3 ms·

I've always understood there to be a difference between "laid off" and "fired". "Fired" tends to be because of you, "laid off" is more on the company's side.

I've always understood there to be a difference between "laid off" and "fired". "Fired" tends to be because of you, "laid off" is more on the company's side. I was "fired" once (well, twice, in the 90s) because I wasn't pulling my weight. I was 'laid off' once (in the 2000s) because the company was running out of money, and had to lay off around half the company. That wasn't really anything to do with my performance or ability - it was the company's finances. Explaining "I was part of the 50% of the company laid off due to financial pressures" (or "laid off after a corporate merger") wouldn't generally have the same negative connotation.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
The reason it has a stigma, though, is that when layoffs happen, companies tend not to layoff their star performers, or they do at least some amount of stack ranking. Of course that is not always the case (sometimes entire departments are closed if a company exits a line of business, or the entire company itself folds), but if the company had a ~5-30% across-the-board layoff, it's generally assumed some level of personal-level decision making goes into deciding who gets laid off. Which is why I'll repeat the advice: the best time to find a new job is when you've already got one. Layoffs very rarely come without any warning, so if things start to look even a little dicey, not a bad idea to at least put your resume out there.
- lowercased 7y ago
  In my case, there were around 25 people, and 12 were let go. This was financial, and they primarily lost the higher paid people (me) and kept the jrs. Also, LIFO was a factor, and I was one of the last in. You're not wrong. Certainly people think "well, there must have been a reason you were let go..." and yeah, sometimes it may mean you were stackranked out. With smaller companies that's probably harder to do, or... there are bigger factors at play (more immediate cashflow in our situation). And yes, always be looking.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  when layoffs happen, companies tend not to layoff their star performers Positions are made redundant, not people. It doesn’t matter how good or bad you are if the company no longer has work for someone who does the thing you do, or in the location you do it. Some unethical companies do use layoffs as a cover for stack ranking but that’s an easy ruse to see through and reflects on them, not you.
  - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
    Large (or even not-so-large) companies very rarely have one person per position. If they've got, say, 10% extra capacity in one area, obviously they are going to look at all the people in those roles when it comes to deciding who to let go. Again, obviously that doesn't always apply in all situations (e.g. the closure of an entire business unit, or the loss of a big customer), but it also obviously applies in many situations. Furthermore, since on HN we like to think that skills matter, wouldn't we want it to? I mean, if there is a fantastic developer that just happens to be on a project that gets cancelled, wouldn't you want the company to figure out how to keep them over someone who is much less productive working on a project that just happened to not get cancelled?
- marcoseliziario 7y ago
  It depends a lot. Usually, if you are a star, not only you're more expensive to start, but also more liable to look for greener pastures after a layoff. So, unless you've been at the company for a really long time, it is better to send you away, because it is likely that you won't stay too long after the layoffs. Also, there's the whole long-standing goal among managers to keep their head-counts as high as possible. Managers also don't want to become redundant, so, it makes sense to lay off the more expensive people as much as possible, to keep their headcounts high and avoid the unwelcome situation of having a team too small to justify their continued existence as managers. And, of course, for morale, it is better to convince anyone left that they were left because they are the stars, not because of their low likelihood of looking elsewhere.
BurningFrog 7y ago
If everyone is laid off, everyone understands it was the company's fault, not yours. Then there is a gradual added stink as your laid off cohort gets smaller. If it was just you, you got fired, and that's a problem.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

The reason it has a stigma, though, is that when layoffs happen, companies tend not to layoff their star performers, or they do at least some amount of stack ranking. Of course that is not always the case (sometimes entire departments are closed if a company exits a line of business, or the entire company itself folds), but if the company had a ~5-30% across-the-board layoff, it's generally assumed some level of personal-level decision making goes into deciding who gets laid off. Which is why I'll repeat the advice: the best time to find a new job is when you've already got one. Layoffs very rarely come without any warning, so if things start to look even a little dicey, not a bad idea to at least put your resume out there.

lowercased 7y ago
In my case, there were around 25 people, and 12 were let go. This was financial, and they primarily lost the higher paid people (me) and kept the jrs. Also, LIFO was a factor, and I was one of the last in. You're not wrong. Certainly people think "well, there must have been a reason you were let go..." and yeah, sometimes it may mean you were stackranked out. With smaller companies that's probably harder to do, or... there are bigger factors at play (more immediate cashflow in our situation). And yes, always be looking.
goatinaboat 7y ago
when layoffs happen, companies tend not to layoff their star performers Positions are made redundant, not people. It doesn’t matter how good or bad you are if the company no longer has work for someone who does the thing you do, or in the location you do it. Some unethical companies do use layoffs as a cover for stack ranking but that’s an easy ruse to see through and reflects on them, not you.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  Large (or even not-so-large) companies very rarely have one person per position. If they've got, say, 10% extra capacity in one area, obviously they are going to look at all the people in those roles when it comes to deciding who to let go. Again, obviously that doesn't always apply in all situations (e.g. the closure of an entire business unit, or the loss of a big customer), but it also obviously applies in many situations. Furthermore, since on HN we like to think that skills matter, wouldn't we want it to? I mean, if there is a fantastic developer that just happens to be on a project that gets cancelled, wouldn't you want the company to figure out how to keep them over someone who is much less productive working on a project that just happened to not get cancelled?
marcoseliziario 7y ago
It depends a lot. Usually, if you are a star, not only you're more expensive to start, but also more liable to look for greener pastures after a layoff. So, unless you've been at the company for a really long time, it is better to send you away, because it is likely that you won't stay too long after the layoffs. Also, there's the whole long-standing goal among managers to keep their head-counts as high as possible. Managers also don't want to become redundant, so, it makes sense to lay off the more expensive people as much as possible, to keep their headcounts high and avoid the unwelcome situation of having a team too small to justify their continued existence as managers. And, of course, for morale, it is better to convince anyone left that they were left because they are the stars, not because of their low likelihood of looking elsewhere.

BurningFrog 7y ago

If everyone is laid off, everyone understands it was the company's fault, not yours. Then there is a gradual added stink as your laid off cohort gets smaller. If it was just you, you got fired, and that's a problem.