Redundancy is very different to being fired though. When you’re fired you just lose your job and that’s it. If you get made redundant, you lose your job but get paid X amount of months worth of wages to make up for the fact you may be jobless for a while, while you look for a new one. X being different depending on both the countries laws and the company’s policies. But usually it increases the longer you’ve been with the company.
I get the sentiment. But to me personally, “redundancy” is pretty clear and doesn’t mask the pain that comes with being let go. There’s also generally a difference between being “fired” and being “made redundant”. Redundancy suggests that their job doesn’t need to be done anymore b/c of a restructure, bankruptcy, merger, and the company needs to meet certain obligations for that redundancy not to be considered an “unfair dismissal”.
That distinction means jack shit to the people that are “made redundant” and everything to the people that have an interest in marketing this as anything other than someone losing their job.
The article states the layoffs will affect the UK division and EU division, I am assuming you are basing your statement on US laws. https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/notice-periods states that you will get paid for X number of weeks depending on how long you have been in your job.
It’s not the same thing so I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with commonly use and understood vocabulary. Being fired means there was a fault on the employees’ part, which isn’t true.
I feel like we’re maybe getting confused about terminology here? “Redundancy” is a specific term for a specific form of dismissal. It’s not a euphemism for “firing” because firing someone is a different kind of dismissal. Terms like rightsizing, reset, re-allocating resources, trimming the fat – these are certainly euphemisms for redundancy that should be called out.
deleted by creator
Redundancy is very different to being fired though. When you’re fired you just lose your job and that’s it. If you get made redundant, you lose your job but get paid X amount of months worth of wages to make up for the fact you may be jobless for a while, while you look for a new one. X being different depending on both the countries laws and the company’s policies. But usually it increases the longer you’ve been with the company.
I get the sentiment. But to me personally, “redundancy” is pretty clear and doesn’t mask the pain that comes with being let go. There’s also generally a difference between being “fired” and being “made redundant”. Redundancy suggests that their job doesn’t need to be done anymore b/c of a restructure, bankruptcy, merger, and the company needs to meet certain obligations for that redundancy not to be considered an “unfair dismissal”.
That distinction means jack shit to the people that are “made redundant” and everything to the people that have an interest in marketing this as anything other than someone losing their job.
It does. Because being made redundant means you get a pay package when you lose your job. If you get fired, you get nothing.
The article states the layoffs will affect the UK division and EU division, I am assuming you are basing your statement on US laws. https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/notice-periods states that you will get paid for X number of weeks depending on how long you have been in your job.
I am in the UK, so I’m basing it on what I know of the UK
deleted by creator
It’s not the same thing so I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with commonly use and understood vocabulary. Being fired means there was a fault on the employees’ part, which isn’t true.
I feel like we’re maybe getting confused about terminology here? “Redundancy” is a specific term for a specific form of dismissal. It’s not a euphemism for “firing” because firing someone is a different kind of dismissal. Terms like rightsizing, reset, re-allocating resources, trimming the fat – these are certainly euphemisms for redundancy that should be called out.