Public Availability of WARN Notices 1

THE PUBLIC AVAILABILITY

OF WARN NOTICES
Lack of Accessibility and Disclosure
Calls for Reform


Report by
AFL-CIO Policy Department


July 2010


Contents

!ntroduction and Executive Summary ...............................................................2
History of the WARN Act .................................................................................3
Findings: State Approaches to WARN Act Recordkeeping...................................7
Best Practices Observed ..................................................................................8
Conclusion....................................................................................................19
Recommendations.........................................................................................19
Public Availability of WARN Notices 2
THE PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF WARN NOTICES
Lack of Accessibility and Disclosure Calls for Reform
1



Introduction and Executive Summary

Mass layoffs and plant closures inflict enormous social and economic costs on working
people, their families, and communities throughout the United States. Communities lose
vital 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 products
and 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 2.8
million workers in 2009 alone.
2


The WARN Act, enacted in 1988, was intended to protect workers and communities from
the 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 given
this advance notice can then work to mitigate the effects of the job losses through
retraining programs, the provision of social services, and plans that would avoid layoffs
altogether. The Act, however, has proven severely flawed: numerous reports have
concluded that most layoffs are not subject to WARN Act requirements; few employers
act in compliance with the law; and penalties for noncompliance are so lax that they do
not act as deterrents.

This report identifies previously undiagnosed flaws in the current legislation by focusing
on states handling of WARN notices after they are filed. In particular, it seeks to find
out: Do states make information about WARN notices publicly available, either in hard
copy or electronically? To what degree is that information disclosed? And how easily
can it be accessed and navigated? The report begins with a history of advance notice
advocacy and legislation, continues with a presentation of findings and state best
practices, 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 wide
variety of practices pertaining to their handling of received WARN notices. No state
serves as an ideal 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 states with the most sensible and easy-to-use WARN
notice databases limit the information available to just the last several years of data. Still
other states reported that they do not disclose any information without a specific request
because of corporate pressure not to publicly report layoffs. The result is a confusing and

1
This report was authored by Zach Duffy.
2
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/mmls.pdf
Public Availability of WARN Notices 3
flawed jumble of websites, offices, and email accounts which organizations and
individuals 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. The
AFL-CIO therefore recommends that the US Department of Labor should:

Issue a regulation, training and employment notice, or guidance letter requiring states
to 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 educational
campaign to encourage adoption of the format in the submission of notices.

Adopt the best practices described within this report for the handling of WARN
information 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 Data
Universal Numbering System (DUNS).

History of the WARN Act

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 moving
operations to southern states where labor was cheaper. Operations in these southern states
were shifted abroad not long afterwards. Industrial towns across the United States lost the
sources of their wealth and were left with only the abandoned shells of factories dotting
the landscape as reminders of their former glory.

Corporations argued that such moves were necessary, pointing to faltering national and
state economies and increasing pressures from global trade. But to many observers, it
appeared that most layoffs and closures were precipitated simply by the desire to boost
profits.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, mass layoffs and plant closures had become a serious
issue. 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
billion to $90 billion.
3
Workers and residents in communities started wondering why
corporations that were raking in record profits by abandoning American employees were
not required to consult with local officials and union representatives before initiating
layoffs.


3
Faux and Lightfoot, Capital and Community (Washington D.C.: EPEA, 1976) pp.152-153.
Public Availability of WARN Notices +
Such concerns soon found a voice in organized labor and newly formed grassroots
campaigns 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 Maine
Federated Labor Council and worked with state officials to enact a bill mandating that
employers provide 30 days advance notice to workers affected in layoffs and closures.
4

The Ohio AFL-CIO and a broad range of neighborhood and advocacy groups organized
the Ohio Public Interest Campaign in 1975 and began holding public meetings
concerning plant closings in major cities.
5
Similar efforts were underway around the
country, building a base for state and national legislation.

A series of devastating layoffs in the late 1970s and early 1980s further strengthened the
resolve of organized labor and workers organizations pushing for advance notice. One of
those 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 the
nation, Youngstown was a booming industrial center of the Rust Belt. Then, on a day
known in Youngstown as Black Monday, 5000 workers showed up to work and learned
that the plant had been shut down. A TIME report from that period estimated that
including 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 the
plant closure would result in a loss of 80% of the citys total revenues.
6
The local steel
industry collapsed soon after the plant closure.

