Value of Membership Find a Chapter Join Renew Search

Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / President Tells Defence Contractors To Break Fed. Law

President Tells Defence Contractors To Break Fed. Law

13 posts
  1. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/3/2012 4:10 PM
    Our president is now telling defence contractors to break the law and not notify employees 60 days prior to lay-offs (required by WARN ACT) and the tax payers will pick up the tab for any fines and legal expenses incurred. It just so happens that the notices of lay-off would arrive at the employees door on Nov 1st, election is Nov 6th, nothing immoral or illegal going on with this president. We will be paying the bill for all of his trial lawyer buddies which will be lining up with lawsuits for billions, and turn around and make a donation to Obama.

    Yea, I want four more years of this kind of stuff. Imagine what he would do if he didn't have to run for another re-election.



  2. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/3/2012 4:10 PM
    Fox has accused the Obama administration of breaking the law for advising federal contractors not to issue warnings of layoffs that may occur in the wake of budget "sequestration." But the administration is in fact correctly following the WARN Act, which explicitly disallows blanket notices to all Department of Defense (DOD) contractors before Congress specifies what contracts are to be cancelled.



  3. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/3/2012 7:10 PM
    Scott,
    I can't find the DOD exclusion in the Warn Act can you give me the reference for it?

    http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm

    Thanks,



  4. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/3/2012 7:10 PM
    Albert Kronwall said: Scott,
    I can't find the DOD exclusion in the Warn Act can you give me the reference for it?


    Thanks,


    I think it is pretty obvious why the DOD would not want to undermine an ongoing formally congressionally authorized project unilaterally. You can do your own research.



  5. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/3/2012 9:10 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:
    Albert Kronwall said: Scott,
    I can't find the DOD exclusion in the Warn Act can you give me the reference for it?


    Thanks,


    I think it is pretty obvious why the DOD would not want to undermine an ongoing formally congressionally authorized project unilaterally. You can do your own research.


    I have read the Warn Act
    http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm

    I just can't seem to find the DOD exclusion that you referenced Scott!

    It seems to me that if a contract holder doesn't do as Obama says, and he were to win the election, the government contract wouldn't be renewed. So if you are a contract holder you are put in quite a predicament. But, then Obama sweetens the pot and offers to pay all fines and legal fees (with taxpayers money) resulting from breaking the federal law. Next he will be offering free boat rides and free cement shoes to those that don't comply. Politics the Chicago way.

    What happened to the promises of a transparent government?



  6. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/4/2012 6:10 AM
    Congress has not defunded the appropriations for these programs yet.



  7. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/4/2012 6:10 AM
    I had read some months ago that they would withhold layoffs since it was falling so close to the election. Not sure if that is indeed true but I did read it somewhere. More concerned with the ethics of it all more so than the law breaking............that is the Washington DC norm.......whichever party you support.



  8. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/4/2012 7:10 AM
    Just saw McCain interviewed 5 minutes ago on TV and said the OMB sent out a memo telling the defense contractors NOT to notify the workers being laid off until after the election. They are indeed breaking federal law and do not want a bump in the unemployment at the last moment. But again this could all be a mistake.



  9. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/4/2012 7:10 AM
    The Republicans agreed to decrease defense spending back when they pulled their stunt regarding financing the national debt. Paul Ryan voted for it! If they can find other ways to either increase revenues and/or decrease spending they can avoid huge cuts to defense. There is no reason to presume that a political party that loves war and wants to dramatically increase defense spending at a time when the rest of us are hoping for a period of peace, would move ahead with what they said they would do.



  10. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/4/2012 8:10 AM
    Regardless of all the finger pointing and playing the blame game the law requires that employees that could face a layoff be notified 60 days prior to getting the pink slip. The president is undermining that law because those notices would be received by the people that could face layoff just days before the election. I don't know how anyone can justify this action just for political gain. Has anyone considered the thousands of employee's that are going to get the pink slip? Don't they deserve the 60 day notice so they can start looking for other jobs so they can support their families? Or does the presidents needs come before the people?



  11. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/4/2012 9:10 AM
    The ball is in the Republicans court. If they plan to pull the trigger they should let the employees and everyone else know. It makes no sense for them to do it and it would be political suicide. Blaming the President for not relenting to their nonsensical threats is not logical, although it is Fox News worthy.



  12. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    10/4/2012 10:10 AM
    Albert Kronwall said: Regardless of all the finger pointing and playing the blame game the law requires that employees that could face a layoff be notified 60 days prior to getting the pink slip. The president is undermining that law because those notices would be received by the people that could face layoff just days before the election. I don't know how anyone can justify this action just for political gain. Has anyone considered the thousands of employee's that are going to get the pink slip? Don't they deserve the 60 day notice so they can start looking for other jobs so they can support their families? Or does the presidents needs come before the people?


    Albert if I just tuned in I would think you were a Democrat by this post. Are you really on the side of employee protection or are you simply holding the President's feet to the fire and this is a conveniently available subject?

    Politics at it's finest.



  13. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/4/2012 12:10 PM
    Ron

    I am in favor of protecting all employees, not just the ones that contribute $ or vote for my party. I want fairness for everyone, not just one party. I think this latest act of lawlessness exposes the true charactor of our president. He has thrown his own supporters under the bus and he is trying to keep them from finding out for his political gain.



View or change your forums profile here.