Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

Unemployment Through Layoffs and
Offshore Outsourcing
Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics
December 22, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL30799
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

Summary
Unemployment can come about in a number of ways, but the form of unemployment that
policymakers have shown they are most concerned about involves workers who have
involuntarily lost jobs through no fault of their own. Unemployment through layoffs ebbs and
flows with the business cycle, but involuntary job loss is ever-present because firms displace
workers for reasons other than temporarily weak demand. Employers also layoff employees for
reasons specific to the firm or the industry in which the firm lies (e.g., corporate restructuring and
seasonality).
One means of restructuring work—namely, outsourcing—has spread from employers contracting
out functions to other affiliated or nonaffiliated employers in the United States, to employers
contracting out activities to affiliated or nonaffiliated employers located outside U.S. borders. The
latter business practice is referred to as offshore outsourcing or offshoring.
Until the eleventh postwar recession began in December 2007, offshoring had driven much of the
interest in job loss and economic insecurity more generally. Some members of the public policy
community have been suggesting that offshoring has contributed to the sluggish pace of job
growth thus far in the recovery period since the recession’s end in June 2009. But, no database
exists that provides anything approximating a complete count of workers separated from payrolls
because their company relocated their functions beyond U.S. borders.
Starting in 2004, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Mass Layoff Statistics program began
to query firms in the private nonfarm sector that call long-lasting large-scale layoffs about
whether these events involve the offshoring of work. In addition to excluding layoffs at small
firms and in the public sector, the statistical series does not cover layoffs in which fewer than 50
employees are terminated. It thus is likely to understate layoffs associated with offshore
outsourcing generally and with those involving white-collar workers in the service sector
particularly (e.g., accounting clerks at financial services firms, radiologists at medical services
providers).
This report briefly reviews the various databases that provide information on layoffs. It then
examines the trend in mass layoff activity generally before focusing on quarterly outsourcing data
derived from the above-described BLS program on extended mass layoffs.
In brief, mass layoff activity is up markedly which reflects the lingering impact of the 2007-2009
recession on the labor market. With regard to outsourcing—particularly of work moving
offshore—the BLS series shows it is uncommon in extended mass layoffs and accounts for fairly
few separated workers. Relocation of work most often occurs within the United States and within
the same company. Most workers separated in extended mass layoffs involving domestic or
offshore outsourcing had been employed by manufacturers. In extended mass layoffs associated
with the movement of work offshore, jobs most often are shifted to Mexico and China.

Congressional Research Service

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Restructuring Work for Competitive Purposes ............................................................................. 1
Sources of Information on Layoffs .............................................................................................. 2
Layoffs ................................................................................................................................. 3
Current Population Survey (CPS).................................................................................... 3
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS)......................................................... 3
Mass Layoffs ........................................................................................................................ 3
Employer Announcements of Large Staff Cuts ................................................................ 3
Mass Layoff Statistics (MLS) Program............................................................................ 4

Tables
Table 1. Short- and Long-Term Mass Layoff Activity, Selected Years .......................................... 5

Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 6

Congressional Research Service

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

Introduction
Unemployment can develop in a number of ways, such as an individual (re)entering the labor
force and being unable to immediately find a job or a person quitting a job at one firm before
having obtained a job at another firm. The form of unemployment that policymakers have shown
they are most concerned about occurs when businesses layoff employees. Congress has
demonstrated its desire to help workers who have involuntarily lost their jobs through no fault of
their own and are presumed to face an indeterminate spell of unemployment by its provision of
income support under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program and the Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) program, training for dislocated workers under the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) and TAA, and advance notice of mass layoffs and plant closings under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).
Although involuntary “no-fault” displacement from jobs is always with us, this form of
unemployment increases when the economy is sluggish and decreases when the economy is
robust. In other words, there is a strong cyclical component to layoff activity. The 2007-2009
recession was thus the likely reason for many of the mass layoffs in those years.
Firms lay off workers not only due to temporarily weak demand throughout the economy, but also
due to factors specific to them or their industry (e.g., company reorganization and seasonal work).
Before the onset of the eleventh postwar recession in December 2007, policymakers interest in
involuntary job loss chiefly focused on the practice of U.S. firms sending work to firms located in
other countries—commonly known as offshore outsourcing or offshoring. Some members of the
public policy community have been suggesting since the recession’s end in June 2009, that the
business practice has contributed to the sluggish pace of job growth thus far in the economic
recovery.
This report focuses on unemployment through layoffs. It sets forth the publicly available sources
of information on layoffs and determines whether they provide data on the reasons that underlie
those events (e.g., weak product demand, financial difficulty). The report next briefly provides a
context for the offshore outsourcing phenomenon and its relationship to gross and net
employment change. It then analyzes the trend in, severity of, and explanations of extended mass
layoffs before concluding with an examination of those layoff events that involve movement-of-
work to foreign-based affiliates of the U.S. company that called the layoff or to foreign
businesses, for example.
Restructuring Work for Competitive Purposes
U.S. firms have, in the past few decades, been restructuring their operations to be more
competitive in the global marketplace by
• downsizing their workforces;
• outsourcing functions, ranging from performing janitorial services to developing
computer software, to firms located within and outside the United States; and
• utilizing contingent workers, such as independent contractors and temporary
workers.
Congressional Research Service
1

