Sure. There are all kinds of things that could be done to increase their consideration of moves like this and simultaneously benefit the people affected.

E.g., rather than considering only percentages of unemployed/employed to set rates for Unemployment Insurance, they could also add a "capriciousness" factor for events like this. Or, they could also require funds be provided for continuing education for those laid off. Heck, they could also just make a basic adjustment for the inherent bias in the Unemployment Insurance rates against small biz, where a single layoff/firing has a huge negative effect on your rates, more than firing 100 people for a medium-sized company.

But of course, for the "libertarians", this is evil regulation.

Your comment was pretty good, but didn't need the weird potshot at libertarians at the end.

What your comment touched on though is how the companies already are "punished" in a way for it because it affects their unemployment insurance rates. That was established as a way to balance the needs of the company (unintended bad consequences happen to unemployment rates when you tie the hands of firing) with the needs of the people who are affected. Arguing that the balance is off seems like a much different argument than GP though.