What charges should be brought against this administration for encouraging the breaking of the law?

It's outrageous that President Obama is encouraging companies to break the law and, worse, pledging taxpayer's money to cover their costs of litigation. It would be ironic to point out that then-Senator Obama tried to strengthen the WARN Act that he's now encouraging companies to ignore, but this Administration is well past irony.

Congress should repudiate any public funding of litigation costs for private companies who break the law.

The administration gave out this advice in JULY, it is only now been "discovered". Yes the WARN act requires 60 days notice, but only in the case of actual layoffs. No "potential" layoff warnings are required. Also the WARN act says that if an employoer is unable to give 60 days notice because of the contracting agency (the United States in this case) then any financial harm caused has to be paid by the contracting agency, not the employer. Thus paying legal fees is the requirement of the WARN act itself and not something made up by Obama.

i assume everyone is equating sequestered defense cuts with contract cancellations and thus layoffs. that is not true, the sequestered cuts are blind, the programs that might be effected and the extent of cutback in any particular defense program has yet to be determined. therefore there is no logical reason that ALL defense contractors fire ALL employees, that is just crazy talk, made up to score political points. it is actually possible that there will be NO layoffs because of the sequester.

They aren't, this is a bunch of pandering to show the "corruption" of the Obama Presidency.

The WARN act falls into play only if there are potential layoffs. Just because there is a cut in defense does not automatically mean that there will (or even could be) layoffs.

Negotiations on who gets cut where won't START until the beginning of the year, so sending warnigs out now is also somewhat foolish.

also, I'm curious how an article that's written on October 1st can source an article that's written October 2nd.

Why do you consider that a problem but seemingly are unworried about the fact that the GOP is rapidly backing out of their agreement to this law?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/boehner...