Amid all the recent talk about reforming the global financial system to increase its “stability,” there’s been little said about extending the idea of economic security to workers.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development research group came close earlier this month. The OECD’s Financial Markets Committee—made up of officials from central banks, finance ministries and other financial authorities—issued a statement  in response to the subprime mortgage crisis and related financial turbulence of late. It called for “fundamental reform of financial markets” that “enhances stability, whilst retaining efficiency.” And, in a move rare among financial officials and bankers, the OECD acknowledged the way the global economy is becoming more chancy for individuals.

“The OECD also notes that the world is moving to a situation in which individuals bear more and more risks, without being necessarily able to cope with them,” the organization said April 15. “This concerns not only credit, including sub-prime mortgages, but also insurance or pensions.”

A big portion of the world’s individuals are workers and employees. And they also face the risk of sudden job loss, as seen by the thousands of layoffs in recent months in the United States. Unfortunately, the OECD Financial Markets Committee has a tepid solution to people’s economic precariousness: “This situation calls for a new culture of risk awareness and financial education mechanisms that the OECD promotes.”

More recently this month, the OECD proposed a more concrete measure to help with unemployment—giving local agencies and authorities more power and autonomy to adjust employment and training programs to meet local needs.

But such flexibility, while helpful, still isn’t likely to provide a strong enough fix to the problem at hand. That is, to give workers a meaningful measure of economic security while preserving a degree of freedom for businesses. Decent unemployment benefits, smart training programs, health insurance and sound retirement income—along with job opportunities—are the keys to economic security. But in many countries, one or more of these ingredients is missing.

The irony is that economic security for workers can coincide with strong economic growth. Denmark, with its “flexicurity” system, is a case in point.

As the financial crisis and credit crunch of 2007 and 2008 suggest, we have allowed for too much risk-taking on the part of some of our financial institutions. At the same time that we seek to establish a less dicey financial system, we ought to broaden this push for economic security. Including workers in the trenches can help us get to an economy that is both more stable and more prosperous.

There’s an ongoing contest between the U.S. and European economic systems. And one of the key battlegrounds is nowhere near New York, Dallas, Brussels or Berlin. It’s China—that is to say, which side of the Atlantic is best able to work with and take advantage of Asia Pacific’s emerging economic powerhouse?

A recent press release from the other side of the Atlantic pond highlighted one way Europe is sowing the seeds for long-term success in China. It called for European managers to apply to the European Union-China “Managers Exchange and Training Programme,” a 10-month program that includes intercultural training, Chinese-language study, seminars, visits to Chinese companies and a three-month internship at a Chinese or European company in China.

METP is a four-year effort of the European Commission and the Chinese government aiming to serve a total of 200 managers from the European Union and 200 managers from China.

The program is tailored for frontline and midlevel managers. Applicants are supposed to have no or only very limited knowledge of Chinese language; be between 26 and 40 years of age; and have a minimum of five years of work experience.

The U.S., too, has been willing to have government play an active role when it comes to commerce with China. But U.S.-led business exchange efforts, such as the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum seem geared to helping high-level executives make connections with Chinese counterparts.

I’m not aware of any U.S. government program akin to METP—one that encourages managers lower down in organizations to develop expertise and relationships in China. That expertise and those relationships can translate into concrete business deals as METP participants advance in their careers.

METP is of a piece with Europe’s focus on “sustainability” and long-term thinking. Both the U.S. and the European Union face widening trade deficits with China. And both would like to close those gaps by exporting more to China. Will the investment in budding managers in the METP program pay off for Europe down the line?

The news of major U.S. job losses in March is ominous for a number of workforce management reasons.

The U.S. Labor Department said Friday, April 4, that the American economy lost 80,000 payroll jobs in March. That was worse than expected and the biggest one-month loss in five years. Payroll employment figures also were revised to show greater job losses for January and February, and the unemployment rate rose from 4.8 percent in February to 5.1 percent in March.

The first problem with these numbers is they suggest companies are ignoring the sage advice to try to weather the economic storm by limiting layoffs or avoiding them altogether. Instead of taking a near-term hit to profits and investing in long-term growth, companies seem to be cutting jobs heavily.

Such short-term thinking could come back to haunt U.S. firms. Jettisoning talent and potentially damaging morale for remaining workers can cripple companies and their ability to bounce back in better times. Stanford University business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer says companies tend to give up people too easily in downturns only to pay a steep price for talent during good times. “You should not do what most companies seem to do, which is buy high and sell low,” Pfeffer says. “There’s an unwillingness for companies to behave counter-cyclically.”

McGill University management professor Henry Mintzberg argues that the U.S. penchant for axing workers gives Europe an edge in recovering from a recession. “Europe is better prepared. Much better,” Mintzberg says. “The soul of the enterprise is much more intact in Europe. There’s much more respect for the idea of collective effort there.”

Then there are “tragedy of the commons” concerns about widespread layoffs. Each job cut can help push the overall U.S. economy into recession—or deeper into one—as consumer spending and confidence suffer.

U.S. stagnation in turn threatens to tip other parts of the world into economic trouble. Asian companies and economies depend heavily on the spending of U.S. consumers and businesses.

A vicious circle can come into play, as foreign countries’ woes afflict U.S. exporters and further depress the American economy.

To be sure, some companies can’t help but lay off workers in dire circumstances. And economic turmoil requires government leadership in addition to smart actions by businesses. What’s more, there are some enlightened companies that behave “counter-cyclically.”

But are there enough to keep the U.S. economy from sliding further?