Speakeasy

General discussion

Irony, Sequestration, Warn Act

by TONI H / February 21, 2013 8:37 AM PST

The cuts coming from sequestration will result now in Federal funds paying up the gazoo with attorneys chomping at the bit over Warn Act lawsuits coming. BO guaranteed, when he told contractors to break the law before the election to not send out the layoff notices, that the Federal government would pay the tab on all lawsuits that stem from sequestration, because he was convinced he could break the Republicans and that they would cave to his demands.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Irony, Sequestration, Warn Act
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Irony, Sequestration, Warn Act
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
We're a week away. Personally, I want to ride this out
by Steven Haninger / February 21, 2013 8:54 AM PST

and not let congress use us this way. We need to show them we don't panic or party at their whim. We, the people, need to take charge. No one who just sits still is going to die.

Collapse -
we the people won't be paid attention to unless
by Roger NC / February 21, 2013 9:00 AM PST

after such a fiasco as last year and this year, we turn out every Congresscitter at their next primary, not in the general election, but in the party primaries.

Of course, that was something the Tea Party succeeded in a few districts and lost the Republican party safe seats.

My view is opposite of theirs of course, I want some more moderates from both conservative and liberal camps.

Collapse -
Being too moderate was one of Romney's suggested
by Steven Haninger / February 21, 2013 9:10 AM PST

liabilities...that his own party was less than enthusiastic about him. That's too bad and I agree with you that it's the spectrum opposites who are the problem and the wishy-washy moderates who never see a welcome mat from either.

Collapse -
and even in agreement you disparage moderates?
by Roger NC / February 21, 2013 10:25 AM PST

wishy washy is one common intended as an insult to anyone that isn't as dogmatic like an inquistion judge or isn't as pie in the sky optimistic as a pot high hippie.

wishy washy
fence sitter
weak willed


If you don't have a hard line position and damn those who think different you're not worthy belong, example the current fanatic's love of the terms RINO and DINO for example. Those position? if you don't agree with all the way and hate the opposition you're no good and don't belong.

Now I'm not accusing you of that Steve, even when I disagree with your position, I've never consider you a radical or intractable.

I'm just pointing out the term used and the attitude often held by those using it.

Collapse -
That was tongue in cheek as if being
by Steven Haninger / February 21, 2013 5:56 PM PST

looked at from the perspective of extremists. Personally, I refuse to identify with a party and prefer to study issues individually. It's probable that I share more agreement with one side or the other but won't stand with either as I abhor their behavior. Temper tantrums should never be tools that produce success.

Collapse -
not a bad position, but if not registered with a party here
by Roger NC / February 21, 2013 8:03 PM PST

you have no say so in the primaries.

And that right now is where things need changing, not allowing any incumbent to even run again.

Then you can still vote conservative or liberal if you have a strong leaning and still vote for someone new.

Sadly, I don't think many reasonable people will run for office. It seems you have to hear the drumbeat of power, influence, and notority to run for office now.

Collapse -
Interesting comment there
by Steven Haninger / February 21, 2013 8:47 PM PST

I've never voted in a primary and don't know the requirements here. It makes no sense that participation requires party registration if the process is paid for with taxpayer dollars. There needs to be an independent primary which would not even mention potential candidate's party affiliation if this is true.

Collapse -
well since the primary choses a party's candidate
by Roger NC / February 22, 2013 6:38 AM PST

why wouldn't it be limited to party members?

There is a state that lets registered independents vote in one primary or the other but not both, I can't remember where.

Collapse -
Guess I'm a bit ignorant,
by Steven Haninger / February 22, 2013 8:52 AM PST
Collapse -
(NT) It's so the Democrats don't have to go begging
by James Denison / February 22, 2013 2:16 PM PST
Collapse -
(NT) you sound gleeful over your predicted chaos
by Roger NC / February 21, 2013 8:57 AM PST
Collapse -
Not gleeful, Roger
by TONI H / February 21, 2013 9:10 AM PST

Just sitting saying "I told you so" when I brought this up before the November election. Those notices would have been received two days before votes were cast and BO deliberately told those contractors to break the law and guaranteed payment for any possible lawsuits that would show up (and they will in droves) because he didn't want that notice showing up and getting jammed in his face with a vote against him. So he gets a pass for telling companies to break the law in order to get elected, but the taxpayers, instead of getting the cuts that show up next week, will actually go into debt for the lawsuits that will result.

What a piece of sh.. this guy is.

Collapse -
RE:Just sitting saying "I told you so"
by JP Bill / February 21, 2013 11:30 AM PST
In reply to: Not gleeful, Roger

And next week when both sides have an agreement?

What will you say then?

Collapse -
I have no idea what you said in your last sentence
by TONI H / February 21, 2013 9:28 PM PST

as it made no sense. If you recall, sequestration was supposed to happen Jan 1.....which meant that all those layoff notices were supposed to be sent/given out sixty days ahead of that date. That would have put notices in the hands of potential voters on November 1....two days before the election. Once it was delayed until March 1, those notices were supposed to go out by January 1 instead and didn't again. If sequestration happens on March 1, every contractor who violated the law, based on BO's word (remember he is the ultimate liar-in-office), is liable for lawsuits under the Warn Act that BO has promised to pay with taxpayer dollars in order to win his election. Obviously again, he has written out checks that his account can't cover, so whatever is 'saved' by the sequestration cuts will now be spent on paying off lawsuits instead. And he said BUSH was incompetent????????

