Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statement Regarding Recent OMB, DOD Guidance (Lockheed-Martin)
Lockheed Martin ^ | 2012 | Lockheed Martin

Posted on 10/03/2012 8:35:41 AM PDT by illiac

Trade Shows Employee News Room

Statement Regarding Recent OMB, DOD Guidance and Sequestration-related WARN Notices

BETHESDA, Md. Oct. 2, 2012 – “After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD), we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan. The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.

We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry. We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation’s challenges.” See the Employee Memo from Bob Stevens, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Chris Kubasik, Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer Learn more about sequestration and how you can take action


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: business; elections; sequestration
A result of a email I sent to them yesterday protesting their layoff timing.

You can do directly to the link and see the memo from Bob Stevens via a link.

1 posted on 10/03/2012 8:35:48 AM PDT by illiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: illiac

Contact LM’s “corporate ethics” department and tell them what you think,
I just did.

corporate.ethics@lmco.com


2 posted on 10/03/2012 8:53:09 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac

Contact LM’s “corporate ethics” department and tell them what you think,
I just did.

corporate.ethics@lmco.com


3 posted on 10/03/2012 8:53:20 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac
The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan.

This seems to be the operative statement. If they have been told there will be no change in contracts on January 2nd, then there is no reason for them to expect to have any layoffs on January 2nd. The law requires a notice 60 days before anticipated layoffs.

The real question is, how does Obama expect to fund every program on January 3rd, if sequestration happens on January 2nd? Are they going to just keep spending mony with no authority, or will they simply spend fully for 2 months and then make bigger cuts for the final 7?

It seems clear that Obama has decided to implement sequestration in a way that prevents and layoffs before his term expires, so he can tell companies there will be no layoffs on January 3rd.

Since this is a non-binding guidance, I don't think companies should count on it. But I understand.

On the other hand, this letter tells every employee that the layoffs are just delayed. Everybody in the defense industry knows that there will be layoffs if sequestration happens.

4 posted on 10/03/2012 9:25:32 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

The key guidance is that the cost of not complying with WARN are allowable. Basically, the government is paying the fines for LM’s noncompliance. It does NOT say that the contracts will not be terminated on 1/2. I hope these costs are charged to the re-elect obama campaign as they are clearly designed to achieve that.


5 posted on 10/03/2012 9:32:29 AM PDT by wizwor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wizwor

“DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January,2013”

How does this get intepreted as the contracts won’t get terminated on or about Jan 2nd?


6 posted on 10/03/2012 10:26:25 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wizwor

I quoted the part that said contracts won’t be terminated on 1/2. SO I don’t know why you think it doesn’t say that.


7 posted on 10/03/2012 10:36:58 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wizwor
BTW, I'm not sure the accepted interpretation of this letter is correct regarding fines, although maybe there is other information.

I read the entire letter to employees that was posted to that web site. It doesn't mention the government paying fines. The operative part of the memo is this:

The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan. The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.
There are three claims made. First, that the government anticipates NO contract terminations on 1/2, second that any changes in contract awards won't happen for several months after 1/2, and third that all the normal costs of the WARN act would be allowable and recoverable.

For that third bullet, the most reasonable intpretation is that a contractor, when it was told a contract was terminated or modified, would then give the workers 60 days notice, and those charges would be allowable back to the government.

If I were a contractor, I wouldn't count on this type of promise, but I don't answer to shareholders, or have to worry about having all my contracts mysteriously put on hold while they are 'investigated'.

8 posted on 10/03/2012 10:56:28 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: illiac

“Lockheed Martin has 65 different collective bargaining agreements with labor unions throughout the United States. —LockheedMartin.com


9 posted on 10/03/2012 11:36:28 AM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

As did I yesterday....thanks


10 posted on 10/03/2012 11:46:16 AM PDT by illiac (If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson