Layoffs near 700,000 in ’25; 45% of companies predict reductions.
In a time of widespread layoffs led by mass firings within the federal government, legal and business experts warn that poorly executed workforce reduction can open companies up to risks like reputational damage and productivity losses, resulting in consequences that might outweigh intended savings.
Companies considering force reduction must navigate federal and (sometimes) state WARN laws and other employment regulations, and noncompliance, such as failing to provide proper notice, can lead to lawsuits and financial penalties. This is particularly true for employers in states like California, New Jersey and New York, all of which have stricter requirements than those of the federal government.
If layoffs are unavoidable, experts who spoke with CCI contributing writer Nancy Mann Jackson recommended things like documenting the decision-making process, offering severance packages and conducting an impact analysis to ensure compliance with various regulations. It’s also critical to communicate clearly with both exiting and remaining employees to maintain trust and stability, they said.
Alternatively, companies could explore other avenues like voluntary exits, furloughs or reduced hours, while keeping in mind that stealth tactics like return-to-office mandates to prompt resignations may backfire, exposing companies to legal claims.
A nine-month delay in reporting use of so-called “forever chemicals” shouldn’t be taken as a removal of the reporting requirement, says Assent’s Cally Edgren, who urges companies to use this time wisely.
