I am not sure I agree with OCS's claim that layoffs/deferrals are unrelated to the economic strength of the firm, but our calculus should be slightly more complicated than "the following firms laid a bunch of people off, therefore they are unsafe and Columbia shouldn't defend them." Every firm is a business and will not hesitate to take away your job if you are not profitable. Even though there are varying degrees of reputation/dignity-based resistence to such actions, the bottom line is clear. Therefore, that a firm resorted to layoffs and deferrals between 2007-2010 show nothing more than a combination of pre-layoff economic problems and the firm's comparative willingness to openly throw you out. That a firm did not resort to such drastic measures (yet) does not mean it's any safer - perhaps it's in a worse position as a result of the holdout, and maybe you will bear the brunt of their bad business decisions. Even in corporate firms, the only way to secure any semblence of safety is to have your own clients.

-- PeterPark - 24 Apr 2010