5 ms·

I know that it is the common vernacular, but you didn't let them go, you fired them. Surely they would prefer to not go and continue to pay their mortgage. I'm

I know that it is the common vernacular, but you didn't let them go, you fired them. Surely they would prefer to not go and continue to pay their mortgage. I'm sure it wasn't easy to fire them, but don't try and make the situation rosey. The folks who decided on the direction of the company decided wrong and now they have to fire the people who executed those decision. Edit: Would you all prefer the word "Terminated"?

vruiz 11y ago
Being laid off and being fired are not the same thing.
jmadsen 11y ago
It's more than common vernacular in English. "Fired" implies wrong-doing on their part. "Laid off" or "let them go" means the company couldn't afford to pay them, or didn't need them anymore. It leaves no black mark against their name.
- SilasX 11y ago
  Meh ... I just think the issue is just so sensitive that it moves through the euphemism treadmill a lot faster. When I was growing up, it felt like there was a clear distinction between "fired" (with cause) and "laid off" (bad revenues, can't afford you). But over time I increasingly saw people refer to all terminations as being "laid off". Then "let go" entered the fray, and I heard of recruiters who told people to refer to any for-cause firing as "being let go". Whatever term you use on this, people will abuse until it doesn't mean that anymore. They want to make it sound like any termination wasn't for-cause, while having plausible deniability if anyone calls them on it. And yes, I know the usual ivory tower lecture about "that's how language normally works!" But normally it's slow enough that you can reasonably infer what someone means because of mutual knowledge of what the words mean. Not here. And probably, not ever.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  I've always found it striking to note how laid off has migrated over time. When my grandfather got laid off, there was an expectation that he would come back to the same job with the same company some time in the near future. When I get laid off there is no expectation that my job will come back.
  - uptown 11y ago
    The term for that is furlough.
  - blakeyrat 11y ago
    Companies like Boeing (who have boom and bust years) still use the term "laid off" like that. But they're also union jobs where you basically can't get fired, short of taking a piss in the coffeemaker. So the word "fired" is still fine for those employees "exceptional" enough to get permanently laid off.
  - jmadsen 11y ago
    that's exactly right - factories in town use to lay off workers seasonally, then call them back in later. Can't put my finger on when exactly, but during one of our recessions they stopped getting called back, and then companies started to realize once the local union was busted they could hire new workers at a fraction of the price, and...here you are.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Fired does not imply wrong-doing. Fired can be termination w/out prejudice.
  - eli 11y ago
    I disagree, and I think Evernote engineers would be making a huge mistake if they tell future interviewers they got "fired" instead of "laid off." Maybe not to you, but to many people "fired" implies wrongdoing on the part of the employee.
- smoyer 11y ago
  I agree - "Fired" clearly implies wrong-doing. I never had a problem firing people who deserved it (and met HR's thresholds for firing). On the other hand, the worst thing I ever had to do is lay people off (who were working hard) because the company's fortunes had declined and we couldn't afford to pay them. What made it worse was the morning of the lay-off, one of them told me a joke: "What's the difference between a recession and a depression? A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours". You know why a good manager goes into his office and closes the door after executing the "terminations"? In my case, it was to hide the fact that I was crying.
aaronbrethorst 11y ago
"Fir[ing]" an employee suggests they did something wrong. These 47 people did nothing wrong outside of working on a product or products that are no longer relevant to Evernote.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  No, it doesn't. Fired can mean termination w/out prejudice.
  - edanm 11y ago
    Well, it can, but there are several people here, as well as several Google results, which say that "fired" carries a much more negative connotation.
  - Stratoscope 11y ago
    I suppose it can mean that, but in practice, it doesn't. Being fired and being laid off are very different things in this year's English. So different, in fact, that I have been "laid off" when the employer really had a mind to fire me for poor performance but wanted to avoid hurting my future prospects. Here, don't take my word for it: https://www.google.com/search?q=fired+laid+off https://www.google.com/search?q=fired+laid+off
- yitchelle 11y ago
  I think the wording used by the new CEO shows his attitude to the company. Reading the announcement, he is very much focusing on making more money for Evernote. There are no details on how those 47 people will be assisted post Evernote. It reads like the CEO really fired them.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chrisbennet 11y ago
"Fired" = "let go because the employee did something to deserve it" "Let go" doesn't not have the same meaning.
pbreit 11y ago
I think it's the opposite. Layoffs are when mgmt is at fault. Firings are when the employees are at fault.
- dexterdog 11y ago
  But layoffs often come from above as "fire the worst 20% or your team so we can get lean." So in that case the employee does play a part. The problem with these moves is that the top 20% often see the writing on the wall and leave shortly after. Then the second 20% start testing the waters. Then...
lmm 11y ago
"Fired" or "terminated" tends to imply for cause which is something different from what's happening here. I'd prefer "laid off", but I think "let go" is pretty unambiguous.
sandstrom 11y ago
What were the directions/products that have now been discontinued?
swagswag 11y ago
"I was removed from evernote"
CodeWriter23 11y ago
The dictionary agrees with you. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fired?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fired?s=t
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Depends on the dictionary. Some will also clarify that "with cause" is a big part of it. Or just look at the etymology. It means they've been forcibly ejected from the company. Like a cannonball. You don't do that to employees you'll miss.

vruiz 11y ago

Being laid off and being fired are not the same thing.

jmadsen 11y ago

It's more than common vernacular in English. "Fired" implies wrong-doing on their part. "Laid off" or "let them go" means the company couldn't afford to pay them, or didn't need them anymore. It leaves no black mark against their name.

