1

Mass Layoff Statistics Data in the United States and Domestic and Overseas 

Relocation*

Sharon P. Brown 

Chief, Division of Local Area Unemployment Statistics 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Introduction 

In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the principal fact-finding 

agency for the Federal Government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics. 

The BLS collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the 

American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 

business, and labor. BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria: relevance to current 

social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic 

conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality. 

Among the key economic data developed by the BLS, mass layoff statistics provide 

important and detailed information on a subset of establishments and job losers 

experiencing dislocation. In BLS’ Mass Layoff Statistics (MLS) program, closings and 

layoffs of 50 or more from establishments with 50 or more workers are identified using 

administrative data. Employer interviews are then conducted to identify events that last 

more than 30 days and to augment the administrative data with information on the nature 

of the layoff itself, including the reason for separation. 

The MLS program provides data for the nation as a whole, for States, and for selected 

areas. The statistics are among the most timely economic measures issued by BLS. 

Monthly data on mass layoff events and workers (without regard to duration of the 

layoff) by State and industry of the establishment are issued about three weeks after the 

end of the reference month. Data on extended mass layoffs (those lasting more than 30 

days) are issued about seven weeks after the end of the reference quarter. In addition to 

providing timely labor market information, the MLS data area used to identify the need 

for employment and training services to workers, while economic developers use the data 

as an indicator of available labor supply. 

The BLS has operated the MLS program since 1995. During this period, the program has 

been able to respond to current economic events on a timely basis through the employer 

interview. For example, after the terrorist events of 9/11, the MLS program added 

“nonnatural disaster” as a reason for separation, allowing for the identification and 

tracking of directly and indirectly related job loss associated with 9/11. With increasing 

interest in the impact on the U.S. economy of offshoring and outsourcing of work, the 

MLS program, and the employer interview component in particular, was determined to be 

 

*

 Presented at the EU-US Seminar on “Offshoring of Services in ICT and Related Services,” Brussels, 

Belgium, December 13-14, 2004. 
2

an appropriate vehicle for collecting information on this economic phenomenon. After 

an intensive period of development, questions were added to the MLS employer 

interview in January 2004 that identify job loss associated with movement of work within 

the company and to another company, domestically and out of the country. Beginning in 

June 2004, the results of these questions have been published. 

MLS Program Description 

The MLS program is one of the Bureau’s federal-State cooperative programs. In the 

program, BLS is responsible for program specifications, quality assurance, data review 

and acceptance, and BLS publication. State analysts are responsible for administrative 

data collection, the employer interview, data development, and State publication. The 

MLS program identifies, describes, and tracks the effects of major job cutbacks. The 

program uses administrative statistics—data taken from records created as part of the 

administration of a program—on establishments covered by unemployment insurance 

laws and on unemployment insurance claimants who previously worked in these 

establishments to define the MLS population. These statistics are augmented by 

information obtained through the employer interview. 

Administrative Data

Administrative data are available in every State, and provide important socioeconomic 

information. For an establishment identified as having conducted a mass layoff event, 

this includes the State in which the establishment is located and its detailed industry code. 

For the workers who file for unemployment compensation, their age, race, gender, 

location of residence, and status in the unemployment insurance system come from 

administrative data. The program yields information on the individual’s entire spell of 

insured unemployment, up to the point at which regular unemployment insurance benefits 

are exhausted. 

The MLS establishment data are the universe of establishments meeting program 

specifications, and the claimant data are all claims filed against these establishments. 

MLS specifications concerning the size of establishment, number of claims, and timing of 

filing refine the administrative data to represent an economic event. However, they also 

limit the scope of the program. 

Size specification. Relatively large and concentrated layoffs are identified through the 

MLS size limitation on establishments and the requirement that at least 50 initial claims 

for unemployment insurance were filed against the establishment in a consecutive fiveweek period. 

Focusing on the subset of establishments employing 50 or more workers means that, 

according to 2003 data, 4.6 percent of all covered employers and 56.7 percent of covered 

employment are in program scope. The size criterion was determined more than two 

decades ago, when 5 percent of establishments and 61 percent of employment were 

reported in establishments of 50 or more workers. Since then, smaller establishments 
3

have accounted for a greater share of covered employment. Layoff activity in these 

establishments may be significant but such actions are not in the scope of the MLS 

program. 

