Generate disgruntled workers through furloughs

Yeah, I know it's being hyped as the new panacea. And I believe Michael Farnum honestly thinks it's better than layoffs. Maybe it is.

But speaking as an employee who was once furloughed, the one thing a furlough won't do is protect an employer from the threat of disgruntled employees.

Employees who have plenty of money in the bank can take the hit, feel relieved that they still have a job, and enjoy the week off.

But employees who are living paycheck-to-paycheck will be hit hard. A week of unpaid vacation isn't usually enough to find part-time work, so they'll wind up deeper in debt. They're likely to return to work resentful and angry -- and quite possibly looking for someone to take it out on.

More than 20 years ago, when the company I worked for hit hard times, we were furloughed for a week or two. It was a small company and everybody knew the score, and personal loyalty minimized the damage -- even though there wasn't really any "time off," since we had to catch up on all the un-done work after we came back.

But for those who really couldn't afford to lose a week's pay (and I was one of them), the furlough demolished that loyalty. I was gone as soon as I could find another job. And though I wasn't about to sabotage or steal anything on my way out, I can certainly understand how some people would do just that.

Look, a furlough is often a more humane option than a layoff or a pay cut. But a pay cut at least smooths out the lost income, while a furlough creates a sudden, sharp, especially painful hit. And a layoff is more likely to create disgruntled ex-employees, but at least a week or two later they won't be walking back in the door, prepared to do damage.

These are ugly times. A furlough may be the right choice. Just make sure you understand that it's not really a good choice -- just one that's a little less bad.