At White House Request, Lockheed Mart...

At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices

Posted in the Columbus Forum

Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1 Oct 2, 2012
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House today one with political overtones and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.

Lockheed, one of the biggest employers in the key battleground state of Virginia, previously warned it would have to issue notices to employees, required by law, due to looming defense cuts set to begin to take effect after Jan. 2 because of the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction the so-called Super-committee, which was created to find a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/...

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#2 Oct 2, 2012
Wait what wrote:
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House today one with political overtones and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.
Lockheed, one of the biggest employers in the key battleground state of Virginia, previously warned it would have to issue notices to employees, required by law, due to looming defense cuts set to begin to take effect after Jan. 2 because of the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction the so-called Super-committee, which was created to find a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/...
Misinformation.

The White House did not directly request Lockheed to do such.

This was a decision at the executive level that 60-day notices are not required because of the inability to determine whether or not this is a "foreseen" or "unforeseen" business situation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/201...

Not just Lockheed, ALL defense contractors and ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES--which will be affected. I don't work for Lockheed, I work for an equally large competitor so I had this news before the media did. Lockheed only made a public statement saying it was undecided whether or not to issue 60-day notices.

Do be careful of how you spread this information, it's an inflammatory situation as it is, and I may be "touchier" than most due to my situation; however, the headline and the way it's put makes it sound like there was a presidential demand on Lockheed. And no, I'm no Obama lover. Not by a long shot.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#4 Oct 2, 2012
Wait what wrote:
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House today one with political overtones and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.
Lockheed, one of the biggest employers in the key battleground state of Virginia, previously warned it would have to issue notices to employees, required by law, due to looming defense cuts set to begin to take effect after Jan. 2 because of the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction the so-called Super-committee, which was created to find a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/...
Gee, more crap from the glass house residing, rock tosser.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#5 Oct 2, 2012
Spookstillheref u trolls wrote:
<quoted text>
Issuing the notices would be within their right and should be issued. Any time an action can negatively impact the Marxist half breed the action should be taken.
That is partly my point--my take on it is that this is not a legally binding requirement but it is a "persuasive technique". The statement issued was basically an "instruction" or "guidance" in government-ese.(A language no one really wants to learn.) In reality, I do understand the logic of why this instruction was issued. We have NO information on which to proceed. The range that could happen is that federal employees and defense contractors may report on January 2nd, we may have "furloughs" (unpaid days), we may have across the board cuts resulting in loss of jobs, the entire fed government could shut down, entire programs may be cut or combined. Given that, I do think that was a *somewhat* prudent thing to do. No one in the industry is unaware of this. If someone is, they are deaf, dumb, and blind and incompetent.

The headline is what irritated me, it reads as if the White House directly pressured one large lobbying firm. That is not true.(And trust me, all of the defense contractors, big and small, are lobbying hard--believe it or not, our relationships with DC aren't easy most of the time.) And be far from it for me to stick up for a competitor ;)

But more importantly, and I can see where it would be construed that I'm pro-Obama here, but someone inside the defense industry would "get" is that this is in larger part a Congressional problem. Get the [email protected] off their dead a$$es, but we're looking at a house full of lame ducks.

http://www.stopsequestration.com/

We're in the midst of a mess. I'm working in the midst of a mess.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#6 Oct 2, 2012
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
That is partly my point--my take on it is that this is not a legally binding requirement but it is a "persuasive technique". The statement issued was basically an "instruction" or "guidance" in government-ese.(A language no one really wants to learn.) In reality, I do understand the logic of why this instruction was issued. We have NO information on which to proceed. The range that could happen is that federal employees and defense contractors may report on January 2nd, we may have "furloughs" (unpaid days), we may have across the board cuts resulting in loss of jobs, the entire fed government could shut down, entire programs may be cut or combined. Given that, I do think that was a *somewhat* prudent thing to do. No one in the industry is unaware of this. If someone is, they are deaf, dumb, and blind and incompetent.
The headline is what irritated me, it reads as if the White House directly pressured one large lobbying firm. That is not true.(And trust me, all of the defense contractors, big and small, are lobbying hard--believe it or not, our relationships with DC aren't easy most of the time.) And be far from it for me to stick up for a competitor ;)
But more importantly, and I can see where it would be construed that I'm pro-Obama here, but someone inside the defense industry would "get" is that this is in larger part a Congressional problem. Get the [email protected] off their dead a$$es, but we're looking at a house full of lame ducks.
http://www.stopsequestration.com/
We're in the midst of a mess. I'm working in the midst of a mess.
One of the contracts I worked on in the early 80's went out for rebid. All of us working in the lab submitted our resumes to all the bidders. Our current (at the time) employer lost the bid and by contract had to give us all notices and plane fare home. How many of us do you think took a free vacation on our soon to be former employer just to be back on the job for our new one?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#7 Oct 2, 2012
Wait what wrote:
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House today one with political overtones and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.
I think it was more like they told them it might not be considered a "foreseen" layoff for the purposes of the WARN act, and that the White House would pay the legal expenses of defending any company who chose not to send those notices and were prosecuted for it.

