The Public Availability of Warn Notices: Lack of Accessibility and Disclosure Calls for Reform

7/31/2019 The Public Availability of Warn Notices: Lack of Accessibility and Disclosure Calls for Reform

1/23

!"#$$$%

&$'"&$%

(#)*+*

!

"#$%%&%#'

() *

+,

,


2/23

!"#$$$%

$!#!,#-#%%$

Mass layoffs and plant closures inflict enormous social and economic costs on workingpeople, their families, and communities throughout the United States. Communities losevital tax revenues for investment in education and social services at a time when they are

most needed. Suppliers and other businesses lose important customers for their productsand services. And with each layoff, hundreds of workers lose their livelihoods.Such economic dislocations, often decided upon by employers without any public input,are cause for grave concern today. Mass layoffs and plant closures affected over 2.8million workers in 2009 alone.2

The WARN Act, enacted in 1988, was intended to protect workers and communities fromthe most harmful effects of these layoffs and closures by requiring employers to provide

advance notice of their occurrence. The community leaders and workers who are giventhis advance notice can then work to mitigate the effects of the job losses throughretraining programs, the provision of social services, and plans that would avoid layoffsaltogether. The Act, however, has proven severely flawed: numerous reports haveconcluded that most layoffs are not subject to WARN Act requirements; few employersact in compliance with the law; and penalties for noncompliance are so lax that they donot act as deterrents.

This report identifies previously undiagnosed flaws in the current legislation by focusingon states handling of WARN notices after they are filed. In particular, it seeks to findout: Do states make information about WARN notices publicly available, either in hardcopy or electronically? To what degree is that information disclosed? And how easilycan it be accessed and navigated? The report begins with a history of advance noticeadvocacy and legislation, continues with a presentation of findings and state bestpractices, and concludes with recommendations for the US Department of Labor (DOL)to ameliorate identified problems. The final three pages of the report contain a table

showing the website addresses where state WARN notices may be found.

The AFL-CIO found that, lacking guidance from the DOL, states have adopted a widevariety of practices pertaining to their handling of received WARN notices. No stateserves as an ideal model for best practices; indeed, while some states are extraordinarilyopen about disclosing information related to layoffs that information can be hard to find


3/23

flawed jumble of websites, offices, and email accounts which organizations andindividuals must keep track of to obtain information on economic dislocations across the

country.

Without comprehensive, easily accessible information on mass layoffs and plant closures,the United States runs the risk of failing to live up to the spirit of the WARN Act. TheAFL-CIO therefore recommends that the US Department of Labor should:

Issue a regulation, training and employment notice, or guidance letter requiring statesto forward any WARN notices received to the US Department of Labor for inclusion

in a centralized, publicly accessible database.

Develop a standardized format for WARN notices and conduct an educationalcampaign to encourage adoption of the format in the submission of notices.

Adopt the best practices described within this report for the handling of WARNinformation within that centralized database.

Connect WARN data to other site-specific employment information using unique,site-specific nine digit identification numbers provided by Dun and Bradstreets DataUniversal Numbering System (DUNS).

$.Concern about plant closings and mass layoffs traces its earliest roots to the 1950s, when

manufacturers in the Northeast, booming in business after World War II, began movingoperations to southern states where labor was cheaper. Operations in these southern stateswere shifted abroad not long afterwards. Industrial towns across the United States lost thesources of their wealth and were left with only the abandoned shells of factories dottingthe landscape as reminders of their former glory.

Corporations argued that such moves were necessary, pointing to faltering national andstate economies and increasing pressures from global trade. But to many observers, itappeared that most layoffs and closures were precipitated simply by the desire to boostprofits.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, mass layoffs and plant closures had become a seriousissue. Banks and businesses were shifting enormous amounts of money overseas. Indeed,in the period between 1964 and 1972 the foreign assets of U S banks increased from $7


4/23

Such concerns soon found a voice in organized labor and newly formed grassrootscampaigns for plant closing legislation. In Maine, where the textile, shoe, and leather

industries had been hit hard by the 1969-1971 recession, workers united under the MaineFederated Labor Council and worked with state officials to enact a bill mandating thatemployers provide 30 days advance notice to workers affected in layoffs and closures.4The Ohio AFL-CIO and a broad range of neighborhood and advocacy groups organizedthe Ohio Public Interest Campaign in 1975 and began holding public meetingsconcerning plant closings in major cities.5 Similar efforts were underway around thecountry, building a base for state and national legislation.

A series of devastating layoffs in the late 1970s and early 1980s further strengthened theresolve of organized labor and workers organizations pushing for advance notice. One ofthose layoffs was the 1977 closing of the Campbell Works plant of Youngstown Sheet &Tube Co. in Youngstown, Ohio. At one point the third largest steel producer in thenation, Youngstown was a booming industrial center of the Rust Belt. Then, on a dayknown in Youngstown as Black Monday, 5000 workers showed up to work and learnedthat the plant had been shut down. A TIME report from that period estimated thatincluding the jobs at suppliers and businesses that relied upon the plant, 12,000

employees in total would be out of work. The mayor of Youngstown estimated that theplant closure would result in a loss of 80% of the citys total revenues.6 The local steelindustry collapsed soon after the plant closure.

The Ohio Public Interest Campaign and its allies responded to the layoffs with a numberof demonstrations, rallies, petition drives, and public meetings. They organized an April1979 conference of concerned citizens in Columbus that attracted 1200 attendees. Theybrought 1000 Ohioans in support of advance notice to Columbus for a September 1979hearing of the Ohio Senate Commerce and Labor Committee. They lobbied legislatorsand marched outside corporate offices.7 Aided by like efforts across the United States, thedrive for nationwide plant closure legislation gathered steam.

The national AFL-CIO was heavily involved on this front. In 1979, it officially adopted apolicy resolution declaring its full support of [advance notice] legislation and itsintention to work for enactment in this Congress. It is crucially important to require

employers to recognize their responsibilities to their employees and their communitiesbefore they shut down a plant and to provide economic protections to workers and theirfamilies who must suffer the consequence of rash corporate action.8 Congress began to

4 Douglas W. Cray, State and Labor Legislation; Progress Reported in US Survey,New York Times, 30Jan 1972


5/23

hold hearings on the issue, culminating in the 1985 introduction of the Labor-Management Notification and Consultation Act, H.R. 1616, which was defeated by five

votes. The AFL-CIO responded with a full-fledged public relations campaign: ads inmajor newspapers, rallies, and progressively stronger policy resolutions every two yearsthrough 1987, when it stated, legislation [now being considered] is but a necessary firststep. We also need a requirement that corporations which shut down or relocate shouldcompensate the communities they are leaving.9

Several government agencies released reports during this period on the potential impactof advance notice legislation. One group, the Task Force on Economic Adjustment and

Worker Dislocation, found that arguments against advance notice were overblown andthat worker productivity did not decline after notice was given.10 A report issued by theCongressional Office of Technology Assessment favorably reviewed a Canadian advancenotice law and recommended that the United States mandate two to four months priornotice in order to allow workers time to adjust and find a new job.11 The GAO found thatover 65% of employers provided two weeks or less advance notification of a layoff orplant closure, with 32% providing no notice.12

By 1987, overwhelming public demand for a legislative response to plant closings andlayoffs precipitated the passage of an advance notice law. Senator Howard Metzenbaum(D-OH) and Representative William D. Ford (D-MI) introduced bills to their respectivehouses mandating that employers of more than 50 employees provide 80 to 180 daysadvance notice of layoffs and closures, depending on the number of employees affected.Employers were also required to consult with elected officials and union representativesupon request. Metzenbaum and Fords proposals were attached to trade legislation andsubsequently watered down to require only 60 days advance notice from employers of100 employees or more, and only if layoffs were permanent or longer than 6 months.Exceptions were also added for unforeseen business circumstances, faltering businesses,and sales of businesses. Passed by both houses of Congress, it was vetoed by PresidentRonald Reagan when it reached his desk. Organized labor and grassroots organizationsonce again mobilized and Democratic candidates prepared to run with advance noticelegislation as an election year issue. President Reagan backed down and a second,standalone advance notice bill, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,

was passed and became law on August 4, 1988.

9 AFL-CIO, Proceedings of The 17th

AFL-CIO Convention 1987 (Washington, D.C: AFL-CIO, 1987) pp.133-134


6/23

The WARN Act today requires covered employers (those with more than 100 full timeworkers or with 100 workers who work at least 4000 hours a month in aggregate) to

provide 60 days advance notice of a plant closing or layoff. Plant closings are defined asevents during which 50 or more full-time workers lose employment due to the shutdownof a single site of employment; mass layoffs are defined as events during which there is alayoff of 50 to 499 full-time workers, constituting at least 33% of the full-time employeesat a single site of employment. Advance notice of mass layoffs of 500 or more full-timeworkers is also mandated. Notice is provided to local elected officials, the affectedemployees or their union representatives, and to the state Dislocated Worker unit.Employers who fail to comply with the WARN Acts requirements are liable for up to 60

days of back pay and benefits for each affected worker as well as $500 to the appropriatelocal government for each day the Act is violated.

Many observers have criticized the Act for its loopholes and gaps in protection. TheWARN Act fails to cover many of the economic dislocations in the country, triggeringonly about a quarter of rapid responses nationwide.13 Many firms also fail to comply withthe law: A 2003 report by the GAO found that only 36% of employers issued appropriateadvance notice.14 In its 1993 and 2003 reports, the GAO also recommended establishing

a statute of limitations for WARN claims, simplifying the thresholds for notification,clarifying which employers are covered, and eliminating the 33% rule for mass layoffs. 15And many outside critics have argued that 60 days advance notice is not sufficient toprepare for a mass layoff or plant closure.16

Several states have introduced their own supplemental WARN acts in order to addressthese criticisms. Californias WARN Act, passed in 2003, applies to all layoffs of over 50workers at a single site of employment, discarding the 33% rule of the federal WARNAct. New York extended the advance notice requirement to 90 days. Connecticut,Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin have enacted their ownmini-WARN Acts.

In 2007, as the United States began to descend into the current recession, Ohio SenatorSherrod Brown introduced the FOREWARN Act to strengthen federal advance notice

requirements. It would give the U.S. Department of Labor enforcement authority for theWARN Act, extend required advance notice to 90 days, redefine mass layoffs asaffecting 25 or more workers, reduce the employer size threshold from 100 to 75employees, and raise the penalties for violation to double back pay for each worker,among many important improvements. It has remained in committee every year so far.


7/23

No law or regulation has yet been introduced to govern the public availability and

accessibility of WARN notices.

!/0&&$.$!&/

In total, 47 states and the District of Columbia disclose some or all information related toin-state mass layoffs and plant closures. The three states that do not do so are Nevada,Wyoming, and Arkansas. Strict confidentiality laws in Nevada17 restrict the availabilityof information there. Wyoming plans to open a website in 2011 with facts about eachreceived WARN notice. Arkansas was unavailable for contact during the research of thisreport.

States that do disclose some WARN information have not adopted a standardized meansof disclosure. Thirty eight states and the District of Columbia maintain websites, listed atthe end of this report, on which they catalog recent layoffs and plant closures. Hawaiikeeps records in hard copy. The remaining eight states Colorado, Maine,

Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Tennessee will only disclose information after specific requests are filed with the appropriateofficials in state Rapid Response units.

Matters are further complicated by the degree to which each state presents comprehensiverecords of its layoffs and closures. Some states, like New York, provide upwards of 15categories of information related to WARN notices filed in the state: among others,Reason Stated for Filing, Rapid Response Specialist, Business Type, Union or

no union, and Reason for Dislocation. Others, like Kansas, share only when the noticewas filed, what company filed the notice, and the address of the layoff. States also vary asto the duration of their record-keeping. Georgias records begin in 1988, while Utahsrecords start in 2009.

Only two states Indiana and Ohio make available electronic reproductions of theoriginal WARN notices it received.

Few states are extraordinarily open about sharing information related to mass layoffs andplant closures. In fact, many of the nine state Rapid Response coordinators who provideinformation upon request suggested that they had encountered pressure from businessesand politicians when they tried to push for disclosure on websites. Yet even those stateswith websites providing comprehensive historical information and detailed reporting ofeach layoff might not be ideal models for best practices if that information is hard to find


8/23

The District of Columbia and all 38 states that post WARN information online have taken

steps to make their websites more accessible by organizing their records chronologically.One can therefore find information related to a specific mass layoff or plant closure bynavigating to the date it occurred. But just 25 states have created categories on theirwebsites that allow users to display only the layoffs and closures that occurred in acertain year (for example, to see only notices filed in 2010), that were initiated by certaincompanies (for example, to see only noticed filed by companies whose names begin withthe letter A), or within other relevant taxonomies. 11 states Alaska, Idaho, Indiana,Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia - and the

District of Columbia simply present all of the available WARN information on a singleweb page or PDF, forcing users to sift through the data.

