seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> res Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BTW, here's a link to an artickle detailing the
> > Lockhead threat. Oddly enough, they would send
> > notices just 2 days before the November
> election.
> > Sounds like a stunt.
> >
> >
>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/27/l
>
> >
> ockheed-martin-s-layoff-notices-an-empty-threat.ht
>
> > ml
>
> Part of the vast right wing conspiracy?
>
> That's 60 days prior to sequestration. The WARN
> act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
> Act), passed by Democrats in Congress with a
> veto-proof majority under Reagan, requires notice
> of layoff's 60 days prior. Amazing that they
> planned this 'stunt' so far in advance to get the
> law requiring it passed 30 years ago.
Did you read the article? Here's an extract:
"What’s more, say Raisner and other legal experts, the company is improperly using the WARN Act, since the job cuts are still speculative and would not all occur on Jan. 2: “Giving a blanket WARN notice to everybody and anybody: that sounds like spite. It’s not a legitimate business feature...............Even if Congress fails to stop the sequester deal before the end of the year and the defense budget gets cut, “everything doesn’t shut down the first week of January,” says Daniel Gordon, President Obama’s former administrator for federal procurement policy and a 17-year veteran of the Government Accountability Office. “I would not expect the sequestration to lead to a trigger of the WARN Act requirements in early November.” The $55 billion in 2013 military cuts would come with a yearlong whimper, not a bang, he said—less a fiscal “cliff” than a long, slow slide down a fiscal hill.................Compliance experts and contractors say Lockheed Martin is far less tied to the 60-day notification requirement than it suggests. The act itself is riddled with loopholes. It isn’t triggered unless a company lays off at least 500 people in a given facility within 30 days. So, even if Lockheed did have to make early-2013 layoffs, it could fire 499 workers a month without sending notices. "
Also, in terms of the cuts, IIRC, they factor in the ending of Afghanistant, which is a given.