Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laid off is itself a less harsh version of fired.
Fired -> Let go -> Laid off -> Impacted I'll be curious to see what comes next.
"Fixed the error"
Changes at YC
181–190 of 562 posts
Re: Changes at YC
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this accomplish anything other than increasing resentment?
Begs the question, what do you think companies gain by using such passive language?
Sometimes it's not for the company but for the person who was laid off.
To mean that the person was laid off but it wasn't their fault. It's their position that was impacted. Somehow.
Result the same but sentiment might be dulled a little. Not blaming the person but blaming external conditions that resulted in someone being made redundant.
Re: Changes at YC
#183> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc
Why is it the corporation's fault though? We live in a society and governance structure which encourages corporations to consider revenue over everything else. Why would they act differently? What should Google do? Sorry I understand the human cost of layoffs. But it is a reflection of what this society values. If you want corporations to consider the human cost, you need to make it feature in their financials. Or the government should offer better protection to unemployed people.
Re: Changes at YC
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not quite the same, those two terms have taken on different meanings. "Fired" has come to mean "for cause", and "laid off" has come to mean "not for cause".
For some, "laid off" has the same connotation as furlough.
It had that connotation 50 years ago, but anyone who thinks it still does is just confused.
Re: Changes at YC
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize they can get a different job right?
The question is whether all families can sustain healthy and dignified livelihoods. And the answer is in fact they cannot. By definition, a capitalist economy has a hard dependency on labor surplus. Remember when the Federal Reserve literally said they were raising interest rates to increase unemployment? That's why.
They couldn’t in Soviet Russia either. I also don’t consider livelihood synonymous with dignity. If you’re going to advocate, I’d fall on the UBI side before I fall on the “meaningless command economy labor for the sake of laboring”
Re: Changes at YC
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some, "laid off" has the same connotation as furlough.
A furloughed employee has the expectation that employment can resume with the company, while a laid off employee does not. This is important for tax and other legal considerations.
This very much depends on where you are. For example in the UK a lay off technically means being told to stay at home because there isn't enough work [1], although it's often used these days to mean "fired without cause", i.e. the American usage of lay off has become more common and it has simultaneously became common to use the term "furlough" to describe layoffs during the pandemic.
Re: Changes at YC
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. You're fired when you sexually harass or suck eggs. Being laid off doesn't have the stigma for the employee.
Yes it absolutely does carry a stigma. What companies layoff their best people? (I say as someone who has been laidoff)
Competent people who were effective at their job are laid off all the time. You're basically saying there's a stigma to not being the best at work.
Re: Changes at YC
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. You're fired when you sexually harass or suck eggs. Being laid off doesn't have the stigma for the employee.
Yes it absolutely does carry a stigma. What companies layoff their best people? (I say as someone who has been laidoff)
I mean if the company is pivoting and closing the entire division because they no longer need to, eg, make film cameras or make buggy whips, why would you keep anybody from there around? You don't need their expertise any longer. Even if they were the best at their job, if you're not doing those things any more, what would you keep them around for?
Re: Changes at YC
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some newspapers are really dreadful about this with regards to people killed/injured by cops. A well-known example from the NYT: > A reporter was hit by a pepper ball on live television by an officer who appeared to be aiming at her https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/new-york-times-twe...
There was one circulating where the newspaper headline stated that "A man with no active warrants was shot by police." Which is just about the most nefarious way to say "an innocent man was shot by police".
[deleted]
Re: Changes at YC
#190> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc
Laid off is itself a less harsh version of fired.
There’s usually a significant difference for the individual where laid off means you get unemployment while fired (implies cause) does not.