Well Harry, here is more proof that your unions have made more disasters for
the west. You show your ignorance by even mentioning Bush after this
article. It is clearly obvious that this is a result of unions and labor
here in the west. Bush has never belonged to a union, he is a conservative,
who are typically not associated with unions (of course there are some
conservatives on unions).
Teachers and unions, full blame for this.







"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Number of Mass Layoffs Rose Sharply in January
2,400 Employers Let Go 50 or More

By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 26, 2004; Page E02

More than 2,400 employers across the country reported laying off 50 or
more workers in January, the third-highest number of so-called mass
layoffs since the government became tracking them a decade ago.

Only in December 2000 and December 2002 were the number of large layoffs
higher. A total of 239,454 workers lost their jobs in the January
layoffs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported yesterday, based on
unemployment insurance claims filed with state employment agencies.
Among them were 17,544 temporary workers.

The total jobs lost in January was the most since November 2002, when
240,171 workers were let go in groups of 50 or more. Manufacturing
workers, particularly in transportation, food processing and retail
jobs, were hardest hit. The large layoffs also included 10,876
government workers, most at the state and local levels.

January often brings pink slips for workers because many employers staff
up for the holidays and lay people off after Christmas. It's also the
end of the fiscal year for many employers, making Dec. 31 a convenient
last day for terminated workers.

The report, which helps states direct retraining funds to troubled
industries, comes as continued job losses have sparked debate in the
presidential campaign. President Bush's Democratic opponents cite the
administration's poor job-growth performance as a reason he should be
unseated. Administration officials counter that the positive stock
market performance, the uptick in manufacturing orders and improved
consumer confidence should soon translate into employment growth.

*The administration tried in late 2002 to cease publication of the mass
layoff report, citing its cost. But Congress restored funding after
state officials complained.*

(You gotta love that part...the Bush Administration figured if no one
knew...well, no one would know... HK)

California, the most populous state, had the most mass layoffs, 576,
according to the BLS data. This was followed by 194 in New York, 171 in
Michigan and 167 in Pennsylvania. In Virginia, 24 employers laid off 50
or more workers, affecting 3,061 jobs. In Maryland, 19 employers did so,
with 2,009 jobs lost. No mass layoffs occurred in the District.

"California has continued to lose jobs in recent months," including
food-processing, film production and education jobs lost to budget cuts,
said Howard Roth, chief economist for the California Department of
Finance. "Our labor market is not showing any signs of improving."