Another Look at Presidential Politics–Predictions for the Workplace–Hillary on FOREWARN Act

Now you think I’m making these things up. But I’m not. We’re learning more than we want to know. Please stop, you’re saying. I don’t want to know any more. I’m with you 100%, but I’m called to blog. And when you’re called to blog, you blog. So here’s another proposed law and the stance of one of the presidential candidates on it.

We’re familiar with the WARN Act–Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act for short. If you’re going to shut down a business or conduct a mass layoff, you’ve got to jump through certain hoops. You’ve got to give employees notice. If you don’t comply, you’ve got to pay affected employees money for not giving them enough notice.

But there aren’t enough hoops. Enough notice isn’t required. Enough employers aren’t covered. The penalties for violations aren’t sufficient. So we have FOREWARN. As far as I know, FORE isn’t an acronym for anything. It’s just something clever to add to the WARN acronym and to emphasize that a warning isn’t adequate. In other words, be forewarned.

FOREWARN is being pushed by those who believe that WARN hasn’t served its purpose either because it hasn’t been actively enforced or because WARN didn’t have enough teeth to begin with. What does FOREWARN do?

If you fail to give employees enough notice of a plant closing or mass layoff, they would be entitled to double backpay (instead of mere backpay as required presently by WARN) plus benefits for the period of time you were delinquent in giving the notice. The threshold for a mass layoff would be decreased from 50 employees to 25. Covered employers would be increased, so that if you have 50 employees (instead of the 100 now required by WARN), you must comply with the law. And the notification period would be increased from 60 days to 90 days.

All of the proposed changes are somewhat significant, but that last one (going from 60 to 90 days notice) should get your attention. I’m sympathetic to employees who lose jobs when businesses close and big layoffs occur, but I also know that a lot of employers are sympathetic as well. Sometimes, they go to great lengths to keep a business going and prevent or reduce layoffs. I don’t know many employers, however, whose crystal ball is clear enough to allow them to plan in such a way that gives them the flexibility to provide affected employees 90 days notice. Should this proposal become law, that means employers will just have to suck it up and pay the additional penalties, give notice way before they’re ready to (and maybe the notice proves to be unnecessary causing unnecessary angst), or get a new crystal ball.

Where does Senator Clinton stand on FOREWARN? She’s a co-sponsor.

1. 

   Jim says:

   March 5, 2008 at 5:58 pm

   Mr. Phillips – your analyses of Hilary’s positions on the various business related bills was very enlightening and frankly should be required reading for all voters. Most of this has remained under the radar as far as what I’ve seen and heard. What is even more troubling is that she is actually considered less liberal than Senator Obama!
2. 

   John Phillips says:

   March 5, 2008 at 6:08 pm

   Thanks for weighing in. I will do some stuff on Obama and McCain as well. In terms of most of the substantive issues, there’s little difference between Clinton and Obama. In some of Clinton’s rhetoric, she’s moved a bit to the center or right, but in terms of positions taken or votes made on employment stuff, there’s no difference to speak of.
3. 

   John Phillips says:

   April 1, 2008 at 8:55 am

   Thanks for the mention.