Planned Layoffs Fall, But Government Layoffs Continue: Challenger

NEW YORK: The number of planned layoffs at U.S. firms fell in March, despite continued downsizing in the public sector, a report said on Wednesday.

Employers announced 41,528 planned job cuts this month, down 18 percent from the 50,702 cuts announced in February, according to the report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

The March figure was down 39 percent from a year ago, when 67,611 job cuts were announced, the report said.

Overall, 130,749 job cuts were announced in the first three months of the year, marking the lowest rate of downsizing since 1995, when employers announced 97,716 first-quarter job cuts, Challenger, Gray said.

Announced first-quarter job cuts for 2011 were also down 28 percent compared with the same period of 2010, when there were 181,183 planned cuts, the report said.

Government has led job reduction this year, with 19,099 planned cuts in March -- the highest in 12 months, the report said.

There were 41,929 government job cuts announced in the first three months of 2011 -- a 33 percent drop from the 62,700 government layoffs announced in the first three months of last year.

"Despite the decline from last year, it is difficult to be optimistic about the outlook for government workers," Rick Cobb, executive vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in a statement. "Most cities and states have only just begun to address their massive budget deficits and we have yet to see how budget cutbacks are going to impact workers at the federal level."

Downsizing activity in other sectors appears to be stabilizing, he said.

"The sectors that had the heaviest job losses at this point a year ago have seen significantly fewer layoffs," Cobb said.

Downsizing has slowed in the pharmaceutical, auto and telecommunications sectors, compared with a year ago, he said.

The downsizing figures come ahead of the much-anticipated U.S. jobs report, which is due at 8:30 a.m. EDT (1230 GMT) on Friday.

The U.S. economy is expected to have added 200,000 private jobs in March, and slightly fewer jobs overall for non-farm payrolls, according to a Reuters poll. For more, see

(Reporting by Edith Honan; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[marlaannchristenson]

12:30 AM on 03/31/2011

Don't the Republican's understand that government employee's are employed in a business? We are homeowners. We purchase items. We have car loans. When they attempt to go after our job security they threaten our ability to make our mortgage payments, buy groceries, pay our car loans, etc. It is not good for the families, for the mortgage companies, for the economy. I wonder why not stop attacking employees? Let us work and make our mortgage payments, contribute to the economy like we have been doing.

[mothergrace]

03:04 AM on 03/31/2011

They don't care because they want to bring every worker to their knees, desperate for work so they will accept bad salaries and bad working conditions.

They especially want to dismantle the unions because the Citizens United ruling gave the same power to unions as it did to corporations to influence politics and they do not want unions (ordinary workers) to have that influence.

[SRPinPGH]

05:47 PM on 04/05/2011

Define the "business" they're in; if "business" is providing goods and services to customers with the goal of creating profit, then they most certainly are not. Government workers may buy all the things that you mention, but they do it having taken other people's money. Private companies have slashed their staffs to the bone; government should do likewise. It's morally wrong for the government to be the one sector of the American economy which is growing.

[Heartlight3]

11:54 PM on 03/30/2011

So if government workers are being laid off right and left, how is it that the GOP continues to whine about the Dems "expanding government"? How does government expand when fewer public sector workers are employed. It makes my head spin when I keep hearing this cr*p. "Smaller government!" while public sector unemployment is increasing. "Less Intrusive government!" while they want to tell me who I can marry and what I can't do with my own body. "Reduce the deficit!" while handing billions over to millionaires. "Less taxes!" wile the most profitable companies are paying none. "Government is anti-business!" when corporations are raking in unprecedented profits. Does anyone listen to these people? If so, why aren't we in the streets with pitchforks and torches?

[JessWonderin]

02:20 AM on 03/31/2011

If a bagger took the time to think AND answer just ONE of your questions, they would become hardcore liberal Democrats . . .

F&F of course . . .

[Clare53]

11:17 PM on 03/30/2011

It's not "less lay-offs" it's fewer lay-offs. Get a grammar checker.

[catbite]

09:55 PM on 03/30/2011

Pink slips to the Congress. Let them all go for doing a poor job.

[Adam Warrenchak]

03:59 PM on 03/30/2011

tax the rich, they dont need the extra money.

[MrStat1]

04:01 PM on 03/30/2011

That is not your call as it is not your money!

[Adam Warrenchak]

04:30 PM on 03/30/2011

its the governments call, which is run by the people. me being one of them. so it is my call. and who is to say it is theri money. without the society they became successful in, they wouldnt have it in the first place. they havent done anything extra to deserve tax breaks. if anything, taking a little more money from the rich would only make them want to expand their business to make up for that loss. unless the rich are really just lazy A*holes.

[kasinca]

06:43 PM on 03/30/2011

Do you enjoy making up the difference for their free ride? Get wise.

[desertman]

08:19 PM on 03/30/2011

Now that would be theft wouldn't it?

[Grousefeather]

03:03 PM on 03/31/2011

Are you implying there should be no way we can get the money back from the people who stole it from us?

