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

Skip to comments.

Pentagon Readying 800,000 for Rolling Layoffs
The Wall Street Journal ^ | December 30, 2012 | DION NISSENBAUM And DAMIAN PALETTA

Posted on 12/30/2012 10:27:43 AM PST by MinorityRepublican

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121 next last
To: blueunicorn6

DOD civilians are considered part of Total Force. Can’t do without them as some whole sections have no military members. The civilians are supposed to run the bases when the GIs deploy which happens quite frequently these days.

The advantage of having civilians is that they don’t move around as much as active duty. Civilians do deploy into the combat zones, they do wear uniforms and they do come back in aluminum boxes.

Everyone is cheering on these cuts but there is no word of cutting the leeches who are doing zerop for this country. At least most of the DOD civilian workforce have done time in uniform which is why they got the job in most cases.


61 posted on 12/30/2012 1:26:34 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

I resent the concept, held by this administration, that we’ve been a selfish country that needs to ‘reach out’ more to the world, and spend less on other things - like our defense. The bottom line is that we are an incredibly generous nation, and it is extremely probable that most of those countries that criticize us would be much more ‘selfish’ and insular than we have ever been if they had the same resources and power. We deserve to be congratulated, and thanked, not chastised - by our own President.


62 posted on 12/30/2012 1:41:02 PM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Fee

“Problem with the legal guidance is during the 1994 shutdown, DoD made plans way ahead of the shutdown and managers prepped. So why was it legal to prepare in 1994 and illegal to prepare in 2012? Something is not right here.”

That’s my point. In 1994, there was no spending authorization...so they had nothing to spend, and had to prepare for that. Today it’s similar with the cliff...just a cut in spending instead...and the should have been preparing.


63 posted on 12/30/2012 1:50:37 PM PST by BobL (Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21... (whatever the hell that is))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

They should be required to target obama voters for the first layoffs they are the ones that voted for this ...


64 posted on 12/30/2012 1:52:51 PM PST by Typical_Whitey (The political mirage of something for nothing; has ruined many a nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

I suggest that employees of companys that are being forced to layoff should determine through campaign contribution records, car bumber stickers, workfloor chatter who in their workforce voted for Obama and formally demand that those people being the cause of the required layoff should be the first ones to go. I wonder if a person that gets laid off that voted for Romney but has identified an Obama voter who did not get laid off could get a lawyer involved for discrimnation?


65 posted on 12/30/2012 1:56:11 PM PST by Typical_Whitey (The political mirage of something for nothing; has ruined many a nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

President Obama never ever had to compromise before. Why would he start now? Having that said, let’s jump the damn cliff now!


66 posted on 12/30/2012 2:01:53 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

As a member of that civilian workforce, I have been to Afghanistan three times and GTMO twice.

There is a HUGE difference between being a Federal GS civilian in the DOD and the being one in the rest of the federal behemoth. We really hate being lumped in with the rest, even as we understand why.


67 posted on 12/30/2012 2:10:42 PM PST by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
Wow , I see you buy the liberal news media cliff BS.

You don't compromise with evil communists/democrats who want to empower government , raise taxes and take away our individual rights. Do you people realize that everything democrats and the media(democrats) do is to empower government and at the same time dis-empower the individual?

No deal with the democrats, GOP must not cave to media pressure. Why do you want them to deal to solve what? democrat just want GOP to agree to raise taxes so they can destroy them in the next election as they did to Bush 1 "read my lips" made him agree to raise taxes promised him spending cuts that they never did. he fell for their democrat lies that they would cut spending later on which they never did. the media and democrats want Republicans to agree to raise taxes on the rich so then the media could tell all conservatives the GOP agreed to raise taxes to lower conservative voter turnout and then get democrats to take control of the HOuse again. that is the plan and if none of you see you don't know what is going on. I would put a proposal: dismantle the entire federal government and no tax raises on anyone, take it or leave it otherwise no deal.

68 posted on 12/30/2012 2:12:03 PM PST by Democrat_media (media makes mass shooters household names to create more & take our guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

“President Obama never ever had to compromise before. Why would he start now? Having that said, let’s jump the damn cliff now!”

I agree, he’s always gotten his way - he is a seriously spoiled brat. The problem he’ll have is with his own party - they WILL NOT stand for the consequences of the cliff and they will force him to seriously compromise, or they might even override him.

The Dems in Congress know that their wealthy Northeastern Liberal base has their office number on speed-dial, and their finger is about one inch off the button as we type. If they make that call, the Dems will probably have to replace their phones, as their speakers will blow out from the screaming of those people. They are not polite and calm like us conservatives - they are vicious, mad, dogs, and the Dems that represent them know it full well.

(of course the Republicans have to hold their ground for that to happen...I hate to say it, but my hopes are increasing, but I still don’t see them with the stomach for it)


69 posted on 12/30/2012 2:13:11 PM PST by BobL (Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21... (whatever the hell that is))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Hmmmmm...no mention of the other bureaucratic alphabet-soup nightmares inside the beltway.


