edit on 4 by Mandroid7 because: (no reason given)



a reply to: CthulhuMythos I don't think a walmart to walmart conspiracy makes any sense. What would be the purpose? Cheap junk from china available by tunnels? Tptb can print all the money they need and stock all the things they require in this scenario. Why introduce a tunnel system to a breach, and at a walmart none the less. It makes no sense.It is more likely a symptom of the recession, or a business move to help minimize the effects.This scenario helps them do mass layoff and skirt some laws put in place to protect workers from it.Thinking about their bottom dollar and lawyering out the cheapest way possible.Here is a response from me on this same topic a few days ago...it pertains to skirting layoff laws...Here is some interesting reading regarding walmarts and legal moves for dissolving businesses.Sounds like they may be trying to layoff workers quickly and possibly even claim it as a loss.Something fishy going on. Another site mentioned the possibility of them downsizing because they just have too many built too close and they are their own competition now. The six month claimed time catches my interest..................................................................................................................link(b) Reduction of notification period(1) An employer may order the shutdown of a single site of employment before the conclusion of the 60-day period if as of the time that notice would have been required the employer was actively seeking capital or business which, if obtained, would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the shutdown and the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the notice required would have precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or business.(2)(A) An employer may order a plant closing or mass layoff before the conclusion of the 60-day period if the closing or mass layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required.(B) No notice under this chapter shall be required if the plant closing or mass layoff is due to any form of natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, or the drought currently ravaging the farmlands of the United States.(3) An employer relying on this subsection shall give as much notice as is practicable and at that time shall give a brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period.(c) Extension of layoff periodA layoff of more than 6 months which, at its outset, was announced to be a layoff of 6 months or less, shall be treated as an employment loss under this chapter unless—(1) the extension beyond 6 months is caused by business circumstances (including unforeseeable changes in price or cost) not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the initial layoff; and(2) notice is given at the time it becomes reasonably foreseeable that the extension beyond 6 months will be required.(d) Determinations with respect to employment lossFor purposes of this section, in determining whether a plant closing or mass layoff has occurred or will occur, employment losses for 2 or more groups at a single site of employment, each of which is less than the minimum number of employees specified in section 2101 (a)(2) or (3) of this title but which in the aggregate exceed that minimum number, and which occur within any 90-day period shall be considered to be a plant closing or mass layoff unless the employer demonstrates that the employment losses are the result of separate and distinct actions and causes and are not an attempt by the employer to evade the requirements of this chapter.