|
DesideriScuri -> RE: CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins (10/10/2012 7:51:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
At the risk of derailing my own thread, the BOL memo says:
Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff ofa type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resulting employee· compensation costs for WARN Act liability as detennined by a court, as well as attoroeys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of li tigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable.
In other words, "If our advice leads you astray, we'll take responsibility for it."
Would you prefer that BOL say "You're on your own," spurring contractors to issue warning notices about closings and layoffs that may never actually occur? Whom, if anyone, would that benefit?
How about, "Hey, we have these here laws. Follow them."
And, make sure they do. If the law states that you have to give 60 day's notice, you give 60 day's notice of an impending layoff. If sequestration doesn't happen and business isn't cut, the company could always rescind those layoffs.
The Administration doesn't want any bad news right before the election. Lockheed may not be an Obama supporting company, so it's entirely possible that they would do this based on political motives. Neither is the right thing to do (announcing the layoffs because of the WARN Act is one thing, but doing it for political reasons is wrong).
And, here is where things get a bit sticky. We are having authorities telling companies to break the law. WTF is that? It's selective enforcement. That's not law. That's privilege. how is that even possible to be ethical?
To address the OP....
That CEO should have some sort of consequence. That has to be coercion of some sort.
|
|
|
|
