A Message From Lucianne  



Now More Than Ever
Get Your Eagles Up!
Lucianne Tees - in
Black or White
Click to Buy


































        
 

 
Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute
Register | Rules & FAQs | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password


  Topic: After Obama guidance,
Lockheed won’t issue
layoff notices this year
Change your user profile.
If you are having trouble posting, please take the time to register.
Your User Name :
Your Password
  I forgot my password
Your Reply  :
Preview Reply     Post Reply
After Obama guidance,
Lockheed won’t issue
layoff notices this year

The Hill [Washington, DC], by Jeremy Herb

Original Article

Posted By:KarenJ1, 10/1/2012 10:37:54 AM

Lockheed Martin said Monday it will not issue employee layoff notices this year, ending an election-year showdown with the Obama administration. The company said it based its decision on new guidance issued Friday by the Office of Management and Budget and the Pentagon. The guidance said the Pentagon did not anticipate killing any contracts on Jan. 2, the day automatic spending cuts are set to begin hitting defense spending. The guidance also said federal government would cover severance costs that are mandated under a federal layoff notices law. The decision by Lockheed means thousands won't get

Comments:
Well that's certainly a new way of phrasing it. 0bama guidance?? You mean King Barry issued his directive for what they can and cannot do?? I'm sick to death of this corrupt regime comprised of nothing but political hacks.

  

Post Reply  

Reply 1 - Posted by: BaseballFan, 10/1/2012 10:41:22 AM     (No. 8901923)

I can remember when I worked for a defense contractor (way, way back in the 1990s) when this sort of thing was illegal.

The face of corruption: Barack Hussein Obama.

But don't worry, Lockheed employees - he'll have "more flexibility" after the election.

/disgust off/


Reply 2 - Posted by: Attila DiMedici, 10/1/2012 10:52:27 AM     (No. 8901962)

This sort of thing is still illegal. It is just that the consequences of going against King Barry in the eventuality he gets re-elected are much greater than the penalties for following the law in the case where he does not get re-elected.


   

 

  


 
Reply 3 - Posted by: kjack, 10/1/2012 10:52:33 AM     (No. 8901963)

Wednesday, November 7, the day after the election, is going to be a literal bloodbath of pink slips. The Obamatrons will be wlll be stunned that they were misled and the "undecided" who sat this one out will have no one to blame but themselves.


Reply 4 - Posted by: kanphil, 10/1/2012 10:56:10 AM     (No. 8901975)

This is going to cost Lockheed stockholders money. Furthermore, what guarantee does Lockheed have that Obama will not cancel contracts anyway if he gets the chance. I would hate to have my job hanging on whether Obama spoke the truth or not.


Reply 5 - Posted by: thomthomp, 10/1/2012 10:56:28 AM     (No. 8901978)

The Administration says the Federal government will cover severance costs as a result of not following the law. Where does Obama get either the authority or the money to do this?


Reply 6 - Posted by: Opsimath, 10/1/2012 11:00:40 AM     (No. 8901990)

Here, let me fix this headline: After Obama threat, Lockheed won't issue layoff notices this year


Reply 7 - Posted by: Frank Dunn, 10/1/2012 11:11:20 AM     (No. 8902013)

Should read: The guidance also said taxpayers would cover severance costs that are mandated under a federal layoff notices law.

Obama-severance joins Obama-phones.


   

 

  


 
Reply 8 - Posted by: prospector4au, 10/1/2012 11:18:40 AM     (No. 8902026)

Another headline:
After Obama's threat, Lockheed will not announce HOW MANY layoffs will happen if Obama is re-elected......


Reply 9 - Posted by: starlady, 10/1/2012 11:19:52 AM     (No. 8902028)

Workers for these contractors have been warned. If they vote for Zero they deserve a pink slip on the Wednesday after the election.