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

The term “downsizing” was coined during the 1980s. It describes a practice among very large
“old economy” manufacturers to become more efficient by laying off thousands of employees—
sometimes in multiple rounds—and closing entire facilities. Since then, downsizing for the sake
of increased international competitiveness has spread to “new economy” manufacturers (e.g.,
computer hardware producers) and to companies in the service sector (e.g., telecommunications
firms and financial enterprises).
Similarly, the business practice of contracting out activities has spread from firms relocating work
to other companies in the United States, to moving work to companies located abroad. It has been
suggested that employers have been able to achieve efficiencies through offshore outsourcing due
to improved internet, telephone, and transportation links with countries (e.g., India) whose
educational systems have expanded the worldwide supply of well-educated workers possessing
information technology (IT) and other white-collar skill sets.1
As a result, the kind of U.S. workers susceptible to involuntary job loss has changed. Whereas
displacement once occurred primarily among traditionally layoff-prone blue-collar factory
workers, the risk of job loss has increased among traditionally stable white-collar workers in
service-providing industries. Consequently, concern about job security has spread from blue-
collar to white-collar workers, who make up the majority of all employees in the labor market.
By definition, restructuring achieved through downsizing produces a net loss of jobs at firms.
This is not necessarily the case at companies that utilize contingent workers or outsource work,
however. At the same time these employers are laying off workers, they may be hiring a greater,
equivalent, or lesser number of people.
Overlaid on these changes in how firms organize their operations is the business cycle. Job losses
usually have not persistently exceeded job gains at the national level, thereby yielding a net
decrease in employment, except during recessions. While the net number of jobs rose and the
number of mass layoffs fell from 2004 to 2007, the onset of the eleventh postwar recession in
December 2007 meant a reversal of these trends. Employment on nonfarm payrolls plummeted
during the recession that ended in June 2009, and the number of layoff events involving at least
50 workers as well as the number of workers involved in these mass layoffs who filed initial UI
claims soared.2
Sources of Information on Layoffs
Data series measure layoffs in different ways. One, for example, tracks at the national level the
number of persons who are unemployed by broad reason for their joblessness. Another focuses on
the number of workers displaced in lengthy (permanent) mass layoffs, which are considered to be
more difficult to recover from for the affected workers and geographic areas. Only one tries to
determine whether layoffs are associated with the relocation of work.

1 For more information, see CRS Report RL32292, Offshoring (a.k.a. Offshore Outsourcing) and Job Insecurity Among
U.S. Workers, by Linda Levine.
2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, data from the Current Employment Statistics and the Mass Layoff Statistics
programs.
Congressional Research Service
2