The remaining two states, Rhode Island and Washington, maintain WARN databaseswith what are referred to in this report as interactive categories. This criterion dependson whether or not a state has made it possible to sort layoff and closure informationaccording to a category while still displaying the entire set of WARN notices. Asdescribed before, some states have organized their WARN notices into categories that

narrow the data, displaying only WARN notices filed by companies whose names beginwith a certain letter. Interactive categories, in contrast, can be clicked on so that all of thenotices ever received are sorted according to that category. Therefore clicking on acategory like Company Name would result in the alphabetical sorting of all noticesreceived according to company name. Six other states Arizona, Delaware, Kansas,Oklahoma, Vermont, and Wisconsin maintain WARN notice databases with interactivecategories.

$$-!The WARN Act is only as effective as states and employers make it. If the Act isenforced and employers disclose important mass layoff and plant closure information tothe other stakeholders in their decisions, workers and communities can take advantage ofthat advance notice and plan their next steps. The same is true for the public availabilityof WARN notices after they are filed. With access to comprehensive and easy-to-use

databases of past layoffs and plant closures, organizations working to increaseemployment in states can look for trends in past economic dislocations as they chart theirpaths forward.

Two states Indiana18 and Ohio stand out as the models for public disclosure of masslayoff and plant closure information They both maintain websites which provide PDFs


9/23

Figure 1: Indiana Original WARN Notice


10/23

Ohio has provided access to original WARN notices since January 2010 and Indiana hasdone so since January 2009.


11/23

Other states provide much more comprehensive historical WARN data. Georgia is the

sole state to report WARN data beginning with the laws enactment in 1988 (see Figure2.) Comprehensive historical data of this sort is likely to be useful to researchers, publicservants, and employers as they look for trends in layoffs and closures and seek toprevent them in the future. A commitment to providing historical data also signals thatstates and employers have consistently complied with the requirements of the WARNAct.

Figure 2: Comprehensive Historical WARN Data in Georgia


12/23


13/23

Notice Received; Layoff or Closure; Severance; Union Representation; Bumping Rights;Job Title/#.

Illinois provides information related to the following categories: Company Name;Company Address; City, State, ZIP; Company Contact; Telephone; Local WorkforceArea; Region Number and Name; Type of Company; Type of Event; Warn NotifiedDate; First Layoff Date; # Workers Affected; Event Causes; County; Company NAICS.

New York provides information related to the following categories: Date of Notice;Control Number; Rapid Response Specialist; Reason Stated for Filing; Company;

County/WIB Name/ Region; Contact; Phone; Business Type; Number Affected; TotalEmployees; Layoff Date; Closing Date; Reason for Dislocation; ERNUM; Union;Classification.

This is in contrast to a state like South Dakota, which provides only: Company; Location;Date; and Employees Affected.

Even the most detailed reporting of layoffs and closures, however, might not constitute

effective public availability. That depends equally upon states efforts to make WARNnotice information accessible and easy-to-use. Posting information online is an importantfirst step by states, since many parties interested in the WARN data may not be able tovisit an office in person or know who to contact to have information transmitted to themelectronically.

What happens to WARN information when it is placed on state websites is alsoimportant. Search engines have proven to be the most effective and efficient way to findinformation on the internet, and five states Delaware, Kansas, Oklahoma, Vermont, andWashington maintain searchable WARN notice databases on their websites. Interestedparties can use these search engines to find the information most useful to them withouthaving to manually comb through all the available notices. Of the five states thatmaintain these systems, four states (Delaware, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Vermont) sharethe same technology on their JobLink websites. The JobLink system is illustrated inFigure 4. Users can search for mass layoffs and plant closures related to a specific

company, city, zip code, local Workforce Investment Board, or time period. Oklahomaand Vermont also provide an option to search for WARN or non-WARN layoffs andclosures.


14/23

Figure 4: JobLink Searchable WARN Notice Database


15/23

Washington maintains a more limited search function, shown in Figure 5, in which userscan search for mass layoffs and plant closures related to a specific company or location.