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

The national AFL-CIO was heavily involved on this front. In 1979, it officially adopted a
policy resolution declaring its full support of [advance notice] legislation and its
intention to work for enactment in this Congress. It is crucially important to require
employers to recognize their responsibilities to their employees and their communities
before they shut down a plant and to provide economic protections to workers and their
families 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, 30
Jan. 1972.
<http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F60D11F73C5E127A93C2AA178AD85F468785F9>
5
The Progressive Alliance and the Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies, Plant Closings
Strategy Packet (Washington, D.C.: CASLP, 1980).
6
Business: The End for Steel City? Time Magazine, 3 Oct 1977.
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915542,00.html>
7
The Progressive Alliance and the Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies, Plant Closings
Strategy Packet (Washington, D.C.: CASLP, 1980).
8
AFL-CIO, Policy Resolutions adopted December 1979 by the Thirteenth Constitutional Convention
(Washington, D.C: AFL-CIO, 1979) pp. 19-20.
Public Availability of WARN Notices 5
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 in
major newspapers, rallies, and progressively stronger policy resolutions every two years
through 1987, when it stated, legislation [now being considered] is but a necessary first
step. We also need a requirement that corporations which shut down or relocate should
compensate the communities they are leaving.
9


Several government agencies released reports during this period on the potential impact
of advance notice legislation. One group, the Task Force on Economic Adjustment and
Worker Dislocation, found that arguments against advance notice were overblown and
that worker productivity did not decline after notice was given.
10
A report issued by the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment favorably reviewed a Canadian advance
notice law and recommended that the United States mandate two to four months prior
notice in order to allow workers time to adjust and find a new job.
11
The GAO found that
over 65% of employers provided two weeks or less advance notification of a layoff or
plant closure, with 32% providing no notice.
12


By 1987, overwhelming public demand for a legislative response to plant closings and
layoffs precipitated the passage of an advance notice law. Senator Howard Metzenbaum
(D-OH) and Representative William D. Ford (D-MI) introduced bills to their respective
houses mandating that employers of more than 50 employees provide 80 to 180 days
advance notice of layoffs and closures, depending on the number of employees affected.
Employers were also required to consult with elected officials and union representatives
upon request. Metzenbaum and Fords proposals were attached to trade legislation and
subsequently watered down to require only 60 days advance notice from employers of
100 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 President
Ronald Reagan when it reached his desk. Organized labor and grassroots organizations
once again mobilized and Democratic candidates prepared to run with advance notice
legislation 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 17
th
AFL-CIO Convention 1987 (Washington, D.C: AFL-CIO, 1987) pp.
133-134.
10
Task Force on Economic Adjustment and Worker Dislocation, Economic Adjustment and Worker
Dislocation in a Competitive Society (Washington D.C.: Department of Labor, 1986).
<http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED279871>
11
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Plant Closing: Advance Notice and Rapid Response
Special Report, OTA-ITE-321 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986). <
http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/8619.pdf>
12
United States Government Accountability Office, Plant Closings: Limited Advance Notice and
Assistance Provided Dislocated Workers (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987).
<www.gao.gov/pdfs/HRD-87-105>
Public Availability of WARN Notices 6
The WARN Act today requires covered employers (those with more than 100 full time
workers 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 as
events during which 50 or more full-time workers lose employment due to the shutdown
of a single site of employment; mass layoffs are defined as events during which there is a
layoff of 50 to 499 full-time workers, constituting at least 33% of the full-time employees
at a single site of employment. Advance notice of mass layoffs of 500 or more full-time
workers is also mandated. Notice is provided to local elected officials, the affected
employees 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 appropriate
local government for each day the Act is violated.

Many observers have criticized the Act for its loopholes and gaps in protection. The
WARN Act fails to cover many of the economic dislocations in the country, triggering
only about a quarter of rapid responses nationwide.
13
Many firms also fail to comply with
the law: A 2003 report by the GAO found that only 36% of employers issued appropriate
advance 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.
15

And many outside critics have argued that 60 days advance notice is not sufficient to
prepare for a mass layoff or plant closure.
16


Several states have introduced their own supplemental WARN acts in order to address
these criticisms. Californias WARN Act, passed in 2003, applies to all layoffs of over 50
workers at a single site of employment, discarding the 33% rule of the federal WARN
Act. 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 own
mini-WARN Acts.