Reply 10 - Posted by: woodenleg, 10/1/2012 11:23:37 AM     (No. 8902038)

"...guidance..." ?!?!?......Maybe a little Chicago style deal making.........BO's way, or else.


Reply 11 - Posted by: CEP, 10/1/2012 11:25:26 AM     (No. 8902042)

"The guidance also said federal government would cover severance costs that are mandated under a federal layoff notices law."

There will be layoffs thanks to Obama just after the election and guess what, boys and girls, the taxpayer will be hit with covering severance costs of those layoffs.


Reply 12 - Posted by: globalwarmer, 10/1/2012 11:26:33 AM     (No. 8902047)

OK, Mitt, send those aviation defense contracts to Boeing after you're elected.


   

 



 
Reply 13 - Posted by: miceal, 10/1/2012 11:27:30 AM     (No. 8902049)

B-Ho's spokesfolks need to hammered with questions on this policy from now till election day...


Reply 14 - Posted by: TakeBackAmerica, 10/1/2012 11:28:04 AM     (No. 8902054)

Corruption cum blackmail.

Typical.


Reply 15 - Posted by: qmcgs, 10/1/2012 11:28:26 AM     (No. 8902056)

Is this the guidance? See in particular the second paragraph (bottom of first and top of second):

White House memo:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-19.pdf

Read it yourself, but it seems to me they are telling the contractors to ignore the WARN act and the government will pick up the tab for any penalties or legal fees.

How is this not illegal? Where is the court challenge?




Reply 16 - Posted by: Srhea, 10/1/2012 11:33:31 AM     (No. 8902066)

Obama = Chavez, both corrupt leaders!


Reply 17 - Posted by: Evocatus, 10/1/2012 11:37:42 AM     (No. 8902073)

Is Obama and the rest of his flying monkeys in the White House sooooo stupid that they don't know that Defense Contractors and their employees are hanging on EVERY WORD of this debate? They can talk all they want to about not sending out the layoff notices for these blatantly political reasons -- but the employees SURELY KNOW that their jobs are on the line, on the chopping block, if the Obammunist and the rest of his Communists get back into the White House.

The Obammunist MUST get his pink slip on 6 November; you can be pretty sure the United States Marines will have to drag his sorry butt, kicking and screaming and clawing, out of the White House on 20 January.


   

 

  


 
Reply 18 - Posted by: oh-heck, 10/1/2012 11:44:49 AM     (No. 8902089)

It is illegal for the federal government to threaten contractors with penalties if they obey the law.

It is illegal for the federal government to indemnify contractors for breaking the law.

Romney needs to make a stink and get someone to file a court challenge. He similarly needs to have someone sue the federal government for the delay to implementing the new penalties on Medicare Advantage until after the election.


Reply 19 - Posted by: Keekng, 10/1/2012 11:50:00 AM     (No. 8902105)

Lockheed was a decent company back in the day.


Reply 20 - Posted by: Keekng, 10/1/2012 11:54:09 AM     (No. 8902115)

It is still illegal, #1, but BamBam don't worry about no steenkin laws, his buddy Eric won't go after him and the Congress is spineless.


Reply 21 - Posted by: mickturn, 10/1/2012 11:56:46 AM     (No. 8902120)

SO it's a faux non lay off notice, I get it.

You are so totally fired, no wait, you are back in, no out, no in, Oh, what the hell, you are in limbo dependent on crooked politicians to work out your life.


Reply 22 - Posted by: MattMusson, 10/1/2012 12:01:56 PM     (No. 8902152)

"The guidance also said federal government would cover severance costs that are mandated under a federal layoff notices law."


BUYING VOTES WITH OUR $$$


   

 



 
Reply 23 - Posted by: snowoutlaw, 10/1/2012 12:02:43 PM     (No. 8902155)

All this means is Lockheed is betting on Obama losing which would then mean the cuts will not be needed.


