not true. they'll still get laid off, they just won't have the notice, nor the opportunity to make plans. Obama has asked Lockheed to break the law, and told them he'll waive penalties if the agree to. shameless.
Ummmm...no. That is the point. The law says that a certain notice period is required. In this instance, the notice would need to be sent out days before the election. This could be bad for Obama. Obama has asked Lockheed to break to law by not sending the notice, but to do the scheduled layoff I without the notice. In exchange, the government will indemnify Lockheed in the likely event that a lawsuit is filed due to the lack of required notice. In short, the administration is asking Lockheed to break federal law, which the President was sworn to uphold. In addition, the taxpayers are going to pick up the tab for Obama covering his ass in an election year. Those affected by the layoff will not keep their job one day longer. They just won't get the notice required by law.
I'm glad we have a legal expert in both WARN act liability and the more or less unprecedented sequestration process here to perfunctorily validate the most vapid right wing perspective possible . . . when Lockheed lays off its entire workforce in January, I'm sure you'll be quite vindicated! . . . thanks Refman, where do you want us to send our money order for this tidbit of legal advice?
Well, if Refman is wrong, would you care to actually explain how this is okay for Obama to do this? Sure as heck would make my job a lot easier.
this sure would be reassuring if I were a Lockheed employee Obama is the only person who benefits from this, at the entire country's expense. If our press corps had an ounce of shame they would ask him about it, but they don't, so they won't.
How can you even talk about this after the whole world has been turned upside down by the video of Obama's 2007 speech?
Some speculation is that this is political posturing due to the coming budget cuts schedule to automatically kick in if congress don't make a budget deal. That would weigh on both parties, really, but the implications for the incumbent are obvious. I don't approve of the methods being used to circumvent it, if true as stated, but what I'm reading is that these implications are not reality, and the timing is suspect. Here's an article in the Daily Beast that discusses the timing, and details in this political dilemma, with its own speculations... a quote from said article....
I have not read enough to definitely say, but if the fall out is as it seems, this is the real "anti Obama" story and not that Drudge crap.