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

Layoffs
Current Population Survey (CPS)
The CPS is a monthly survey of households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau from which
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) derives the unemployment rate. The CPS includes a question
on reason for unemployment. Unemployed persons3 are categorized as job losers if they report
they are on a temporary layoff (i.e., their employer has given them a date to return to work or they
expect to return to their jobs within six months) or they have permanently, involuntarily lost their
jobs. Individuals are not asked why they were laid off.4
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS)
JOLTS collects data on job openings and labor turnover from a sample of establishments subject
to state UI laws as well as federal agencies covered by the Unemployment Compensation for
Federal Employees program. It provides data on total employment, job openings, hires, quits,
layoffs and discharges, and other separations by month with a two-month lag. More specifically,
JOLTS defines involuntary separations as layoffs with no intent on the employer’s part to rehire
their former employees and layoffs that have lasted or that the employer expects to last more than
seven days; discharges that arise from downsizing, mergers, closings, and firings or other
discharges for cause; and terminations of permanent, short-term, or seasonal employees.
Employers are not asked about the reasons underlying layoffs and discharges.
Mass Layoffs
Employer Announcements of Large Staff Cuts
A source of information on substantial staff cutbacks has been announcements by individual firms
of upcoming actions. However, several drawbacks exist in using the announcements to gauge the
actual circumstances of workers, firms, and communities. Companies make announcements about
their expectations, but these may or may not come to pass as planned. Although firms sometimes
include statements in financial reports about how their restructuring plans have been
implemented, there is neither readily available nor comprehensive information on their actual
outcomes. In addition, the announcement of a layoff in a given month does not mean that affected
workers are displaced immediately or terminated as a group.
The impetus for issuance of these announcements was passage of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN, P.L. 100-379), which went into effect in 1989. The act
requires firms with 100 or more employees to provide notice to employees or their union
representatives and to local/state government officials 60 days before initiating a major layoff or
closing a plant.

3 To be classified as unemployed members of the labor force, individuals must currently be looking for jobs. People
who become discouraged about their reemployment prospects and stop searching for work are no longer considered
part of the labor force.
4 The other reasons for unemployment are having left a job voluntarily, having completed a temporary job, and newly
entering or reentering the labor force.
Congressional Research Service
3

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

A comprehensive database of these announcements does not exist because there is no requirement
in the WARN act that the notices be filed with a single entity. Some of these announcements are
reported by the media or other information-gathering organizations. These reports might include
only the most newsworthy layoff events (e.g., those involving the nation’s largest employers).
There is likely to be considerable variability in what, if any, information is provided about the
reasons for the anticipated layoffs.
Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., an outplacement firm, has become the leading provider of
layoff information derived from company announcements of staff cutbacks. It compiles the data
on a monthly basis from a variety of sources including newspapers and wire services, trade
publications, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, and company announcements.
During the first 11 months of 2010, companies announced staff cutbacks totaling 497,969—
substantially fewer than had been announced during a comparable period in 2009.5 For all of
2009, Challenger reported that U.S. firms announced their intention to cut payrolls by 1,288,030
employees. Although the latest recession ended in June 2009, the total for the year was still higher
than the 1,223,993 job losses announced in 2008, which was the first full year of the recession
that began in December 2007. By way of comparison, firms had announced their intention during
the 2001 recession to lay off about 2.0 million. The total fell somewhat (to 1,466,823) in 2002,
the first year of the recovery.
Mass Layoff Statistics (MLS) Program
The Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 charged the U.S. Department of Labor with gathering
statistics on mass layoffs and plant closings. Because of improvements made to the MLS program
(e.g., expansion of coverage to all states), data from 1985 to 1992 are not comparable with
statistics for more recent years, however.
The MLS program consists of two series:
• In its monthly series, BLS defines a mass layoff as an event involving 50 or more
workers from a single establishment who file initial claims for UI benefits. The
only information available on a monthly basis is the number of layoff events and
the number of initial UI claimants disaggregated by state and industry group
separately.
• In its quarterly series, BLS provides more detailed information on extended
(permanent) mass layoffs, which are defined as those above-described layoffs
that last more than 30 days. Additional information is obtained by querying
employers that have layoffs lasting beyond 30 days, including the reason for the
layoff and whether it involved the movement of work.
Covered establishments in both series included employers throughout the economy until
2004. For budgetary reasons, the extended mass layoff series since then has covered only
nonfarm employers in the private sector. The mass layoff series, which is based solely on
administrative records, continues to include agricultural and government employers.