[Butquestioning]

03:45 PM on 03/30/2011

Just when we are strating to see some private sector job growth, it is in jeaprody of being undermined by the state and local government spending and job cuts. As the money and jobs are cut, more consumer spending is reduced and that is what caused the unemployment in the first place... All the while, states are giving more of their tax revenue to the wealthy who let it sit in their investment accounts and do nothing to stimulate the economy. And the states have more deficits and more cuts planned...

[MrStat1]

04:02 PM on 03/30/2011

If there is no more money then you have to cut. Quite simple really.

[Butquestioning]

05:31 PM on 03/30/2011

Seems simple but when are you able to stop cutting if you keep giving away the revenue...Simply put, if spending should be equal to or less than revenue, if you decrease revenue, you create the need to cut...so, stop giving away the tax dollars and then using that for justification for spending and job cuts...Especially when your getting nothing in return for the tax cuts.

If you look at the fact that revenue was able to cover the spending before the tax cuts and the recession were in the equation, then it seems we have a revenue problem and not a spending problem. What they want to do is solve the revenue problem by using spending cuts and that is creating significant problems for schools, police and fire protection and other local programs that have a direct impact on the lives of all of us.

[axt113]

07:45 PM on 03/30/2011

Tons of money, just tax the rich and corporations

[desertman]

08:21 PM on 03/30/2011

There is no money. What sort of magic do you propose?

[Grousefeather]

10:03 PM on 03/30/2011

Confiscate it from the people who stole it.

[Butquestioning]

10:39 PM on 03/30/2011

Where did it go...??? Not much new in the way of spending but there has been a pretty substantial cut in taxes so maybe we just need to find away to get it back, do you think?

The deficit has grown larger with each Republican administration yet they keep saying they want to cut the deficits and then they cut more taxes. It's a simple accounting thing. Either increase revenue OR cut spending but they just want to keep giving bigger tax cuts to the wealthy and think that will solve the problem..That it will create jobs. .It's the same garbage about Trickle Down economics that has been shown to be a falicy. They want us middle class people to believe their propaganda. It is time we let them know we know it isn't true and we aren't going to let them keep doing it to us.

[AwakeNow]

03:33 PM on 03/30/2011

Do the unemployed citizens of america see this as a recession or do they feel as though it is the average citizens depression?

[CenterMod]

09:48 PM on 03/30/2011

For the top income earners, it is NOT a recession.They continue to live in a world of privilege and excess. And it's NOT because they earned it all. They got the benefit of a government policy to redistribute national resources UPWARD!

[AwakeNow]

10:05 PM on 03/30/2011

The best government money can buy ;-)
You are so correct that much of the american aristocracy have robbed their way to the top. For decades now they have been building an OLIGARCHY and now that the SCOTUS has ruled corps. are people, I'm sure they feel it's a grand slam hit out of the ball park for them.
Peace

[I do not lie]

03:21 PM on 03/30/2011

good. trim that fat! (when I use the word fat, I mean it both literally and figuratively)

[Butquestioning]

03:55 PM on 03/30/2011

Sure, we have too many police and firefighter, ambulance crews and roads and bridges are in too good of shape...we need to cut all that horrible waste and destroy those that depend on it... why do we need the snow plowed on the same day or even in the same week it falls? Why do ambulances have to have so many people in them, why not just have the driver and they can put the injured or sick person in the back and just take them to the hospital...And teachers, wow, why not have class sizes of 100 or more, and combine classes so that they can babysit more in one room...those kids really should be able to learn on their own..just give them a few books to read and throw tests at them once in while to make sure that they know they are accountable for doing the work...And if you want books, they can be downloaded from the internet so we don't need libraries.

Wow, you make a really interesting point about all that "fat"...bet it came from right between your ears.

[Adam Warrenchak]

04:00 PM on 03/30/2011

are you ganna hire all the unemployed government workers?

[NamithaSF]

02:09 PM on 03/30/2011

In my city, San Francisco, we are seeing layoffs in govt because the pensions and benefits for retirees are simply out of alignment with revenue. The way things are going there will be a chief of police and three cops.

[maninal2]

03:07 PM on 03/30/2011

Pensions and benefits weren't out of alignment with revenue when taxes (see revenue) were paid by corporations. It's only in conservative land that you give away tax money to corporations when money is tight and then take it from the retirees.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

03:09 PM on 03/30/2011

Nicely said and framed.

[MrStat1]

04:03 PM on 03/30/2011

And that's why corporate taxes are down in California because it is a conservative land?

[nfatt1]

02:05 PM on 03/30/2011

And the President is a "Democrat" ?

[maninal2]

03:07 PM on 03/30/2011

Corporatist - Pragmatist

[SRPinPGH]

05:49 PM on 04/05/2011

Plutocrat. But according to his "bio," he's "one of us."

[Hard Truth]

01:29 PM on 03/30/2011

Great news on 2 fronts. It's great to see the fruits of the Rs taking over the house and bringing the Obama agenda to a screeching halt.

