Saturday, September 29, 2012

Scofflaw-in-Chief Resorting to Outright Bribery

Nah, not ObozoPhones--that's chickenfeed.

The White House moved to prevent defense and other government contractors from issuing mass layoff notices in anticipation of sequestration, even going so far to say that the contracting agencies would cover any potential litigation costs or employee compensation costs that could follow.

See, the WARN Act (a Federal law) requires employers to send a 60-day notice of impending layoffs.  Since Obozo and his Senate could not come to terms on a budget, there will be a large cut to DoD spending, including cuts in procurement.

So under the WARN Act, many firms MUST give notice.

But, of course, this would interfere with the campaign of B. Hussein Teh Won, His Obozoness, piss be upon him.

So the SCOAMF's Department of Labor issued "guidelines" telling military contractors to IGNORE the law.  Some of them decided that they would ignore the Scofflaw-in-Chief.

So the Office of Management and Budget went a step further in guidance issued late Friday afternoon. If an agency terminates or modifies a contract, and the contractor must close a plant or lay off workers en masse, the company could treat employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs as allowable costs to be covered by the contracting agency—so long as the contractor has followed a course of action consistent with the Labor Department’s guidance. The legal fees would be covered regardless of the outcome of the litigation, according to the OMB guidance issued by Daniel Werfel, controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, and Joseph Jordan, the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy

IOW, the U S military (read:  taxpayers) will pay for all the lawyering (and damages awarded) if the contractor breaks the law for the benefit of the  Scofflaw-in-Chief.

HT:  HotAir, also noticed by Grim


Billiam said...

But Dad, the Law is what Barakhma Ghandi, Dark Jedi says it is! and the band played on...

Jim said...

Your post is inaccurate. It is untrue that the president "and his Senate could not come to terms on a budget". Simply untrue. Some very important legislation has occurred between election days and the next congressional session.

It is much more likely that some agreement will occur than it is that WARN will come into play. Since the chance of litigation under WARN is not very large, it makes sense to cover those expenses should they occur instead of going through the process of sending layoff notices to people who will likely not be laid off.

Dad29 said...

Jim's Alternative Universe prattle.

Which Obozo budget did the Senate agree to, Jimbo? Name one.

The chance of litigation under WARN is ONE HUNDRED PER CENT, Jimbo.

Anonymous said...

Once again, California faggot Jim is mouthing off about things he knows nothing about.

Jim said...

The chance of litigation under WARN is absolutely not 100%. That's delusional. It is much less than 50% that sequestration will happen. Actually very unlikely. And if it did, there is no way to determine anytime between now and election day what projects would certainly be cut. And then there is no way to determine the timing of any possible layoffs due to projects as yet to be determined to be cut due to as yet to happen unlikely occurrence of the sequestration.

And anyway, layoffs would have to start by January 5th to require WARN notices on or before election day.

Dad29 said...

Wrong-o, LeftyBreath.

The chance of WARN litigation--if layoff occurs without proper notice--is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

Maybe you should read the law, not "Think Progress". The law does not allow oddsmaking.