5 “Employers Announced 48,711 Job Cuts in November” Daily Labor Report, December 1, 2010; “December Job Cuts
Fell to Lowest Level Since Recession Began” Daily Labor Report, January 7, 2010; and “Employers Announced 1.2
Million Job Cuts in 2008, Most Since 2003,” Daily Labor Report, January 8, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
4

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

As shown in Table 1, both mass layoff series unsurprisingly spiked in 2001, when the first
recession of the 2000s occurred. Mass layoff activity again increased sharply in 2008, reflecting
the onset of the decade’s second recession in December 2007. The data reflect a worsening
situation in 2009, despite the recession’s end in June of that year. The two series have showed
marked improvement thus far in 2010.
Table 1. Short- and Long-Term Mass Layoff Activity, Selected Years

Mass Layoffs
Extended Mass Layoffsa

Initial UI
Initial UI
Separated
Year
Events
Claimants
Events
Claimants
Workers
1999 14,909
1,572,399 4,556
796,917
901,451
2000 15,738
1,835,592 4,591
846,267
915,962
2001 21,467
2,514,862 7,375 1,457,512 1,524,832
2002 20,277
2,245,051 6,337 1,218,143 1,272,331
2003 18,963
1,888,926 6,181 1,200,811 1,216,886
2004 15,980
1,607,158 5,010
903,079
993,909
2005 16,466
1,795,341 4,881
834,533
884,661
2006 13,998
1,484,391 4,885
951,155
935,969
2007 15,493
1,598,875 5,363
978,712
965,935
2008 21,137
2,130,220 8,259 1,670,042 1,516,978
2009 28,030
2,796,456 11,827 2,439,840 2,108,803
2010b
17,633 1,670,466
5,1278 939,172 883,394
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data on mass layoffs covers employees in all industries and on extended
mass layoffs covers employees in the private nonfarm sector (i.e., excludes agriculture and government).
a. The number of separated workers often is larger than the number of initial UI claimants because not all
separated workers file for benefits. In contrast with the figures on separated workers, which are provided
by employers with extended mass layoffs or worksite closings, the figures on initial UI claimants are from
the regular UI reporting system and may include claimants who are not part of a mass layoff or closing.
b. The Mass Layoff figures run from January to November of 2010. The Extended Mass Layoff figures cover the
first three quarters (January-September) of 2010.
In light of the increased interest in offshoring and the lack of data, BLS began in 2004 to ask
employers who called extended mass layoffs questions about whether movement of work—either
within or outside the United States—was associated with these events. Because the MLS
quarterly series excludes layoffs of government employees, layoffs called by small firms, and
layoffs in which fewer than 50 employees are terminated, it is likely to understate job loss
associated with offshoring generally and job loss involving white-collar workers in the service-
providing sector particularly (e.g., accounting clerks at financial firms, radiologists at hospitals).
Thus, no database exists that provides anything approximating a complete count of workers
separated from payrolls because their company relocated their functions beyond U.S. borders.
With these caveats in mind, the BLS series shows that outsourcing—particularly of work moving
offshore—is uncommon in long-lasting large-scale layoffs and accounts for fairly few of the
workers terminated in these actions. In 2009, for example, 61,994 workers were laid off as part of
Congressional Research Service
5

Unemployment Through Layoffs and Offshore Outsourcing

the 351 extended mass layoffs that involved movement of work within the same company or to a
different company within or outside the United States. These workers accounted for 4% of all
workers let go in long-lasting large-scale layoffs conducted for nonseasonal/nonvacation reasons.
Organizational change (i.e., restructuring of a company and business ownership change) was the
reason underlying more than 60% of these layoffs. Most workers separated in extended mass
layoff events involving domestic or offshore outsourcing had been employed by manufacturers,
oftentimes transportation equipment as well as computer and electronic products manufacturers.6
Relocation of work most often occurs within the United States and within the same company. In
2009, employers were able to provide specific information on 317 movement-of-work actions.
Only one in four of these actions involved moving work outside the United States. These 81
actions involved the layoff of 10,378 workers. Mexico and China were reported to be the
countries to which work was relocated in over one-half the events.7

Author Contact Information

Linda Levine

Specialist in Labor Economics
llevine@crs.loc.gov, 7-7756

6 BLS, Extended Mass Layoffs in 2009, Report 1025, December 2010.
7 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6