SilasX 11y ago
Meh ... I just think the issue is just so sensitive that it moves through the euphemism treadmill a lot faster. When I was growing up, it felt like there was a clear distinction between "fired" (with cause) and "laid off" (bad revenues, can't afford you). But over time I increasingly saw people refer to all terminations as being "laid off". Then "let go" entered the fray, and I heard of recruiters who told people to refer to any for-cause firing as "being let go". Whatever term you use on this, people will abuse until it doesn't mean that anymore. They want to make it sound like any termination wasn't for-cause, while having plausible deniability if anyone calls them on it. And yes, I know the usual ivory tower lecture about "that's how language normally works!" But normally it's slow enough that you can reasonably infer what someone means because of mutual knowledge of what the words mean. Not here. And probably, not ever.
kasey_junk 11y ago
I've always found it striking to note how laid off has migrated over time. When my grandfather got laid off, there was an expectation that he would come back to the same job with the same company some time in the near future. When I get laid off there is no expectation that my job will come back.
- uptown 11y ago
  The term for that is furlough.
- blakeyrat 11y ago
  Companies like Boeing (who have boom and bust years) still use the term "laid off" like that. But they're also union jobs where you basically can't get fired, short of taking a piss in the coffeemaker. So the word "fired" is still fine for those employees "exceptional" enough to get permanently laid off.
- jmadsen 11y ago
  that's exactly right - factories in town use to lay off workers seasonally, then call them back in later. Can't put my finger on when exactly, but during one of our recessions they stopped getting called back, and then companies started to realize once the local union was busted they could hire new workers at a fraction of the price, and...here you are.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Fired does not imply wrong-doing. Fired can be termination w/out prejudice.
- eli 11y ago
  I disagree, and I think Evernote engineers would be making a huge mistake if they tell future interviewers they got "fired" instead of "laid off." Maybe not to you, but to many people "fired" implies wrongdoing on the part of the employee.
smoyer 11y ago
I agree - "Fired" clearly implies wrong-doing. I never had a problem firing people who deserved it (and met HR's thresholds for firing). On the other hand, the worst thing I ever had to do is lay people off (who were working hard) because the company's fortunes had declined and we couldn't afford to pay them. What made it worse was the morning of the lay-off, one of them told me a joke: "What's the difference between a recession and a depression? A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours". You know why a good manager goes into his office and closes the door after executing the "terminations"? In my case, it was to hide the fact that I was crying.

aaronbrethorst 11y ago

"Fir[ing]" an employee suggests they did something wrong. These 47 people did nothing wrong outside of working on a product or products that are no longer relevant to Evernote.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
No, it doesn't. Fired can mean termination w/out prejudice.
- edanm 11y ago
  Well, it can, but there are several people here, as well as several Google results, which say that "fired" carries a much more negative connotation.
- Stratoscope 11y ago
  I suppose it can mean that, but in practice, it doesn't. Being fired and being laid off are very different things in this year's English. So different, in fact, that I have been "laid off" when the employer really had a mind to fire me for poor performance but wanted to avoid hurting my future prospects. Here, don't take my word for it: https://www.google.com/search?q=fired+laid+off https://www.google.com/search?q=fired+laid+off
yitchelle 11y ago
I think the wording used by the new CEO shows his attitude to the company. Reading the announcement, he is very much focusing on making more money for Evernote. There are no details on how those 47 people will be assisted post Evernote. It reads like the CEO really fired them.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

chrisbennet 11y ago

"Fired" = "let go because the employee did something to deserve it" "Let go" doesn't not have the same meaning.

pbreit 11y ago

I think it's the opposite. Layoffs are when mgmt is at fault. Firings are when the employees are at fault.

dexterdog 11y ago
But layoffs often come from above as "fire the worst 20% or your team so we can get lean." So in that case the employee does play a part. The problem with these moves is that the top 20% often see the writing on the wall and leave shortly after. Then the second 20% start testing the waters. Then...

lmm 11y ago

"Fired" or "terminated" tends to imply for cause which is something different from what's happening here. I'd prefer "laid off", but I think "let go" is pretty unambiguous.

sandstrom 11y ago

What were the directions/products that have now been discontinued?

swagswag 11y ago

"I was removed from evernote"

CodeWriter23 11y ago

The dictionary agrees with you. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fired?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fired?s=t

tedunangst 11y ago
Depends on the dictionary. Some will also clarify that "with cause" is a big part of it. Or just look at the etymology. It means they've been forcibly ejected from the company. Like a cannonball. You don't do that to employees you'll miss.