Reply 24 - Posted by: Dante, 10/1/2012 12:16:58 PM     (No. 8902192)

There's more to this story, even Zero's supporters know he is a shameless, compulsive liar. No sane person would make policy based on his worthless promises, they must have some other incentive.


Reply 25 - Posted by: The Architect, 10/1/2012 12:18:03 PM     (No. 8902197)

No layoffs before the election and the government with guarantee severence pay after the election. How incredibly coincidental!


Reply 26 - Posted by: jond, 10/1/2012 12:32:14 PM     (No. 8902227)

The employees of Lockheed must be profoundly relieved.


Reply 27 - Posted by: Pam, 10/1/2012 12:42:16 PM     (No. 8902265)

A bribe is a bribe is a bribe.


Reply 28 - Posted by: whyyeseyec, 10/1/2012 12:44:08 PM     (No. 8902272)

#3 beat everyone to it. Win or lose, pinks slip will reign on November 7th.


Reply 29 - Posted by: Blue-Z-Anna, 10/1/2012 12:49:25 PM     (No. 8902285)

We are no longer a 'Country of Laws'but rather a country of wusified, panty waiste, metros.

How do we explain to our criminal element that one must first be elected to high office before one can break the law with impunity ?

This is the stuff civil wars are made of.


Reply 30 - Posted by: melman, 10/1/2012 12:50:02 PM     (No. 8902286)

Obama with the complicity of Congress has spent the US into ruin. The layoff's are unavoidable as the US is technically bankrupt. Until a way can be foumd to rid us of this massive debt and turn off the monopoly money machines of the Treasury it will only get worse.


Reply 31 - Posted by: pianogirl88, 10/1/2012 12:52:43 PM     (No. 8902292)

Looks like BO is desperate to win Virginia. Let's hope that the rocket scientists who live in NOVA will see through this and vote accordingly on November 6th.


Reply 32 - Posted by: bighambone, 10/1/2012 1:09:45 PM     (No. 8902335)

All this ensures that everybody who is employed by Lockeed Martin and other defense contractors knows all about this, and should take the possible layoffs into consideration before they vote on election day.


Reply 33 - Posted by: KTWO, 10/1/2012 2:43:58 PM     (No. 8902522)

The Weasels win again. Or seem too, the workers and their families and friends will not be fooled.

But the escape route was always clear. Until the employer is told what exactly which contract is canceled or reduced and when he cannot know which workers will be laid off. Hence notification has no meaning.

So all Obama had to say is that he is obeying the law but details aren't quite worked out yet.



Post Reply   Close thread 704354




Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "KarenJ1"

and

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)




Most Recent Articles posted by "KarenJ1"



GAO: ‘Visa Overstay’ Backlog at
DHS Remains Over One Million
Weekly Standard, by Jeryl Bier    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/21/2013 11:15:44 AM     Post Reply
Today, the Government Accountability Office issued a report of preliminary finding on the progress the Department of Homeland Security has made in its efforts to reduce the backlog of immigrant visas. Although almost 863,000 records were "closed" in the last two years, the backlog of potential overstays remains at more than one million [emphasis added]: In the summer of 2011, DHS reviewed the 1.6 million potential overstay records. As a result, DHS closed about 863,000 records and removed them from the backlog. Since that time, DHS has continued to review all potential overstay records for national

Fast and Furious/Benghazi investigative
reporter Sharyl Attkisson: Something
fishy’s been going on with my computers
since early 2011
Hot Air, by Allahpundit    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/21/2013 11:07:29 AM     Post Reply
Via the Chris Stigall Show and WPHT in Philadelphia. Two weeks ago, this wouldn’t have been worth posting; Attkisson herself, I suspect, wouldn’t have mentioned it publicly. Even if she’s right about something fishy going on, there are other plausible culprits besides the U.S. government when it comes to reporters’ computers being infiltrated. Two weeks later, though, knowing now that the DOJ was willing to order a dragnet of AP reporters’ phone records and actually read James Rosen’s e-mails, there’s no way around the obvious suspicion. If the feds were willing to monitor Rosen and the AP in the

