And in addition, it doesn't exactly send a positive signals to investors. And those two things - bad for worker and investor morale - I think explain why other companies aren't rushing to follow Lockheed's lead. Which points to their behavior being extreme, and their leadership being hardcore in backing the zero military cuts ideology of the GOP leadership.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
