‘Downsizings’ Translate to Human Misery : Unnecessary corporate shuffles should meet consumer boycotts.

An eager young man from AT&T; called during dinner. He cheerfully offered me $75 if I would switch from my current long-distance carrier.

I told him what AT&T; can do with their 75 bucks.

Usually, I’m polite to telephone sales people, even when my mouth is full of fish, but I was angry at the man’s employer. A few hours earlier, AT&T; had announced plans to lay off 15,000 employees.

Who knows, the fellow who called me might be among those tossed into the street. In retrospect, I feel guilty about the way I treated him. But I’m fed up with companies laying off their workers. I know too many people who have lost their homes and their self-esteem in unnecessary downsizings.

AT&T; is just the latest in a string of profitable companies over the past few months that have turned thousands of lives upside down. Last month, it was Scott Paper (8,300 people). In December it was Xerox (10,000). November was Philip Morris (14,000) and Bell South (10,200).

The excuse is always the same: “international competitiveness.” The real reason is greed. A company’s stock price almost always rises after it announces a big layoff.

The misery rate for employees also increases sharply--for those laid off and also for those who remain. The survivors have to do twice as much work in an environment where everybody’s demoralized and waiting for the next ax to fall.

In the case of a service company like AT&T;, customers will almost certainly suffer as well. What’s going to put an end to layoff mania? An improving economy hasn’t done the trick. American corporations announced 108,000 layoffs last month, the highest number in four years, more than at the peak of the recession.

Neither does experience seem to deter corporate officials. The American Management Assn. recently surveyed 900 executives at companies that had downsized. Sixty percent said they had seen no productivity gain and one in five actually admitted to declining earnings.

Only a revolt by socially responsible investors can push CEOs to change their ways. Promiscuous downsizing should be up there beside despoiling the environment, doing business in South Africa and producing weapons, tobacco and alcohol.

Refusing to invest in companies that downsize not only makes good ethical sense, it also makes good investment sense. While a company’s stock may rise just after a mass layoff is announced, the effect is usually short-term. A study by Mitchell & Co. of the 16 largest downsizers of the mid-1980s found that the stock prices for these companies trailed their competitors’ by an average of 26% three years after they restructured.

The revolt by investors could be augmented by a consumer revolt. Every time we hear a company brag about layoffs, we should make a mental note and stop giving them our money.

I can just see the bumper sticker: Ma Bell with a diagonal red line across her face.