70 posted on 12/30/2012 2:14:41 PM PST by Sarajevo (Don't think for a minute that this excuse for a President has America's best interest in mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I thought the “cliff” was the current tax rates that are expiring plus the spending cuts to medicare providers and defense. Everyone who currently pays income taxes will lose more from their paycheck - whether you’re lower, middle, or upper income earners. On top of that everyone’s payroll taxes will go up by 2 percent. Other “goodies” in going over the cliff entail AMT, I think, the estate tax limits, etc.

What entitlement spending is being cut besides Medicare?


71 posted on 12/30/2012 2:15:22 PM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Also democrats and the media are trying to do to the GOP what they did to Bush 1, made him agree to raise taxes by promising spending cuts that never came. Then the media depressed conservative voter turnout by blasting that bush raised taxes “read my lips”. this is the same play book, the media putting pressure on GOP as they did on Bush etc. The main goal is to get GOP to raise taxes, promise bs cuts that never come , and then get suppress conservative voter turnout in 2014 by blasting that GOP raised taxes, goal is to get the House in democrat hands again. I hope Republicans see it this time and don’t believe the media


72 posted on 12/30/2012 2:19:55 PM PST by Democrat_media (media makes mass shooters household names to create more & take our guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

First, I merely asked what’s so great about going over the cliff? That’s it.

Second, I’m not a “you people”. There’s only one of me asking the question.....and liberal I am not.

What is so great about going over the cliff? I never said I wanted anyone’s taxes to go up.... I don’t. I’ve seem a few on here seeming to be happy about the cliff....I don’t get it. There is no win here. There’s no win anywhere in this debate as far aa I can see. The only “winner” is obama and the dems right now.

I’d say odds are against going over “the cliff”. If we do go over “the cliff” the outcry will be large enough that it’s likely the Repubs will accept an even worse deal than they have now. I think obama and the dems want to go over the cliff right now. They know the Repubs will be blamed (yes the country is that stupid.....look who they voted for for Pres.). They don’t care how much damage they do. It’s about destroying the Repub’s now.


73 posted on 12/30/2012 2:38:39 PM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BobL

I could see DoD workers suing the gov on those grounds. Private industry was suppose to inform workers 60 days prior to layoffs, but Dept of Labor inform them that it was not necessary (for political reasons) and offer to cover employer costs if they are sued by laid off workers. All major DoD companies went along fearing retribution if they followed the law. I think laid off workers of Defense contractors will sue and the case will work its way up to the Supreme Court. Issue will be can Exec branch of gov order private citizens or companies to ignore a law and force taxpayers to cover the legal liabilities if the gov is wrong??


74 posted on 12/30/2012 2:38:39 PM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BobL

I could see DoD workers suing the gov on those grounds. Private industry was suppose to inform workers 60 days prior to layoffs, but Dept of Labor inform them that it was not necessary (for political reasons) and offer to cover employer costs if they are sued by laid off workers. All major DoD companies went along fearing retribution if they followed the law. I think laid off workers of Defense contractors will sue and the case will work its way up to the Supreme Court. Issue will be can Exec branch of gov order private citizens or companies to ignore a law and force taxpayers to cover the legal liabilities if the gov is wrong??


75 posted on 12/30/2012 2:39:14 PM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Notice how this works-—if the layoffs are “rolling “, ie they can go down to 35 ( I think the number is) hours per week and still be full time employees by federal rules, then not a single one of them will qualify for unemployment benefits. Even if the number drops to 20 hours per week they still couldn’t apply. So Obamuzzie can cut the bleep out of the DOD workforce and still not have the unemployment rate go up?


76 posted on 12/30/2012 2:39:24 PM PST by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fee

“Issue will be can Exec branch of gov order private citizens or companies to ignore a law and force taxpayers to cover the legal liabilities if the gov is wrong??”

Answer is no, of course. So this could get interesting. The companies will be liable for the 60 days of pay, regardless of what whether they get reimbursed - no way out of it. And they deserve it.


77 posted on 12/30/2012 2:41:32 PM PST by BobL (Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21...Agenda 21... (whatever the hell that is))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
When a ‘company’ can take an 800,000 cut in the workforce and still carry out basic functions, that tells me there are 800,000too many people working for it. Oh, believe me: carrying out basic functions will come to a screeching halt if this actually happens. Are you so naive as to believe that the DoD can function with only uniformed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines? Think again. TC
78 posted on 12/30/2012 2:42:10 PM PST by Pentagon Leatherneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck

Nope. Nor am I so brainless to think that it requires any number CLOSE to 800,000 people.

Nor do I believe for a nanosecond that faced with reality, they wouldn’t gut anything else to ensure continued operations.

Which they would. Which is the whole point of making them.


79 posted on 12/30/2012 2:51:57 PM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

“The warning is much gloomier than the agency recently offered employees, as it had said there wouldn’t be an immediate impact on personnel or operations if a deal wasn’t reached by January.”

Lemme guess! The initial position by the Pentagon was taken BEFORE the election. Now that the tyrant is safely re-installed in the White House the Truth comes out. So predictable!


80 posted on 12/30/2012 3:00:44 PM PST by Tallguy (Hunkered down in Pennsylvania.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121 next last

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