Defense firms confirm layoff warnings

B

BernieP

Resident PIA
Gilligan said:
To add to that, I read on one of the military info sites that it was highly likely that the layoffs would be skewed toward the contracts side..so a lower percentage of civil service employees would be laid off, that to be offset by a higher percentage of contract employees so that the overall target cost reduction is achieved. I wish I could find that article again because I think the proposed "split" was even identified....but I can't recall what it was.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's important to differentiate betwen vendors (primes and their subs) and contract support services (civilian workforce augmentation).

I believe for purposes of workforce reduction on the DoD side, CSS counts. Hence the planned cuts to "contractors". That would affect a lot of local firms.
 
PrepH4U

PrepH4U

New Member
Mr.Steed said:
DO YOUR JOB, BORING MOMMY! This post is incredibly offensive and threatening!!! Why does it take the possibility of involving you in a potential lawsuit to motivate you to clean up this viper pit? In light of what has occurred in the last few days with the murders of American diplomats and staff, crap like this from extremist Republicans about fellow Americans is disgusting! Do your GD job and moderate, or let the Feds moderate it for you!
:smack:
Click to expand...
:killingme:killingme I guess you just were moderated! :killingme
 
kwillia

kwillia

n/a
With excruciating detail, the White House on Friday laid out exactly where it will have to cut $109 billion from federal spending in January, including $11.1 billion from Medicare and $54.7 billion from defense spending.

The defense cuts include $21.5 billion from operations and maintenance for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the reserves and National Guard, and nearly $1.4 billion from military aide to Afghanistan, with tens of billions coming from procurement and other Pentagon accounts.

“The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions,” the White House said in the report.

Everything from fencing and technology along the U.S.-Mexico border to the government’s own internal watchdogs to local environmental programs are also on the chopping block.

The cuts fall particularly heavy on the federal civilian workforce, where staffing levels and salaries would be docked more than 8 percent almost across the board.



Read more: White House details 'destructive' spending cuts - Washington Times White House details 'destructive' spending cuts - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
kwillia said:
With excruciating detail, the White House on Friday laid out exactly where it will have to cut $109 billion from federal spending in January, including $11.1 billion from Medicare and $54.7 billion from defense spending.

The defense cuts include $21.5 billion from operations and maintenance for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the reserves and National Guard, and nearly $1.4 billion from military aide to Afghanistan, with tens of billions coming from procurement and other Pentagon accounts.

“The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions,” the White House said in the report.

Everything from fencing and technology along the U.S.-Mexico border to the government’s own internal watchdogs to local environmental programs are also on the chopping block.

The cuts fall particularly heavy on the federal civilian workforce, where staffing levels and salaries would be docked more than 8 percent almost across the board.



Read more: White House details 'destructive' spending cuts - Washington Times White House details 'destructive' spending cuts - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...
So her comes the extortion..

You Vote for ROMNEY, Obama will be a LameDuck and do NOTHING to prevent Sequestration.. Romney will come in with less than a week to stop it (NOT going to happen)..

Vote for Obama, and he will work tirelessly to ensure it doesn't happen.. well, he'll start work as soon as he knows he's been re-elected, not a day before.
 
B

bresamil

wandering aimlessly
itsbob said:
So her comes the extortion..

You Vote for ROMNEY, Obama will be a LameDuck and do NOTHING to prevent Sequestration.. Romney will come in with less than a week to stop it (NOT going to happen)..

Vote for Obama, and he will work tirelessly to ensure it doesn't happen.. well, he'll start work as soon as he knows he's been re-elected, not a day before.
Click to expand...
Well, I expect Steny to start his white knight campaign to slay the evil Sequestration any second now. I mean, after all, he single-handedly fended off the BRAC at PAX. :coffee:
 
B

BernieP

Resident PIA
itsbob said:
So her comes the extortion..

You Vote for ROMNEY, Obama will be a LameDuck and do NOTHING to prevent Sequestration.. Romney will come in with less than a week to stop it (NOT going to happen)..