In 2007, as the United States began to descend into the current recession, Ohio Senator
Sherrod Brown introduced the FOREWARN Act to strengthen federal advance notice
requirements. It would give the U.S. Department of Labor enforcement authority for the
WARN Act, extend required advance notice to 90 days, redefine mass layoffs as
affecting 25 or more workers, reduce the employer size threshold from 100 to 75
employees, 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.

13
United States Government Accountability Office, The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act: Revising the Act and Educational Materials Could Clarify Employer Responsibilities and Employee
Rights (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003). <http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-
03-1003>
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid; United States Government Accountability Office, Dislocated Workers: Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act Not Meeting Its Goals (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1993). <http://www.gao.gov/products/148916>
16
Most prominently, the Sugar Law Center. <http://www.sugarlaw.org/WARNreform.html>
Public Availability of WARN Notices 7

No law or regulation has yet been introduced to govern the public availability and
accessibility of WARN notices.

Findings: State Approaches to WARN Act Recordkeeping

In total, 47 states and the District of Columbia disclose some or all information related to
in-state mass layoffs and plant closures. The three states that do not do so are Nevada,
Wyoming, and Arkansas. Strict confidentiality laws in Nevada
17
restrict the availability
of information there. Wyoming plans to open a website in 2011 with facts about each
received WARN notice. Arkansas was unavailable for contact during the research of this
report.

States that do disclose some WARN information have not adopted a standardized means
of disclosure. Thirty eight states and the District of Columbia maintain websites, listed at
the end of this report, on which they catalog recent layoffs and plant closures. Hawaii
keeps 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 appropriate
officials in state Rapid Response units.

Matters are further complicated by the degree to which each state presents comprehensive
records of its layoffs and closures. Some states, like New York, provide upwards of 15
categories 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 notice
was filed, what company filed the notice, and the address of the layoff. States also vary as
to the duration of their record-keeping. Georgias records begin in 1988, while Utahs
records start in 2009.

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

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

Search engines have proven to be the most effective and efficient way to find information
on the internet, but only five states - Delaware, Kansas, Oklahoma, Vermont, and
Washington maintain searchable WARN notice databases on their websites.

17
Nevada Revised Statutes 612.265
Public Availability of WARN Notices 8

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 by
navigating to the date it occurred. But just 25 states have created categories on their
websites that allow users to display only the layoffs and closures that occurred in a
certain year (for example, to see only notices filed in 2010), that were initiated by certain
companies (for example, to see only noticed filed by companies whose names begin with
the 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 single
web page or PDF, forcing users to sift through the data.

The remaining two states, Rhode Island and Washington, maintain WARN databases
with what are referred to in this report as interactive categories. This criterion depends
on whether or not a state has made it possible to sort layoff and closure information
according to a category while still displaying the entire set of WARN notices. As
described before, some states have organized their WARN notices into categories that
narrow the data, displaying only WARN notices filed by companies whose names begin
with a certain letter. Interactive categories, in contrast, can be clicked on so that all of the
notices ever received are sorted according to that category. Therefore clicking on a
category like Company Name would result in the alphabetical sorting of all notices
received according to company name. Six other states Arizona, Delaware, Kansas,
Oklahoma, Vermont, and Wisconsin maintain WARN notice databases with interactive
categories.

Best Practices Observed

The WARN Act is only as effective as states and employers make it. If the Act is
enforced and employers disclose important mass layoff and plant closure information to
the other stakeholders in their decisions, workers and communities can take advantage of
that advance notice and plan their next steps. The same is true for the public availability
of WARN notices after they are filed. With access to comprehensive and easy-to-use
databases of past layoffs and plant closures, organizations working to increase
employment in states can look for trends in past economic dislocations as they chart their
paths forward.

Two states Indiana
18
and Ohio stand out as the models for public disclosure of mass
layoff and plant closure information. They both maintain websites which provide PDFs
of the original WARN notices filed according to state and federal law. As shown in
Figure 1, this practice can be accurately characterized as the highest degree of disclosure,
since any and all information relevant to each layoff or closure should be contained
within those official documents.


18
The websites for all state WARN databases are listed at the end of this report.
Public Availability of WARN Notices 9


Figure 1: Indiana Original WARN Notice


Public Availability of WARN Notices 10


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













Public Availability of WARN Notices 11

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 Figure
2.) Comprehensive historical data of this sort is likely to be useful to researchers, public
servants, and employers as they look for trends in layoffs and closures and seek to
prevent them in the future. A commitment to providing historical data also signals that
states and employers have consistently complied with the requirements of the WARN
Act.

