« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Law Means Nothing

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  October 1st, 2012 at 11:34 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It is the law that sequestration will happen at the first of the year. It is the law. It is not a hypothetical scenario. As of right now, it is absolutely, positively the law. Defense contractors will be seriously impacted by the sequestration cuts. No one doubts this. It is the law.

It is also actually, absolutely, and positively the law that certain employers, including defense contractors, must warn employees of potential layoffs within sixty days of those layoffs. This is due to the Bill Clinton era WARN Act.

Because it is law that defense cuts will absolutely happen under present law within sixty days of the election, defense contractors must comply with the WARN Act and notify employees of potential layoffs.

But Lockheed Martin will not do this due to pressure from the White House. The White House has pressured a company to violate the law. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Lockheed Martin later gets sued for failing to comply with a law it very clearly must comply with.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • DerKrieger

    Surely WE can notify LM employees and case them to pressure the company for their rightful notices.

  • fromthesidelines

    The proper response, from a small government conservative viewpoint, is to applaud that cuts in government spending are resulting in people losing government-dependent jobs.

    Good. As it should be.

    That’s what smaller government is — fewer people working for the government.

  • http://www.facebook.com/derrick.medlin Derrick Medlin

    Looks like this article could possibly give the LM employees a head’s up in a backhanded sort of way.

  • bige80

    This is how I see it going down. Lockheed will kiss the ring and violate WARN. Layoffs occur in January. Employees sue Lockheed (and win). Administration awards Lockheed with an asinine deal that bundles in some extra cash to cover those lawsuits. Tax payers screwed again.

  • jamesm

    I have done some work for Lockheed. Oh I am sure there are people at Lockheed that know cuts are coming. They just aren’t sure if it is them. Lockheed has certain programs that are in different phases. If an employee is working on a project that is winding down then they will be worried. Employees usually know where the project is in a cycle. Lockheed projects do not generally stop on a dime.

  • audax1

    I already did something about it CW! I cast my absentee ballot last week for RYAN (and that guy running with him) and Ted Cruz!

  • OhioHistorian

    Where are the Republicans telling the defense contractors that they are going to go to prison if they don’t send out letters? There is a lawless Obama and a gutless Boehner. Great combo.

  • BA Cyclone

    True — but the point is, with the leftist, statist regimes — if you do not comply with the ‘wink and nod’ strategy to subvert laws for the greater good of the regime, you are de facto an enemy of the state. Good luck on winning that next bid!

  • duanej

    I don’t understand why Eric failed to mention the real sordid underbelly of this story. The fact that Obama has promised employers to reimburse their legal defense for disregarding the law…WITH OUT MONEY!!!! So they are going to break the law, knowingly, and any money they spend on the defense of that law will be covered. If this isn’t the heighest height of corruption, I doubt there is one.

  • grumpyKoz

    Which effectively implies a Tax Payer ‘Bailout’ of Lockheed Martin. One more company on the blocks to be owned or controlled by The Tyranny Government Of the U.S.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    If these were union workers, Obama wouldn’t have the guts to pull this stunt.

  • sjccoach

    When has the law ever meant anything to our President or the Democrat party? If these two don’t obey the law why should a contractor?

  • disqus_JjnwedKt6L

    This is not government. This is private industry supplying weapons, tanks, etc., to the government. Your response is proper for an anti-military Democrat, who thinks money should be spent on education and other non-constitutionally-mandated areas, rather than on national defense.