instance of a pussy being a pussy.
Click to expand...

you should just stop trying to be a lawyer.
 
RJKarl said:
As usual the usual suspects taking their marching orders from loony RW talking heads and emails. You can't send out those notices unless you know who specifically is being fired. Given those decisions haven't been, the point of this thread is moot.
Click to expand...

LOLZ
 
Shooshmoo said:
There is no way in hell this is true.
Click to expand...

Most definitely. Clients, other lawyers, judges, the IRS. Just this week I got an opposing party to fire his lawyer and hire me for non-conflict matters moving forward. I'm like Atticus Fucking Finch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top