Figure 2: Comprehensive Historical WARN Data in Georgia



There can be considerable variation in the amount of information about layoffs that states
disclose. Although neither California nor Illinois nor New York post PDFs of original
WARN notices online, they all provide detailed reporting of the essential information
contained in the notices.
Public Availability of WARN Notices 12
Figure 3: Detailed Reporting of WARN Information in California

As illustrated in Figure 3, California provides information related to the following
categories: Company Name and Address; Employees Affected; Layoff Date; Local
Workforce Investment Area; Company Contact Name and Telephone Number; Date
Public Availability of WARN Notices 13
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 Workforce
Area; Region Number and Name; Type of Company; Type of Event; Warn Notified
Date; 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; Total
Employees; 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 WARN
notice information accessible and easy-to-use. Posting information online is an important
first step by states, since many parties interested in the WARN data may not be able to
visit an office in person or know who to contact to have information transmitted to them
electronically.

What happens to WARN information when it is placed on state websites is also
important. Search engines have proven to be the most effective and efficient way to find
information on the internet, and five states Delaware, Kansas, Oklahoma, Vermont, and
Washington maintain searchable WARN notice databases on their websites. Interested
parties can use these search engines to find the information most useful to them without
having to manually comb through all the available notices. Of the five states that
maintain these systems, four states (Delaware, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Vermont) share
the same technology on their JobLink websites. The JobLink system is illustrated in
Figure 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. Oklahoma
and Vermont also provide an option to search for WARN or non-WARN layoffs and
closures.










Public Availability of WARN Notices 1+
Figure 4: JobLink Searchable WARN Notice Database



Public Availability of WARN Notices 15
Washington maintains a more limited search function, shown in Figure 5, in which users
can search for mass layoffs and plant closures related to a specific company or location.


Figure 5: Washington State WARN Notice Search



Public Availability of WARN Notices 16
Many states that do not maintain search engines on their WARN websites create
categories 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 filed
and then according to several characteristics: Company Name by letter in the alphabet;
Location by letter in the alphabet; Layoff Date by month; Local Workforce Investment
Area by letter in the alphabet; and then providing an alphabetized listing of notices with
more 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 described
earlier in this report, this criterion depends on whether or not a state has made it possible
to sort layoff and closure information according to a category while still displaying the
entire 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
sort and display all of the notices ever received. Therefore clicking on a category like
Company Name would result in the alphabetical sorting of all notices received
according to company name. Most of the states maintain websites with these interactive
categories. Wisconsin provides Excel spreadsheets with a similar function. Rhode
Islands interactive category functions are illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8.



Public Availability of WARN Notices 17
Figure 7: Rhode Island WARN Notices Sorted According to Company Name.












Public Availability of WARN Notices 18
Figure 8: Rhode Island Warn Notices Sorted According to Location of Layoffs.













Public Availability of WARN Notices 19
Conclusion

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

The AFL-CIO found that states have adopted a wide variety of practices pertaining to
their 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 states
with the most sensible and easy-to-use WARN notice databases limit the information
available to just the last several years of data. Still other states reported that they do not
disclose any information without a specific request because of corporate pressure not to
publicly 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 obtain
information on economic dislocations across the country.

These findings attest to the need for the US Department of Labor to assume greater
responsibility over the administration of the WARN Act. In particular, we recommend
that 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 Response
Coordinators who tried to make WARN information more publicly available, underscore
the 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 take
responsibility in order to ensure that the spirit of the WARN Act is preserved and
advanced.

Recommendations

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

Issue a regulation, training and employment notice, or guidance letter requiring
states 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
WARN notices, immediately upon receipt, to designated staff at the Employment and
Training Administration for assembly at the national level. At this time, covered
employers who intend to layoff workers are required to send WARN notices only to
the workers affected, the chief elected official in the area, and the state DW unit.
There is no national compilation of data on WARN notices. By collecting such
notices nationally, the DOL could move to deploy rapid response and layoff aversion
activities to help keep facilities open, action that could help save American jobs and
Public Availability of WARN Notices 20
benefit communities affected by the loss in manufacturing jobs and the transition to a
clean energy economy. The development of a centralized, national data base is
consistent with the goals of the National Call to Action initiative that is currently
being undertaken by the Department in cooperation with state workforce agencies,
business, and organized labor.

