Deere recalls 335-plus workers after two years of layoffs

By Priya Raman

After laying off about 1,000 workers over two years, John Deere plans to bring back more than 275 workers at its Waterloo plant and 60 workers in the Quad Cities.

For some former employees, the change arrives as a request to return to a familiar workplace.

Together, the recalls cover more than 335 people, or over one-third of the roughly 1,000 workers Deere laid off across its facilities over the past two years. This is a reversal through recall, not evidence of a broad new-hiring surge.

Which plants and workers are affected?

Company officials said the call-backs mean employees laid off from plants in Waterloo, Dubuque, Ottumwa, and the Quad Cities have been asked to return to work. The report does not provide a plant-by-plant breakdown for the 335-plus workers. It names Waterloo and Quad Cities as destinations. It also lists Dubuque and Ottumwa among affected plants.

The announcement does not identify job titles, shifts, pay rates, tenure requirements, or selection criteria. It gives no application deadline or contact channel. Former workers should therefore watch for a recall request rather than assume a general vacancy list.

Radio Iowa, which reported the plan, attributes the figures to Deere and Company officials. These are planned workforce counts, not a survey sample. The report includes no revision note for the announced headcounts.

Why did Deere reverse course?

Over the past two years, Deere carried out a series of layoffs as the agricultural economy dipped. The cuts hit about 1,000 workers across company facilities. The recalls now put more than 335 of those workers back inside the company.

Deere officials said the added workforce would “position the company to continue meeting customer needs through a range of operating environments, including future labor negotiations.” The statement does not quantify customer orders, production targets, or expected revenue.

The source cites no national employment series, agricultural output measure, or peer-company hiring data. At this stage, the reported recovery is specific to one manufacturer’s former workforce and does not establish a broader agricultural labor-market trend across the country.

Read this as a company-specific capacity decision, not proof that the wider farm economy has recovered. Its strongest signal concerns former Deere workers at four named locations.

What changed in labor relations?

In August, the United Auto Workers announced that its members had rejected Deere’s offer to extend their current contract for two more years. The source specifies August but gives no year or vote tally. The principal stated concern was job security.

The recalls arrive beside a failed contract extension, yet the source does not establish that recalled employees secured improved terms or that bargaining conditions caused individual returns. The company connects the additional workforce to future negotiations. The union’s rejection remains unresolved.

Deere presents the workforce decision as operational preparation. It does not answer the union’s central issue. Any assessment of bargaining leverage would require contract terms and vote details that the report does not provide.

What does this change for a laid-off Deere worker?

Workers laid off from the four named locations have been asked to return, making recall notices the clearest immediate employment signal in the report. For those contacted, the change means an opportunity to rejoin Deere. It does not establish that new applications are open, that every former employee will be recalled, or that similar employers are hiring.

The practical distinction is recall versus expansion: the report describes former employees returning and gives no total-employment figure showing expansion above the pre-layoff workforce. For an individual job seeker, a recall request carries more immediate information than a general forecast about farm-sector demand, particularly when the report identifies no new hiring campaign. For a worker elsewhere, the announcement offers little evidence about local openings or competitive pay.

The next round of labor negotiations will show whether the recalls ease the job-security concerns that led UAW members to reject a two-year extension.