Employee Downsizing

"Next to the death of a relative or friend, there's nothing more traumatic than losing a job. Corporate cutbacks threaten the security and self-esteem of survivors and victims alike. They cause turmoil and shatter morale inside organizations and they confirm the view that profits always come before people." - Laura Rubach, Industry Analyst, in 1994. "The market is going to determine where we stop with the layoffs." - Tom Ryan, a Boeing spokesman, in August 2002. Downsizing Blues All Over the World The job markets across the world looked very gloomy in the early 21st century, with many companies having downsized a considerable part of their employee base and many more revealing plans to do so in the near future. Companies on the Forbes 500 and Forbes International 800 lists had laid off over 460,000 employees' altogether, during early 2001 itself. This trend created havoc in the lives of millions of employees across the world, Many people lost their jobs at a very short or no advance notice, and many others lived in a state of uncertainty regarding their jobs. Companies claimed that worldwide economic slowdown during the late-1990s had had forced them to downsize, cut costs, optimize resources and survive the slump. Though the concept of downsizing had existed for a long time, its use had increased only recently, since the late-1990s. (Refer Table I for information on downsizing by major companies). Analysts commented that downsizing did more damage than good to the companies as it resulted in low morale of retained employees, loss of employee loyalty and loss of expertise as key personnel/experts left to find more secure jobs. Moreover, the uncertain job environment created by downsizing negatively effected the quality of the work produced. Analysts also felt that most companies adopted downsizing just as a 'me-too' strategy even when it was not required. However, despite these concerns, the number of companies that chose to downsize their employee base increased in the early 21st century. Downsizing strategy was adopted by almost all major industries such as banking, automobiles, chemical, information technology, fabrics, FMCG, air transportation and petroleum. In mid-2002, some of the major companies that announced downsizing plans involving a large number of employees included Jaguar (UK), Boeing (US), Charles Schwab (US), Alactel (France), Dresdner (Germany), Lucent Technologies (US), Ciena Corp. (US) and Goldman Sachs Group (US). Even in companies' developingcountries such as India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and South Korea were going in for downsizing. Downsizing Blues All Over the World Contd...

000 4.000 68.000 7.200 2.400 18. OF EMPLOYEES DOWNSIZED 20.000 6.000 2.000 10.000 2.000 9.500 2.250 28.400 I YEAR COMPANY 1998 Boeing 1998 CitiCorp 1998 Chase Manhattan Bank 1998 Kellogs 1998 BF Goodrich 1998 Deere & Company 1998 AT&T 1998 Compaq 1998 Intel 1998 Seagate 1999 Chase Manhattan Bank 1999 Boeing 1999 Exxon-Mobil 2000 Lucent Technologies 2000 Charles Schwab 2001 Xerox 2001 Hewlett Packard 2001 AOL Time Warner INDUSTRY Aerospace Banking Banking FMCG Tyres Farm Equipment Telecommunications IT IT IT Banking Aerospace Petroleum IT IT Copiers IT Entertainment The Downsizing Phenomenon Worldwide .00 1.TABLE DOWNSIZING BY MAJOR COMPANIES (1998-2001) NO.250 1.000 3.000 2.500 3.

