- Real-life Dr. Doolittle to reveal how to talk to animals
- Climate change could bring back smallpox, researchers say
- Shoe-bomb witness to speak from London at N.Y. trial
- New evidence could threaten Army sex assault case
- George Zimmerman signs autographs at Orlando gun show
- GOP lawmaker faces fire for NBA crime tweet
- Taliban vow to ‘use all force’ to disrupt Afghan elections
- Atheists sue to remove ‘Ground Zero Cross’ from 9/11 museum
- Bishop in Aleppo: ‘We Christians live in fear in Syria’
- Oscar Pistorius vomits during graphic testimony
Lockheed says it won’t issue layoff notices
Cites White House assurances on defense pacts; GOP irked
Lockheed Martin on Monday backed down from its summertime threat to issue layoff warnings to employees just before the November election, saying the Obama administration has given assurances that it won’t immediately kill any major defense contracts when automatic spending cuts go into effect in January.
The announcement ends a months-long standoff with the administration that could have turned into a political headache, but the news drew criticism from Republicans who questioned whether the Pentagon and White House budget office even had the legal authority to give those assurances.
Lockheed Martin and other defense companies had said with massive budget cuts, known as sequesters, slated to take effect Jan. 2, they would have had to send out notices warning of potential layoffs 60 days in advance, under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or the WARN Act.
But now, according to Lockheed, the administration has said no contracts will be canceled in January. What’s more, the Office of Management and Budget said the federal government will pay for severance costs mandated by the WARN Act.
“It appears companies will bow to the threat implicit in last week’s OMB guidance; withhold notices today or the government might not cover your court costs down the road,” the California Republican said. “Let me be clear: Neither the OMB guidance nor the Lockheed decision will protect a single defense industry job if sequestration occurs in January.”
Under the terms of last year’s debt deal, the federal budget faces $109 billion in spending cuts equally divided between defense and domestic spending and due to take effect Jan. 2.
The defense side has received the most attention, with those in both parties saying the cuts could devastate the military. Still, Republicans and Democrats have found little common ground over how to replace the cuts with tax increases or trims to other federal spending.
In June, a number of defense company chiefs said the cuts could mean layoffs for their firms and that they would need to issue notices in early November under the WARN Act.
Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens said that meant his company would send notices to all 123,000 of his employees. Lockheed, EADS and several other defense giants said the legal issue was so clear that they thought they were forced to issue notices or face legal retribution from employees.
On Friday, the White House budget office went a step further and said the federal government would cover the costs of employee terminations if the contracts are canceled — but only if the companies do not issue the warning notices. The guidance came in a memo that said it was intended “to further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices.”
An administration official said the federal government paying for private companies’ layoff costs is legal under federal acquisition regulation but that there is no reason for taxpayers to incur costs because Congress has time to avoid the defense cuts and “we are confident they will.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said the guidance was an election-year political maneuver and that it stood in stark contrast to 2007, when Mr. Obama, then a senator, wanted to increase the WARN Act notice time to 90 days.
“This is typical Barack Obama politics — being supportive of the WARN Act when convenient and against it when it creates a political downside,” Mr. Graham said Monday in a release. “This is the most outcome-based White House in memory.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Susan Crabtree is an award-winning investigative reporter with more than 15 years of reporting experience in Washington, D.C. Her reporting about bribery, corruption and conflict-of-interest issues on Capitol Hill has led to several FBI and ethics investigations, as well as consequences for members within their caucuses and at the ballot box. Susan can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- GOP senators want IG probe of Sebelius' 'Obamacare' fundraising
- Teaming up with Christie, Obama says Jersey shore 'back in business'
- No Moore: Obama flubs name of Oklahoma city devastated by tornado, calls it 'Monroe'
- Obama to Okla. tornado victims: 'We have got your back'
- Amid his own challenges, Obama calls on Navy grads to hold themselves accountable
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Senate Democrats, Republicans spar over restoring unemployment benefits
- CURL: Today's GOP really is Reagan's 'Big Tent' party
- Mitch McConnell on beating tea party: 'We are going to crush them'
- Charges filed against accused 'shadow campaign' financier
- SAUERBREY: Taxing Marylanders until they flee
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Atheists sue to remove 'Ground Zero Cross' from 9/11 museum
- Rand Paul wins 2014 CPAC straw poll, Ted Cruz finishes a distant second
- As Crimea falls, Obama takes Key Largo golf vacation, Biden hits Virgin Islands
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again