This website and our authorized third-party service providers use cookies to achieve the purposes described in our Privacy Policy. If you would like to learn more or withdraw your consent to some or all cookies, please review our Privacy Policy. By selecting “I ACCEPT” on this banner, scrolling this page, clicking any link, or continuing to browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.
The WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) specifies that 60 days' notice must be given in firms with more than 100 full-time employees when large-scale layoffs are going to take place. The act kicks in when 50 employees at one location are laid off within a 30-day period, or when 33 percent of the workfoce is laid off, or when 500 employees are laid off (regardless of the percentage of the workforce).
However--and there are a lot of howevers in WARN--the window extends to 90 days when the layoffs are staggered but reach those same thresholds in combination. ("Caught you trying to cheat!" is the emphasis here.)
Here's another however: WARN defines full-time employees as those who have averaged at least 20 hours per week in six of the past 12 months, or another definition--if the entire workforce averages 4,000 hours per week excluding overtime.
I bring this up for a couple of reasons. One is that the incoming Obama administration has been loud about extending the 60-day notification to 90 days. The other is that just this week one union at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago (remember the showdown over WARN during that factory shutdown?) filed suit to force the owners to return equipment to the Chicago site that was reportedly relocated before closing.
Now, here's the interesting part: The union alleges that Republic's owners ferreted away the machinery in the middle of the night to a location in Indiana, where they intended to set up new, non-union operations, and then told the workers that the Chicago firm was shutting down because Bank of America wouldn't extend them a line of credit.
If this is true, it brings to light a fascinating new wrinkle and shows that Republic did indeed scheme to avoid WARN.
In the end, to avoid a public relations nightmare, BofA forked over about $1.5 million to Republic, and the workers received 60 days of pay and benefits.
Which brings up the final point: There's no way an employer would want dozens of laid-off workers sitting around the workplace for 60 days while knowing they're getting the axe. It's doubtful they'd do much constructive work, and it's likely that pilferage and sabotage would take place. Pay them 60 days' worth and see them off.
So, if the Obama team manages to up the WARN stakes, many companies will face paying three months of wages and benefits just to downsize in an effort to survive in tough economic times.
Better to gid rid of them now! LOL Just kidding, of course.
Practical articles on HR, Safety, compliance, and people operations—written for real businesses, not legal textbooks.
U.S. Department of Labor Officially Restores Prior Overtime Exemption Rules
On May 14th, 2026, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced it has officially rescinded the 2024 overtime exemption rules. Specifically, the WHD published a technical amendment to restore previous 2019 regulations that dictated overtime exemptions for...
NLRB General Counsel Takes Action to Tackle Current Case Backlog
On May 6th, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and NLRB General Counsel Crystal Stowe Carey announced the bulk transfer of thousands of labor practice cases. Specifically, this action fulfills an initiative signed by the NLRB General Counsel earlier this year. Overall, the initiative...
Privacy Agency Invites Comments from Businesses on the CCPA’s Usage of Personal Data
Recently, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) issued a call for comments on the current state of personal data collection under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Specifically, the invitation to deliver remarks was issued on April 20th, 2026. The information provided by the...
DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule To Unify Standards Under Federal Labor Laws
In April 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a proposed rule to establish a single, clear standard for determining when joint-employer status applies under three major federal laws: the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Migrant and Seasonal...
DOL Updates Enforcement Approach for Employee Benefit Plans: What Employers Should Know
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently announced a significant change in its enforcement of employee benefit plan rules. The DOL will now focus more closely on serious violations that harm workers and retirees, meaning compliant employers may face less scrutiny under the updated approach.