Speakeasy forum: Lawyer explains Ins and Outs of Sequestration

The suspense is boring me. Time to put up or shut up.

avoiding sequestration?

Sure that wasn't any bill that didn't include a tax increase rather than any bill?

After all, the intent of sequestration according to everyone I've seen discuss it was to be so bad that both sides would do anything to avoid it, just like the fiscal cliff hubris. That underestimated both sides willing to take the chance of getting away with blaming the other side.

there names I can't even say I know at the state and local levels.

Others I know the name, but all I really know is sound bites.

The only other info is if a friend really believes in someone and I trust their opinion. That's better than sound bites at least. Of course the down side is that often when I know them and trust their judgement, I also know that my views are different from them even though I respect them.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/furlough

Definition of FURLOUGH


1: to grant a furlough to


2: to lay off from work


Synonyms ax (or axe), discharge, dismissal, layoff, redundancy [chiefly British]

that depends on the times.

If I expect to repeatedly be furlough even for only a week at the time, I will consider using that time off looking for other work even if I don't have to. I went through that once, 3 weeks on, 1 week off, but since my job was a 6 day a week (8 hours Sat time and half) and we were eligible for employment for the week off I wasn't that worried. And I was younger and a bit less realistic perhaps. After about 4 cycles I could see the difference in my bank accounts and pocket cash.

A furlough of a day a week, as being discussed in some agencies, may take a while before the economic impact really hits you, but it will gradually get worse. Of course in today's job market, even if you can find another job you'll probably take that 20% cut or more, so why change? The only reason then is your estimate of the longer term stability of each job. And today nothing is reliable.

The advantage to an employer may be obvious. If you cut someone from 40 hours to 32, I don't think they're eligible to file for unemployment, which affects the employers unemployment tax and fees. In North Carolina, if it hasn't changed, if you're working 24 hours a week or more, you're not legally laid off and not eligible for unemployment. If you work them 4 weeks and off one, you would be eligible for unemployment files against the employer.

Years ago, back in the early 70's I was involved in that 3 weeks on 1 week off for about 3 months. Back then, the employer actually the first week rearranged schedules so everyone worked 23 3/4 hours. That meant that week quaified as your waiting week before getting unemployment but still got at least something.

Don't hear much about companies doing things like that to help employees cope since the 80's, not at the floor level.

from a furlong furrow ploughed by a fuhrlander, is no longer a tough row to hoe.

your link....it has said exactly what I have been saying.......there is a difference between a furlough and a layoff, and layoff notices are what were supposed to go out and didn't.

"sequestration requires layoffs".....In order to avoid layoffs, you use the furlough method. Furlough notices are not covered under the Warn Act......layoff notices are. Layoffs are coming, notices didn't go out in time, lawsuits will be paid by the taxpayer because BO told those employers to not send out notices and break the law. What part of this don't you understand or do you refuse to accept as truth just because I'm the one telling you about it since October?

in place for absolute layoffs......it's in place for POSSIBLE/PROBABLE/IMMINENT mass layoffs and is there exactly for that reason. It gives people a heads up that layoffs are coming, and it doesn't have to specifically say how many or even WHICH employees will get laid off. It allows people to make a decision to either start putting in applications for jobs somewhere else IN CASE they are let go or to stay put and hope for the best that they AREN'T one of those who get the 'real' pink slip. The very name of the Act describes what its intent is.......it's a WARNING.

Have you READ the Act itself?

For the DOL to state publicly that the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) won't apply to layoffs caused by sequestration, is as much of a lie as BO stating that sequestration isn't going to happen during the campaign, and that he called Benghazi a terror attack in the Rose Garden that Candi during the campaign debate said he did also.

We'll all see come Friday........

workers for a government agency providing services are not covered under the act. Interesting how the government excluded itself from all the treatment of labor laws it passes.

What does seem to be covered in a rough description.

Plant closings.

Mass layoffs. The definition of that seems to be a layoff over 30 days or more of 500 or more employees, OR 50 to 499 employees if the number laid off is at least 1/3 of the site employment. At least reading seems to indicate at a plant, not throughout the corporation. Also, workers who have worked less than 6 months in the past 12 aren't counted, and those working less than 20 hours a week aren't counted.

There is also a provision for layoff of more than one group that totals to either 1/3 or 500+ in a 90 day period at one site (if I read it right, this part doesn't seem quite as straight forward). There seems to be a loophole that if the employer can demostrate that different layoffs were due to different causes, they don't add up toward the thresholds to invoke the WARN act.

I guess an example would be if they had one layoff because of business conditions but then had to let others go because of accidental facility damages/losses? That's my own guess at an example, not one I found. I wonder if they had one layoff because of business loss then were forced into another because of a supply shortage because a supplier failed would be separate causes. Espcially in this case if the first layoff was caused by sequestration and then the supplier failed because of sequestration.

So furloughs, or what I've known as rotating layoffs, might avoid the law. If you lay off 1/4 you would be safe from it seems clear. If you have everyone take 1 day a week off, that's only 20% no matter how you figure it and you're clear.

But are you clear if you lay off 1/3 one week at the time and rotate the layoff? It can be done, at least in some cases. Or if you do like I've known some to do and work a 2 or 3 weeks on then evereyone is off a week. You don't hit the within 30 day mark of course, and depending on how many weeks you're off in a 13 week period you probably won't hit the number without in 90 days either.

Seems there is more than one way to avoid the intent of the law. I admit I may have the administration of the act wrong since I only read a few descriptions of it.

how many of those government contractors who were told by BO to break the law and not send out those notices in time for the election actually got a 'tutorial' from Holder in how to get around it all......by using furloughs in rotation rather than actual layoffs. BUT....at the same time, there are OBM statistics showing that up to 700,000 jobs will be LOST because of sequestration and that the unemployment rate will climb again above the 8% mark.

Again.....we'll see what happens.

which is what it sounds a lot are planning to do.

And if some are talking about furloughing for a day a week, in NC it use to be if you worked 24 hours at your job, you weren't eligible for unemployment. That was decades though, I'm not sure if it's still the guideline or not.

That would mean you only have to be allowed to work 24 hours a week to be ineligible for unemployment. And for those on varying schedules, a schedule conflict that kept you from working the 24 hours offered probably would mean even if you worked less than 24 you'd still be ineligible. That is just a guess.