[Butquestioning]

03:40 PM on 03/30/2011

Wow, and in the last two months that the Republican/Regressives have been in control of the House, they have done what? Nothing has changed - not one jobs bill has even been introduced by the Regressives...

The reduced job losses have been going on since shortly after Obama took office. Before that, we were losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month...And that was the result of Republican policies of the prior 8 years under Bush.

[Hard Truth]

04:38 PM on 03/30/2011

We here in the business world do not need jobs bills to create jobs. The removal of the threat of further actions by the administration has allowed businessmen (job creators), whom you lefties despise, the opportunity to forecast our employee needs going forward and act accordingly.

[Adam Warrenchak]

04:02 PM on 03/30/2011

yea because since the Rs took over the house, there has been an explosion of job offers by the private sector???????? go sit in the corner and read a history book.

[simpleperson]

04:36 PM on 03/30/2011

I wouldn't say "explosion" but it seems to be heading in the right direction.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/30/news/economy/adp_challenger_jobs_report/index.htm

[T4]

01:29 PM on 03/30/2011

it can;t happen fast enough - unfortunately it always those out of power that go and no cuts in important things like salaries or benefit structures everget altered. remember in govt and union jobs it is never about cometence pr merit it is about who you know.

[maninal2]

01:49 PM on 03/30/2011

Are you praying for a depression? Fast enough? We've seen the sharpest relative wealth decline in more than 50 years between June 2007 and December 2008 and you want more?

[schnauzergirl]

04:05 PM on 03/30/2011

Don't beleive everything you see in the movies. Take a lok at the governemtn GS slaray table and what the requirement for each pay grade actually are. You will be very surprised.

From the 2001 General Schedule Salary table:
GS4 $24,518-$31,871
Requirement (must be met before they will even look at your application and resume)
A bachelor's degreein a related field; and at least 2 years of experience one of which must be of specialized in field experience.


So someone with a full 4 year degree in the field, plus 2 years work experience could be lucky enough to make a whopping $15.32 hour (if they are lucky enough to only have to put in 40 hour weeks)

I made that much by my second year as a cashier for Home Depot right out of high school.

[leorangerie]

01:05 PM on 03/30/2011

I don't want ANYONE to lose their job (other than Gadahfi) but if the USPS is any indication of government efficiency, much, much belt tightening is needed. Just like has happened in the private sector.

[maninal2]

01:33 PM on 03/30/2011

Tell me what private company can deliver a letter anywhere in the world for $.42 I'll wait.

[leorangerie]

01:37 PM on 03/30/2011

Well, the USPS can't do it. They are bleeding red ink, as I'm sure you know. If they were a private company, they would be bankrupt. The US Postmaster is the one saying they have an unsustainable business model, not me.

[utbes01]

02:33 PM on 03/30/2011

One thing is for certain. The post office cannot do it. I would agree that 42 cents is still pretty cheap - considering that the Pony Express charged $5 per half ounce/later reduced to one dollar. Based on today's dollars, the cost of a letter would have been almost $75.

The Pony Express ended with the completion of the Transcontinental Telegraph - HINT: New technology. It happens. It changes things.

The above being said, Congress should think about and needs to consider doing a feasability study of the Post Office's assets, equipment, etc. being sold to private industry. I am willing to indulge that there are a collection of businessmen/women that could pick up the Post Office, change it, reorganize it, and make it a private industry that will be able to stay in business through modernization, technology, and profits to pay employees a good salary AND get the mail through.

[psmarc93]

02:50 PM on 03/30/2011

I think anything could be improved, but I like the cheap, realiability of the postal service. I also know that if all postal services were privatized, they would instantly become prohibitively expensive. I'm sure there's ways to improve our government service, there just has to be the will to improve.

[foothills]

10:22 PM on 03/30/2011

My father retired from the postal service when it was still run by the government. I can remember him having to take "scheme exams" at least twice a year with no errors. Basically, scheme exams were a prototype for sorting mail to the correct carrier and address. Errors happened, but were no where near as common as they are now. In my area alone, not a single day goes by when we don't get a piece of mail intended for someone else. Not someone within a 12 block radius...try 20 miles away. If I have something important to send, I either hand deliver it or fax it. I'm not about to risk sending it through the post office. To me, the postal service is far from reliable and frankly, is a huge joke.

[tosc]

12:48 PM on 03/30/2011

layoffs may have eased up but the ratio of compensation and work has definately favored the more work side for less income....what the hell we don't have anything to do anyway....right?

[getsit]

01:31 PM on 03/30/2011

Yep, those hired are making less pay, working temp or part time jobs with no benefits, working more than one low paying job to pay for the bare necessities.

And, apparently our government thinks that's ok. It almost looks like a conspiracy to put higher paid employees out of work then hire them back at lower pay. Couldn't really be, right? Is that why corporations are hoarding their trillions? To keep the workers down and out?

[maninal2]

01:34 PM on 03/30/2011

Not our government. Our Republicans.

[OhManOhMan]

12:46 PM on 03/30/2011

lay off those 545 elected officials first.

[MrStat1]

04:04 PM on 03/30/2011

How would you do that?