🚀 go-pugleaf

Congressional Republicans Thursday stepped up their criticism of 
the Obama administration over what they say is a free pass being 
given to defense companies facing major layoffs from looming 
federal spending cuts.

Republicans charged that the Obama administration is advising 
government contractors to �break the law� by telling them they 
do not need to follow mandates of the �WARN Act,� which requires 
employers to give prior notice to workers when they know that 
layoffs are in the offing. The issue first emerged during last 
year�s presidential race, when Republicans maintained the waiver 
was given to avoid headlines about big job cuts in the weeks 
before the election.

The issue has come to the forefront again as the Pentagon faces 
major budget reductions in the �sequester� spending cuts that 
have come back around and go into effect March 1, which would 
like produce more layoffs for contractors, military suppliers 
and others who do business with the Defense Department. The 
prospect of such cuts would ordinarily trigger the two-month 
layoff notification requirements of the Worker Adjustment and 
Retraining Notification Act.

But the Labor Department continues to advise defense contractors 
that they do not need to observe the law, and the White House 
Office of Management and Budget has said it would reimburse 
companies that are sued by employees for breaking the law.

�That�s right: the Obama administration is telling employers to 
ignore the law and forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab,� Rep. 
Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House 
Education and the Workforce subcommittee on workforce 
protections, said Thursday during a hearing to examine the issue.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow and the Manhattan 
Institute and a former chief economist at the Labor Department 
under the Bush administration, told the committee it appeared 
the Obama administration eased the WARN Act requirements for 
political considerations.

�I am not privy to internal White House discussions, but it is 
likely that the White House asked contractors to break the law 
in the interests of the re-election of President Obama,� she 
said. �The White House has told some of the largest corporations 
in America to break the law in order to help re-elect a sitting 
president, and offered to pick up the penalties and court costs.�

The Labor Department responded to Republican complaints for the 
first time Thursday.

Jane Oates, assistant secretary for employment and training at 
the Labor Department, said that rather than sending out a 
generic warning to everyone about potential layoffs, companies 
should wait until they know which specific employees will be 
affected and only give layoff warnings then. This will help 
defense contractors avoid company-wide panics and �unnecessary 
anxiety,� she said.

�A blanket notice is neither appropriate nor legally sufficient 
under the WARN Act,� she said.

But she said that doesn�t mean the Labor Department is advising 
defense contractors to break the law. Instead, companies are 
being advised to wait until they know more about the specifics 
of how sequestration will affect them to make an informed 
announcement.

The specific information should include the name and address of 
each employment site where the plant will be closing or layoff 
will occur, the expected date of the layoffs, the job titles of 
the positions affected, and the number of affected employees, 
Ms. Oates suggested.

The sequester cuts could have major impacts on the payrolls of 
some of the country�s best-known defense firms, according to Ms. 
Furchtgott-Roth�s estimates.
Lockheed Martin, one of the largest defense contractors, could 
layoff as many as 10,000 employees in the event of a 
sequestration. That would cost Lockheed Martin $76 million in 
back pay under WARN Act provisions, based on the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics average earnings of $951 per week for the industry, 
she said.

Boeing would lose 17,000 employees, which would lead to $129 
million in penalties from two months� back pay.

General Dynamics would have to cut 9,500 employees, which would 
cost the company $72 million.

The White House has said each government agency will pay the 
penalties and legal fees for any contractor who are sued.

That means the Defense Department could be looking at a $412 
million bill for back pay, according to Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, 
plus more than $100 million in benefits � and that�s using a 
conservative estimate. A higher estimate has the federal 
government�s tab up closer to $1 billion.

This leaves defense contractors with a tough decision: �They can 
break the law and keep the White House happy, or follow the law 
and annoy their major customer,� Ms. Furchtgott-Roth said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/14/republicans-slam-
administration-warn-act-waivers/

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed 
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the 
outlaw Obama administration?

No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in 
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a 
controlled rate of aimed fire.  ��

��