The fact that it benefits Obama for them to not send the notices just before election day is pure coincidence (wink wink).

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8 Oct 2, 2012
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the contracts I worked on in the early 80's went out for rebid. All of us working in the lab submitted our resumes to all the bidders. Our current (at the time) employer lost the bid and by contract had to give us all notices and plane fare home. How many of us do you think took a free vacation on our soon to be former employer just to be back on the job for our new one?
I hear ya.

There are some competitors that would do something like that -- and it's a dicy thing to do, long run.

Contract I was on had a guy from a competitor who ended up subbing for us. This sub was a wizard genius in the cyber security end of things. Problem was, this guy was assigned to us only part-time and his role evolved to a full-time role. We were in a precarious position when we had to re-sub because we wanted him full-time on our team and yet, there are now, non-compete clauses in our employment contracts. Some of the clauses permit you to move to a competitor but you can't use proprietary knowledge the company owns (even if you developed that knowledge...). Sigh. Needless to say, we had to hobble along without him when we did eventually renew the contract and the sub (a small minority firm) moved him to another full-time position with another program...

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#9 Oct 2, 2012
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that it benefits Obama for them to not send the notices just before election day is pure coincidence (wink wink).
BINGO!

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#11 Oct 2, 2012
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear ya.
There are some competitors that would do something like that -- and it's a dicy thing to do, long run.
Contract I was on had a guy from a competitor who ended up subbing for us. This sub was a wizard genius in the cyber security end of things. Problem was, this guy was assigned to us only part-time and his role evolved to a full-time role. We were in a precarious position when we had to re-sub because we wanted him full-time on our team and yet, there are now, non-compete clauses in our employment contracts. Some of the clauses permit you to move to a competitor but you can't use proprietary knowledge the company owns (even if you developed that knowledge...). Sigh. Needless to say, we had to hobble along without him when we did eventually renew the contract and the sub (a small minority firm) moved him to another full-time position with another program...
I was in a very specialized field at the time and there was a finite number of people who were qualified to do this work. Which guaranteed pretty much that the only thing to turn over at contract time was possibly our employer.

I've been away from it for a few decades but back when I was either working for a contractor or contracted directly myself, non-compete agreements were treated as a joke. No court would uphold them unless it dealt with very specific proprietary issues.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#12 Oct 2, 2012
Spookstillheref u trolls wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering if you crossed paths with a chronic masterbator Micheal Bentle?
Never heard of the name.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#14 Oct 2, 2012
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
I was in a very specialized field at the time and there was a finite number of people who were qualified to do this work. Which guaranteed pretty much that the only thing to turn over at contract time was possibly our employer.
I've been away from it for a few decades but back when I was either working for a contractor or contracted directly myself, non-compete agreements were treated as a joke. No court would uphold them unless it dealt with very specific proprietary issues.
Basically the same still.

What the non-compete clauses generally refer to now is any operations-related information or specific technologies developed to market the company itself. They claim they can enforce, in reality, they need a very obvious breach. Big issue harped on, with the last three defense firms I've worked with (you are given HOURS of training on this) is ethics. Primarily, how ethics are used to protect the firm and the US government's interests, not your own behind. Think of posters of Sgt. Gunny with a line that says "shut yer pie hole." So the pie holes are kept zipped and employee harvesting happens still, just cautiously. Customers don't like to lose people who are qualified and contractors are more than delighted to leverage if possible. But a smart contractor is one who will keep a highly qualified person at all costs, too. Remember, we work on a billable hours basis, like a law firm.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#15 Oct 2, 2012
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Basically the same still.
What the non-compete clauses generally refer to now is any operations-related information or specific technologies developed to market the company itself. They claim they can enforce, in reality, they need a very obvious breach. Big issue harped on, with the last three defense firms I've worked with (you are given HOURS of training on this) is ethics. Primarily, how ethics are used to protect the firm and the US government's interests, not your own behind. Think of posters of Sgt. Gunny with a line that says "shut yer pie hole." So the pie holes are kept zipped and employee harvesting happens still, just cautiously. Customers don't like to lose people who are qualified and contractors are more than delighted to leverage if possible. But a smart contractor is one who will keep a highly qualified person at all costs, too. Remember, we work on a billable hours basis, like a law firm.
Does it still require two distinctive skill sets to prosper in your environment? The first, being able to effectively do your job and the second, more important one, the ability to get along with the DoD. I never had a problem with that but I worked with some guys and had one work (for a very short spell) for me who just couldn't get along with 'our boss'

I've seen many a contract or contractor dropped due to that. Sure, there was some nit picky thing in the contract that was used for 'cause' but the bottom line was the inability to get along.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16 Oct 2, 2012
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it still require two distinctive skill sets to prosper in your environment? The first, being able to effectively do your job and the second, more important one, the ability to get along with the DoD. I never had a problem with that but I worked with some guys and had one work (for a very short spell) for me who just couldn't get along with 'our boss'
I've seen many a contract or contractor dropped due to that. Sure, there was some nit picky thing in the contract that was used for 'cause' but the bottom line was the inability to get along.
Definitely. We have more than one "boss." Several. Company and customers. All often have conflicting priorities and requirements.

