![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So the debt ceiling deal has this provision that calls for $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts—effective the start of this coming year—because Congress has not been able to agree on how to mix "lower spending" with higher taxes. (I use the quotes around "lower spending" because (a) government spending is never "lower," just "not increased as much as proposed" and (b) what's at issue is really promises of lower spending that have, historically, never materialized.)
And then there's this animal called the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires employers to notify employees who are "reasonably likely" to lose their jobs no later than 60 days before such a layoff might occur.
For some defense companies, this would mean sending out such notifications before Election Day. This past July 30, the Labor Department issued guidance saying that such notices would be inappropriate since the sequestration might be averted. The only problem is that if a company doesn't comply and then has to lay people off, they'd be liable for penalties under the law and the costs of litigation
So the Office of Management and Budget went ahead last Friday and announced, basically, that if a company follows the Labor Department's guidance, the government would cover any such liability and the costs of any litigation.
I'm hoping it doesn't come to this, but I can't help but suspect the next step in this trend will be for the government to threaten companies with steep penalties if they obey the law.
Given what's been happening, I would not be tremendously surprised.
And then there's this animal called the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires employers to notify employees who are "reasonably likely" to lose their jobs no later than 60 days before such a layoff might occur.
For some defense companies, this would mean sending out such notifications before Election Day. This past July 30, the Labor Department issued guidance saying that such notices would be inappropriate since the sequestration might be averted. The only problem is that if a company doesn't comply and then has to lay people off, they'd be liable for penalties under the law and the costs of litigation
So the Office of Management and Budget went ahead last Friday and announced, basically, that if a company follows the Labor Department's guidance, the government would cover any such liability and the costs of any litigation.
I'm hoping it doesn't come to this, but I can't help but suspect the next step in this trend will be for the government to threaten companies with steep penalties if they obey the law.
Given what's been happening, I would not be tremendously surprised.
