Inhofe: Obama Administration 'Doesn't Want All These Pink Slips Going Out 5 Days Before Election'

Good ole Barry, playing politics with peoples lives. Guess ole Barry doesn't give a shit about workers just as long as he gets re-elected.

"Inhofe, appearing on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning, said President Obama, through his Labor Department, "is trying to intimidate businesses, companies, corporations -- not just defense contractors -- into not issuing the pink slips," which are required by federal law 60 days before mass layoffs or plant closings.

"(T)he president doesn't really want all these pink slips going out five days before the election," Inhofe said.

He noted that if the automatic budget cuts kick in on Jan. 2 -- as they will if Congress can't reach a deficit-reduction agreement -- layoff notices would have to go out no later than Nov. 2. The general election is on Nov. 6."

"“At a time when our economy continues to suffer from staggeringly high unemployment, the Obama Administration today took away an important planning tool for Americans who may lose their jobs as a result of the failure of Congress and the White House to address the looming and entirely predictable threat of budget sequestration. "

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/inhofe-obama-administration-doesnt-want-all-these-pink-slips-going-out-5-days-election

alecto wrote:Good ole Barry, playing politics with peoples lives. Guess ole Barry doesn't give a shit about workers just as long as he gets re-elected.

"Inhofe, appearing on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning, said President Obama, through his Labor Department, "is trying to intimidate businesses, companies, corporations -- not just defense contractors -- into not issuing the pink slips," which are required by federal law 60 days before mass layoffs or plant closings.

"(T)he president doesn't really want all these pink slips going out five days before the election," Inhofe said.

He noted that if the automatic budget cuts kick in on Jan. 2 -- as they will if Congress can't reach a deficit-reduction agreement -- layoff notices would have to go out no later than Nov. 2. The general election is on Nov. 6."

"“At a time when our economy continues to suffer from staggeringly high unemployment, the Obama Administration today took away an important planning tool for Americans who may lose their jobs as a result of the failure of Congress and the White House to address the looming and entirely predictable threat of budget sequestration. "

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/inhofe-obama-administration-doesnt-want-all-these-pink-slips-going-out-5-days-election

Have you read the official release from the department of labor on on this?

boards of FL wrote:
Have you read the official release from the department of labor on on this?

Yes I have.

boards of FL wrote:

alecto wrote:Good ole Barry, playing politics with peoples lives. Guess ole Barry doesn't give a shit about workers just as long as he gets re-elected.

"Inhofe, appearing on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning, said President Obama, through his Labor Department, "is trying to intimidate businesses, companies, corporations -- not just defense contractors -- into not issuing the pink slips," which are required by federal law 60 days before mass layoffs or plant closings.

"(T)he president doesn't really want all these pink slips going out five days before the election," Inhofe said.

He noted that if the automatic budget cuts kick in on Jan. 2 -- as they will if Congress can't reach a deficit-reduction agreement -- layoff notices would have to go out no later than Nov. 2. The general election is on Nov. 6."

"“At a time when our economy continues to suffer from staggeringly high unemployment, the Obama Administration today took away an important planning tool for Americans who may lose their jobs as a result of the failure of Congress and the White House to address the looming and entirely predictable threat of budget sequestration. "

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/inhofe-obama-administration-doesnt-want-all-these-pink-slips-going-out-5-days-election

Have you read the official release from the department of labor on on this?

It's Federal Law , some companies are going to start sending out the 100ks of "pink slips" in August and September. The evil 1% has to comply with Federal Law.....unlike the 99% who are still having riots in CA. Didn't catch the riots on the MSM News? Ask yourself why? It's all over the net........

alecto wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
Have you read the official release from the department of labor on on this?

Yes I have.

And how do you rate Senator Inhofe's assessment of the release from the department of labor?

boards of FL wrote:
And how do you rate Senator Inhofe's assessment of the release from the department of labor?

Inhofe's assessment is correct. Did you miss this part of the article?

