4 ms·

Yes that's what "fired" means. My understanding is that this means the same thing in the US as in Britain, although Britain has much stronger labour protection

Yes that's what "fired" means. My understanding is that this means the same thing in the US as in Britain, although Britain has much stronger labour protection so a lot of these whimsical "I'll just fire whoever I want" things can't fly here.

RobinL 3y ago
In Britain, 'fired' usually implies a problem with individual performance whereas ,'made redundant' could be part of corporate restructuring. 'let go' is more ambiguous
- philipov 3y ago
  In the US, they're complete synonyms. You say "laid off" if you're trying to be less direct about it. It's the same as saying someone "passed away" rather than "died"
  - mattkrause 3y ago
    No, the US usage is pretty similar to the UK senses: no one is “laid off” for stealing from the cash register or napping on the job. They get fired. OTOH, you could say that a division was “fired” or “laid off” and they’re almost interchangeable. “Fired” might carry the connotation that the specific division was underperforming while “laid off” could mean that it was due to some outside factor (e.g., half of R&D was laid off because manufacturing costs shot up)
    - philipov 3y ago
      Nah, we say someone got fired regardless of whether it was for cause or not. It's the go-to word for any kind of employer-initiated employment termination when you don't have to be nice about it. It's just that when someone was fired for stealing from the register, you're not going to be nice about it. Those R&D folks who got laid off are going to go home and complain about getting fired. It doesn't imply it's their fault - it implies that they're angry about it.
rcstank 3y ago
That’s not what fired means in the US. Being fired is for cause. If I got laid off I would never say I was fired, I would say I was laid off. If I said I was fired I’d have to explain what I did wrong, whereas if I was laid off nobody asks questions.
- kibwen 3y ago
  > Being fired is for cause. Being laid off is also for cause, specifically the cause of "the executives need to juice the stock price".
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    In the US, “for cause” termination is specific terminology used to disqualify someone from getting unemployment benefits, which means the employer’s unemployment insurance premiums do not go up. For example, if you terminate an employee for coming to work late over and over, then the employee was clearly not meeting their expectations and they get terminated due to their own actions, hence they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. Because the state does not have to pay unemployment benefits, the state does not increase the amount of unemployment insurance premiums the employer has to pay. If you terminate someone to improve cash flow, then the employee is not considered to be terminated due to the employee’s actions, and hence they would be eligible for unemployment benefits. Hence the employer’s unemployment insurance premium probably will go up.
  - hbn 3y ago
    For the cause of the person who lost their job. Most people wouldn't say "Greg was laid off for pissing in the water cooler"
- gipp 3y ago
  Yes, sure, but it's also extremely common to just use "fired" colloquially for either case (in the US at least)
- bachmeier 3y ago
  > Being fired is for cause. More generally, fired is used for anything specific to the individual, whether for cause (they were incompetent) or other reasons (the boss didn't like them). Laid off is for a departure due to company reasons (lack of demand for their product).
DontchaKnowit 3y ago
I find it so odd to describe firing someone as "whimsical" I think its even more whimsical to expect the government to step in and force your employer to continue employing you if they dont want to.
- diroussel 3y ago
  So should you be able to terminate any contract for no reason and no notice whenever you want? Or should you be able to go to court and sue for breach of contract?
  - piker 3y ago
    You’re operating under an assumption that there is an employment contract with a long notice period in place. In many (most?) American jobs this is not the case.
    - tialaramex 3y ago
      In Britain the "casualisation" of labour is considered a big problem and unions fight it. As we see in this thread, many Americans believe that it's actually a good idea. But if you go look at the actual behaviour at the top and bottom you see that as with many of these things the supposedly "bad" benefits labour movements in Europe fought to get for their workers are just like the things "good" senior management have agreed for themselves (but deny to their workers) in the US.
      - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
        Honestly I think the difference is that there is a higher rate of self employment/small business ownership. The more legal burden placed on hiring and firing the more you fuck over small operations and give advantage to larger ones. I think this may at least partially explain the attitude of americans. Less of an us vs them mentality cause many lowly workers ARE senior management of their own gig.
  - _xerces_ 3y ago

