« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A Dangerous Sport: Obama Offers To Reimburse Companies If They Violate Federal Labor Law

A government of laws or of men?

Trying to ride two horses with one ass is something that is best left to movie stuntmen (or the very stupid) because, in the end, people get trampled.

However, that is precisely what Barack Obama’s administration is trying to do by telling encouraging defense contractors to violate federal law. Then, as if that weren’t enough, Obama’s Office of Management and Budget is offering to use taxpayer money to not only cover the legal costs (including attorney fees), but employee compensation as well, should the would-be labor law violators be sued.

Let’s back up for a moment, shall we?

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (The WARN Act) is a federal law. According to the Department of Labor, said federal labor law is to protect workers, their families, and communities

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) protects workers, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs.

Employee entitled to notice under WARN include managers and supervisors, as well as hourly and salaried workers. WARN requires that notice also be given to employees’ representatives, the local chief elected official, and the state dislocated worker unit.

Advance notice gives workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain other jobs, and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to compete successfully in the job market. [Emphasis added.]

Now, with the presidential election only a few weeks away, the Obama campaign has a potential political disaster on its hands.

On January 2nd, under the Budget Control Act of 2011, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will be made–half coming from the defense budget. One analysis estimates that over two million jobs are at risk in 2013 due to the sequestration rules under the Budget Control Act–not all of them defense related.

However, in the defense industry, as Investor’s Business Daily aptly points out:

The law requires $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, half coming from defense on top of a half-trillion in cuts already made by the Obama administration. That means layoff warning notices will be required by law to go out to hundreds of thousands of workers employed by defense contractors on Friday, Nov. 2, just days before the presidential election, a prospect President Obama and his campaign staff do not relish.

In July, one of those defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, stated that it might have to issue layoff warnings to a “substantial number of our employees, starting late in the third quarter.”

This, in turn, has set off alarm bells in the Obama White House campaign headquarters, which, in turn, caused Obama’s Office of Management and Budget to send out a memo on Friday offering to cover companies’ costs (legal and employee compensation costs) if the companies follow the administration’s “guidance” and violate ignore the law:

…any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable.

The Obama administration’s offer to raid the public treasury to reimburse labor law violators if they’re sued apparently worked for Lockheed Martin:

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House today — one with political overtones — and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.

[snip]

Such massive layoffs could have threatened Obama’s standing in the state [Virginia] he won in 2008 and is hoping to carry again this November.

On its website, Lockheed Martin stated:

The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.

Translation? Obama’s offer to reimburse contractors for breaking the law worked (at least in one case…so far).

With Sen. Lindsey Graham calling the scheme “patently illegal,” Republicans, of course, are not happy with Obama’s putting his own re-election above the law:

In a statement Friday, GOP Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte accused Obama of putting “his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. … Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs.”

So, there you have it: The President of the United States putting his re-election above of the law–something that America’s Founding Fathers sought to avoid.

When America becomes ruled by men in all their capriciousness and not by laws, tyranny is sure to shortly follow.
_________________

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

Get LUR updates on Twitter.

COMMENTS

  • streiff

    why wouldn’t they not do what they are asked. It doesn’t require any work and the government will pay any bills associated. You’d have to be pretty… dumb?… to fight this.

  • OhioHistorian

    If you looked at history, you would see that it was not a blue dress, it was perjury. When you guys on this site can’t even get the true story said, we ARE doomed. But by you also, not just the “system”, the Democrats, or whatever you happen to think dooms us. Next you will sign up to the media definition of “swiftboating”.

    The real problem was that Trent Lott, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and the rest of the clay-footed bunch in the Senate would not fight. Yet the people of AZ and SC re-elect these fools.

  • streiff

    not correct. The government isn’t saying it will defend the companies. To the contrary it is saying that they will be in violation of WARN if layoffs happen but the fines and penalties they incur under WARN will be reimbursable expenses on the affected contracts. The government can’t legally defend contractors anyway.

  • Gardenstateed

    Who said this administration isn’t trying to buy votes? This is the 47% Romney was referring to (it really isn’t, but it could be).