Reference period for filing. The MLS program specifies that at least 50 initial claims 

must be filed in a five-week period. The five-week period is used to approximate a 

“mass” layoff. Once 50 claims are reached, the event is triggered and claims are allowed 

to aggregate against the establishment. However, if a large layoff occurs gradually, the 

requirement of 50 claims in a five-week period may not be reached and the event not 

identified in the MLS program. 

Minimum duration of layoff. The requirement that the layoff last more than 30 days 

allows the program to focus on more permanent job dislocation, and significantly reduces 

program coverage of job loss. 

Table A. Mass layoff events and initial claims for unemployment insurance from the 

private nonfarm sector 

 Mass Layoff Events Mass Layoff Initial Claimants 

Year Total Extended % total Total Extended % total 

 2001 19,449 7,375 37.9 2,346,584 1,457,512 62.1 

 2002 18,212 6,337 34.8 2,069,713 1,218,143 58.9 

 2003 16,821 6,181 36.7 1,721,985 1,200,811 69.7 

 First three 

quarters of 2004 10,418 3,478 33.4 1,079,148 

 

591,482 54.8 

In the table above, private nonfarm mass layoff events are those where 50 or more initial 

claims for unemployment insurance benefits were filed against an establishment during a 

five-week period, regardless of duration. Extended mass layoff events reflect the 

constraint that the layoff had to last more than 30 days. As seen in the table, most layoff 

events involving 50 or more workers last for 30 days or less. By eliminating such 

layoffs, over 500,000 workers in 2003 were out of program scope. On the other hand, 

over 1,200,000 initial claimants were identified in extended mass layoffs in 2003. Thus 

far in 2004, and based on provisional data that will be revised, about 600,000 initial 

claimants were identified in extended mass layoffs while about 500,000 were excluded 

because the layoff lasted 30 days or less. 

MLS Employer Interview. 

The MLS employer interview collects important information on the layoff event. All 

establishments meeting the MLS layoff event trigger of 50 initial claims in a consecutive 

five-week period are interviewed. The employer is first asked whether the separations 

are of at least 31 days duration, and, if so, information is obtained on the total number of 

affected workers, the economic reason for the layoff, the open/closed status of the 
4

worksite, and recall expectations. (Attachment 1 provides the structure of the MLS 

employer interview, including questions on movement of work.) 

The employer interview is conducted by telephone by trained State employment security 

agency analysts. Employer participation is voluntary, and the survey is conducted in an 

unstructured manner by the analyst. The employer is not given a copy of the 

questionnaire or response options in advance of the interview. From responses provided 

by the employer to the MLS questions, the analyst enters the information into standard 

categories. Twenty-five reasons for separation were identified by the MLS program and 

used through 2003. Among the reasons were “domestic relocation” and “overseas 

relocation.” 

The response rate for the employer interview in the MLS program is quite high. Thus far 

this year, only 5.5 percent of employers refused to participate in the employer interview. 

MLS and Movement of Work 

Because of the employer interview component in the MLS program, where specific 

information on the nature of the layoff event, including reason for separation, is collected, 

the BLS decided to use the MLS program as the vehicle for collecting additional 

information on what is usually referred to as “outsourcing” and “offshoring.” In doing 

so, the following definitions were used. 

• “Outsourcing” is the movement of work that was formerly conducted in-house by 

employees paid directly by a company to a different company. The different 

company can be located inside or outside of the U.S. The work can occur at a 

different geographic location or remain on-site. 

• “Offshoring” is the movement of work from within the U.S. to locations outside 

of the U.S. “Offshoring” can occur within the same company and involve 

movement of work to a different location of that company outside of the U.S., or 

to a different company altogether (offshoring/outsourcing). 

Recognizing that there was not uniformity in understanding the terms “offshoring” and 

“outsourcing,” BLS chose to approach the data collection by defining these economic 

actions in terms of “movement of work.” A BLS group that included members from the 

BLS Behavioral Sciences Research Laboratory crafted the following two basic questions 

on movement of work associated with the layoff event, one pertaining to movement 

within the company and the other pertaining to movement of work to another company 

under contractual arrangements. 

