• 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!

White House to contractors: Break the law, we'll pay the costs

wake20

wake20

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
11,411
Reaction score
560
Location
Maryland/DC
The White House has taken the unprecedented step of asking defense contractors to break the law by not sending required layoff notices to their employees just before Election Day. Moreover, if defense contractors follow this illegal advice, the Obama administration is offering to pay the penalties and court costs they will incur -- potentially $500 million or more -- out of the Pentagon budget. This is all being done without congressional approval.

Layoff notices are required by Nov. 1, according to the 1988 Workers Adjustment and Notification Act, or WARN, because deep cuts in military spending, known as sequestration, are currently scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1. If cuts occur, they will lead to mass layoffs.

Read more

Is this normal?
 
wake20 said:
The White House has taken the unprecedented step of asking defense contractors to break the law by not sending required layoff notices to their employees just before Election Day. Moreover, if defense contractors follow this illegal advice, the Obama administration is offering to pay the penalties and court costs they will incur -- potentially $500 million or more -- out of the Pentagon budget. This is all being done without congressional approval.

Layoff notices are required by Nov. 1, according to the 1988 Workers Adjustment and Notification Act, or WARN, because deep cuts in military spending, known as sequestration, are currently scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1. If cuts occur, they will lead to mass layoffs.

Read more

Is this normal?
Click to expand...

I can't believe the White Haas would do something like that!
 
wake20 said:
The White House has taken the unprecedented step of asking defense contractors to break the law by not sending required layoff notices to their employees just before Election Day. Moreover, if defense contractors follow this illegal advice, the Obama administration is offering to pay the penalties and court costs they will incur -- potentially $500 million or more -- out of the Pentagon budget. This is all being done without congressional approval.

Layoff notices are required by Nov. 1, according to the 1988 Workers Adjustment and Notification Act, or WARN, because deep cuts in military spending, known as sequestration, are currently scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1. If cuts occur, they will lead to mass layoffs.

Read more

Is this normal?
Click to expand...

EAGLE on 16?
 
Black helicopters, liberal media, tin foil, apparatchiks.
 
This is literally buying votes with tax money IMO.
 
RacerDeac said:
This is literally buying votes with tax money IMO.
Click to expand...

Jesus, the reason the couldn't do that is the sequester doesn't specify which companies or which contracts are cut. Thus it would be impossible for any company to know if it had to fire people.
 
RJKarl said:
Jesus, the reason the couldn't do that is the sequester doesn't specify which companies or which contracts are cut. Thus it would be impossible for any company to know if it had to fire people.
Click to expand...

It's unknown as to what RIFs will happen in which federal agencies. They don't even know how sequestration will effect agencies- there's absolutely no way to know how it'll effect contractors.
 
Which is exactly why this note went out. It was sent to prevent unnecessary actions from happening and scare tactics from certain companies.
 
ONW said:
Do you see promising tax cuts the same way?
Click to expand...

Nope, not any more than I see promising someone health care the same way. Tax cuts are a proposed law change and are within the legal bounds of what a President can work for once in office. This is paying someone to break the law to prevent "bad news" from hitting just before the election. Did you really try to compare a campaign promise to the government telling people to break the law while offering to cover the fines for doing so? One is a promise to try to do something, the other is an elected official using his power to benefit himself (weren't we just having this discussion about Chavez?). If the government told banks to ignore Dodd-Frank and that they would cover the fines in order to prevent some bad press just before an election, would you feel the same way?
 
Last edited:
God you are dense!

the REASON that letter was sent out was to stop the confusion.
 
RacerDeac said:
Nope, not any more than I see promising someone health care the same way. Tax cuts are a proposed law change and are within the legal bounds of what a President can work for once in office. This is paying someone to break the law to prevent "bad news" from hitting just before the election. Did you really try to compare a campaign promise to the government telling people to break the law while offering to cover the fines for doing so? One is a promise to try to do something, the other is an elected official using his power to benefit himself (weren't we just having this discussion about Chavez?). If the government told banks to ignore Dodd-Frank and that they would cover the fines in order to prevent some bad press just before an election, would you feel the same way?
Click to expand...

All well and good, but they are not breaking the law. But, as always, a terminated employee could file a lawsuit claiming they did, which would bring attendant costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top