Both strategies share one common feature: employees are dismissed not for incompetence but because management decided to reduce the overall work force. employees are asked to leave temporarily and return when the market situation improves. Downsizing is not the same as traditional layoffs. It refers to the process of reducing the number of employees on the operating payroll by way of terminations. retirements or spin-offs. and/or competitiveness. employees are asked to leave permanently. It is a normal Human Resources (HR) practice of a downsizing company to freeze hiring totally/partially. downsizing can be defined as 'a set of organizational activities undertaken by the management. productivity. From the management's point of view. In late 1990s and early 2000s. II .Voluntary retirement and buyout benefits: Voluntary retirement benefits encourage employees to retire early with full or reduced pension benefits before the stipulated retirement age. not reflecting any discredit on the employee. but with the . .' This definition places downsizing in the category of management tools such as reengineering and rightsizing. The process essentially involves the dismissal of a large portion of a company's workforce within a very short span of time. designed to improve organizational efficiency.Involuntary Separation/Layoff: A layoff may be defined as the separation of an employee from service for involuntary reasons other than resignation.Attrition: Natural reduction of workforce that occurs when employees leave the organization due to retirement. death or resignation. Buyout is a similar technique that includes offering lumpsum payment to encourage employees (eligible/not eligible for voluntary retirement or regular retirement) to voluntarily leave the organization. different organizations adopted different kinds of downsizing techniques and strategies (Refer Table II). It was also defined as termination of an employee's employment for reasons beyond the control of an employee and which do not reflect discredit on the employee. But in downsizing. In traditional layoffs. . Both of these are considered to be very effective downsizing techniques and are used across the world.Leave without pay: Leave without pay is granted to employees with reduced benefits. TABLE MAJOR TECHNIQUES AND STRATEGIES OF DOWNSIZING .Downsizing as a management tool was first introduced in the US during the mid-20th century.

edu The Downsizing Phenomenon Worldwide Contd. Other negative effects of downsizing included depression. anxiety. This new development went against conventional microeconomic theory. according to Hickok. The harmful effects of downsizing could be seen in 'survivors' as well. They . to optimize resources and cut costs. an industry analyst. Soon. by the 1990s. Companies expected the productivity of employees remaining after downsizing to increase as they thought it would be easier to train and manage a smaller workforce. labor costs were not rising in relation to productivity and the companies anticipated greater demand for their products. and investors began selling stocks of such companies in anticipation of their decreased future profitability. This strategy was useful for firms. They experienced low morale and high stress and had to cope with an increase in workload. In addition. these companies found it unviable to maintain a huge workforce and hence downsized a large number of employees. anger and bitterness in the downsized employees... which downsized to cut costs rather than to reduce the workforce by a certain number. However. However. downsizing came to be seen as a tool adopted by weak companies. change in working relationships (from being familial to competitive). In the 1990s. most firms were downsizing in spite of an economic boom. and change in employer-employee relationship (from being long-term and stable to being short-term and contingent).unt. Due to these factors.. organizations resorted to downsizing on account of various reasons: to eliminate duplication of work after mergers and acquisitions (M&As). improve productivity and increase profitability. frustration. In the 1980s. they felt and downsizing syndrome marked with frustration.govinfo. downsizing was mostly resorted to by weak companies facing high demand erosion for their products or facing severe competition from other companies. envy and guilt. this phenomenon is not very difficult to understand. and to increase productivity and efficiency by eliminating unnecessary intermediary channels. During the early 1990s. shift in focus from the welfare if the individual employee to the welfare of the organization as a whole. However. and a strong firm hired more workers to increase production anticipating an increase in demand.library. Hickok observed the following changes in organizational culture after downsizing: power shift from middle management to top management/owners. as even financially sound companies began downsizing..guarantee of job when they return at the end of their leave period. The Downsizing Phenomenon Worldwide Contd. The very thought of downsizing created anxiety in both the downsized employees and those who survived. investors began considering the practice as a means to reduce costs. according to which a weak firm laid off workers in anticipation of a slump in demand. anger. Source: www. depression. downsizing resulted in vast cultural changes (mostly negative) in the organization instead of an increase in cost savings or productivity.