Figure 5: Washington State WARN Notice Search


16/23

Many states that do not maintain search engines on their WARN websites createcategories into which they sort mass layoffs and closures. As shown in Figure 6,

California stands out by grouping WARN notices according to the year they were filedand then according to several characteristics: Company Name by letter in the alphabet;Location by letter in the alphabet; Layoff Date by month; Local Workforce InvestmentArea by letter in the alphabet; and then providing an alphabetized listing of notices withmore detailed information.

Figure 6: WARN Notices Sorted Into Categories in California

Eight states Arizona, Delaware, Kansas, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont,Washington, and Wisconsin maintain websites with interactive categories. As describedearlier in this report, this criterion depends on whether or not a state has made it possibleto sort layoff and closure information according to a category while still displaying theentire set of WARN notices. In contrast to the categories created by states like California,which when clicked on display only a subset of WARN notices, interactive categories

t d di l ll f th ti i d Th f li ki t lik


17/23

Figure 7: Rhode Island WARN Notices Sorted According to Company Name.


18/23


19/23

#

Previous reports on the WARN Act have indicated that it is in need of reform because ofloopholes, gaps in protection, and a lack of guidance to states on how to navigate itsrequirements. This report is no different. The WARN Act and state practices concerningits administration are severely flawed and in need of improvement.

The AFL-CIO found that states have adopted a wide variety of practices pertaining totheir handling of received WARN notices. No state serves as a model for best practices;indeed, while some states are extraordinarily open about disclosing information related to

layoffs, that information can be hard to find and navigate. Likewise some of the stateswith the most sensible and easy-to-use WARN notice databases limit the informationavailable to just the last several years of data. Still other states reported that they do notdisclose any information without a specific request because of corporate pressure not topublicly report layoffs. The result is a confusing and flawed jumble of websites, offices,and email accounts which organizations and individuals must keep track of to obtaininformation on economic dislocations across the country.

These findings attest to the need for the US Department of Labor to assume greaterresponsibility over the administration of the WARN Act. In particular, we recommendthat the DOL create its own, centralized database of WARN notices and

information, adopting the best practices presented in this report.

The reports of intimidation mentioned within this report, given by state Rapid ResponseCoordinators who tried to make WARN information more publicly available, underscorethe seriousness of DOLs role in this issue. Under these circumstances, progress is

unlikely to be made in many states. It is critical for the US Department of Labor to takeresponsibility in order to ensure that the spirit of the WARN Act is preserved andadvanced.

%%!The AFL-CIO recommends that the US Department of Labor should:

Issue a regulation, training and employment notice, or guidance letter requiringstates to forward any WARN notices received to the US Department of Labor

for inclusion in a centralized, publicly accessible database.

The US Secretary of Labor should direct state Dislocated Workers Units to send all


20/23

benefit communities affected by the loss in manufacturing jobs and the transition to aclean energy economy. The development of a centralized, national data base is

consistent with the goals of the National Call to Action initiative that is currentlybeing undertaken by the Department in cooperation with state workforce agencies,business, and organized labor.

Develop a standardized format for WARN notices and conduct an educationalcampaign to encourage adoption of the format in the submission of notices.

The Department should develop a standardized format for WARN notices, specifying

the information to be included in each notice. We recommend that the Departmentconsult with the AFL-CIO, the National Employment Law Project, and other partiesabout the content of that format. After the format is developed, DOL should conductan educational campaign among employers, state agencies, and others to encourageadoption of this format in future submissions of WARN notices. A standardizedformat would help to ensure that notices contain information to facilitate layoffaversion activities by state agencies, unions and business.

Adopt the best practices described within this report for the handling of WARNinformation within that centralized database. Such a centralized database

would:

-- Post information regarding mass layoffs and plant closures online and make itpublicly available.

-- Provide electronic access to original WARN notices.

-- Compile comprehensive historical WARN notice data, starting in 1988 with theWARN Acts enactment.

-- Provide detailed reporting of each mass layoff or plant closure resulting in aWARN notice.

-- Catalog WARN notices in a searchable database.

-- Provide interactive categories after the search results.

Connect WARN data to other site-specific employment information usingunique, site-specific nine digit identification numbers provided by Dun and

Bradstreets Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS).