"“This decision is especially disturbing in light of the fact that the Department of Labor previously stated in a Fact Sheet that ‘since it has no administrative or enforcement responsibility under’ the WARN Act, it ‘cannot provide specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations.’ Today the Department did just that, issuing guidance to government contractors not to provide their employees advance notification of potential layoffs as a result of sequestration. This is a troubling turnaround that lays bare the obvious political aim of today’s announcement – avoiding mass layoff notices just days before the November 6th election."

Amazing how much weight Oblamer throws with the media.

[quote="alecto"]

boards of FL wrote:Inhofe's assessment is correct. Did you miss this part of the article?

Really? Is this what you read?

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL_3a_12_acc.pdf

[quote="boards of FL"]

alecto wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Inhofe's assessment is correct. Did you miss this part of the article?

Really? Is this what you read?

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL_3a_12_acc.pdf

That was the guidance issues by the Department of Labor not Inhofe's assessment.

[quote="alecto"]

boards of FL wrote:

alecto wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Inhofe's assessment is correct. Did you miss this part of the article?

Really? Is this what you read?

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL_3a_12_acc.pdf

That was the guidance issues by the Department of Labor not Inhofe's assessment.

Correct. Having read the guidance by the department of labor and Inhofe's assessment of it, you feel that Inhofe's assessment of the guidance is correct - or, even reasonable? That is what I'm asking you. I posted the link to the guidance as I wanted to be sure we were looking at the same thing.

boards of FL wrote:
Correct. Having read the guidance by the department of labor and Inhofe's assessment of it, you feel that Inhofe's assessment of the guidance is correct - or, even reasonable? That is what I'm asking you. I posted the link to the guidance as I wanted to be sure we were looking at the same thing.

Yes I think inhofe's stance is correct. What do you think?

Companies like Lockhead Martin which will be affected, either sends out pink slips to all 123,000 employees to make sure they comply with federal law in the event they actually do have to cut jobs(right now they don't know) or Lockheed can wait to see what happens and face the risk of fines and lawsuits because they did not comply with federal law.

Here is a memorandum from the CEO of Lockheed Martin explaining the problem to Lockheed employees.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/enr/0718-sequestration.html

Every year I get a letter in the mail from my homeowners insurance company stating that I am going to have my coverage dropped due to failure to pay. The first year I received this, I freaked out in disbelief, as everything is rolled into my mortgage payment. I called the mortgage company who told me to disregard the letter and that they would contact the insurance company.

More letters came, each progressively more threatening. I eventually called the insurance company who told me that they resolved the issue - actually, there never was an issue - and that the letters are something that are merely generated automatically by their system, and that I should simply disregard them. The same thing happened the next year and every year since. Now I just disregard them and question such a useless process and waste of resources.

boards of FL wrote:Every year I get a letter in the mail from my homeowners insurance company stating that I am going to have my coverage dropped due to failure to pay. The first year I received this, I freaked out in disbelief, as everything is rolled into my mortgage payment. I called the mortgage company who told me to disregard the letter and that they would contact the insurance company.

More letters came, each progressively more threatening. I eventually called the insurance company who told me that they resolved the issue - actually, there never was an issue - and that the letters are something that are merely generated automatically by their system, and that I should simply disregard them. The same thing happened the next year and every year since. Now I just disregard them and question such a useless process and waste of resources.

Ah, so you think it is insignificant that tens of thousands of people may or may not lose their job and those people may or may not be notified due to an ineffective governing body that can't govern (both dems and repubs). Having been on the receiving end of a mass layoff trust me the warn act is a nice thing to have. I know a lot of federal contractors and they are all scared as to what is going to happen, from personal experience I know they would like a heads up that they were going to lose their job. I would only assume you have never been in this type of situation before, am I correct?

alecto wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Every year I get a letter in the mail from my homeowners insurance company stating that I am going to have my coverage dropped due to failure to pay. The first year I received this, I freaked out in disbelief, as everything is rolled into my mortgage payment. I called the mortgage company who told me to disregard the letter and that they would contact the insurance company.