(1) “Did this layoff include your company moving work from this location(s) to a 

different geographic locations(s) within your company?” 

(2) “Did this layoff include your company moving work that was performed in-house 

by your employees to a different company, through contractual arrangements?” 
5

If an employer responded “yes” to either basic question, then information was requested 

on the geographic area to which work was moved and the number of separated workers 

associated with that action. If the move was domestic, the specific State or States was 

sought. If the move was out-of-country, the specific country or countries was sought. 

These questions were to be asked when the employer-provided reason for layoff was 

other than seasonal or vacation, since such reasons would not have a movement of work 

component. (See Attachment 1 for the employer interview.) 

Relating these questions to the terms offshoring and outsourcing, “offshoring” is 

measured by an affirmative response to either question 1 or question 2, with the work 

moved out of the U.S., while “outsourcing” is measured by an affirmative response to 

question 2, with the work moved domestically, out of the U.S., or remaining on-site. 

As part of the development and implementation of the movement-of-work questions, 

BLS conducted a review of the reasons for separation used by the program at that time. 

In this evaluation, it was recognized that, although “domestic relocation” and “overseas 

relocation” were accepted as reasons for separation, this fell short of the requirement that 

the reason for separation be an economic one. “Domestic relocation” and “overseas 

relocation” actually provide information on the effect of the economic reason on the 

establishment, rather than the reason itself. Economic reasons for these actions can 

include reorganizing staff to be more efficient, saving costs, or to be closer to customers. 

Additionally, in the prior use of these terms, they were volunteered reasons and could not 

be viewed as representative of the experiences of all MLS-identified layoff events with 

movement of work. Therefore, effective with the implementation of the movement-ofwork questions, “domestic relocation” and “overseas relocation” were no longer accepted 

as economic reasons for separation. Analysts were directed to probe employers who cite 

these actions and obtain the underlying economic reasons for moving work. 

Through the expanded employer interview, direct job loss from offshoring {the 

movement of work outside of the U.S., both within the company and to another company 

(outsourced)}, as well as outsourcing (the movement of work from the establishment to 

another establishment), both domestically and outside of the U.S., can be measured when 

these job losses fall within the scope of the MLS program. 

It is important to recognize, however, those components of offshoring that are beyond the 

scope of the MLS program. The MLS program does not collect statistics from small 

establishments—those employing fewer than 50 workers. In establishments employing 

50 or more, MLS does not collect statistics on small layoffs—those of less than 50 

workers in a five-week period. Lastly, MLS does not collect information when there is 

no direct job loss—where employers initiate or transfer work elsewhere without laying 

off workers. 

MLS Findings on Movement of Work 

Overview of MLS Statistics 
6

MLS data have been collected since the second quarter of 1995. Annual statistics from 

the program identified an average of more than 17,000 layoff events of 50 or more 

workers affecting nearly 1,900,000 initial claimants were identified each year. Private 

nonfarm layoff events averaged nearly 15,000 over the period, with nearly 1,700,000 

initial claims. Considering those events that lasted more than 30 days, an average of 

5,400 extended mass layoff events and almost 1,100,000 workers from private nonfarm 

industries were identified annually. Mass layoff and plant closing activity peaked in 

2001, when 7,375 extended mass layoff events affecting almost 1,500,000 workers were 

identified. 

In 2003, the program identified 6,181 layoff events from private nonfarm industries, 

affecting about 1,200,000 workers. Manufacturing establishments accounted for around 

one-third of MLS activity during the year. Fifteen percent of extended layoff events in 

2003 were permanent closures, accounting for 210,903 workers, and were due mainly to 

internal company restructuring. Permanent closures were most numerous in 

manufacturing, primarily in computer and electronic products, machinery manufacturing, 

textile mills, and apparel. Import competition was most often cited as the reason for 

closures in manufacturing. 

Employers expected to recall workers in 43 percent of the mass layoff actions, about the 

same as a year earlier but below the typical 50 percent recall rate since the data collection 

began. 