Collapse -
RE: I have no idea what you said in your last sentence
by JP Bill / February 21, 2013 11:01 PM PST

You said

Just sitting saying "I told you so" when I brought this up before the November election. Those notices would have been received two days before votes were cast and BO deliberately told those contractors to break the law and guaranteed payment for any possible lawsuits that would show up (and they will in droves) because he didn't want that notice showing up and getting jammed in his face with a vote against him. So he gets a pass for telling companies to break the law in order to get elected, but the taxpayers, instead of getting the cuts that show up next week, will actually go into debt for the lawsuits that will result.

I said

So they start sending out notices March 1 giving the required 60 day notice...and there are no lawsuits?

Answer these 2 questions THEN I'll respond further.

1. Are you complaining about the lawsuits that will be filed because a "60 day notice of layoffs" is required., and you think it should have been given in Nov before the election? (Yes OR No)

2. Do you think they can't give a "60 day notice of layoffs" on March 1 or at any time after that? (I guess you think they can't, so give an explanation of WHY NOT)

Collapse -
OK....here goes
by TONI H / February 22, 2013 12:07 AM PST

1. Yes, I am complaining about the lawsuits that will be filed because the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab as promised by our law-breaking, aiding and abetting President since it was his command that held those up so they didn't appear before the election as required by law....Warn Act.

2. Evidently you haven't bothered to look up the Warn Act and what it says. The 60 day notice has to be given 60 days BEFORE the actual event takes place, NOT beginning the day of the event. Giving out a notice on March 1, and having the sequestration take effect that day, breaks the Warn Act Law because the notices should have been given by January 1.

Collapse -
And the layoffs begin March 1....
by TONI H / February 22, 2013 2:28 AM PST

for most companies. What part of that don't you understand or haven't you watched any conservative news shows to realize that the layoffs are already starting, especially in VA? I ask about conservative news shows because the liberal news rags aren't covering that part much yet.

Sequestration March 1....layoffs March 1.......SAME EVENT DATE requires 60 days ADVANCE notice which would have been January 1.

I realize that math and reading aren't your best friends....perhaps Head Start should have been implemented in Canada in time to help you with that.

Collapse -
RE: And the layoffs begin March 1.... - New! by TONI H -
by JP Bill / February 22, 2013 2:54 AM PST
And the layoffs begin March 1.... - New!

by TONI H - 2/22/13 10:28 AM

In Reply to: Some others that don't know the law by JP Bill

for most companies.


For most companies BUT not the ones mentioned in the links I've provided?

Sequestration March 1....layoffs March 1.......SAME EVENT DATE requires 60 days ADVANCE notice which would have been January 1.

Give it up Toni...you're WRONG, you're not going to admit it or provide any proof of what you're arguing.


The process of furloughing civilians began today, with Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta sending notification to Congress. "That starts a 45-day clock ticking, and until that clock has run out, we cannot proceed with furloughs," Hale explained.

If sequester happens, each employee will be notified. "That starts a 30-day clock -- waiting period -- before we can take any action," the comptroller said. "The bottom line is furloughs would not actually start for DOD employees until late April,


You get it...right...Late April...60 days?...Do the math.

I realize that math and reading aren't your best friends....perhaps Head Start should have been implemented in Canada in time to help you with that.

This from a person that can't tell time and doesn't know what a "time zone" is. Remember that post? About me getting up at #:30 in the morning to post?....YOU didn't realize the time stamps on posts were Pacific Time Zone. Something about you assuring me that "you're not stupid" then you say something stupid.

BANG!!!!

Please no more posts by you on how the WARN Act works...
Collapse -
There is a difference between
by TONI H / February 22, 2013 3:44 AM PST

a 'furlough' and a 'layoff' notice, JP........a furlough is where you have to take unpaid days off (such as you would have if you were put on part-time status) and can keep your job but aren't officially laid off from your job and may not ever be called back. A layoff is where you are officially laid off and have that 60 days notice to decide if you are going to look for another job or hope they call you back soon. The LAYOFF notices are what are supposed to go out 60 days PRIOR to being laid off.......and many are already getting those pink slips....and those are the notices that were supposed to go out first by November 1 and again after the delay of sequestration by January 1 and none did.

I am not wrong about this, JP.......your link refers to 'furloughs', not layoffs.

Collapse -
RE: And the layoffs begin March 1 for most companies
by JP Bill / February 22, 2013 3:48 AM PST

Provide some links showing layoffs beginning March 1

that will be governed by the WARN Act

Put up or shut up.

Collapse -
RE; many are already getting those pink slips....
by JP Bill / February 22, 2013 3:51 AM PST

With a 60 day notice.....You are going to be laid of in 60 days...that's the end of April

And you think some lawyer is going to fight THAT in Court?

They may be ambulance chasers but come on Toni...Give them some credit.

You're twisting stuff now Toni...admit it.

Collapse -
I keep forgetting
by TONI H / February 22, 2013 4:47 AM PST

that I'm trying to talk to an idiot. When the lawsuits start, I'll let you know, because they ARE coming.

Collapse -
RE: When the lawsuits start, I'll let you know,
by JP Bill / February 22, 2013 5:10 AM PST

When the lawsuits start, I'll let you know, because they ARE coming

Please do...I've permalinked your post and will be reminding you weekly.

Collapse -
Chaos?
by James Denison / February 22, 2013 1:18 AM PST

How is it chaos to balance the budget? Is that what budget balancing has come to be regarded, as Chaos? We need Maxwell Smart on this case.

Collapse -
The cuts coming from sequestration
by JP Bill / February 21, 2013 11:16 PM PST
Collapse -
Wrong
by TONI H / February 22, 2013 12:07 AM PST

Read the law, then you'll understand.

Collapse -
wahzoo?
by James Denison / February 22, 2013 1:15 AM PST

not gazoo?

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Tech Tip

Know how to save a wet phone?

It's not with a dryer and it's not with rice. CNET shows you the secret to saving your phone.