Numbers this month show that the U.S. economy is more productive. But what’s the toll of that productivity?
Stephanie Massey of Mound has some idea. Her husband, who works for a large financial institution, came back from vacation earlier this year to find about half of the employees in his unit had been let go. For those who remain, the mounting stress has triggered a certain survival instinct.
“He says they are all working scared,†says Massey. “They are hyper-focused but there are still mistakes being made. No one is watching anyone else’s back.â€
A nurse in our Public Insight Network tells a similar story. She works at a large county hospital where all of the LPNs in her unit, several social workers and other ancillary hospital staffers have been laid off. The higher nurse-to-patient ratios combined with the overnight hours is taking such a toll on her personal and family life that she’s looking for other work.
“Even though this is a difficult time to be looking for a job and there’s every reason for those with a job to stay put, I just don’t believe I can tolerate my current work schedule for much longer,†she says.
Such burnout is becoming common. A recent study of 4,400 U.S. workers found nearly half of them are absorbing more responsibility and stress after a company layoff. Thirty-seven percent said they are handling the work of two people. Thirty percent feel burned out.
Now for the upside: the cost-cutting that is causing workers so much anxiety has made economists more optimistic about a recovery.
This month a measure of worker productivity by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics - one that looks at worker output versus cost - rose at a larger-than-expected rate. The reason: Companies moved fast to cut jobs and their expenses. Essentially they are getting more with less.
There are no state-by-state breakdowns of the productivity measurement. But using indirect measures, such a rising per capita income, points to Minnesota making similar productivity gains, says Toby Madden, economist with the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.
Madden explains that economists view productivity as a key to economic performance. He says that during this downturn, companies are learning to work smarter, incorporating technology. And when businesses must cut back on jobs, they are improving productivity through subtraction.
“If you lose the more marginally productive people in a workforce, that alone can improve productivity,†Madden says. That, of course, assumes that companies cut on the basis of productivity, which is not always the case.
While the news might be good on a macro level, Madden says that labor cuts create upheaval for some in the short term. And for people caught in the middle of that, like Stephanie’s husband, they can be stuck having to do more without getting more income in return.
“There’s lots of turmoil out there,†Madden said. “On the average you will see a little bit of growth, but that doesn’t mean everybody is better off.â€
Check that. Massey says her husband’s Minnesota office will close soon and his job will be moved to Chicago at the end of the year. He could go, but there are no company benefits to absorb the probable loss of selling their home in Mound.
He job hunts online after midnight, after working 12 to 16 hours a day in an increasingly difficult work environment.
“It’s the workload. It’s the hostility of the workers who are scared,†Massey says. “I just hope (the economy) starts cooking before we are cooked.â€
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 10
There are usually two reasons for this. The first is to get rid of the bad or poor performers. The second reason is a need to further cut the labor costs by reducing product that isn’t selling very well and all the folks that are tied to that product. After that all labor will be considered, across the board in my opinion.
Then when the economy starts to return or pick up a bit most employers are afraid to hire, which is an expensive proposition, if they need to lay off more folks any downturn a little while later.
Only when the labor is stress to the point where the demand for the product is greater than the labor force is capable of working at about 30% overtime, will they start to hire again, that is about a shift and a half overtime. When that point is reach they will hire again, and I don’t think that we’re there yet, but I do feel that we are getting close.
What I mentioned above was obvious to me as I worked for years in the ‘Exempt’ corporate side of things. I also have worked with the Teamsters, Longshoremen, Retail Clerks (local 1500), Carpenters, Culinary (local 600), and the Union of Housekeepers, Porters and Maids (Local 399 in LA) as well as a few others. And I have always supported what they have done, even tho I have seen the ones that run them being driven around in chauffeur driven Rolls Royce’s.
There are Exempt and non-exempt or hourly employees. The word ‘Exempt’ in corporate lingo means that they are exempt from all the rules and regulations of the hourly employee.
It is that set of Exempt employees that I was referring to above.
I also absolutely support the unions and always well.
We all tended to work a lot harder in the attraction phase than in the secure phase. : )
If I'm worried about my job, you bet, I'll jump throught those hoops...
Are you saying this is a bad thing?
When I was hired a week and three days later my boss, the guy that hired me was fired.
Then in November 1970 or about four months after I was hired 50% of the staff was fired.
About two and a half years later 80% of the staff was fired.
I had already said that I didn’t want to get fired and noticed a pattern there in that a group together in one swoop of the axe went; managers were prone to getting axed also, so I decided that I never wanted to be a manager there.
Five years later I wanted to go to another group and asked Marty If I could transfer to his group he said yeah. So I put in the paperwork to transfer to his group. A couple of weeks later I called Jane in Personnel if the transfer was done. She said ‘yes’. I told Jack that my transfer to Marty’s group was effective and completed, and that I was going to report to Marty next Monday.
Jack said that he didn’t approve it and that George didn’t approve it either. I told him that Personnel said it was done and that I was starting there Monday. The following week the top five management people in the department were fired along with a few others, and that included Jack and the director George.
Again I decided that I didn’t ever want to be a manager there, and actually never was. I was a first level Supervisor, even tho I had business cards that said I was Project Manager and a Group manager. I was in reality and as far as Personnel was concerned only a first level supervisor. However, I was paid well and more in fact than most of the managers.
At the end Mo wanted me to be a manager of the group, I told him that I was retiring and moving to Minnesota within a couple of years. He asked me who should replace me in what I was doing, I said Patrick. He said that he couldn’t promote Patrick to a manager position; however, he could do what I did. I said I could train him.
He moved Patrick and hired Mike from the Payroll group to the job as the new manager. Mike complained to Mo that it wasn’t right that he was paid less than me and my tech Specialist, and that he needed more money in his salary. Mo said no but I didn’t get a raise in the last three years I was there, and the Tech Specialist withdrew into a hole basically and retired also in another five or so years. Patrick said that he can’t do all the work that I did and the hired another person and then another also. So three took my place. Two years after I retired Mike was forced by the clients out and he went back to Payroll.
The primary reason I stayed a first level supervisor all those years was for security, as Kaiser usually didn’t fire supervisors, but regularly did fire managers. I was there twenty five years and retired then. I also was paid well enough.