Seasonal work continued to be most often cited as reason for layoff. Internal company 

restructuring (bankruptcy, business ownership change, financial difficulty, and 

reorganization) accounted for 21 percent of layoff events and resulted in the separation of 

nearly 300,000 workers. Overseas relocation was cited as the reason for separation for 

13,000 workers (9 percent of all separations), nearly all from manufacturing industries. 

In more than 40 percent of such events, Mexico was cited as the destination. 

2004 MLS Data and Movement of Work Statistics

The questions on movement of work were implemented in the employer interview 

beginning with layoff events identified in January 2004. Thus far, three quarters of 

information on job loss associated with movement of work have been issued. 

Between January and September 2004, employers took 3,478 mass layoff actions that 

resulted in the separation of 685,929 workers from their jobs for at least 31 days. 

Extended mass layoffs that involve the movement of work within the same company or to 

a different company, domestically or out of the U.S., occurred in 276 of all private 

nonfarm events excluding those for seasonal or vacation reasons. The events involving 

movement of work were associated with the separation of 52,309 workers, about 11 

percent of all separations resulting from nonseasonal and non-vacation mass layoff 

events. (See Table B.) 
7

As part of the 276 layoff events, 334 movement-of-work actions were taken by 

employers. (The number of movement-of-work actions exceeds the number of layoff 

events because individual mass layoff events may involve more than one movement of 

work action. For example, an employer may shut down a worksite and move the work 

previously performed there to two or more other sites.) Employers were able to provide 

information on the specific separations associated with the movement of work component 

of the layoff in 279 actions, 84 percent of the total for the first three quarters of 2004. 

Nearly 41,000 separations were associated with these 279 actions. (In the remaining 55 

movement-of-work actions, the employer could not provide the number of separations 

associated with these actions.) Thus, a range of 52,309 (total separations in all layoff 

events that included movement of work) to 40,727 (separations in movement of work 

actions where the employer was able to provide specific detail) is established for 

separations due to movement of work in the January-September period. 

Table B. Extended mass layoff events and separations, selected measures, JanuarySeptember 2004 

Action Layoff events Separations 

Total, private nonfarm sector 3,478 685,929 

 Total, excluding seasonal 

 and vacation events 2,379 469,991 

 Total with movement work 276 52,309 

 Movement of work actions 334 --- 

 With separations reported 279 40,727 

 With separations 

 unknown 55 --- 

 

Focusing on the broadest measure—the 276 layoff events that involve some movement of 

work—59 percent were permanent closures of worksites that affected 34,609 workers. 

This compares with a 16 percent closure rate for all 3,478 layoff events in the first three 

quarters of the year. 

Internal company restructuring (bankruptcy, business ownership change, financial 

difficulty, and reorganization) accounted for 68 percent of layoff events involving 

relocation of work and resulted in 35,778 separations. (See Table 1.) Most of these were 

due to reorganization within the company. In contrast, about 21 percent of all layoff 

events from January to September were because of internal company restructuring. 

Of the layoffs involving movement of work, two-thirds of the events and separations 

were from manufacturing industries in the first three quarters of 2004 (See Table 2). 

Among all private nonfarm extended layoffs, manufacturing accounted for 28 percent of 

events and 23 percent of separations. 

The information technology-producing industries (communication equipment, 

communication services, computer hardware, and software and computer services) 
8

accounted for 174 layoff events affecting 29,812 workers in January-September. 

Movement of work was reported in 33 events in these industries, affecting 7,923 workers. 

Although these industries accounted for a relatively greater proportion of movement of 

work events and separations than for the total, layoff activity in these industries is 

markedly lower than in the recent past. Closings and layoffs from computer hardware 

peaked in 2001 (503 layoff events and 102,587 separations). Annual highs in 2001 were 

also recorded for software and computer services (242 events and 36,016 separations) 

and for communications equipment in 2001 (140 events and 34,874 workers). Layoff 

activity for communications services reached a high in 2002 (176 events and 32,134 

separations). (See Table 3) 

Turning to the 279 movement of work actions reported in the first three quarters of 2004 

for which complete information is available, more than 7 in 10 of the relocations were 

domestic—200 out of 279—and more than 8 in10 of those involved moving work within 

the company. (See Table C.) One out of four of the relocations were out of the U.S., and 

again, most (66 percent) involved the movement of work within the company. When 

work was moved out of the U.S., Mexico and China were cited 56 percent of the time. 