More letters came, each progressively more threatening. I eventually called the insurance company who told me that they resolved the issue - actually, there never was an issue - and that the letters are something that are merely generated automatically by their system, and that I should simply disregard them. The same thing happened the next year and every year since. Now I just disregard them and question such a useless process and waste of resources.

Ah, so you think it is insignificant that tens of thousands of people may or may not lose their job and those people may or may not be notified due to an ineffective governing body that can't govern (both dems and repubs). Having been on the receiving end of a mass layoff trust me the warn act is a nice thing to have. I know a lot of federal contractors and they are all scared as to what is going to happen, from personal experience I know they would like a heads up that they were going to lose their job. I would only assume you have never been in this type of situation before, am I correct?

You are correct. I have never been in any sort of situation in which I received a letter called for by the WARN act, that contained none of the information that said letter is supposed to contain, as dictated by the WARN act, due to both the purely speculative nature of the sending of said letter, and political posturing during an election year. You are correct in that I have not been in that type of situation.

You were right Boards. Political posturing from Obama

Sen. Obama supported layoff warnings; now sees no need

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” Mr. Obama said in that news release on July 17, 2007.

That same month, Mr. Obama also said, “We must act at the federal level to close the loophole that allows employers to disregard the WARN Act without penalty. We must give the WARN Act teeth, to ensure that workers are not left in the lurch without a job or a paycheck.”

That year, Senate Democrats led by Mr. Obama, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York proposed the Forewarn Act, which would have added to the regulations by requiring 90 days notice of layoffs and expanding the number of companies under federal jurisdiction. The legislation died.

The White House did not respond to a question about the apparent inconsistency between Mr. Obama’s position five years ago and the administration’s policy guidance this week.

The chairman of House Armed Services Committee said the new guidance was politically motivated.

“People will still get laid off because of the president’s irresponsibility, but they won’t have the notice to protect themselves and their families,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” P. McKeon, California Republican."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/obama-favored-stronger-layoff-warnings-07/

alecto wrote:You were right Boards. Political posturing from Obama

Sen. Obama supported layoff warnings; now sees no need

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” Mr. Obama said in that news release on July 17, 2007.

That same month, Mr. Obama also said, “We must act at the federal level to close the loophole that allows employers to disregard the WARN Act without penalty. We must give the WARN Act teeth, to ensure that workers are not left in the lurch without a job or a paycheck.”

That year, Senate Democrats led by Mr. Obama, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York proposed the Forewarn Act, which would have added to the regulations by requiring 90 days notice of layoffs and expanding the number of companies under federal jurisdiction. The legislation died.

The White House did not respond to a question about the apparent inconsistency between Mr. Obama’s position five years ago and the administration’s policy guidance this week.

The chairman of House Armed Services Committee said the new guidance was politically motivated.

“People will still get laid off because of the president’s irresponsibility, but they won’t have the notice to protect themselves and their families,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” P. McKeon, California Republican."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/obama-favored-stronger-layoff-warnings-07/

One can support a particular law or rule while also not support the improper application of said law or rule, right?

I don't think you should drive 55mph in a school zone while the light is flashing. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite for driving 55mph in a 55mph speed zone.

I don't think NFL players should be allowed to make late hits once the play is dead. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite if I support anything but tag football.

I don't think you should put ketchup on ice-cream. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite if I say I like ketchup.

This situation in question does not call for a WARN act notice. The purely speculative nature alone doesn't permit even enough information as to create a proper WARN act notice, hence, no WARN act notice is warranted - unless of course you have some sort of political ax to grind.

nochain wrote:Amazing how much weight Oblamer throws with the media.

In 2007 Candidate [Name] COWH said that workers should be notified immediately if there is a possible layoff coming in order for them to plan their future needs and moves ...went on to say they deserve that much respect...WOW!!!!.....Now the COWH manipulates the notifications in order to try and keep his job!....HOPE America CHANGES and sends the COWH a HUGE PINK SLIP in November---He deserves that much respect to be informed that HE'S FIRED!

Newsfan, see if you understand section 5 of this guidance.

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL_3a_12_acc.pdf

boards of FL wrote:
One can support a particular law or rule while also not support the improper application of said law or rule, right?

