LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Obama Encourages Defense Contractors To Break The Law

I think Vette is displacing Miles in his zeal to post anti-Obama threads.

Someone get the man a sedative.
 
vetteman said:
...for his political gain:

Obama administration tells contractors again: Don’t issue layoff notices
By Jeremy Herb - 09/28/12 07:25 PM ET

The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.

The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.

But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

Senate Republicans, who accused the White House of trying to hide job losses after the first guidance, said Friday that the new OMB statement “puts politics ahead of American workers.”

“The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”

The fight over WARN Act notices began in June when Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said his company might send the notices to all 123,000 of its employees.

Some companies were hesitant to follow Lockheed, but several others told McCain in letters earlier this month they might send the notices, too, despite the Labor Department guidance.

But the new guidance would appear to address one of the chief concerns from the companies — that they could be liable to compensate employees who were laid off if the companies don’t issue the notices.

The GOP senators complained, however, that this tactic would push the cost of the layoffs onto taxpayers.

A Lockheed Martin spokeswoman told The Hill that the company is still reviewing the documents.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously implying that he is the first president to try to influence how defense contractors do their jobs?
Shall we step into the time machine and take a look back???:rose:
ps. How ya been??
 
~hellbaby~ said:
Are you seriously implying that he is the first president to try to influence how defense contractors do their jobs?
Shall we step into the time machine and take a look back???:rose:
??
Click to expand...

show us who else asked ANYONE to defy the law?
 
Apparently there are more than a few here that just don't understand what's going on.

The WARN act is a matter of federal law. It is intended to protect workers at least to the extent of giving them warning of an impending layoff.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) is a United States labor law which protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide sixty- (60) calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs of employees. In 2001, there were about 2,000 mass layoffs and plant closures which were subject to WARN advance notice requirements and which affected about 660,000 employees.

Employees entitled to notice under the WARN Act include managers and supervisors, hourly wage, and salaried workers. The WARN Act requires that notice also be given to employees' representatives (i.e. a labor union), the local chief elected official (i.e. the mayor), and the state dislocated worker unit.

The advance notice gives workers and their families transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain other employment, and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining programs that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market.
Click to expand...

The president has sent out notices telling the companies that are covered by this act that they don't have to comply with federal law, passed by congress and signed into law by the then sitting president. This alone is a blatant violation of his oath of office.

The penalty for violating the act requires that all employers in violation pay the affected employee 60 days wages and benefits subject to modification by the court based on actual days of notice given. ie. if the company gave only 30 days notice then they would only be liable for 30 days wages and benefits subject to the courts decision.

The president then doubled down by sending out notices that the government (the taxpayer) would pick up the tab on all the penalties and legal fees. And THIS is a clear abrogation of congressional prerogatives. The president has NO authority to make any such payments in the first place and in the second place there is NO authorization in the budget to make those monies available to begin with. Further the decision as to who pays the penalties is quite clear and that is the offending company. Which means that the president is, on his own, authorizing wholesale transfer of taxpayer monies to private companies without the consent of congress.

Clearly this is a political move. The president is betting on an "all or nothing" action on the part of congress to avoid sequestration after the election. He has neglected to consider that what congress passes might be something in the middle which would still require layoffs of indeterminant size.

I really don't know what the companies are 'thinking' about, unless it's merely window dressing so that it is thought that they are giving this great consideration. The only prudent action on the part of the companies is to send out the notices. It would be folly to even begin to consider that their ass is going to be covered by an administration that has no legal authorization to do so.

Ishmael
 
vetteman said:
He's the only one I know who's openly calling for them to break the law and suggesting he won't enforce it.

As an aside, Obama voted for the Warn Act, in fact he wanted it to be even stronger with 90 days notice. The man is a blatant hypocrite who will abandon his oath of office for political gain. It's outrageous. Somebody needs to be roughing out impeachment articles.
Click to expand...