According to analysts.were concerned about possible job loss. over 600. revised performance expectations and uncertainties regarding career advancement (Refer Exhibit I for guidelines to tide over the downsizing phase). "The ultimate test of leadership is enhancing the long-term value of the organization. During this period. managers sought to increase their wealth through downsizing.000 employees were downsized in the US in 1993. suffered the negative effects of downsizing. The chemical industry came out strongly in favor of the downsizing concept in the early 1990s. instead. despite positive economic growth during the early 1990s. . However. During the early and mid-1990s. A few analysts blamed the changes in the compensation system for executive management for the increase in the number of companies downsizing their workforce in 1990s. Mobil (due to the acquisition of Exxon). companies across the world (and especially in the US). As the perceived value of the downsized company was more than its actual value. the number of firms that adopted downsizing was rather limited. A survey conducted by the American Management Association revealed that less than half of the companies that downsized in the 1990s saw an increase in profits during that period. GE abandoned policy of lifetime employment and introduced the concept of contingent employment. but the situation changed in the early-1990s. These companies not only reduced their workforce." In line with this approach to leadership. Since downsizing increased the equity value (investors buy the downsizing company's stocks in hope of future profitability) of the company. most companies did not achieve their objectives and. this means long-term shareholder value. Deutsche Bank (due to its merger with Bankers Trust) and Hoechst AG (due to its merger with Rhone-Poulenc SA). Some other organizations that made major job cuts during this period were Boeing (due to its merger with McDonnell Douglas). The First Phase Till the late-1980s. managers were compensated in stock options1 instead of cash. most of these successful companies undertook downsizing as a purposeful and proactive strategy. optimize resources and survive competition and eliminate duplication of work after M&As. In the new compensation system. they also redesigned their organizations and implemented quality improvement programs. many companies started downsizing their workforce to improve the image of the firm among the stockholders or investors and to become more competitive. For leaders of a publicly held corporation. Simultaneously. began focusing on enhancing the value of the organization as a whole. Thus. Companies such as General Electric (GE) and General Motors (GM) downsized to increase productivity and efficiency. managers adopted downsizing even though it was not warranted by the situation. relations with new superiors. it began offering employees the best training and development opportunities to constantly enhance their skills and performance and keep pace with the changing needs of the workplace. the then GE CEO. Most chemical and drug companies restricted their organizations and cut down their employee base to reduce costs and optimize resources. According to Jack Welch. The survey also revealed that a majority of these companies failed to report any improvements in productivity.

Delta Airlines realized in a very short time that it was running short of people for its baggage handling. reduced the need for downsizing across the globe. maintenance and customer service departments. where companies downsizing more than 40 workers had to report the same in writing to the labor department. the downsizing tax caused more problems than it solved.One company that suffered greatly was Delta Airlines. factors such as increased investor awareness. just as the downsizing trend seemed to be on a decline. some economists advocated the imposition of a downsizing tax (on downsizing organizations) by the government to discourage companies from downsizing. This type of tax already existed in France.000 employees during the early 1990s. coupled with the fact that senior executive salaries had increased by over 1000% between 1980 and 1995. decrease in level of unemployment. including France. In light of the negative influence that downsizing was having on both the downsized and the surviving employees. Though Delta succeeded in making some money in the short run. it picked up momentum again in the late-1990s. As investors seemed to be flocking to downsizing companies. The above. such companies had liable to pay high severance fees. even as the layoff percentage reached its maximum during the same period. and high profits. However. However. Also. increasing national incomes. dynamic changes in technologies. This tax was mainly responsible for the low rate of job creation and high rates of unemployment in many European countries. As in the early 1990s. the slump in the IT industry. Criticism of downsizing and its ill-effects soon began resurfacing. resistance to change from the survivors. and increase in the availability of a temporary employee base. The tax burden of such companies increased because they were no longer exempt from various payroll taxes. excess workload on the survivors. Rationalization of the labor force and wage reduction took place at an alarming rate during the late 1990s and early 21st century. reduced productivity and fall in quality levels also cropped up. and submit a plan to the government regarding the retraining program of its displaced employees (for their future employment). increase in global competition. many . as a result of which it had to invest heavily in rehiring many workers. which had laid off over 18. this time spreading to developing countries as well. with increased strategic alliances and growing popularity of concepts such as lean manufacturing and outsourcing2. contribute to an unemployment fund. This change was attributed to factors such as worldwide economic recession. Other problems such as the uneven distribution of employees (too many employees in a certain division and inadequate employees in another). As this policy restrained a company from downsizing. Many companies suffered from negative effects of downsizing and lost some of their best employees. fall in inflation. it ended up losing experienced and skilled workers. it damaged the chances of potential job seekers to get into the company. The Second Phase By the mid-1990s. many companies saw downsizing as a tool for increasing their share value. led to criticism of downsizing. stronger economies.