RobinL 3y ago

In Britain, 'fired' usually implies a problem with individual performance whereas ,'made redundant' could be part of corporate restructuring. 'let go' is more ambiguous

philipov 3y ago
In the US, they're complete synonyms. You say "laid off" if you're trying to be less direct about it. It's the same as saying someone "passed away" rather than "died"
- mattkrause 3y ago
  No, the US usage is pretty similar to the UK senses: no one is “laid off” for stealing from the cash register or napping on the job. They get fired. OTOH, you could say that a division was “fired” or “laid off” and they’re almost interchangeable. “Fired” might carry the connotation that the specific division was underperforming while “laid off” could mean that it was due to some outside factor (e.g., half of R&D was laid off because manufacturing costs shot up)
  - philipov 3y ago
    Nah, we say someone got fired regardless of whether it was for cause or not. It's the go-to word for any kind of employer-initiated employment termination when you don't have to be nice about it. It's just that when someone was fired for stealing from the register, you're not going to be nice about it. Those R&D folks who got laid off are going to go home and complain about getting fired. It doesn't imply it's their fault - it implies that they're angry about it.

rcstank 3y ago

That’s not what fired means in the US. Being fired is for cause. If I got laid off I would never say I was fired, I would say I was laid off. If I said I was fired I’d have to explain what I did wrong, whereas if I was laid off nobody asks questions.

kibwen 3y ago
> Being fired is for cause. Being laid off is also for cause, specifically the cause of "the executives need to juice the stock price".
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  In the US, “for cause” termination is specific terminology used to disqualify someone from getting unemployment benefits, which means the employer’s unemployment insurance premiums do not go up. For example, if you terminate an employee for coming to work late over and over, then the employee was clearly not meeting their expectations and they get terminated due to their own actions, hence they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. Because the state does not have to pay unemployment benefits, the state does not increase the amount of unemployment insurance premiums the employer has to pay. If you terminate someone to improve cash flow, then the employee is not considered to be terminated due to the employee’s actions, and hence they would be eligible for unemployment benefits. Hence the employer’s unemployment insurance premium probably will go up.
- hbn 3y ago
  For the cause of the person who lost their job. Most people wouldn't say "Greg was laid off for pissing in the water cooler"
gipp 3y ago
Yes, sure, but it's also extremely common to just use "fired" colloquially for either case (in the US at least)
bachmeier 3y ago
> Being fired is for cause. More generally, fired is used for anything specific to the individual, whether for cause (they were incompetent) or other reasons (the boss didn't like them). Laid off is for a departure due to company reasons (lack of demand for their product).

DontchaKnowit 3y ago

I find it so odd to describe firing someone as "whimsical" I think its even more whimsical to expect the government to step in and force your employer to continue employing you if they dont want to.

diroussel 3y ago
So should you be able to terminate any contract for no reason and no notice whenever you want? Or should you be able to go to court and sue for breach of contract?
- piker 3y ago
  You’re operating under an assumption that there is an employment contract with a long notice period in place. In many (most?) American jobs this is not the case.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    In Britain the "casualisation" of labour is considered a big problem and unions fight it. As we see in this thread, many Americans believe that it's actually a good idea. But if you go look at the actual behaviour at the top and bottom you see that as with many of these things the supposedly "bad" benefits labour movements in Europe fought to get for their workers are just like the things "good" senior management have agreed for themselves (but deny to their workers) in the US.
    - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
      Honestly I think the difference is that there is a higher rate of self employment/small business ownership. The more legal burden placed on hiring and firing the more you fuck over small operations and give advantage to larger ones. I think this may at least partially explain the attitude of americans. Less of an us vs them mentality cause many lowly workers ARE senior management of their own gig.
- _xerces_ 3y ago