Maybe someone more up to speed and lay this out for me, but this is what I see . . . Without congress passing a new budget, the defense budget will be cut by BILLIONS of dollars as of 1/1/13. Government contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc., have estimated that if the budget cuts occur, they will cut thousands of jobs. In according to the WARN Act, the contractors have to notify their workers at least 60 days in advance of any mass layoff. In this case, the 60 days prior to 1/1/13 is November 2, just days BEFORE the election. Now, on Friday afternoon, (funny), The administration issued a memo stating that the contractors didn't need to issue any notices, and it said that contractors would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance. From what I can tell, there are only three exceptions: The exceptions to 60-day notice are: (1) Faltering company. This exception, to be narrowly construed, covers situations where a company has sought new capital or business in order to stay open and where giving notice would ruin the opportunity to get the new capital or business, and applies only to plant closings; (2) unforeseeable business circumstances. This exception applies to closings and layoffs that are caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would otherwise have been required; and (3) Natural disaster. This applies where a closing or layoff is the direct result of a natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, drought or storm. Can someone please explain this to me, because it looks like the administration is playing games with people's jobs, for the sake of his re-election campaign and the people footing the bill are, of course, the taxpayer. I know that back in July the administration first said that the contractors would be exempt because the budget cuts, and thus the job loss, was all "speculative." Just seems shady. I mean, if a budget hasn't been passed, wouldn't they have to assume that they'd have layoffs?