On May 20, 2008, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (”HELP Committee”) held a hearing over pending legislation that would provide additional worker protections and toughen employer penalties under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (”WARN Act”).

Introduced in the Senate (S.1792), The Forewarn Act of 2007 would require companies to provide notice 90 days in advance of large layoffs or plant closures, a 30-day increase from the current WARN Act requirements. The House version of the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007 (H.R.3920), which passed the House on October 31, 2007, contained comparable language amending the WARN Act.

The additional notice is intended to give displaced workers additional time to search for new jobs and seek out available benefits, including job training and unemployment insurance. S.1792 also stiffens penalties for employer violations of the notice requirement, gives the Department of Labor enforcement powers, and covers additional employers currently exempt from WARN Act requirements.

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard L. Trumka testified in favor of S.1792, noting the bill’s removal of “loopholes” used by employers to circumvent current WARN Act requirements “with impunity.” Although Trumka praised the proposed lengthened notice period and increased penalties, he contended that a six month-notice period for layoffs and closures would be preferable.

John Philo, legal director for the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice in Detroit highlighted perceived problems with the current WARN Act, which he claimed provides inadequate coverage and penalties. Philo urged a 120-day notice period for plant closings and layoffs.

The testimony of Joe Aguiar, a laid-off fabric company employee, illustrated alleged current deficiencies in WARN Act enforcement. Aguiar described being laid off without notice after his plant was unexpectedly shuttered. Aguiar, a class representative in a WARN suit against his former employer, noted that he and his fellow employees stand to gain only 60 days of backpay and benefits if they prevail.

Testifying against S.1792, Baltimore-based attorney Stefan Jan Marculewicz explained that the bill would lead to “significant hardship” for small businesses, which often lack the financial wherewithal to continue operations or maintain the current level of their workforces for 60 to 90 days. Marculewicz urged the Senate panel to avoid the punitive aims of S.1792 and approach the issues of plants closings and worker displacement by getting at root causes, such as improving workforce training and job creation.