The AFL-CIO also recommends that the national database include unique, site-


21/23

STATE WARN WEBSITE

Alabama http://www.adeca.alabama.gov/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=c8562719-a878-4024-ac97-c76e2e308a37Alaska http://www.jobs.state.ak.us/RR/WARN_notices.htm

Arizona https://www.azdes.gov/main.aspx?menu=323&id=836

Arkansas N/A19

California http://www.edd.ca.gov/jobs_and_training/layoff_services_warn.htm#ListingofWARNNotices

Colorado N/A20

Connecticut http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/progsupt/bussrvce/warnreports/warnreports.htm

Delaware https://joblink.delaware.gov/ada/mn_warninfo_dsp.cfm?rand=450875

Florida http://www.floridajobs.org/workforce/warn_notice.html

Georgia http://www.dol.state.ga.us/Access/Service/WarnIDListingInput

Hawaii N/A21

Idaho http://labor.idaho.gov/dnn/LaborLaws/WARNNotices/tabid/2248/Default.aspx

Illinois http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Workforce_Development/WARN/warn_reports.htm

Indiana http://www.in.gov/dwd/2550.htm

Iowa http://www.iowaworkforce.org/centers/warn/warn.pdf

Kansas https://www.kansasworks.com/ada/mn_warninfo_dsp.cfmKentucky http://oet.ky.gov/rresponse/rapidresponse.htm

Louisiana http://www.laworks.net/WorkforceDev/WFD_WarnFacts.asp

Maine N/A22

Maryland http://www.dllr.state.md.us/employment/jtpa.shtml

Massachusetts N/A23

Michigan http://www.milmi.org/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=189

Minnesota http://www.positivelyminnesota.com/Programs_Services/Dislocated_Worker_Program_(DW)/PDFs/Plant_Clo

sings_Mass_Layoff_Events_List.pdf

19 Barred by state law from sharing information.20

Available on request from Bill Thoennes, [email protected]

WARN data available in hard copy in the state office.22

Spreadsheet upon request to Linda Nickerson, Bureau of Labor Statistics, (207)623-7931 or [email protected]

Can request spreadsheet from Ken Messina ([email protected]), Massachusetts Rapid Response Manager.


22/23

http://www.mdes.ms.gov/Home/EmployerServices/RapidR

esponse.html

http://rapidresponse.ded.mo.gov/warn.html

N/A24

http://www.do

l.nebraska.gov/nwd/center.cfm?PRICAT=1&

SUBCAT=2E&ACTION=warn

N/A25

N/A26

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lwdho

me/warn/2010/warnin

dex.html

N/A27

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/app/warn/

http://eslmi23.esc.state.nc.us/masslayoff/MLSFrame.asp?contentsFrame=4

N/A28

http://jfs.ohio.gov/warn/

https://servicelink.oesc.state.ok.us/ada/mn_warn_

dsp.cfm?

http://www.od

ccwd.state.or.us/warn/reports.aspx

http://www.po

rtal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&o

bjID=554036&mode=

2

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/wfds/WARN.h

tm

http://www.workforcesouthcarolina.com/layoff-notification-reports---rapid-respo

nse-subpage.aspx

http://dol.sd.gov/employerserv/warn_notices.aspx

N/A29

http://www.tw

c.state.tx.us/svcs/jtpa/warn.html

http://jobs.utah.gov/employer/busine

ss/warnnotices.html

https://www.v

ermontjoblink.com/ada/mn_warn_dsp.cfm?

http://www.vw

n.virginia.gov/warn.c

fm

[email protected],(406)461-7102.

inwritingtotheAdministrator,CindyJonesa

t500E.ThirdStreet,CarsonCity,Nevada89713.Statelawbarsmostdisclosureof

mMartyJenkins,[email protected]

.

withRapidResponseteam.

CoordinatorElaine

Wentz([email protected]

s)forspreadsheets.

CoordinatorJoeFults([email protected])forspreadsheets.


23/23

!

Washington http://www.esd.wa.gov/newsandinformation/warn/index.php

West Virginia https://www.workforcewv.org/logos/WARN.pdfWisconsin http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/downloads.aspx?menuselection=da&pgm=pcml

Wyoming (website in the works for 2011)

District of Columbia http://www.does.dc.gov/does/cwp/view,a,1232,q,572897.asp

Documents

The Public Availability of Warn Notices: Lack of Accessibility and Disclosure Calls for Reform