FWIW, even though Lockheed's leadership may want to make a political point using the WARN act, it would hurt morale among the engineers, etc. The aerospace engineers around here are getting a little tired of all the lay-off warnings, not to mention actual lay-offs.
David Shemano wrote: > As an insolvency lawyer, I am fairly familiar with the WARN Act, usually in > the capacity of attempting to determine whether notices must be sent where > there is a risk that sending the notices will kill an attempted > restructuring. Under your circumstance, I don't see how sending a notice is > an "abuse" of the WARN Act. If Lockheed contemplates that layoffs will occur > in January if the sequester occurs, they will want to have given the notice > 60 days in advance (November) as opposed to waiting until January and then > giving 60 days' notice. In a litigious society, it is always safer to do > more than less.< -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
