The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Sequestration and the WARN act
Daedalus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Background info: as you probably already know, during the debt ceiling Congressional clusterfuck last year, a provision was made that if Congress couldn't figure out what the hell they're doing with the budget, automatic cuts of about $1.2e12 would kick in on January 2nd, 2013, cutting spending on things that both parties ostensibly like to fund. Of course, Congress has thus far failed to get its shit together, and has been making a serious run at the historic 10% approval rating barrier.
The WARN act, passed in 1988, requires large employers to give their employees 60 days notice before a mass layoff. There are exceptions for layoffs that happen because of natural disasters or "unforeseeable business circumstances".
Take 2013-01-02 and subtract sixty days and you get 2012-11-03, three days before Election Day. (Which, of course, was the whole point of setting the sequestration date there in the first place.)
The sequestration cuts, if they actually end up happening, will certainly result in layoffs at any number of federal contractors, and it would be politically inexpedient to have big layoffs announced the Saturday before election day. The U. S. Department of Labor released a guidance memo, which you can find here, stating that in their legal opinion, sequestration would qualify as an "unforeseeable event", despite being law for the past year and a half, because (a) there are efforts underway in Congress to stop this from happening, and (b), it doesn't specify what contracts specifically will get cancelled so an employer doesn't know which employees are getting canned.
A number of contractors, (including specifically Lockheed Martin who went public with this), are concerned about getting sued by former employees if they do a layoff without sufficient WARN Act notice, despite what the DoL currently thinks. (After all, it isn't the Assistant Secretary of Labor who decides if the law was violated, it's a federal judge and jury). The White House Office of Management and Budget then released a memo, which you can find here, stating that if sequestration occurs, and if a federal contractor is required to pay laid off employees under the WARN act, the "contracting agency" would consider the costs "allowable", meaning that the federal government would pay for the WARN act fines.
This, to me, seems reasonable, since the uncertainty of the impending layoffs is the federal government's fault anyway. I'm in this business myself, and everyone knows that shit is going to hit the fan when/if the sequestration cuts happen. (Personally, I'm betting that they'll get pushed back at the last minute anyway). If you look at it a certain way, though, this sort of looks like OMB is buying off bad publicity that would otherwise be a November Surprise right before the election. What do you people think?
The WARN act, passed in 1988, requires large employers to give their employees 60 days notice before a mass layoff. There are exceptions for layoffs that happen because of natural disasters or "unforeseeable business circumstances".
Take 2013-01-02 and subtract sixty days and you get 2012-11-03, three days before Election Day. (Which, of course, was the whole point of setting the sequestration date there in the first place.)
The sequestration cuts, if they actually end up happening, will certainly result in layoffs at any number of federal contractors, and it would be politically inexpedient to have big layoffs announced the Saturday before election day. The U. S. Department of Labor released a guidance memo, which you can find here, stating that in their legal opinion, sequestration would qualify as an "unforeseeable event", despite being law for the past year and a half, because (a) there are efforts underway in Congress to stop this from happening, and (b), it doesn't specify what contracts specifically will get cancelled so an employer doesn't know which employees are getting canned.
A number of contractors, (including specifically Lockheed Martin who went public with this), are concerned about getting sued by former employees if they do a layoff without sufficient WARN Act notice, despite what the DoL currently thinks. (After all, it isn't the Assistant Secretary of Labor who decides if the law was violated, it's a federal judge and jury). The White House Office of Management and Budget then released a memo, which you can find here, stating that if sequestration occurs, and if a federal contractor is required to pay laid off employees under the WARN act, the "contracting agency" would consider the costs "allowable", meaning that the federal government would pay for the WARN act fines.
This, to me, seems reasonable, since the uncertainty of the impending layoffs is the federal government's fault anyway. I'm in this business myself, and everyone knows that shit is going to hit the fan when/if the sequestration cuts happen. (Personally, I'm betting that they'll get pushed back at the last minute anyway). If you look at it a certain way, though, this sort of looks like OMB is buying off bad publicity that would otherwise be a November Surprise right before the election. What do you people think?
Daedalus on
0
Posts
Our CEO has stated more or less that they will comply fully with the DoL standards, and that unless we get something definitive stating otherwise, being laid off is a sudden and real possibility. On one hand, I agree with defense spending. Since 9-11, it's been expensive and bloated. On the other hand, working in the defense industry is my career, my livelihood.
There is already talk for Congress to push back on the sequestration date. Nothing like kicking the can down the road.
They can't cut 3b, for a project the Army doesn't even want, and you expect $500b in cuts to go through.