Internet address: stats.bls.gov
Technical information: (202) 691-6392 USDL 01-53
For release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, March 2, 2001
MASS LAYOFFS IN JANUARY 2001
In January 2001, there were 1,522 mass layoff actions by employers as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits during the month, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single
establishment and the number of workers involved totaled 200,343. (See table 1.) The number of layoff events was the lowest for January since the series began in April 1995, while the number of initial claims for unemployment insurance was the lowest since January 1996. These lower
levels were due, in part, to a calendar effect, since January in both 1996 and 2001 contained 4 weeks that ended in the month compared with 5 weeks in each of the other four Januarys.
The monthly data series in this release cover mass layoffs of 50 or more workers beginning in a given month, regardless of the duration of the layoffs. Information on the length of the layoff is obtained later and issued in a quarterly release that reports on mass layoffs lasting more
than 30 days (referred to as "extended mass layoffs") and provides more information on the industry classification and location of the establishment and on the demographics of the laid-off workers. Because monthly figures
include short-term layoffs of 30 days or less, the sum of the figures for the 3 months in a quarter will be higher than the quarterly figure for mass layoffs of more than 30 days. (See table 1.) See the Technical Note for
more detailed definitions.
Industry Distribution
In January 2001, manufacturing industries accounted for 41 percent of all mass layoff events and 53 percent of all initial claims filed. A year earlier, layoffs in manufacturing accounted for 44 percent of initial
claims. Manufacturing industries with the highest number of initial claimants were transportation equipment (41,715), primarily in motor vehicles and car bodies, food and kindred products (8,620), primary metal industries (8,620), and industrial machinery and equipment (7,961). (See table 2.)
Services accounted for 19 percent of events and 17 percent of initial claims filed during the month. Layoffs in services were highly concentrated in business services (particularly help supply services). This industry, however, is more likely than most other industries to layoff workers for fewer than 30 days.
Retail trade accounted for 11 percent of all layoff events and 9 percent of initial claimants during the month, mostly in general merchandise stores (department stores). Construction accounted for 9 percent of events and 5 percent of claims, largely in heavy construction, excluding buildings (highway and street construction). Transportation and public utilities accounted for 6 percent of events and 4 percent of all initial claimants, primarily in trucking and warehousing and in transportation by air.
- 2 -
Over the year, the largest decreases in initial claims were reported in heavy construction (-8,412), business services (-6,378), and motion pictures (-5,300). The largest over-the-year increase in initial claims was reported in transportation equipment(+22,792).
Geographic Distribution
In January, the number of initial claims due to mass layoffs was highest in the Midwest (87,323), primarily in transportation equipment. (See table 3.) Initial claimants from transportation equipment industries accounted for 40 percent of all claimants in the Midwest. The Northeast region (21,994) continued to report the lowest number of mass layoff-related initial claims.
The Northeast reported the highest over-the-year decrease in initial claims filings (-17,184), followed by the West (-11,434) and the South (-7,931). The Midwest was the only region to report an over-the-year increase in initial claimants (+13,570). Five of the nine geographic divisions reported over-the-year declines in the number of initial claimants generated in mass layoff actions. These decreases were most prevalent in the Middle Atlantic (mainly in heavy construction) and Pacific divisions (primarily in business services and motion pictures).
Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, California reported the largest number of initial claims filed in mass layoff events (41,261), mostly in business services, agricultural services, and motion pictures. Other states with large numbers of mass-layoff initial claims were Ohio (28,700) and Michigan (19,387). These three states accounted for 37 percent of all layoff events and 45 percent of all initial claims for unemployment insurance. (See table 4.)
From January 2000 to January 2001, 28 states reported over-the-year declines in initial claims, led by California (-12,822). Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported over-the-year increases in initial claims, with Ohio reporting the largest increase (+12,547).
Technical Note
The Mass Layoff Statistics (MLS) program is a federal-state program that uses a standardized, automated approach to identifying, describing, and tracking the effects of major job cutbacks, using data from each state's unemployment insurance database. Each month, states report on establishments which have at least 50 initial claims filed against them during a consecutive 5-week period. These establishments then are contacted by the state agency to determine whether these separations lasted 31 days or longer, and, if so, other information concerning the layoff is collected. States report on layoffs lasting more than 1 month on a quarterly basis.
A given month contains an aggregation of the weekly unemployment insurance claims filings for the Sunday through Saturday weeks in that month.
All weeks are included for the particular month, except if the first day of the month falls on Saturday. In this case, the week is included in the prior month's tabulations. This means that some months will contain 4 weeks and others 5 weeks, and the number of weeks in a given month may be different from year to year. Therefore, analysis of over-the- month and over-the-year change should take this calendar effect into consideration. |
