"... employment insecurity ... safety?... a human factors subject ... given current economic situation.... previous quality research?"
?Furlough-sabotage? Or mere distraction?
This element has CHANGED over the past few decades. In earlier decades with massive layoffs, at the big manufacturer, when the list of weekly layoffs arrived, then the manager would physically accompany that now former-employee off the property (too much risk to have the man near the product).
Then in the early 1990's the USA law required the big manufacturer to continue paying the man for several weeks (?two months?) after notification of layoff.
"... WARN protects workers, their families, and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs...."
During earlier decades, at the airlines, cycles were more frequent -- most of us were on furlough for years, some pilots suffered multiple layoffs. At the airlines too, these new laws kept soon-to-be ex-employees near aircraft, even flying in the cockpit, for weeks after their "notice" of impending furlough.
There have been massive layoffs since 2001. The damage to facilities was sometimes obvious (baggage smashers destroying sections of terminal), but very little sabotage to aircraft, and only a few mentions of the impending furlough in mishap reports.
I had suspected that the new laws (with soon-to-be ex-employees staying on property) would lead to Furlough-sabotage, but it proved not so bad. [To be honest, there were many co-pilots who shouldn't have been near an aircraft after the furlough announcement; but the company couldn't afford to give away several weeks of pay without service.]