Develop a standardized format for WARN notices and conduct an educational
campaign 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 Department
consult with the AFL-CIO, the National Employment Law Project, and other parties
about the content of that format. After the format is developed, DOL should conduct
an educational campaign among employers, state agencies, and others to encourage
adoption of this format in future submissions of WARN notices. A standardized
format would help to ensure that notices contain information to facilitate layoff
aversion activities by state agencies, unions and business.

Adopt the best practices described within this report for the handling of WARN
information within that centralized database. Such a centralized database
would:

-- Post information regarding mass layoffs and plant closures online and make it
publicly available.
-- Provide electronic access to original WARN notices.
-- Compile comprehensive historical WARN notice data, starting in 1988 with the
WARN Acts enactment.
-- Provide detailed reporting of each mass layoff or plant closure resulting in a
WARN notice.
-- Catalog WARN notices in a searchable database.
-- Provide interactive categories after the search results.

Connect WARN data to other site-specific employment information using
unique, 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-
specific nine digit identification numbers provided by Dun and Bradstreets Data
Universal Numbering System (DUNS). Therefore, each distinct physical location of
an entity (such as branches, divisions, and headquarters) may be assigned a DUNS
number; companies should also provide DUNS numbers for headquarters and parent
companies of each facility. Once adopted, this system would enable the DOL and
other organizations to examine a wide variety of employment information including
previously filed WARN notices pertaining to each physical location of an entity.
Public Availability of WARN Notices 21
STATE WARN WEBSITE
Alabama http://www.adeca.alabama.gov/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=c8562719-a878-4024-ac97-c76e2e308a37
Alaska http://www.jobs.state.ak.us/RR/WARN_notices.htm
Arizona https://www.azdes.gov/main.aspx?menu=323&id=836
Arkansas N/A
19

California http://www.edd.ca.gov/jobs_and_training/layoff_services_warn.htm#ListingofWARNNotices
Colorado N/A
20

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/A
21

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.cfm
Kentucky http://oet.ky.gov/rresponse/rapidresponse.htm
Louisiana http://www.laworks.net/WorkforceDev/WFD_WarnFacts.asp
Maine N/A
22

Maryland http://www.dllr.state.md.us/employment/jtpa.shtml
Massachusetts N/A
23

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, bill.thoennes@state.co.us
21
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 Linda.B.Nickerson@Maine.gov
23
Can request spreadsheet from Ken Messina (kmessina@detma.org), Massachusetts Rapid Response Manager.
P
u
b
l
i
c

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

W
A
R
N

N
o
t
i
c
e
s


2
2

M
i
s
s
i
s
s
i
p
p
i

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
m
d
e
s
.
m
s
.
g
o
v
/
H
o
m
e
/
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
R
a
p
i
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
.
h
t
m
l


M
i
s
s
o
u
r
i

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
r
a
p
i
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
.
d
e
d
.
m
o
.
g
o
v
/
w
a
r
n
.
h
t
m
l

M
o
n
t
a
n
a

N
/
A
2
4

N
e
b
r
a
s
k
a

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
d
o
l
.
n
e
b
r
a
s
k
a
.
g
o
v
/
n
w
d
/
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
c
f
m
?
P
R
I
C
A
T
=
1
&
S
U
B
C
A
T
=
2
E
&
A
C
T
I
O
N
=
w
a
r
n

N
e
v
a
d
a

N
/
A
2
5

N
e
w

H
a
m
p
s
h
i
r
e

N
/
A
2
6

N
e
w

J
e
r
s
e
y

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
w
d
.
d
o
l
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
n
j
.
u
s
/
l
a
b
o
r
/
l
w
d
h
o
m
e
/
w
a
r
n
/
2
0
1
0
/
w
a
r
n
i
n
d
e
x
.
h
t
m
l

N
e
w

M
e
x
i
c
o

N
/
A
2
7

N
e
w

Y
o
r
k

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
l
a
b
o
r
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
n
y
.
u
s
/
a
p
p
/
w
a
r
n
/

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
s
l
m
i
2
3
.
e
s
c
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
n
c
.
u
s
/
m
a
s
s
l
a
y
o
f
f
/
M
L
S
F
r
a
m
e
.
a
s
p
?
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
F
r
a
m
e
=
4

N
o
r
t
h

D
a
k
o
t
a

N
/
A
2
8

O
h
i
o

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
j
f
s
.
o
h
i
o
.
g
o
v
/
w
a
r
n
/

O
k
l
a
h
o
m
a

h
t
t
p
s
:
/
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
l
i
n
k
.
o
e
s
c
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
o
k
.
u
s
/
a
d
a
/
m
n
_
w
a
r
n
_
d
s
p
.
c
f
m
?