Barack Obama, the Great Bystander
PJ Media, by Bryan Preston    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/21/2013 10:55:36 AM     Post Reply
It’s hard to improve on this paragraph by Jim Geraghty, from today’s Morning Jolt. Obama didn’t know the IRS was targeting conservatives until he read it in the papers. He didn’t know about “Fast and Furious” until he read it in the papers, too. He has “complete confidence” in Holder, and didn’t know about the decision to collect the phone records of reporters. He didn’t know about the investigation into CIA director David Petraeus’s affair. He told Letterman during the election he didn’t know what the national debt was. He didn’t know about the AIG

Dems to challenge constitutionality
of GOP Keystone bill
The Hill [Washington, DC], by Pete Kasperowicz    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/21/2013 10:38:15 AM     Post Reply
House Democrats this week will challenge Republican plans to call up legislation that provides for congressional approval of the Keystone pipeline, and removes the need for presidential approval. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) on Monday said he would raise a question of the privileges of the House in order to challenge consideration of H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act. House Republicans are expected to call up that bill on Wednesday. House rules allow members to raise questions of the privileges of the House, which can be used to stop proceedings affecting the safety, dignity and

White House-created “doctored”
war on Jon Karl and Stephen
Hayes falls apart
Legal Insurrection, by William A. Jacobson    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/21/2013 10:05:52 AM     Post Reply
White House planted “doctored” email narrative in press, then used press reports to push the “doctored” narrative as a political talking point I saw this coming from a mile away. When the White House leaked a single email about Benghazi to Jake Tapper, it launched a war on Jon Karl and Stephen Hayes because the wording of the email varied slightly from the accounts in their reporting. Their reporting, however, was based on summaries because the originals had not been released by the White House, but both reporters stood by the substance of their reporting.

‘I Don’t Want To Be A Psychiatrist
Here, But…’ O’Reilly Diagnoses
Obama’s ‘Personality’
Mediaite, by Matt Wilstein    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/21/2013 9:47:40 AM     Post Reply
Bill O’Reilly is definitely not a psychiatrist, but that didn’t stop him from offering up his own diagnosis of President Obama‘s “control” issues on Laura Ingraham‘s radio show Monday. According to O’Reilly, growing up without a father in the house has led directly to Obama’s desire to “control his environment” in the White House. O’Reilly told Ingraham that “control” is a “hallmark of Barack Obama’s personality.” He mused, “I don’t want to be a psychiatrist here, but when you’re a kid raised in a real turbulent situation… no authoratative figure, no father, all of that,

Senate panel OKs tax-welfare
benefits for newly legal immigrants
Washington Times, by Stephen Dinan    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/21/2013 9:38:25 AM     Post Reply
The SenateJudiciary Committee voted Monday to allow illegal immigrants who get legal status to begin collecting tax-welfare payments, as the panel spent a fourth day working through amendments to the massive immigration bill and party-line splits began to emerge. In one major change, the committee voted 17-1 to make a third drunken-driving conviction a deportable offense for the newly legalized immigrants if at least one of those offenses occurs after they are approved for legal status. But immigrant-rights groups called that a rollback of due-process rights for the immigrants and said a drunken-driving incident



Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)



Analyze this
76 replie(s)
Power Line, by Scott Johnson    Original Article
Posted By: MissMolly- 5/19/2013 11:33:33 AM     Post Reply
What did President Obama do on the evening of 9/11/12 when our men were under attack in Benghazi? The invaluable Andrew McCarthy reminds us that Obama and Secretary Clinton had a 10:00 p.m. phone call of which many (including, I think, Chris Wallace) have lost sight. This morning when Wallace asked Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer what Obama was up to that evening, Pfeiffer declared the line of inquiry “offensive.” Translation: Obama and his minions would prefer to “move on” and are warning the likes of FNC off:(Snip for video)The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper has posted the rush transcript