I don't think you should drive 55mph in a school zone while the light is flashing. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite for driving 55mph in a 55mph speed zone.

I don't think NFL players should be allowed to make late hits once the play is dead. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite if I support anything but tag football.

I don't think you should put ketchup on ice-cream. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite if I say I like ketchup.

This situation in question does not call for a WARN act notice. The purely speculative nature alone doesn't permit even enough information as to create a proper WARN act notice, hence, no WARN act notice is warranted - unless of course you have some sort of political ax to grind.

1.) You lost me with the football reference.
2.) I'm glad you like ketchup.
3.) Thank you for the civil discussion.
4.) I,m yanking your chain.

But on a final note. How does an agency issue a guidance when said agency does not have the authority to do so. Second why should anyone bother with such guidance since said agency is not authorized to issue it. That would be like the FHP issuing guidance on how to BBQ.

alecto wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
One can support a particular law or rule while also not support the improper application of said law or rule, right?

I don't think you should drive 55mph in a school zone while the light is flashing. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite for driving 55mph in a 55mph speed zone.

I don't think NFL players should be allowed to make late hits once the play is dead. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite if I support anything but tag football.

I don't think you should put ketchup on ice-cream. Using your logic, I'm a hypocrite if I say I like ketchup.

This situation in question does not call for a WARN act notice. The purely speculative nature alone doesn't permit even enough information as to create a proper WARN act notice, hence, no WARN act notice is warranted - unless of course you have some sort of political ax to grind.

1.) You lost me with the football reference.
2.) I'm glad you like ketchup.
3.) Thank you for the civil discussion.
4.) I,m yanking your chain.

But on a final note. How does an agency issue a guidance when said agency does not have the authority to do so. Second why should anyone bother with such guidance since said agency is not authorized to issue it. That would be like the FHP issuing guidance on how to BBQ.

It's not as if this is a piece of legislation or anything. The question at hand is whether or not the WARN act dictates that notices be sent due to the potential sequestration in 2013. I don't find it unreasonable for the department of labor to weigh on on such an issue. I can't imagine what other types of issues they would weigh in on if not this one.

boards of FL wrote:
It's not as if this is a piece of legislation or anything. The question at hand is whether or not the WARN act dictates that notices be sent due to the potential sequestration in 2013. I don't find it unreasonable for the department of labor to weigh on on such an issue. I can't imagine what other types of issues they would weigh in on if not this one.

It is odd that they would issue a fact stating they have no authority in regards to the warn act since they are suppose to be looking out for employees rights.

nochain wrote:Amazing how much weight Oblamer throws with the media.

It is simple. The Parties are far more extravagant with Democrats than Republicans. If you're in Washington, doing a job in media, lobbying, legal, publicity, anything, you have got to be on the "A" list to see and be seen. Days are used to fill time for the parties in the night time. If you're not on the "A" list, you know like President Barack Hussein Obama doesn't want you to be seen at any party they, or their staff attends, you go to the Republican parties where the entertainment is a singer with an accordion and polka dances.

I'll have you know that as a tyke I played a pretty good accordion and really cut the rug with a polka and a very adequate Viennese Waltz.

Markle wrote:

nochain wrote:Amazing how much weight Oblamer throws with the media.

It is simple. The Parties are far more extravagant with Democrats than Republicans. If you're in Washington, doing a job in media, lobbying, legal, publicity, anything, you have got to be on the "A" list to see and be seen. Days are used to fill time for the parties in the night time. If you're not on the "A" list, you know like President Barack Hussein Obama doesn't want you to be seen at any party they, or their staff attends, you go to the Republican parties where the entertainment is a singer with an accordion and polka dances.

I'll have you know that as a tyke I played a pretty good accordion and really cut the rug with a polka and a very adequate Viennese Waltz.

Just ask Chuck Todd, David Gregory, George S., and the BIG DISAPPOINTMENT; "FACE THE NATION" and BOB. What a bunch of slow pitch softball Hosts. I can't understand how a man can be so untrue to himself. We're talking, "smart" men, now in question.