[tobych]

Can someone please change the title of this - just as with other similar posts - to use "laid-off" instead of "fired"? Regardless of how loose some may be with language, there's a clear distinction between these terms.

For example, my home state's Employment Security Department: https://esd.wa.gov/unemployment/laid-off-or-fired

Given that there are non-US readers here, maybe there's another pair of phrases that Hacker News could use as standard in this situation. I know in the UK, "made redundant" is used instead of "laid-off".

[clarry]

I've considered creating this exact thread multiple times because it rhymes with the regular "Who is hiring?" threads. I think it's fine.

[dang]

It's also a bit of a tradition.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

We've been penalizing these threads but I'm kind of changing my mind about that (other than that we don't want them very often because repetition is not good for the front page). Unfortunately they tend to devolve into junk, so there's more of a moderation burden.

Edit: this thread ended up making a poor case for having threads like this on HN. Most of it was off topic, and a lot of it went into low-quality rage and even outright flamewar.

[ivanche]

This is just grammatical nitpicking. People are not working in company X any more against their will. One can call it "removing", "laying off", "dismissing", "number cutting" or whatever corporate BS speak says is correct these days, but reality is that they're fired.

[mongol]

Not sure about nuances in English language but in Swedish there is a very important distinction. You are fired for stealing at work, hitting your manager or neglecting safety precautions etc. You are laid off for economical reasons, when the company can not afford to keep you around. The former reflects bad on you, the latter is not due to you. I think it is important to maintain the distinction.

[rags2riches]

So what should we call it when someone loses their job due to their own misconduct rather than budgets or whatever?

[petercooper]

I know in the UK, "made redundant" is used instead of "laid-off".

Yes, though most Brits would pragmatically accept the term "laid-off" as covering redundancy, though formally a "lay-off" is the same as furloughing in the UK (i.e. not permanent).

[undecisive]

Your article actually makes a different distinction to the one you intended:

> There is a difference between being laid off and fired.

> Generally, we treat your job loss as a layoff if your employer is not replacing you, and you'll qualify for unemployment benefits if you meet all of the eligibility criteria.

> If your employer is replacing you, we generally will treat you as being fired.

Some companies here are firing people so that they can replace them with people willing to work at a lower salary.

The article also allows the concept of no-fault firing:

> If you were fired through no fault of your own, such as not having the skills to do the job, you may be eligible for unemployment benefits.

So I think from a dictionary definition, it's an OK title; from an emotional perspective, I can understand how someone telling you that you were fired can be jarring.

However, we should remember that the shame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the company - in any case of firing, the company can always be seen as partially at fault, as it is usually caused by lack of forward thinking, agility, engagement or empathy.

So remember: Whether they laid you off or fired you, it is our job as a community to stand with you.

[throwaway55554]

How about "pursuing other interests"? Seriously, though, "fired" is fine.

[qazpot]

A distinction without a difference.

[baxter001]

Someone's got a great deal of solidarity I see,

[tobych]

Solidarity with people being laid-off, yes. I was laid-off recently. Not fired. I did nothing wrong.