  • http://www.lafango.com/brightfame_63 patriot63

    I served in the U.S. Air Force as a Nuclear Weapons Security Specialist. I had to get a secret clearance which required an extensive background check before I could serve in that postion and now there are those on Captial Hill that says a background check isn’t necessary for a person to serve in the highest position in U.S. Government, the “commander in chief”, who has virtual control of the use of these “priority” resources? Not so, I don’t think so! And the media seems to convey that personal integrity and values are not a requirement to be president? Not so, I don’t think so. Next to the Pope, Himself, the integrity and morals of a person is absolutely to be questioned and are essential job requirements to be president. Now, we have a president who ursurps authority where ever he chooses regardless the consequences, regardless of his scope of authority and regardless if it embridges and infringes on the rights of the people to self govern and the media conveys the preception that at least 47% of America is out of touch with this understanding or simply too busy with everyday life to care. If Barack Obama is re-elected, this country’s dire welfare may reach the place where people accross the country will be glad that there are people who stick to their “guns and religon” and Pres. Obama has said, because these people will literally be the last line of this nation’s defense. Let’s not let it come to this. Let’s elect Mitt Romney, because i am convinced that not only is he skillfully competent and on this alone is extremely eligible to be president, more importantly he has the intrepid integrity that is the the very foundation and is essential in successfully doing the job.

  • neverred

    If you don’t like Obama that is your choice. However, I am always amused at how different persepctives appear to color view on these matters. I take exception to this whole line of arguing for two reasons, one based on long standing contract laws as codified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation(FAR) and second on the practical nature of this argument.
    First – Part 49 of the FAR was written long before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama. Part 49 of the FAR covers Termination of Contracts. This regulation spells out what would be paid for in the event that a contract is terminated for the convenience of the government. This would be the only mechanism available to the government should sequestration stand and the cuts begin on Jan 2. FAR requires the government to pay for lots of things including legal and employee costs such as those mentioned in the OPM guidance. This is nothing new or nothing created by the Obama administration.
    So if a company ordinarily pays severance, the government by operation of law implemented by the FAR is required to pay that severance, regardless of who the President is. This money will be owed, even if Romney wins the election. The amount that would be owed is covered by FAR Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures which provides guidance on the types of contract costs that are allowable. (This part of the FAR was also written long before Obama ever came on the scene) Whether the OPM had ruled or not, whether notices are sent out or not, creative, bright lawyers are going to drive a truck through Part 31 and get all costs associated with the WARN Act covered because many labor relation costs are allowable costs under FAR AND these costs would be a direct result of the termination for the convenience of the government, not Obama alone, but Congress and the Administration who created this whole scenario.
    The second and final reason this argument irks the bejees out of me is that anyone who really thinks employees will be laid off Jan. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 31 must not understand how slow the wheels of government turn. If sequestration takes effect, budget priorities will be adjusted (several weeks), contracts to be terminated for convenience must be identifies (several weeks), termination notices must be prepared and sent through numerous legal reviews (several more weeks) and only then would these WARN notices be required to be sent. That will be LONG after election day.
    I know it serves the good of conservatives and this site to believe that something out of the ordinary or wrong is being done, but sorry, the inconvenient truth is that the administration and Lockheed have done nothing wrong. They have just looked at facts and applied logic – not campaign spin talk – despite what they are being accused of. Do you really think Lockheed is dumb enough to put themselves in jeopardy without a legal leg to stand on? They didn’t get to be a giant by not looking at ALL the facts, not just the ones that make their case.
    I will be surprised if anyone allows this to post. But I had to get that off my chest because I don’t ride 2 horses with my one ass. I look at facts and that’s why I doubt I’ll ever be red again.

  • streiff

    sure he does. He controls the audit agencies. All they have to do is say it is an allowable expense.

  • MoeLane

    ” I look at facts and that’s why I doubt I’ll ever be red again.”

    Aww, shucks. Couldn’t quite manage to hold it together there, Sparky.

  • MoeLane

    Also… tl:dr

  • westcoastpatriette

    Don’t you understand? Kings don’t have to abide by the law.

  • streiff

    nice try but that is a gross misrepresentation of the FAR. Though you did a great job of cut and paste. It is illegal under the FAR to claim compensation for violating the law. Just like a delivery contractor can’t claim parking/speeding tickets by black letter law a company that violates WARN can’t legally be reimbursed. What the regime can do is say they will allow it because they will not prosecute.

    Just because you guys at dKos are idiots doesn’t mean we are.

  • TexanPatriot2

    I thought Lockheed Martin actually had INTEGRITY. When I interviewed with them and was offered a job, I thought they stood for something.

    Well, it was very clear…they’re simply kowtowing to the Obama Regime Agenda. I will NEVER work for them. Ever.

  • TexanPatriot2

    Someone needs to go to PRISON here.

  • TexanPatriot2

    Well, considering NASA’s mission is now over?

  • TexanPatriot2

    I will have a burning hatred for Lockheed Martin — they have proven to be a WORTHLESS COMPANY, despite their “ethics” programs.