O
r
e
g
o
n

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
o
d
c
c
w
d
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
o
r
.
u
s
/
w
a
r
n
/
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
a
s
p
x

P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
p
o
r
t
a
l
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
p
a
.
u
s
/
p
o
r
t
a
l
/
s
e
r
v
e
r
.
p
t
?
o
p
e
n
=
5
1
4
&
o
b
j
I
D
=
5
5
4
0
3
6
&
m
o
d
e
=
2

R
h
o
d
e

I
s
l
a
n
d

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
d
l
t
.
r
i
.
g
o
v
/
w
f
d
s
/
W
A
R
N
.
h
t
m

S
o
u
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
s
o
u
t
h
c
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
.
c
o
m
/
l
a
y
o
f
f
-
n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
-
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
-
-
-
r
a
p
i
d
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
-
s
u
b
p
a
g
e
.
a
s
p
x

S
o
u
t
h

D
a
k
o
t
a

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
o
l
.
s
d
.
g
o
v
/
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
e
r
v
/
w
a
r
n
_
n
o
t
i
c
e
s
.
a
s
p
x

T
e
n
n
e
s
s
e
e

N
/
A
2
9

T
e
x
a
s

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
t
w
c
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
t
x
.
u
s
/
s
v
c
s
/
j
t
p
a
/
w
a
r
n
.
h
t
m
l

U
t
a
h

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
j
o
b
s
.
u
t
a
h
.
g
o
v
/
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
/
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
/
w
a
r
n
n
o
t
i
c
e
s
.
h
t
m
l

V
e
r
m
o
n
t

h
t
t
p
s
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
v
e
r
m
o
n
t
j
o
b
l
i
n
k
.
c
o
m
/
a
d
a
/
m
n
_
w
a
r
n
_
d
s
p
.
c
f
m
?

V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
v
w
n
.
v
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
.
g
o
v
/
w
a
r
n
.
c
f
m


















































2
4

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

f
r
o
m

k
y
a
n
k
o
f
f
@
m
t
.
g
o
v
,

(
4
0
6
)
4
6
1
-
7
1
0
2
.

2
5

R
e
q
u
e
s
t
s

m
u
s
t

b
e

m
a
d
e

i
n

w
r
i
t
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
,

C
i
n
d
y

J
o
n
e
s

a
t

5
0
0

E
.

T
h
i
r
d

S
t
r
e
e
t
,

C
a
r
s
o
n

C
i
t
y
,

N
e
v
a
d
a

8
9
7
1
3
.

S
t
a
t
e

l
a
w

b
a
r
s

m
o
s
t

d
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e

o
f

o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.

2
6

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

f
r
o
m

M
a
r
t
y

J
e
n
k
i
n
s
,

m
j
e
n
k
i
n
s
@
l
a
b
o
r
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
n
h
.
u
s
.

2
7

U
n
a
b
l
e

t
o

g
e
t

i
n

c
o
n
t
a
c
t

w
i
t
h

R
a
p
i
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
e
a
m
.

2
8

E
m
a
i
l

R
a
p
i
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r

E
l
a
i
n
e

W
e
n
t
z

(
e
w
e
n
t
z
@
s
t
a
t
e
.
n
d
.
u
s
)

f
o
r

s
p
r
e
a
d
s
h
e
e
t
s
.

2
9

E
m
a
i
l

R
a
p
i
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r

J
o
e

F
u
l
t
s

(
J
o
e
.
W
.
F
u
l
t
s
@
t
n
.
g
o
v
)

f
o
r

s
p
r
e
a
d
s
h
e
e
t
s
.

Public Availability of WARN Notices 23
Washington http://www.esd.wa.gov/newsandinformation/warn/index.php
West Virginia https://www.workforcewv.org/logos/WARN.pdf
Wisconsin 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