3 ms·
By that definition, they could lay off only 0.15% of their workforce and still qualify. Likewise, bigger companies are probably in a perpetual state of "mass la
by moduspol 9y ago
By that definition, they could lay off only 0.15% of their workforce and still qualify. Likewise, bigger companies are probably in a perpetual state of "mass layoff."
Context is important, though. The term can be simultaneously technically correct in the context of US Department of Labor terminology and misleading to a general audience. I think that is happening here.
- FireBeyond 9y agoIf the layoff is part of one event, then why shouldn't it qualify? Your "bigger company" example is just an example of scale, there's just lots of individual events. Instead, here is SolarCity firing 1,200 employees on the same day and saying that it's all just coincidence on their individual performances, not a unified decision.
- moduspol 9y ago> If the layoff is part of one event, then why shouldn't it qualify? It does qualify. My argument is that the statement out of context is misleading. > Your "bigger company" example is just an example of scale, there's just lots of individual events. Yes. It's an example of how using the term "mass firing" to describe "any 50 employees of a company being terminated around the same time" as the headline has done is misleading. > Instead, here is SolarCity firing 1,200 employees on the same day and saying that it's all just coincidence on their individual performances, not a unified decision. No, former employees estimate Tesla is firing a total of 1,200 employees, some of which are SolarCity employees. And there was no statement it was a coincidence or not part of a coordinated effort (of course it was). That's not mutually exclusive with legitimately culling your low performers.