And yes again. I've seen that too--contracts dropped or even employees fired or shuffled (on the customer end) for the inability to get along. My tricks: put the headphones at strategic times or graceful exits to the women's room.

I've worked both public and private sector. Public at county, state, federal level. At corporate and on-site. When I ever decide on a second career, it will not be anywhere near consulting/contracting. Good pay, good benefits, generally a stable world, but it takes in general someone with decent communication and negotiating skills, softer skills that are hard to come by for long-term survival. I think I will be burned out when I decide to retire.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#17 Oct 2, 2012
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitely. We have more than one "boss." Several. Company and customers. All often have conflicting priorities and requirements.
And yes again. I've seen that too--contracts dropped or even employees fired or shuffled (on the customer end) for the inability to get along. My tricks: put the headphones at strategic times or graceful exits to the women's room.
I've worked both public and private sector. Public at county, state, federal level. At corporate and on-site. When I ever decide on a second career, it will not be anywhere near consulting/contracting. Good pay, good benefits, generally a stable world, but it takes in general someone with decent communication and negotiating skills, softer skills that are hard to come by for long-term survival. I think I will be burned out when I decide to retire.
I've been away from it long enough I could go back to that environment for awhile but I just like setting my own schedule way too much.

I fully understand your sentiments of getting burned out on it. Hopefully you can hold up until you can comfortably walk away from it.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#18 Oct 2, 2012
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, more crap from the glass house residing, rock tosser.
What a passive-aggressive bully you are, Kosmik. I posted an article from ABC News for discussion WITHOUT personal commentary. Sue me.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#19 Oct 2, 2012
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Misinformation.
The White House did not directly request Lockheed to do such.
This was a decision at the executive level that 60-day notices are not required because of the inability to determine whether or not this is a "foreseen" or "unforeseen" business situation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/201...
Not just Lockheed, ALL defense contractors and ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES--which will be affected. I don't work for Lockheed, I work for an equally large competitor so I had this news before the media did. Lockheed only made a public statement saying it was undecided whether or not to issue 60-day notices.
Do be careful of how you spread this information, it's an inflammatory situation as it is, and I may be "touchier" than most due to my situation; however, the headline and the way it's put makes it sound like there was a presidential demand on Lockheed. And no, I'm no Obama lover. Not by a long shot.
From your own article:

"This White House directive..."
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#20 Oct 2, 2012
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Misinformation.
The White House did not directly request Lockheed to do such.
This was a decision at the executive level that 60-day notices are not required because of the inability to determine whether or not this is a "foreseen" or "unforeseen" business situation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/201...
Not just Lockheed, ALL defense contractors and ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES--which will be affected. I don't work for Lockheed, I work for an equally large competitor so I had this news before the media did. Lockheed only made a public statement saying it was undecided whether or not to issue 60-day notices.
Do be careful of how you spread this information, it's an inflammatory situation as it is, and I may be "touchier" than most due to my situation; however, the headline and the way it's put makes it sound like there was a presidential demand on Lockheed. And no, I'm no Obama lover. Not by a long shot.
It's on The Hill, it's everywhere. Not sure what you mean by "do be careful how you spread this information". It already spread.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry...

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21 Oct 3, 2012
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
It's on The Hill, it's everywhere. Not sure what you mean by "do be careful how you spread this information". It already spread.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry...
The headline. I read it as direct stone throwing against Obama by stating a specific firm was requested to drop plans to issue layoff notices. Truth is, we absolutely DON'T know what is going to happen. And it is NOT one specific firm targeted. Do you understand it that way? Do you know how many of these firms exist? Many. Do you know the kind of problem that layoff notices could cause at some place like WPAFB alone -- if there is absolutely NO knowledge that it could happen? This isn't a typical Reader hair-splitting issue in my view.

I'm not an Obama supporter by any stretch of the imagination. But this problem is pretty much due to a lame duck congress IMHO.

Directive is not legally-binding, either, the way I read and understand this. If you understand it, def contractors will be reimbursed for any legal issues arising from employers should they *choose* to follow these guidelines.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
California rejects John Wayne Day due to commen... 12 min d pants 50
Schools Can't Overcome Parental Neglect and Des... 15 min Culture Auditor 1
US-Created System In Iraq is collapsing 20 min d pants 1
News Store hours an obstacle to fresh foods in low-i... 36 min NEGROES SUCK 3
is caitlin jenner still a man? 54 min What it is 16
935000 signatures to boycott Target 2 hr d pants 101
News Travolta's 'I Am Wrath' goes straight to video 2 hr They cannot kill ... 4
Men in the Girls Bathroom 18 hr Reality Speaks 185
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages