????如今，或許沒有哪個工薪族尚未經歷過裁員，就算一次也沒有，身邊也總會有一兩個親歷者。裁員是可憎的——它一方面給無辜的被裁者帶來痛苦，另一方面往往是決策者不負責任的表現。

????2006年，就在金融危機前夕，路易斯?烏奇捷利在他的新書《美國的“一次性”雇工：裁員及其后果》（The Disposable American: Layoffs and their Consequences）中發出警告，指明了公司裁員后可能付出的慘重代價。這本書追溯了美國的就業保障和裁員史，探討了企業以“調整規模”的名義胡亂裁員給員工帶來的心理創傷。

????新書上市后不久，烏奇捷利告訴我，他“有一次在美國精神分析協會（American Psychoanalytic Association）的會議上演講。演講結束后，他讓現場三十多名精神分析師表決。表決的問題是，‘就你的經驗看，是否覺得被裁員是一次創傷性的體驗？’，結果所有人都舉了手。”

????如今很多工薪族已經對裁員習以為常，但是裁員并不總是這么普遍。1992年，我在紐約參加了一次救災會議，IBM在那次會議上宣布了公司成立以來的首次裁員計劃。當時與會員工臉上的驚愕表情我至今還記憶猶新。面對“藍色巨人”過河拆橋的舉動，他們紛紛表示，對IBM的印象再也無法回到從前。

????二十年后，勞工統計局（Bureau of Labor Statistics）發布報告稱，僅在2012年一年，美國國內的大規模裁員事件就有17,000多起。（按照勞工統計局的定義，大規模裁員事件是指單個企業一次性裁員50人或50人以上的事件。）

????有些公司宣布的裁員計劃規模大得驚人。惠普（HP）近日宣布將裁員29,000人——裁掉的員工比美國很多城鎮的總人口還要多。這在上世紀50年代、60年代、乃至70年代都是無法想象的事情。

????“我們的國家是一個在實踐中投資的國家，”烏齊捷利在這里說的是美國。“我們投資了一些有意義的事情，其中一項就是就業保障。”

????烏齊捷利表示，從19世紀末開始，大企業、勞工和政府逐漸意識到，穩固的就業保障能使三方的共同利益最大化。20世紀30年代，裁員現象真正開始出現時，政府進行了干預。各派政治人士一致認為，就業保障很重要——隨著時間的推移，就業保障也變得日益穩固，直到20世紀70年代中期。自那以后，“我們就一直在背道而馳。”

????企業紛紛裁員，背離就業保障的同時，高管卻開始拿高額獎金，全球競爭也在升級。咨詢公司看準了這個時機，紛紛出謀劃策，幫助企業裁汰員工。

????但是咨詢公司會給出什么方案也可想而知，他們從來不會建議雇主裁汰自己的高管，就算有這種情況，也少之又少。

????優厚的薪水也使大多數高管有能力抵御被裁員的沖擊。自上世紀70年代中期以來，高管的薪資水平發生了很大的改變。如今，高管領取著高額的獎金，完全可以積攢大筆財富，就算被裁員，也不至于陷入困境。與此相反，最容易被裁汰的普通員工薪資水平普遍較低，積攢財富相當吃力，無法獲得同等程度的經濟自由。

????裁員往往會破壞被裁員工的社交圈子和身份認同感，這一點同樣也會波及其家庭成員。金融危機期間，由于企業大規模裁員，很多人喪失抵押品贖回權，流離失所，丟掉了工作，卻依然得在嚴酷的就業環境中掙扎。

????有一次假期跟人吃飯，我旁邊坐著一個在紐約上班的投資經理。他告訴我，近幾年找上門的首席執行官都說，他們最近的裁員不過是“把以前不愿意砍掉的枯枝砍掉而已”。

????我覺得這種說法有三個問題。首先，管理人員有責任判斷員工的表現是否合格，如果不合格，就應該給他們安排培訓項目，如果培訓之后依然不合格，才應該裁汰。如果管理人員連這么簡單的工作都不愿意做，那他們就沒有履行自己的職責。第二，在裁員的過程中，公司砍掉的，往往不是所謂的枯枝。當然，我說的這一點，首席執行官們不見得同意。事實上，在小規模的裁員中，最先被裁汰的無非是兩種人，一是打小報告的人（因為沒有掌握好方法），二是冒犯了老板（或者讓老板自尊心受損）的人。第三，大規模裁員就像地毯式轟炸，而不是精確打擊。這樣做就好比夷平整座森林，而不是砍掉幾棵枯樹。一定會損失可遇不可求的人才。

????

????Probably every worker today has experienced -- or known someone who has experienced -- at least one layoff. Layoffs are an abomination -- for the pain they cause innocent victims -- and the lack of accountability they often represent.

????Before the great recession, in 2006, Lou Uchitelle sent out a warning about the terrible costs of layoffs in his book The Disposable American: Layoffs and their Consequences. The book traces the history of job security -- and layoffs -- in the U.S. and explores the psychic trauma created by corporations' overuse of this so-called right-sizing tool.

????Soon after his book came out, Uchitelle explained to me that he "made a presentation at a meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, and at the end, there was a vote taken among more than 30 psychoanalysts. They were asked, 'Do you, from your experience, consider a layoff a traumatic experience?' And all of them put their hands up."

????Many workers today don't know of a world without layoffs. But they haven't always been common. I was in New York attending a disaster recovery conference in 1992 when IBM (IBM) announced its very first layoff. I remember the shock among the IBMers attending that conference. The Big Blue rug had been pulled out from under them, and they told me they would never feel the same way about IBM again.

????Twenty years later, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2012 alone there were over 17,000 U.S. mass layoff events. (The Bureau defines mass layoff events as 50 employees or more laid off at a single employer.)

????Some layoff announcements are huge. HP (HPQ) recently said that they would dismiss 29,000 workers -- more than the population of many U.S. towns. This would have been unthinkable in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s.

????"We're sort of a 'we invent as we go along' nation," Uchitelle said, referring to the U.S. "And we've invented some wonderful things. And one of the things we invented was job security."

????Large corporations, labor, and government all realized job security was in their mutual best interests, beginning in the late 1800s, he said. When layoffs did happen in the 1930s, the government stepped in. Politicians of all stripes agreed that job security was important -- and job security increased over time until the mid-1970s. Since then, "we've been going away from it."

????The corporate movement away from job security coincided with the advent of big executive bonuses and the rise of global competition. Consulting firms seized the moment and devised practices to teach companies how to eliminate staff.

????But the recommendations of the consulting firms are not agnostic. They rarely, if ever, recommend cutting the heads of those who hired them.

????Compensation also insulates most executives from layoff shocks. Executive compensation has changed dramatically since the mid-1970s. Today, top executives receive huge bonuses that they can stash away, shielding them from any layoff distress should it strike them. In contrast, the workers most subject to cuts are unable, given their wage rates, to scrape together that level of financial freedom.

????Layoffs often demolish an employee's social circle and identity -- and the same is true for family members of laid off workers. During the financial crisis, layoffs forced foreclosures, leaving families homeless, and many who lost their jobs then still struggle amid dim job prospects.

????At a dinner table over the holidays, I sat next to a New York-based investment manager who told me that the CEOs who have come to visit him over the last couple of years told him that their recent layoffs were just "cutting out the dead wood" that they'd been reluctant to cut earlier.

????I had three problems with that explanation. One, management is responsible for telling individuals if their performances were not up to snuff, putting them on a program to fix it, and then removing them if corrections couldn't be made. If management was unwilling to do that simple job, they weren't managing. Two, while the CEOs might claim otherwise, often it's not the so-called dead wood who are chopped during layoffs. In fact, in small layoffs, it's the whistleblowers who spoke up (inconveniently) or anyone who made one of their bosses (or their egos) uncomfortablewho are often the first to go. And three, large layoffs are like carpet-bombing, not surgical strikes. They are like clear-cutting a forest, not removing dead wood. You will lose people you wish you had not.