Administration advises companies to ignore labor law

It would appear that things are getting desperate for the administration.  Earlier this month, the Department of Labor suggested that companies really don’t have to comply with certain, apparently inconvient, labor laws.

This saga begins in 1988 when Congress passed the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.  It requires that federal contractors give workers 60 days notice before the potential of any large scale layoffs.  The saga continues with the looming January 1, 2013 budget cuts, that, among other things, will severely impact military spending, and thus federal contractors.

…Lockheed Martin has said it may have to tell 100,000 of its workers that they could lose their jobs, and EADS, Northrop Grumman and others could do the same.

Given the law, Lockheed Martin and others must notify workers of the expected January 1 layoffs by November 2, days before the upcoming presidential election.  This, of course, will never do.

So, earlier this month, Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis issued what is known as a “guidance” to employers.

…it would be ‘inappropriate’ for contractors to send warnings, citing ‘the lack of certainty about how the budget cuts will be implemented and the possibility that the sequester will be avoided before January’.

A few thoughts on the “guidance”.

The law is the law.  A “guidance” does not overturn the law, or suspend its implementation until the Secretary of Labor deems it convenient for the administration.

And, second Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors understand this principle.  Failure to follow the law will subject them to countless law suits filed by both employees and unions for said failure.

If you were a federal contractor what would you do?  Would you follow the “guidance” which will subject you to expensive litigation, or would you follow the law?


16 replies
  1. ABO (Romney/Ryan 2012)
    ABO (Romney/Ryan 2012) says:

    I’ll bet their legal departments say follow the law or you will get thrown under the bus

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      I’ll bet your right. ?This kind of underhanded tactic doesn’t surprise me a bit, coming from “the most transparent administration” we’ve ever had! ?The Obamas have no moral compass, and that used car salesman who’s running his campaign operates on both sides of the law. ?What a bunch of sleazy losers!

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Bbetween the selective prosecution on one side, and the “guidance” to simply ignore the law on the other by this regime, the Adamsian concept of a “nation of laws not men” is getting shredded as fast as the Constitution and the oath to support same by the “preezy”, not to mention his penchant for circumventing the Congress by passing laws by “presidential” edict.

  3. TexasDB
    TexasDB says:

    This is a no brainer. I’m sure there is some politics in the defense contractors using WARN to their interests – but at the same time the law is the law. I think it’s funny how the very uncertainty the Labor Department and the Administration cite as a reason to ignore the WARN law is the very uncertainty the defense contractors have been asking to eliminate. That is some dumb politics on the part of the dems – had they worked to a solution they wouldn’t be in this mess.

    My favorite quote in the sequestration hearing was Rep. Smith in the HASC: ?We get a little vexed when people like you [CEO?s] come up here and say, you’re going to kill our industry. What do we do to get out of it? You’ve got nothing to say on that.”? That?s why they are there ? because their way out is layoffs and unknown spending cuts across the board.? It?s like turning down the faucet and wondering why it takes…

    • TexasDB
      TexasDB says:

      …longer to fill the bathtub?the rocket scientists have it figured out, maybe Congress should listen.

  4. JBS
    JBS says:

    This regime hasn’t a clue about how businesses are operated. Nor does it respect the law. Knowing that, as a business owner facing a known downturn in business — due to the sequestration — I would follow the law and inform my employees of impending layoffs. That the implementation of the law has political consequences for the regime is immaterial.
    As the defense industries are a large sector of the economy, they will be deemed as “too big to fail.” Obama will simply direct another bailout. The result, he hopes, is to have all of those grateful people vote for him as their savior.?
    Companies must follow the laws and not contort themselves to political whim, no matter how inconvenient for the regime.
    Perhaps someone in the regime should have worked too avoid this problem in the first place, instead of kicking the can down the road. Another Obama failure.

  5. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Thanks SOS. I have not read this anywhere else. i’m shocked that this President would go to such lengths to prolong his administration. (sarc)

  6. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    This is exactly why business in the United States is at a standstill. You cannot plan, expand, hire or innovate when you are held hostage by an imperious, capricious, rapacious (and now obviously desperate) presidency.? When the presidency in question is dialing it in based on ivory tower social and economic tracts that have been PROVEN wrong in Europe and elsewhere, you get epic failure. ?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Yes! Also, let me add that the Democrat controlled Congress is not business friendly. Private enterprise is seen as the fatted calf to be offered up to the gods of government.The concept of government being a burden doesn’t even occur to most CongressCritters.
      The looming tax increases set to take effect in January are keeping many businesses from hiring.?
      The present regime only thinks businesses are run like they run the government. Their ideology is a true failure.?
      Why double down on epic failure?

  7. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    Government imposed “lack of certainty” seems to be bearing its intended fruit.? I would respectfully counter JBS’s assertion that the regime hasn’t a clue about how businesses are operated.? The manner in which it is assaulting business ostensibly in order to perpetuate dependence on government handouts reflects some understanding on the part of those who are driving policy.

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Let me parse for a second. How?
      The relationship is one of parasite and host. The parasite only knows that the host is a source. Government (local, state and Federal), with its hands out, has to figured into any business decision.
      Glad to stimulate dialogue.

      • Lynn
        Lynn says:

        Ok, I’ll jump in, I think that President Obama and his ilk are deliberately stopping private business in their tracks. They know enough about business to,obstruct all and any means of private business to floursh. It is a multi pronged attack so there is no way for there to be any alternative to government controlled jobs.?

  8. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    This shows Obama’s savvy, nuanced approach to government, something that was sorely lacking during the eight years of the Bush Administration.

  9. dairyair
    dairyair says:

    “Just, just imagine if we could be liberals for a day, and use all their slimy, sleazy tricks to bamboozle the sheep into voting for Us!!”

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      A whole day??? That’s the kind of sliminess that you just can’t wash off!
      I wonder if my hair would end up like DWS’s??? 😉

Comments are closed.