AT&T even paid recruitment firms twice the salaries of laid-off workers to bring them back to AT&T. Shortly after this raise. the company doubled the remuneration of its Chairman. AT&T frequently rehired former employees until it absorbed the 'shock'of downsizing. but who better to bring back than someone who knows the ropes?" Very few people bought this argument. "It does not happen that much. Continental and Southwest . including its CEO.000 employees were downsized. The average increase in salary and bonus of each officer was about 16%. Other major companies that announced that their top executives would forgo cash compensations when a large number of workers were laid off were AMR Corp.000 of its top executives. Ford was one of the first companies to announce such an initiative. Leading Internet start-up AOL was also criticized for the same reasons.2% during 2000. AT&T. Meanwhile. It was reported that about half of the companies that downsized their workforce ended up recruiting new or former staff within a few years after downsizing because of insufficient workers or lack of experienced people. It announced that over 6. The increase in salary and bonuses of AOL's six highest paid executive officers was between 8. would forgo their bonus in 2001. AOL downsized 2. Former Operations Director. and the rationale behind downsizing and then rehiring former employees/recruiting new staff began to be questioned by the media as well as the regulatory authorities in various parts of the world." Justifying the above. Frank Carrubba. Following the demand that the executive officers should also share in the 'sacrifice' associated with downsizing. companies incurred expenditure on overtime pay and employment of temporary and contract workers. "It seemed like they would fire someone and [the worker] would be right back at their desk the next day.400 employees in January 2001. In 1996. said. allegations that downsizing was being adopted by companies to support the increasingly fat pay-checks of their senior executives increased. It was also reported that in some cases. with the remuneration of the CEO exceeding $73 million during the period. Due to the loss of experienced workers. because it appeared to be the popular thing to do. A former AT&T manager commented. some companies voluntarily announced that they would cut down on the remuneration and bonuses of their top executives in case of massive layoffs.9% to 25.. which earned the dubious reputation of frequently rehiring its former employees because the retained employees were unable to handle the work load.. The Second Phase Contd. The US-based global telecom giant AT&T was one such company.. Delta. AT&T was again in the news in this regard.organizations downsized even though it was not necessary. even as over 40.

This resulted in increased costs as they had to be framed for the job. many companies began offering flexible work arrangements to their employees in an attempt to avoid the negative impact of downsizing. hobbies. Analysts commented that in many cases HR managers opted for contingent employees as they offered the least resistance when downsized. They were hired directly by the company or through an external agency on a contract basis for a specific work for a limited period of time. Such an arrangement was reported to be beneficial for both employees as well as the organization. This type of arrangement also gave more time to pursue their education. Though these employees appeared on the payroll. In addition to the above. contingent employees were employed in core areas of organizations. In many cases. companies adopted many strategies to deal with the criticisms they were facing because of downsizing. analysts also commented that while contingent employment had its advantages. decreased absenteeism and employee turnover. The concept of contingent employment also became highly popular and the number of organizations adopting this concept increased substantially during the early 21st century. the salaries paid to them were less than these given to regular employees performing similar jobs. increased ability to recruit and retain superior quality employees improved service to clients in various time zones. contingent employees were those who had no explicit or implicit contract and expected their jobs to last no more than one year. and handle personal responsibilities. and professional development. In the initial years. Thus. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). TACKLING THE EVILS OF DOWNSIZING During the early 21st century. when contingent employment was introduced. it posed many problems in the long run. they were not covered by the employee handbook (which includes the rights and duties of employers and employees and employment rules and regulations). A flexible working arrangement resulted in increased morale and productivity. Companies did not have to pay unemployment taxes. such employees were asked to perform non-critical jobs that had no relation to an organization's core business. these employees offered flexibility without long-term commitments and enabled organizations to downsize them. and better use of office equipment and space. when not required. But during the early 2000s. However. reduced stress on employees. US. retirement or health benefits for contingent employees. without much difficulty or guilt. Not only was training time consuming.Airlines. its costs were recurring in nature as contingent employees stayed only for their .

