7 ms·

Aside from the fact that many people use the term interchangeably, getting "laid off" often means "you got fired at a company that doesn't actively fire individ

Aside from the fact that many people use the term interchangeably, getting "laid off" often means "you got fired at a company that doesn't actively fire individually, but rather fires en masse". Being "laid off" from a company like Microsoft is equivalent to being outright fired at many other shops.

gaius 12y ago
No, thats not even remotely true. Look at their mobile division.
- engendered 12y ago
  Most organizational "lay offs" start by identifying the most expendable, the least valuable, the people with the worst performance reviews, etc. This is especially true in the technology industry. I'm not saying this as an objective "it is thus justified", but rather a simple reality that the same criteria by which some shops might say "you're not working out, so I'm sorry I'm canning you" is the same criteria that companies like Microsoft use to chop the "bottom" 10% or so. It's actually a little ironic that this conversation is happening because you're trying to load the term "fired". Fired never meant "because you stole" or "because you sabotaged the PCs". It just means you had your employment terminated, often if not usually for banal reasons of lack of fit or suitability. Life goes on.
  - gaius 12y ago
    Not at all. You get fired when you do something wrong. You get laid off when management does something wrong.
sib 12y ago
This simply isn't true. People who are terminated at Microsoft or Amazon or Google or others for poor performance (either during annual performance review or other times) are not laid off - they are terminated for poor performance.
- engendered 12y ago
  Everyone who is "laid off" is terminated. http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-employee-review-system-2010-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-employee-review-sy... Laid off. Done en masse. I could do this for every company and it is exactly the same. No, they don't say "your performance sucks! You're fired!" In fact that would be a legal quagmire because "cause" is somewhat capricious when the reasoning is "doesn't fall in the top 90%". Which is why they settle with nice departure agreements. Are there some people around here who were laid off and are trying to feel good about it? The reality of lay offs in most situations is that someone intentionally put you in a situation where you would be laid off. It wasn't just accident.
  - gaius 12y ago
    I am guessing you are very young and this hasn't happened to you yet. But when the CEO decides that we aren't in that business anymore, or we don't operate in that country anymore, or we just need to impress Wall Street with what a decisive manager I am, your performance as an individual contributor isn't even on the radar. You are just a number. The reality is, companies don't hire for fun, they have a plan, and they need people to execute that plan. If the plan fails, then the people get laid off, but it is the management that failed by hiring people they didn't actually need. Or it is unpredictable market conditions. A lot of people did everything right but still lost their jobs when the NASDAQ crashed, for example. People who did everything right are losing their jobs right now because of the oil price crash. That is part of growing up, to understand that you can do everything right, you can go above and beyond the call of duty, you can even be brilliant - and still lose.
    - engendered 12y ago
      Despite your absurd lead in and desperate moderation, I'll repeat that you are simply wrong, and seem to be trying really, really hard to justify something. Something fairly obvious. Firstly, to repeat, in most cases in this industry it is performance based. Arbitrary or oddball examples are irrelevant. When you are laid off, even if it was because the project you were on got axed, take a look around -- did you notice the superstars on the team all got pulled to other parts of the company? Strange, isn't it? Did you notice, in fact, that as things started to look ugly that dregs got transferred to the project? That's the reality of layoffs. That's how performance based layoffs work. I mean, you're arguing with me despite every single tech example absolutely confirming what I'm saying. People who are valuable to a company will be placed internally, and those who aren't will be jettisoned like unnecessary cargo. You're trying desperately hard to try to load the word fired and laid off, but the majority of people who are laid off (in this industry) were evaluated and considered not worth keeping. But talk about steel workers or something.

gaius 12y ago

No, thats not even remotely true. Look at their mobile division.

engendered 12y ago
Most organizational "lay offs" start by identifying the most expendable, the least valuable, the people with the worst performance reviews, etc. This is especially true in the technology industry. I'm not saying this as an objective "it is thus justified", but rather a simple reality that the same criteria by which some shops might say "you're not working out, so I'm sorry I'm canning you" is the same criteria that companies like Microsoft use to chop the "bottom" 10% or so. It's actually a little ironic that this conversation is happening because you're trying to load the term "fired". Fired never meant "because you stole" or "because you sabotaged the PCs". It just means you had your employment terminated, often if not usually for banal reasons of lack of fit or suitability. Life goes on.
- gaius 12y ago
  Not at all. You get fired when you do something wrong. You get laid off when management does something wrong.

sib 12y ago

This simply isn't true. People who are terminated at Microsoft or Amazon or Google or others for poor performance (either during annual performance review or other times) are not laid off - they are terminated for poor performance.

engendered 12y ago
Everyone who is "laid off" is terminated. http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-employee-review-system-2010-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-employee-review-sy... Laid off. Done en masse. I could do this for every company and it is exactly the same. No, they don't say "your performance sucks! You're fired!" In fact that would be a legal quagmire because "cause" is somewhat capricious when the reasoning is "doesn't fall in the top 90%". Which is why they settle with nice departure agreements. Are there some people around here who were laid off and are trying to feel good about it? The reality of lay offs in most situations is that someone intentionally put you in a situation where you would be laid off. It wasn't just accident.
- gaius 12y ago
  I am guessing you are very young and this hasn't happened to you yet. But when the CEO decides that we aren't in that business anymore, or we don't operate in that country anymore, or we just need to impress Wall Street with what a decisive manager I am, your performance as an individual contributor isn't even on the radar. You are just a number. The reality is, companies don't hire for fun, they have a plan, and they need people to execute that plan. If the plan fails, then the people get laid off, but it is the management that failed by hiring people they didn't actually need. Or it is unpredictable market conditions. A lot of people did everything right but still lost their jobs when the NASDAQ crashed, for example. People who did everything right are losing their jobs right now because of the oil price crash. That is part of growing up, to understand that you can do everything right, you can go above and beyond the call of duty, you can even be brilliant - and still lose.
  - engendered 12y ago
    Despite your absurd lead in and desperate moderation, I'll repeat that you are simply wrong, and seem to be trying really, really hard to justify something. Something fairly obvious. Firstly, to repeat, in most cases in this industry it is performance based. Arbitrary or oddball examples are irrelevant. When you are laid off, even if it was because the project you were on got axed, take a look around -- did you notice the superstars on the team all got pulled to other parts of the company? Strange, isn't it? Did you notice, in fact, that as things started to look ugly that dregs got transferred to the project? That's the reality of layoffs. That's how performance based layoffs work. I mean, you're arguing with me despite every single tech example absolutely confirming what I'm saying. People who are valuable to a company will be placed internally, and those who aren't will be jettisoned like unnecessary cargo. You're trying desperately hard to try to load the word fired and laid off, but the majority of people who are laid off (in this industry) were evaluated and considered not worth keeping. But talk about steel workers or something.