Vote for Obama, and he will work tirelessly to ensure it doesn't happen.. well, he'll start work as soon as he knows he's been re-elected, not a day before.
Click to expand...
Better yet, it's, "Give us back control of the house" because we all know that in 4 years this administration hasn't been able to get a budget passed and signed into law because the nasty republicans were just being, well nasty.

Funny thing is, that for the first two years of this administration, the three stooges, Barry, Harry and Nancy had complete control. If you recall during the so called "healthcare debates" the republicans in congress were dismissed, told that we don't need to consider you because we have a super majority, you can't filibuster this bill so just go away.

Two years later the republicans gain control of the house, but they still control the senate.

The real reason Barry can't get a budget passed is that he's not an effective leader.

and while the budget needs to be shrunk, this bill was designed as a poison pill, it's not a path to balancing the budget, it's a path to destroy the economy, it's a game of chicken.
 
R

royhobie

hobieflyer
This past October, they already cut the entire staff of contractors in our office. That was only be beginning. The are already starting layoffs with other contractors. All of this at the same time when we give billions to foreign nations. Many of which are not exactly our friends. If the aren't our friends, and we provide aid and comfort, what is it called? Isn't it illegal? And if it's illegal, why isn't our government investigating it?
 
P

protectmd

New Member
It really doesn't matter. Obongo and his anti military budget cuts are going to send st. Mary's county and the defense contractors back to the stone age.
 
MarieB

MarieB

New Member
Obama administration tells contractors again: Don’t issue layoff notices

The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.

The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.

But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

cont
Obama administration tells contractors again: Don
 
B

BernieP

Resident PIA
The major defense firms will not have their current contracts voided. My understanding is that the cuts will be to the workforce, both civilian and contractor support. We have already stopped back filling CSS jobs. It means we are short staffed but it's being done in anticipation that those positions and more will not be funded in FY13 (and beyond).
Civilian employees can expect to be furloughed.
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
BernieP said:
The major defense firms will not have their current contracts voided. My understanding is that the cuts will be to the workforce, both civilian and contractor support. We have already stopped back filling CSS jobs. It means we are short staffed but it's being done in anticipation that those positions and more will not be funded in FY13 (and beyond).
Civilian employees can expect to be furloughed.
Click to expand...
I don't think laying off and furlowing some people will get that much in cuts. Remember the presidential helicopter, the AH-64 Commanche, the F-22......

JSF is one place they could realize significant savings, as is the newest aircraft carrier.
 
MarieB

MarieB

New Member
The topic of impending federal budget sequestration come January 2013 has nearly dominated the discussion of the current state and near future of federal contracting for the last several months. All quarters across industry and government alike almost uniformly are decrying the potential highly disruptive impact of across-the-board budget cuts would be to federal programs and their supporting contractors, but nothing has been done yet to avert the event. And that lack of action is telling. Recent comments by a key defense official lead me to believe that this whole thing is more about symbolism rather than substance, regardless of the collateral damage.

Sequestration came to prominence after the Senate Joint Select “Super” Committee failed to produce the requisite reductions laid out in the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2012. As a result, budget sequestration is scheduled to automatically take effect in January unless averted through further action by Congress and the White House.

At a recent industry event I attended, Robert F. Hale, Under Secretary of Defense and DoD Chief Financial Officer discussed how the military was looking at financing their mission in tighter budgetary times. Naturally, one of the big issues that arose in the discussion was the impact of the impending sequestration. Hale responded that he hoped sequestration would be averted and that such a sequestration would have very disruptive impacts to the DoD. Throughout the event, when the specifics of sequestration arose from the interviewer or from the audience Hale stayed on message: hope for aversion, disruptive if it occurs. Several times Hale put the onus on Congress to “pass deficit reduction legislation that the president would sign.” Clearly, the Pentagon is speaking with the larger voice of the Obama Administration with regard to sequestration.

But Hale also mentioned that at this time the DoD was not constructing any “what if” contingency plans to deal with the prospects of sequestration and that is the part of the message that leads me to draw the conclusion that, in the end, he not only hopes for averting sequestration but that he expects it to be averted. Given the presumed lead time it would take to complete sequestration planning at DoD it is hard for me to conclude much else.

cont
Budget Sequestration May Be Mostly Bluster, but Still Cause Damage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top