retirement. Given these circumstances. issues regarding employee welfare and the plight of employees. or overtime benefits. The increasing number of contingent employees in an organization was found to have a negative effect on the morale of regular employees. In many cases regular employees were afraid to ask for a raise or other benefits as they feared they might lose their jobs. Productivity suffered considerably during the period when contingent employees were being trained. Senior Vice President. and if they are only going to be on board for a month. incentive and compensation planning and effective monitoring systems were the key factors for successful downsizing. Consequently. The fact that such employees were not very loyal to the organization also led to problems. LESSONS FROM THE 'DOWNSIZING BEST PRACTICES' COMPANIES In the late 1990s. They do not understand your rules. remained unaddressed. Team America (a leasing company). According to some analysts. it attracted criticism similar to those that downsizing did. Under the terms of the contract. contingent employees reportedly failed to develop a sense of loyalty toward the organization. they were not eligible for health. they failed to completely commit themselves to the goals of the organization. As a result. That carrot is not there any more for substantial numbers of temps who prefer their temporary status." With such an attitude to remain outside the ambit of company rules and regulations. Analysts also found that most contingent employees preferred their flexible work arrangements and were not even lured by the carrot (carrot and stick theory of motivation) of permanent employment offered for outstanding performance. who were subject to constant uncertainty and insecurity regarding their future. the contingent employment arrangement was not beneficial to contingent employees. The study provided many interesting insights into the practice and the associated problems. "It used to be that you worked as a temp to position yourself for a full-time job. It was found that the formulation and communication of a proper planning and downsizing strategy.specified contract period and were soon replaced by a new batch of contingent employees. Though contingent employment seemed to have emerged as one of the solutions to the ills of downsizing. In the words of Paul Cash. the support of senior leaders. they may never understand. Discrimination against contingent employees at the workplace was reported in many organizations. the best option for companies seemed to be to learn from those organizations that had been comparatively successful at downsizing. Their presence made the company's regular employees apprehensive about their job security. the US government conducted a study on the downsizing practices of firms (including major companies in the country). .

In many organizations where downsizing was successfully implemented and yielded positive results. HR managers in these companies participated actively in the overall downsizing exercise. it is the managers' behavior that will have the most impact. and appropriate manner. Though the downsizing methods used varied from organization to organization. While HR is perceived to have provided outstanding service. Communication was found to be a primary success factor of effective downsizing programs. The plan also included the identification of skills needed by employees to take new responsibilities and the development of training and reskilling programs for employees. Since it may be necessary to acquire other skills in the future.those who were downsized as well as the survivors. According to a best practice company source. consistent and committed leadership helped employees overcome organizational change caused by downsizing. They developed a employee plan for downsizing. it was found that senior leaders had been actively involved in the downsizing process. According to a survey conducted in major US companies.managing their surplus employees in a humane.and need to be committed to . 79% of the respondents revealed that they mostly used letters and memorandums from senior managers to communicate information regarding restructuring or downsizing to employees. "Managers at all levels need to be held accountable for . the plan also addressed the issue of recruitment planning. the active involvement of senior employees helped achieve downsizing goals and objectives with little loss in quality or quantity of service. According to best practice companies. The survey report suggested that face-to-face communication (such as briefings by managers and small group meetings) was a more appropriate technique for dealing with a subject as traumatic (to employees) as downsizing. only 29% of the respondents agreed that this type of communication was effective. However. A few common methods of communication adopted by these companies included small meetings." In many companies. employees expected senior leaders to communicate openly and honestly about the circumstances the company was facing (which led to downsizing). which covered issues such as attrition management and workforce distribution in the organization. These companies also achieved a proper balance between formal and informal forms of communication. objective. The presence and accessibility of senior leaders had a positive impact on employees . face .

