As a result, employers stopped using work sharing

[keannu]

1. Did employers do this for the benefit of themselves or their employees? I think the latter, but the whole passage seems to be related to employers.
2. I think "layoff" is to make a group of people massively for reconstructing a company's financial stability, while "firing" is indvidual and not structured due to employees' mistakes. What do you think is the difference?

st197)It should be noted that there has been a change in the way employers have responded to recessionary periods over time. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, layoffs were not commonly used. Instead, employers resorted to devices such as work sharing and reducing wages in an effort to keep as many people employed as possible. These practices changed after the passage of the Social Security Act (that is, unemployment insurance) in 1935. A person must be totally out of work to collect unemployment insurance; benefits may not be collected if a person is working part-time. As a result, employers stopped using work sharing and similar arrangements and moved toward using layoffs. For example, layoffs were not very common during the major recessions of 1893, 1921, or 1929 but were very common in the early 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

 

[Gillnetter]

1. Did employers do this for the benefit of themselves or their employees? I think the latter, but the whole passage seems to be related to employers.
2. I think "layoff" is to make a group of people massively for reconstructing a company's financial stability, while "firing" is indvidual and not structured due to employees' mistakes. What do you think is the difference?

st197)It should be noted that there has been a change in the way employers have responded to recessionary periods over time. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, layoffs were not commonly used. Instead, employers resorted to devices such as work sharing and reducing wages in an effort to keep as many people employed as possible. These practices changed after the passage of the Social Security Act (that is, unemployment insurance) in 1935. A person must be totally out of work to collect unemployment insurance; benefits may not be collected if a person is working part-time. As a result, employers stopped using work sharing and similar arrangements and moved toward using layoffs. For example, layoffs were not very common during the major recessions of 1893, 1921, or 1929 but were very common in the early 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

Employers laid people off in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s so that the workers could receive unemployment benefits. Note that the text states that a person must be "totally out of work to collect unemployment benefits; benefits may not be collected if a person is working part-time". This text is not, as you believe, wholly related to employers, but to how available work is allocated during difficult economic times given the role of government after the passage of certain laws in 1935. This text is not concerned with the financial stability of a company as much as it is concerned with how workers are treated. A "layoff", in the US, is generally thought of as a temporary loss of work - the worker(s) may return to their occupation when there is a need on the part of the employer for the worker(s) to work. "firing" is generally considered to be a permanent change, usually due to something wrong the employee did - the person will not be allowed to return to the same employer. A person may be subject to a "layoff", or, a number of people may be subject to a "layoff".

 

[keannu]

I was surprised to find that "layoff" is a temperary loss work as there were numerious layoffs during the recession in 2009. Back then, companies all over the world seem to have done it due to their financial difficulties, most of the laid-off emplyees never coming back afterwards. So I thought it's an intentional permanent decision.

 

[Gillnetter]

I was surprised to find that "layoff" is a temperary loss work as there were numerious layoffs during the recession in 2009. Back then, companies all over the world seem to have done it due to their financial difficulties, most of the laid-off emplyees never coming back afterwards. So I thought it's an intentional permanent decision.

I responded to that by saying -

"A "layoff", in the US, is generally thought of as a temporary loss of work - the worker(s) may return to their occupation when there is a need on the part of the employer for the worker(s) to work."

A company which makes airplanes may lay off a number of workers if the company does not get a contract to build new airplanes. These workers may be recalled if the company finally does get a contract. It may be true that a laid off person may never return to his previous employment. If conditions improve and the company needs more workers they may recall their older workers, or, if the older workers have found new employment, the company may hire new workers.

Whether a company is required to recall previous workers when is there is a need may be a contractual matter, as in the case of those working under a union contract, or, those who worked under an employment contract which outlined how a recall should be done.

Generally, news reporters will use "lay-off" to mean that workers have lost their jobs due to forces beyond their control, while "fired" means that the loss of a job is the fault of the employee.