We couldnt convict Clinton when we controlled Congress, what makes you think we have the nerve to ruin Obama's day; we're terrified of being called RACISTS.
 
JAMESBJOHNSON said:
We couldnt convict Clinton when we controlled Congress, what makes you think we have the nerve to ruin Obama's day; we're terrified of being called RACISTS.
Click to expand...

Well, there is that.

The difference is that in the case of Clinton it was "all about sex" as far as public perception went. Yes, he did perjure himself, but in the end it was still 'all about sex.'

What I don't understand here is the reaction of the democrat senators. Surely they understand that this is a blatant usurpation of congressional powers. Even if they have a 'gentleman's agreement' regarding the presidents actions, it still establishes a horribly dangerous precedent. This is a case where I'm sorry ole Bobby Byrd still isn't around. As staunch a democrat as he was, he was still fiercely defensive of congressional prerogatives.

If they allow this to stand without opposition they will have ceded to this president, and any subsequent president, virtual imperial powers. There will be a republican in the white house sooner or later and raising their voices in dissent for a similar action will come way too late.

Ishmael
 
We know exactly what's going on. It's simple.

Obama is scum for telling companies to hold back for the election. They should obey the law.

The Companies, are scum for threatening to lay off all their workers right before the election for purely electoral reasons.

One good turn deserves another. I wish Obama was above this kind of behavior and would rather lose and honest campaign than lose a dishonest one but I'm not gonna cry about the fact that he understands "if you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin"
 
Sean Renaud said:
We know exactly what's going on. It's simple.

Obama is scum for telling companies to hold back for the election. They should obey the law.

The Companies, are scum for threatening to lay off all their workers right before the election for purely electoral reasons.

One good turn deserves another. I wish Obama was above this kind of behavior and would rather lose and honest campaign than lose a dishonest one but I'm not gonna cry about the fact that he understands "if you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin"
Click to expand...

So, the companies are scum for following a law that was written for the express purpose of giving the worker some protection? How interesting.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
So, the companies are scum for following a law that was written for the express purpose of giving the worker some protection? How interesting.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

They know they aren't going to fire all their workers. so they aren't following the law. They're manipulating it.
 
if you look into the obama, you will see that America has puchased millions of dollars worth of military hardware from Russia

look it up, its true!

love the obama, obama pissing all over America
 
Sean Renaud said:
They know they aren't going to fire all their workers. so they aren't following the law. They're manipulating it.
Click to expand...

First of all you are talking about ONE company. Further, they haven't a clue as to what programs the government would cut should sequestration come to pass. If the DoD had issued a list that list would be public by now, but no list has been issued as we speak. That being the case they really have no option other than to issue blanket slips. They are not going to retain aeronautical engineers and workers if it is their marine divisions that are on the 'to be retained' list. Conversely they aren't going to retain the marine engineers and workers if the aeronautical division is retained. And even within those divisions they have no idea which program(s) are going to be retained or dumped.

In order to fully comply with the law they are left with very little choice in the matter. On top of that the companies are NOT being political. This situation is wholly the creation of the president and congress. A political situation of their very own making, they own it lock, stock, and barrel.

Ishmael
 
Derp derp derp, another one bites the derp.
derp derp derp, another one bites the derp
and another one derps
and another one derps..
another on bites the derp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eyelevel
New law
Replies
6
Views
531
SadieGirl06
SadieGirl06
bigsexybna
How do you break the ice when meeting a guy for a first time bisexual experience? Watch porn or small talk or something else?
Replies
11
Views
610
Kinkybimale55
K
JDSavanyu
New Virginia porn law
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Hornyhusband2017
Hornyhusband2017
T
To the Charles County (MD) EMS worker I saw today in Starbucks….
Replies
0
Views
114
Terrylipstick
T
Rachel7788
Have you ever gone to work with an anal plug in the ass? How was the experience?
Replies
15
Views
851
Japansurfer
Japansurfer
Back
Top