Obama: "As An African American
You Have To Work Twice As Hard
As Anyone Else If You Want To Get By"

60 replie(s)
Real Clear Politics, by Staff    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 5/19/2013 6:55:47 PM     Post Reply
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You are the mantle of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington and Ralph Bunche and Langston Hughes and George Washington Carver and Ralph Abernathy and Thurgood Marshall and, yes, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. These men were many things to many people and they knew full well the role that racism played in their life. But when it came to their own accomplishments and sense of purpose, they had no time for excuses. Every one of you has a grandma or an uncle or a parent whose told you at some point in life

White House Chief of Staff knew about
damaging IRS audit, kept Obama in the dark

60 replie(s)
New York Post, by S.A. MILLER    Original Article
Posted By: FlyRight- 5/20/2013 4:15:03 PM     Post Reply
WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Serviced scandal today spread further within the White House and closer to President Obama. White House spokesman Jay Carney today disclosed that Obama’s chief of staff, Dennis McDonough, and other top White House officials had advance warning that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. But he insisted McDonough and the other White House officials purposely kept Obama out of the loop.McDonough “rightly chose not to take action” to inform Obama, Carney told reporters at the daily White House briefing.

BREAKING: WashPost Reports
Obama DOJ Also Spied on
James Rosen of Fox News

49 replie(s)
Newsbusters, by Tim Graham    Original Article
Posted By: drive- 5/20/2013 7:29:20 AM     Post Reply
The Washington Post on Monday reported that Obama’s Department of Justice was investigating journalists before they started wiretapping the Associated Press – for one, Fox News correspondent James Rosen in 2010. Their headline wasn´t "Obama Team Also Spied on Fox News." Fox wasn´t in the headline, on A-1 or on A-12, where the story continued. Newly obtained court documents “reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist — and raise the question of how often journalists have been investigated as closely as Rosen was in 2010.” Reporter Ann Marimow began:

Candy Crowley: Is it Possible
This Isn´t Political and
IRS Didn´t Intend to Harass
the Tea Party?

44 replie(s)
Newsbusters, by Noel Sheppard    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/19/2013 3:54:02 PM     Post Reply
"Can you see in your mind´s eye a way that this might not have been political, that this was a misguided stupid way to sort, but that they didn´t intend it to be some kind of political attempt to harass the Tea Party?" So actually asked CNN´s Candy Crowley of her guest Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) concerning the Internal Revenue Service scandal Sunday (video follows with transcript and commentary):CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: Moving on to the IRS problem at this moment, which is really sort of in its infancy. There will be lots more hearings coming up this week

White House Aide calls
Criticism of Obama ´Offensive´

41 replie(s)
New York Times, by Brian Knowlton    Original Article
Posted By: FlyRight- 5/20/2013 7:01:33 AM     Post Reply
A senior adviser to President Obama mounted a combative defense of the administration on Sunday, saying the controversies enveloping the White House were the result of Republican lawmakers’ trying to “drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped-up hearings and false allegations.”The remarks came from Dan Pfeiffer, a member of the president’s inner circle, as he appeared on all five major Sunday morning talk shows in an effort to move the administration past what commentators have described as a “hell week” of controversy and missteps.

If Your Doctor Asks You About
Guns, Do You Have to Answer?

39 replie(s)
Fox News, by Staff    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/20/2013 1:12:07 PM     Post Reply
Stuart Varney said this morning on "Varney & Co." that one of his producers was given a questionnaire with some surprisingly intrusive questions on it when he switched doctors. One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured weapons in the home. Another asked whether he/she was "in a relationship in which you have been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?" Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare. Varney expressed amazement


Post Reply   Close thread 704354





Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | Register | Rules & FAQs | Search | Post | Contact | RSS | Contribute | Logout | Forgot Password


© 2013 Lucianne.com Media Inc.

~~~c~~~