The Crumbling of the Old Social Contract

  • Kenneth Chilton
  • Murray Weidenbaum


The current wave of employee layoffs by American business firms represents more than just the results of necessary periodic restructuring of companies competing in a dynamic marketplace. The widespread downsizing—and subsequent reorientation of corporate operations—reflects the end of a long-standing informal but strong social contract that historically shaped the nature and the culture of the American workplace. This chapter examines the ferment occurring in labor-management relations in the United States.


Organizational Change Social Contract Wall Street Journal Employee Satisfaction Labor Productivity Growth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    John A. Byrne, “The Pain of Downsizing,” Business Week, May 9, 1994, p. 62.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruce Butterfield, “Working but Worried,” The Boston Globe, October 10, 1993, p. 1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richard Stevenson, “Europe Inc. Has a Novel Idea: Cut Costs,” New York Times, July 17, 1994, p. 1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Myron Magnet, “The Productivity Payoff Arrives,” Fortune, June 27, 1994, p. 79.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mark Fefer, “Wall Street Loves Layoffs,” Fortune, January 24, 1994, p. 12.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harriet Gorlin, Issues in Human Resource Management, 1985 (New York: The Conference Board, 1985), p. 13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arlene A. Johnson and Fabian Linden, Availability of a Quality Work Force, Report No. 1010 (New York: The Conference Board, 1992), p. 17.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Louis Uchitelle, “Strong Companies are Joining Trend to Eliminate Jobs,” New York Times, July 26, 1993, p. 1.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Data from Challenger, Gray and Christmas, Inc., cited in Matt Murray, “Amid Record Profits, Companies Continue to Lay Off Employees,” Wall Street Journal, May 4, 1995, p. A1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brian O’Reilly, “The New Deal: What Companies and Employees Owe One Another,” Fortune, June 13, 1994, p. 44.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Private Costs for Employee Compensation in Private Industry, by Establishment Size (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1991).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John F. Welch, “A Matter of Exchange Rates,” Wall Street Journal, June 21, 1994, p. A14.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenneth Chilton, The Global Challenge for American Manufacturers (St. Louis: Center for the Study of American Business, Policy Study 120, April 1994), pp. 30, 32.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Byrne, “The Pain of Downsizing,” p. 68.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lisa Genasci, “The Downside of Downsizing,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 7, 1994, p.5C.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    “Right Associates Study Dispels Myths of Company Downsizings,” PR Newswire, March 9, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joann Lublin, “Survivors of Layoffs Battle Angst, Anger, Hurting Productivity,” Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1993, p. 1.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daniel McConville, “The Upside of Downsizing,” Industry Week, May 17, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    “Downsizing,” HR Executive Review, The Conference Board, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1993, p. 6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    “CEO Briefing,” USA Today, July 25, 1994, p. A4.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernard Baumohl, “When Downsizing Becomes ‘Dumbsizing’,” Time, March 15, 1993, p. 55.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    “1992 AMA Survey: Downsizing and Assistance to Displaced Workers,” in “Down-sizing,” HR Executive Review, p. 4.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martin Baily, Eric Bartelsman and John Haltiwanger, Downsizing and Productivity Growth: Myth or Reality?, Discussion Paper 94–4 (Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic Studies, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1994), p.1.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid., p.5.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The labor productivity growth rate over the 1977–1987 period is computed as the annual rate of change in the value of shipments adjusted for inventories (deflated by the proper industry price deflator) divided by the number of employees. Value added is computed by subtracting the real cost of materials from gross output. The value added measure of productivity is the ratio of plant level value added to plant level employment.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    “Most Downsizings Do Not Result in Massive Layoffs, According to New Study by Right Associates,” PR Newswire, April 10, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Daniel Yankelovich, “Corporate Logic in the 1990s,” Address to the 1994 Arthur W. Page Society Spring Seminar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth Chilton
  • Murray Weidenbaum

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations