There is a subsection of companies that are only too proud to point out that they have never had a layoff within their corporate history, and of which, in an era of which good job security is seemingly at new lows, this policy of having no layoffs is definitely something that rightly deserves appreciation as demonstrating good stewardship and good corporate policy. Yet, nevertheless, this also deserves to be rightly scrutinized, just to make sure that all that needs to be known, is so known, and is thereby transparent to the public eye.
That is to say, the simplistic definition of a no layoff policy for most people is pretty much, that nobody gets laid off; but the reality of the situation has far more layers of investigation to it. For instance, some companies typically hire a significant portion of those that work for them, not as direct employees to the company, but rather through a recognized temporary agency, that places these "temp employees" on a "needs" basis with them. Further to the point, these temporary employees are not part of the payroll of the subject company, but are instead paid by the temporary agency that so placed them; signifying that these are not direct employees of said corporation, so that when a temp employee is subsequently let go, or basically laid off, so to speak, they are not categorized as have been a direct employee of that corporation, thereby meaning that they are not part and parcel of anyone having been laid off by that company, even though from an individual standpoint, they have lost their job, just the same as someone that was officially laid off.
Additionally, there are those that work with corporations, as subcontractors to that corporation, of which that corporation is represented as being the contractor, and therefore these subcontractor workers are, by definition, not direct employees of the company that contracted them, but rather are direct or even are temp employees of the subcontractor. Therefore, when a given subcontractor loses their subcontracted job with the contractor, or has that work reduced or delayed, any layoffs so ensuing from such, are going to be layoffs subject only to that subcontractor, and therefore has nothing to do with the contractor's policy towards layoffs; yet, those so losing those jobs with that subcontractor, are laid off all the same.
So too, within a corporation that espouses a no layoff policy, when times are tough, they may turn to other avenues to maintain employment, but such will necessitate, for instance, a reduction in the pay rate of employees, or a reduction in the hours so being worked, or the necessity of a furlough of workers, in which those workers so being furloughed, are no longer receiving any income at all, during that furlough period. In all of these cases, technically, nobody has been laid off, yet, the effect of those so being employed is that their income stream that they count upon in order to budget their life and to pay their bills and whatnot, has been disrupted to their disadvantage.
So then, while a no layoff policy sounds like an absolute win for those that are directly employed by that company, in actual fact, this is not the same thing as a guaranteed salary, and never will be.