fax. use of newsletters. . the number of employees eligible for early retirement. videos. minorities. pay grade. employee inputs contributed considerably to the success of their downsizing activities as they frequently gave valuable ideas regarding the restructuring. and assistance required by employees during downsizing. employee rights and tips for surviving the situation. downsizing companies needed to gather information regarding successful downsizing processes of other organizations and various opportunities available for employees outside the organization. Some organizations developed an inventory of employee skills to help management take informed decisions during downsizing. concerns or suggestions regarding the downsizing process. According to many best practice organizations. From external sources. telephone hotlines. all staff meetings. such companies need to gather demographic data (such as rank. and brochures and guides to educate employees about the downsizing process. years of service. This information had to be acquired from internal as well as external sources (the HR department was responsible for providing it). information that was not required by companies for their normal day-today operations. gender and retirement eligibility) on the entire workforce. one-on-one discussion. disabled employees and old employees. The best practice organizations gathered information useful for effective downsizing from all possible sources. Advance planning for downsizing also contributed to the success of a downsizing exercise. increase in production.to face interaction. they required information regarding number of employees that were normally expected to resign or be terminated. Best practice companies involved employee union representatives in planning. and the impact of downsizing on women. breakfast gatherings. memoranda. In addition. Many best practice organizations developed HR information systems that saved management's time during downsizing or major restructuring by giving ready access to employee information. restructuring or staffing. And from internal sources. became critical when downsizing. Many organizations encouraged employees to voice their ideas. e-mail and bulletin boards. According to a survey report. Many successful organizations planned in advance for the downsizing exercise. These companies felt it was necessary to involve labor representatives in the planning process to prevent and resolve conflicts during downsizing. video conferencing and informal employee dialogue sessions. clearly defining every aspect of the process. age.

cuts in pay. a successful downsizing process required the simultaneous use of different downsizing techniques. disabled class) and region. when downsizing). furloughs. periodic review of the implementation process and immediate identification and rectification of any deviations from the plan minimized the adverse effects of the downsizing process. and providing support to survivors.The major steps in the downsizing process included adopting an appropriate method of downsizing. These categories could be department. All these approaches were a part of the 'shared pain' approach of employees. Though the above measures helped minimize the negative effects of downsizing. Training provided to managers to help them play their role effectively in the downsizing process mainly included formal classroom training and written guidance (on issues that managers were expected to deal with. minorities. The least the companies could do was to downsize in a manner that did not injure the dignity of the discharged employees or lower the morale of the survivors. attrition). employment equity group (women. and job sharing. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION . who preferred to share the pain of their coworkers rather than see them be laid-off. leave without pay. administrative. voluntary retirement. training managers about their role in downsizing. According to many organizations. union contract changes. Many companies offered assistance to downsized employees and survivors. Some techniques considered by organizations in lieu of downsizing included overtime restrictions. leave without pay or involuntary separation (layoffs). secretarial. occupational group (clerical. The various techniques of downsizing adopted by organizations included attrition. Senior leaders were provided with key indicators (such as the effect of downsizing on the organizational culture) for their respective divisions. According to best practice companies. shortened workweeks. Some organizations tracked the progress and achievement of every division separately and emphasized the application of a different strategy for every department as reaction of employees to downsizing varied considerably from department to department. In some organizations. to help them cope with their situation. reason (early retirement. The primary focus of these training sessions was on dealing with violence in the workplace during downsizing. industry observers acknowledged the fact that the emotional trauma of the concerned people could never be eliminated. offering career transition assistance to downsized employees. general labor). the progress was reviewed quarterly and was published in order to help every manager monitor reductions by different categories.

