Work-force reductions: personal effects vary David Webber, C&EN New York
The waves of chemical industry work-force reduction actions that peaked early in the decade and surged again last year have detached thousands of salaried people from their positions. Many of them have landed jobs with other companies in the chemical industry, while some have jumped into different lines of business. Others have retired from work completely. And some find themselves still adrift. Many positive stories emerge from all this turbulence: chemists who were ready to retire anyway, for instance, and fortuitously garnered windfall financial gains through special early retirement incentives, or those who, compelled to seek employment elsewhere, find themselves now in new positions more satisfying than before. But for many others—particularly those still looking for work or forced to settle for lower-status jobs—the dislocations have engendered bitterness. Conversations with chemists, chemical engineers, and other former chemical industry employees involved in reductions in force reflect the diverse experiences of those people after leaving their jobs. In many cases, those who have prospered since then tend to gloss over any negative recollections, whereas those who have fared less well express more unhappiness. Richard D. Cowell, a 55-year-old polymer chemist who last November lost his job as a research manager in Norton Co/s abrasives operation in the course of a reduction in force, has probably had as much experience with the negative employment aspects of the chemical industry's restructuring as anyone. "Norton was the fifth company that's been shot out from under me," he says. Cowell, who earned his doctorate in inorganic chemistry at Purdue after a master of science at the University of Akron and an undergraduate degree at Washington University, has been caught up in workforce reduction programs along the way at American Cyanamid, American Standard, Witco, and Norton.