When work was moved to another company under contractual arrangements, in slightly 

more than 4 out of 10 instances, the work was moved outside of the U.S. 

The separation of 10,722 workers were associated with out-of-country relocations, 

slightly more than one-fourth of all separations related to movement of work and about 

2.3 percent of all extended layoff separations excluding seasonal and vacation. Domestic 

relocation of work—both within the company and to other companies—affected 27,326 

workers. 

Table C. Relocations of work actions by employers, January-September 2004 

Action Layoff actions Separations 

Total, private nonfarm sector, 

excluding seasonal and 

vacation events, with 

movement of work 

279 40,727 

 By location 

 Out-of-country 70 10,722 

 Within company 46 7,863 

 Different company 24 2,859 

 Domestic relocations 200 27,326 

 Within company 167 22,697 

 Different company 33 4,629 

 Unable to assign 9 2,679 

 By company 

 Within company 221 32,586 

 Domestic 167 22,697 

 Out of country 46 7,863 

 Unable to assign 8 2,026 

 Different company 58 8,141 
9

 Domestic 33 4,629 

 Out of country 24 2,859 

 Unable to assign 1 653 

Continuing Activities on Movement of Work 

MLS data collection, including the movement of work questions, continues. As we 

receive more quarters of information on extended mass layoffs with domestic and out-ofcountry relocations, we will be able to learn more about this activity and provide more 

information to the public. 

BLS has initiated a cognitive reinterview of a sample of MLS establishments, not only 

with the events identified with movement of work but from the general MLS population 

as well. These will allow us to be more confident that employers understand what we are 

asking on layoff events and related information. 

In the first three quarters of movement of work data collection, employers could not 

provide specific information on job loss associated with the movement of work in 55 

instances—about 16 percent of all actions. BLS is continuing to explore ways to reduce 

the nonreponse to this question. 

BLS will be undertaking an in-depth review of the reasons for separation used in the 

MLS program. Are they appropriate as descriptors of economic activity today? Are we 

anticipating the reasons why employers take certain actions? The major thrust will be to 

ensure that we are focusing on economic reasons for layoffs. 
10

Attachment 1. MLS Employer Interview Including Offshoring and Outsourcing Questions 

The analyst has the following information on a potential layoff event: 

 Establishment name 

 Establishment address 

 Industry of the company 

 Number of initial claims filed against the company, weeks in which the claims 

were filed, and week in which the event triggered 

 Prior layoff history of the establishment 

Using the telephone number and contact person, the analyst calls and asks the following: 

Did a layoff in fact occur? 

 Did the layoff last more than 30 days? 

 How many people were involved in the layoff? 

 When did the layoff begin? 

 What was the (economic) reason for the layoff? 

 For all reasons other than seasonal and vacation: 

 1.a. Did this layoff include your company moving work from this 

 location(s) to a different geographic location(s) within your 

 company? 

 Yes: enter Yes, go to 1b. 

 No: skip to question 2a. 

 DK and RF: enter DK or RF, go to question 2a 

 b. Is the other location inside or outside of the US? 

 Inside US: Which State(s)? 

 Outside US: Which Country(s) 

 c. How many of the layoffs were a result of this reduction? 

 Number inside US 

 Number outside US 

 2.a. Did this layoff include your company moving work that was 

 conducted in-house by your employees to a different 

 company, through contractual arrangements? 

 Yes: enter Yes, go to 2b. 

 No: proceed with employer interview. 

 DK and RF: enter DK or RF, proceed with 

 employer interview. 

 b. Is that company located inside or outside of the US? 

 Inside US: Which State(s)? 

 Outside US: Which Country(s)? 

 c. How many of the layoffs were a result of moving the work to 

 the different company? 

 Number inside US 

 Number outside US 

 Is a recall expected? 

 Will the recall be total or partial (percentage) 

What is the timeframe for possible recall? 

 Open/closed status of the worksite? 
Table 1. Reason for layoff: Extended mass layoff events and separations associated with the movement of

work, first-third quarters 2004p

Total MOW Total MOW

 Total, private nonfarm .............................................. 3,478 276 685,929 52,309 

Automation .................................................................. ( 1

 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 )

Bankruptcy .................................................................. 61 – 15,725 –

Business ownership change ....................................... 96 21 22,545 3,352 

Contract cancellation .................................................. 82 ( 1 ) 12,946 ( 1 )

Contract completed ..................................................... 569 ( 1 ) 126,651 ( 1 )

Energy-related ................................................... – – – –

Environment-related .................................................... ( 1 ) – ( 1 ) –

Financial difficulty ........................................................ 167 20 30,425 4,492 

Import competition ...................................................... 38 12 6,355 2,563 

Labor dispute .............................................................. 16 – 23,482 –

Material shortage ........................................................ 4 – 317 –

Model changeover ...................................................... 9 ( 1 ) 2,417 ( 1 )

Natural disaster ........................................................... ( 1

 ) – ( 1 ) –

Non-natural disaster ............................................. ( 1 ) – ( 1 ) –

Plant or machine repair ............................................... 14 – 2,211 –

Product line discontinued ............................................ 26 7 4,940 733 

Reorganization within company .................................. 421 147 78,149 27,934 

Seasonal work ............................................................ 990 ( 2 ) 198,404 ( 2 )

Slack work ................................................................... 403 13 52,884 2,882 

Vacation period ........................................................... 109 ( 2 ) 17,534 ( 2 )

Weather-related .......................................................... 29 – 3,037 –

Other ........................................................................... 130 44 27,100 7,983 

Not reported ................................................................ 308 – 59,590 –

 1 Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

 2

 The questions on movement of work were not asked of employers when the reason for

layoff was either seasonal work or vacation period.

 p

 = preliminary.

 NOTE: Dash represents zero.

Reason for layoff

Layoff events Separations
Table 2. Industry distribution: Extended mass layoff events and separations associated with the movement of

work, first-third quarters 2004p

Total MOW Total MOW

 Total, private nonfarm ........................................... 3,478 276 685,929 52,309 

 Mining........................................................................... 16 – 2,208 –

 Utilities.......................................................................... 7 ( 1 ) 811 ( 1 )

 Construction.................................................................. 445 ( 1 ) 56,197 ( 1 )

 Manufacturing............................................................... 991 185 159,578 34,630 

 Food.......................................................................... 188 14 32,694 2,832 

 Beverage and tobacco products............................... 13 ( 1 ) 2,050 ( 1 )

 Textile mills............................................................... 34 7 5,361 1,347 

 Textile product mills.................................................. 23 7 4,196 1,129 

 Apparel...................................................................... 49 12 6,462 2,470 

 Leather and allied products....................................... 8 ( 1 ) 1,289 ( 1 )

 Wood products.......................................................... 28 ( 1 ) 3,229 ( 1 )

 Paper........................................................................ 30 10 4,227 1,409 

 Printing and related support activities....................... 36 7 5,037 1,303 

 Petroleum and coal products.................................... 5 – 392 –

 Chemicals................................................................. 37 8 5,131 1,124 

 Plastics and rubber products.................................... 56 16 7,870 2,791 

 Nonmetallic mineral products.................................... 35 ( 1 ) 5,725 ( 1 )

 Primary metal............................................................ 33 ( 1 ) 5,744 ( 1 )

 Fabricated metal products........................................ 67 10 9,363 1,835 

 Machinery................................................................. 45 10 6,056 1,431 

 Computer and electronic products............................ 64 19 9,618 3,957 

 Electrical equipment and appliance.......................... 32 12 6,247 3,264 

 Transportation equipment......................................... 132 19 27,944 4,783 

 Furniture and related products.................................. 49 13 6,871 1,610 

 Miscellaneous manufacturing................................... 27 9 4,072 1,789 

 Wholesale trade............................................................ 72 11 11,368 1,701 

 Retail trade.................................................................... 286 21 119,504 3,869 

 Transportation and warehousing.................................. 233 7 50,467 1,471 

 Information.................................................................... 117 14 25,977 3,980 

 Finance and insurance.................................................. 124 13 26,682 1,731 

 Real estate and rental and leasing............................... 9 – 2,414 –

 Professional and technical services.............................. 122 6 26,432 1,112 

 Management of companies and enterprises................. 16 ( 1 ) 2,017 ( 1 )

 Administrative and waste services................................ 382 9 78,442 2,019 

 Educational services..................................................... 15 – 1,487 –

 Health care and social assistance................................ 247 3 33,449 621 

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation............................... 90 – 28,453 –

 Accommodation and food services............................... 225 – 47,856 –

 Other services, except public administration................ 76 3 12,169 311 

 Unknown ............................................................ 5 – 418 –

 1

 Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

 p

 = preliminary.

 NOTE: Dash represents zero.

Industry

Layoff events Separations
Table 3. Information technology-producing industries: Extended mass layoff events and separations, private nonfarm sector, 1996-2004 

Layoff 

events Separations Layoff 

events Separations Layoff 

events Separations Layoff 

events Separations Layoff 

events Separations

Total

1996 ............................................. 4,760 948,122 100 17,884 20 10,724 32 5,323 33 6,612 

1997 ............................................. 4,671 947,843 64 11,934 25 3,206 23 2,515 18 3,237 

1998 ............................................. 4,859 991,245 166 36,069 23 4,056 33 6,971 25 4,150 

1999 ............................................. 4,556 901,451 103 22,557 29 5,194 27 4,344 18 3,930 

2000 ............................................. 4,591 915,962 66 18,805 70 16,774 25 4,618 24 4,048 

2001 ............................................. 7,375 1,524,832 503 102,587 242 36,016 140 34,874 136 30,084 

2002 ............................................. 6,337 1,272,331 303 59,653 162 22,382 112 23,236 176 32,134 

2003 ............................................. 6,181 1,216,886 196 32,689 100 16,230 62 10,408 113 21,721 

First-third quarters, 2004p

 ............ 3,478 685,929 55 8,014 51 8,003 12 1,324 56 12,471 

 Movement of work

 First-third quarters, 2004p ....... 276 52,309 13 3,004 9 2,626 4 423 7 1,870 

 1

 Information technology-producing industries are defined in Digital Economy 2003 , services; computer systems design services; computer facilities management 

Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. services; other computer related services; office equipment rental and leasing; 

 2

 The industries included in this grouping, based on the 2002 North American Industry and computer and office machine repair.

Classification System (NAICS), are: semiconductor machinery manufacturing; office 4

 The industries included in this grouping, based on the 2002 North American 

machinery manufacturing; electronic computer manufacturing; computer storage Industry Classification System (NAICS), are: telephone apparatus manufacturing; 

device manufacturing; computer terminal manufacturing; other computer peripheral audio and video equipment manufacturing; broadcast and wireless communications 

equipment mfg.; electron tube manufacturing; bare printed circuit board manufacturing; equip.; fiber optic cable manufacturing; software reproducing; and magnetic and 

semiconductors and related device mfg.; electronic capacitor manufacturing; electronic optical recording media mfg.

resistor manufacturing; electronic coils, transformers, and inductors; electronic 5

 The industries included in this grouping, based on the 2002 North American 

connector manufacturing; printed circuit assembly manufacturing; other electronic Industry Classification System (NAICS), are: wired telecommunications carriers; 

component manufacturing; industrial process variable instruments; electricity and signal cellular and other wireless carriers; telecommunications resellers; cable and other 

testing instruments; analytical laboratory instrument mfg.; computer and software program distribution; satellite telecommunications; other telecommunications; 

merchant wholesalers; and computer and software stores. and communication equipment repair.

 3

 The industries included in this grouping, based on the 2002 North American Industry 6 Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Classification System (NAICS), are: software publishers; internet service providers; NOTE: Dash represents zero.

web search portals; data processing and related services; computer and software p

 = preliminary.

merchant wholesalers; computer and software stores; custom computer programming r

 = revised.

Communications 

services5

Information technology-producing industries1

Total extended 

mass layoffs

Year Computer 

hardware2

Software and 

computer services3

Communications 

equipment4