Would have to beg to differ for being the only good reasons.
Case in point, the big three auto manufactures used to use layoffs in the event of factory retoolings and what not.
By using the layoff, and the fact the retooling was taking 6+ weeks it made their 'former employees' eligibile for all their unemployment benefits. Had they simply said a work furlough, the employees wouldn't have been eligible for any benefits. As long as it took more than 6 weeks than the employees remained eligible and could be 'rehired' back to the line again. Though this has been changing in the last 20 years.
Yes......and we can see where those practices got the big three. One filing for bankruptcy, one surviving by pure luck since they refinanced pretty much *everything* a few short years before the crash hit, and the third almost going under. Two of them depending on extensive government bailouts to survive.
And overall customer satisfaction levels and quality of product at a low. It's improving....but I don't think anyone can claim that use of layoffs helped them.
My brother was an engineer with one of the big three, and eventually got out because of the instability. He had the foresight to abandon the whole Detroit/Windsor area and sell his house before everything crashed and home values plummeted.......overall there's a lot going on that the general public doesn't see, and I think it displays a short-sightedness in management that has had far reaching implications in the quality of their products.
Banshee