4. discuss the measures you would adopt to ensure the exercise's success. Hollender Lauren. September 1995. www. Downsizing and Employee Attitudes.ncspearson. Employment Law Q&A.chemcenter. Job Cuts Up 53% Since 1997. L. www.mojones.martinrutte. what do you think employees should do to survive the trauma caused by downsizing and prepare themselves for it? ADDITIONAL READING & REFERENCES 1.c3i. www.mil. 1997.pamji. 5.1. 2. 9. Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected Organizations. www. www. Explain the concept of downsizing and describe the various downsizing techniques.com. Why did contingent employment and flexible work arrangements become very popular during the early 2000s? Discuss. www. Downsizing or Dumbsizing. P. Also discuss the positive and negative effects of downsizing on organizations as well as employees (downsized and remaining).com. Critically evaluate the reasons for the increasing use of downsizing during the late 20th century and the early 21st century. Hein Kenneth. http://advance. www. Kirschener Elisabeth. . www.com. Chemical & Engineering News. GE Knows to Roll With the Changes. May 1997.Lester Martha and M. www.osd.houstonchronicle. The Wages of Downsizing.csaf. Evaluate these concepts as alternatives to downsizing in the context of organizational and employee welfare. 7.edu/bym. 1997. April 1996. February 1997. Hickok Thomas. 10. As part of an organization's HR team responsible for carrying it through a downsizing exercise. October 1996. October 1998. 3.org.com. June 1998. 11.com.Jenkins Carri. 6. 8.org. January 1996. 3. 1995. 2. Jones Shannon. Making Sense of Corporate Downsizing. Given the uncertainty in the job market.com. Downsizing and Organizational Culture. Food for the Corporate Soul. www.byu.wsws.lowenstein.com.

23. 17.com. www. 2000.nwsource. October 2001. February 2002. 28.humax. Silicon Valley: Still a Boomtown? News. 13. 21. www. July 2001. US Airlines on Course with Loan Guarantee. 30.com.greylockassociates.com. Gomez Armando. www. Grey Barry. The Ups and Downs of Downsizing. Shareholders Press AT&T on Wage Gap.com. 1998.uk.org.geocities.Song Kyung. Noguchi Yuki. www.wspa.achrnews. 16. 2001.news. Leicester John. March 2002.000. http://news. 27. 20. www. www.edu 34.askmen.bbc.wsws. Unkindest Cuts of All . DiCarlo Lisa.co.com. 31.org. www. Skaer Mark. Carmaker Jaguar to Cut 400 Jobs. www. Downsizing with Dignity. 26. September 2002.org. GE to Layoff 1. Gaints. http://seattletimes. July 2002. Telecom Giant Sheds Scots Jobs.whatis.co. http://story. With Sales Down.news. www.000 in 1998. September 2002.erie.And Not Always a Payoff in the Layoff.000 Jobs.com. Boeing Tells 600 More of Layoffs Today.com.net. 15.com. www.managementfirst. March 2002. www.bbc. http://story. 24. September 2002. September 2002. Global Slowdown Bites I. Baker Wayne. www. May 1999.library. http://govinfo.net. www. http://news.com. www.com. 19. M. Downsizing Dignity. www.com. September 2002.washingtonpost.ufenet. Duffy Tom.yahoo.com 33. Layoff and Outsourcing Update. 18. Grice Corey and Junnarkar Sandeep.responsiblewealth.T. www.forbes.uk. Ciena Cuts Another Round of Workers. 14. Freeze Executive Pay During Periods of Downsizing.12. 22. January 1999. How to Survice Downsizing.asiafeatures. Alactel to Cut 10.com.winnipegfreepress2. December 1998. August 2002.com. 25.000 More Jobs. Employee Mindset Is Different Today.yahoo. Bowes Barbara.com . July 2002. 32.nwfusion.com 35. Boeing Announcements Brings US Job Cuts to 500. Dresdner to Cut 3.unt. September 2002. 29. www.com.

www. www.36.com 43. www.shrm.about. www. www.org 37.edu 41. www.gov 49.humanresources.org 39.shrm.orst. http://members.com 46.aol.com 45. www.msnbc.com 40.business-minds.cio.com 47.com 38. www. www.bpcinc. www. www. www.themanagementor.com .com 44.businessweek. www.com 42.com 48.doleta.forbes.business2.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful