[danbruc]

As far as I know the barriers are even higher for layoffs. You can not, for example, arbitrarily pick which workers to layoff but have to minimize the social impact when you have to choose between several employees doing the same work, for example take age, spousal support, and things like that into consideration. But I am totally not an expert and I am sure it is a vastly more complex topic than I can imagine.

[pc86]

This seems backwards to me. Because my spouse has a better job than Mike's, I'm more likely to get laid off? Because I'm younger than Bill and can theoretically make up the financial impact sooner I'm more likely to get laid off?

If there are ten employees you need to cut, shouldn't they be cut based on either their recent performance, or a completely random method?

[gaius]

If there are ten employees you need to cut, shouldn't they be cut based on either their recent performance

No, because layoffs are position-based. If it's a performance related cull then that's not the same as redundancies. If you want to get rid of people like that then you need ironclad documentation and/or to provide generous packages.

[pas]

In a hard time it tries to do the thing with the less overall impact.

Maybe it's putting lipstick on a pig, maybe it's fairness.

Layoffs (mass dismissal) are very hard, because usually it means the whole region has economic problems, and those that get laid off are especially vulnerable - because they almost by definition work in a sort of dying industry/trade.

[fjsolwmv]

Welcome to the world of progressive taxation. The more secure you are, the more you pay.