Sunday, September 9, 2012

Defense contractors hesitate over layoff notices before election

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/248313-defense-contractors-hesitate-over-layoff-notices-before-election

this is an 11th hour scare tactic by the benefactors of right wing overboard spending on defense, mostly on stuff the complex has said it didn't want, also think of the blow it could have if done before election.
The major defense contractors are keeping their cards close to the vest on whether to issue mass layoff notices prior to the November elections.
 The threat of sequestration, an issue that has morphed from a pressure campaign on Congress into a political fistfight, has the defense industry and its observers in suspense. But sources close to the industry say that when the chips fall, Lockheed Martin may be the only company that sends out layoff notices en masse before Election Day because of potential cuts to the defense budget under sequestration.
The timing raises the stakes even higher, as companies could be issuing the notices on the Friday before the election, if they tie them to sequestration’s Jan. 2 start date, because the law requires 60 days advanced notice.
anything you see now from the right is desperately trying to seal their chance even with all they have already done, this just cries of "FEAR".
Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens first raised the prospect of mass layoff notices in June, when he said the lack of guidance from the Obama administration could compel the company to issue layoff notices to all 123,000 employees because it was unknown where the cuts would fall.
The next month, the Labor Department issued its guidance to defense contractors calling the need for mass layoff notices "inappropriate" under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.
While the defense industry is united in its opposition to sequestration, there has been some division behind the scenes over just how dangerous the cuts would be, which has played into the layoff-notice debate.
remedy right wing gets out of the hostage business and compromise, they wouldn't do it even when offered a 10 to one in their favor of cuts, doesn't that laty out a picture of what's wrong with it?