What is your definition of "laid off?" I had always thought it meant that the company was not doing well and had to let people go, for the time being. However, if things began to get better (such as, the auto industry selling more cars), then they'd call the people back to work. Maybe that's because I came from a city in the midwest that had a Chevrolet plant and people were laid off like that from time to time.

However, at breakfast with my kids today, they consider "laid off" to mean that your job has been eliminated. It's not being fired, but there is no chance you could ever go back. With my definition there is.

What do you think?

I agree with your kids.

I agree with your definition - not your kids' or Bob's.

If you're laid off it's because your services are not needed at that time. You may be re-employed if the company's circumstances change. Of course, it might well be that the job you were employed to do has been eliminated for all time and in this case then you'll obviously not get it back.

If you're fired, then it is highly unlikely you would ever be re-employed.

Of course, it's quite possible that a company might use the expresion "laid off" in respect of an employee who had actually been fired, simply to be helpful by not stigmatising the sacked employee.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

I agree with Kalleh and Richard. Employees are usually laid off when the company is going through a bad patch and, should the firm's fortunes improve, there's a chance they'll get their job back.

It is, however, often used as an euphemism for getting the sack, so Bob and Kalleh's kid's aren't wrong, either. How's that for fence-sitting?

In my view, if you are laid off you may well get your job back later. You have exactly the same chance as anyone else applying for it. This is not the same as an automatic re-employment when things pick up. It's the same as being unemployed and applying for any job.

I think in a union shop situation, your interpretation is always right, Kalleh. But where there is no union or union rules, there is no such protections for the laid off worker, and so your kids may be right. The receptionist at the Cancer Center where I get my treatments was just laid off on orders of the hospital. Although the Cancer Center is part of the Penn Cancer Network, and the docs are Penn docs, all the nurses and other staff are with the community hospital where the clinic is located. The bean counters in hospital administration had deemed their patient numbers were "too low" to support the receptionist. Everybody is upset. We're hoping she gets her job back. So I am of two minds on this one, for sure.

Wordmatic

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
In my view, if you are laid off you may well get your job back later. You have exactly the same chance as anyone else applying for it. This is not the same as an automatic re-employment when things pick up. It's the same as being unemployed and applying for any job.

There is no guarantee that you'll get your job back - but, if you were good at it, then you stand a far better chance of getting it than would an unknown applicant.

I think the difference is that you (and arnie and Kalleh) are viewing the term filtered through the economic realities of fifty years ago and I am viewing it filtered through the economic realities of today.

I thought it meant that either your hens or your lover were on strike.

If one sees the term "layoff," it seems to always mean the furloing of a group, whereas, as stated above by arnie, it can go both ways now.

Lay off, McDuff! Nahhhh - it doesn't work.

When funeral home employees get the ax, are they laid off or laid out?

Fifty years ago, Bob? Give us a break! We may be old, but not that old.

quote:

You have exactly the same chance as anyone else applying for it.

I think WM is right on this one. It all has to do with whether one is in a union or not (either now...or 50 years ago). That is, union workers, such as those in the auto industry, do get their jobs back before the company hires people from the outside. Indeed, just recently (emphasis for Bob!), the auto plant in Belvidere, IL, had laid off a lot of workers. When the auto industry came back, those who were laid off were offered their jobs back, but of course many had taken other jobs. It was only then that the plant went outside to hire people.

So...maybe my kids were talking about those who are laid off and not part of unions. I thought they were offered their jobs back, too, but maybe not. Maybe they, as in Bob's quote above, only have the same chance as anyone else in getting their jobs back.

This is happening in the British public sector jobs. Because of government cutbacks a lot of people have been laid off. However, there are always some vacancies coming up, and those people who were laid off have "preferred status". At present we can only recruit to fill the odd vacancy from within and from those with preferred status, not from outside.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I think the difference is that you (and arnie and Kalleh) are viewing the term filtered through the economic realities of fifty years ago and I am viewing it filtered through the economic realities of today.

The reality is that any company that went to the significant expense of advertising for, interviewing, training and possibly sacking a "new" employee, rather than re-hiring a tried and tested "laid off" one needs its corporate head examined.

These days unions (thank goodness) have far less power than they used to have and - with the exception of those in the public sector and a small number in the private sector (such as the rail unions) - can no longer create the havoc they once managed to create so well. Of course, they did influence companies' recruitment decisions - for both good and ill.

The reality I'm talking about is this. "Laying off" in the sense that you are using it isn't really that relevant nowadays. Much more prevalent is the situation of redundancies (compulsory or voluntary) and voluntary severance. In these cases the departing employee usually receives a payment for going.

As it is a post rather than a person that is made redundant it is impossible for that person to return as the job he was doing no longer exists. (And I know that this is often a transparent legal fiction.)
It is also usually built into the agreement that there is a period during which the employee agrees to take NO JOB in that organisation. In my case I cannot go back to work for South Birmingham College in any capacity until at least February 1st next year, two years after my departure.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:

In my case I cannot go back to work for South Birmingham College in any capacity until at least February 1st next year, two years after my departure.

In that case I hope you're getting on really well with your Chinese hosts!

quote:

These days unions (thank goodness) have far less power than they used to have

If it wasn't for unions, everyone would be working 60-hour weeks for low wages with no overtime, vacations or health benefits.

It's abuse of power, both by management and by unions, that's the problem. As for working 60-hour weeks with no overtime, vacations, or health benefits - welcome to my world!

As Geoff rightly says, it is the abuse of power that is the problem, not simply the unions or companies' management.

In the UK we presently have a situation where the doctors are going on strike to preserve their pension rights. But they earn pensions that most people can only dream of, after a well-paid career that lasts only about 30 years. Similarly the tube drivers are threatening to strike if they don't get massive bonuses for simply doing the job they are paid to do, during the Olympics. They, too, earn very high salaries (around double the average UK wage).

Both groups have strong unions, both of which have too much power.

Oh, and like Geoff, around 20% of the UK working population - the self-employed - have none of the perks that proofreader mentions, unless they pay for them themselves. Welcome to my world as well.

I don't have a Union here in China. I work a 12.75 hour week, get a free apartment and free utilities. I also get a lot of free meals and day trips.

It's a hard life but someone has to do it.

It would seem that, in the supposedly egalitarian Chinese society, there is far more inequality than there is in supposedly class and privilege-ridden societies such as the UK's.

quote:

The reality is that any company that went to the significant expense of advertising for, interviewing, training and possibly sacking a "new" employee, rather than re-hiring a tried and tested "laid off" one needs its corporate head examined.

You are correct, Richard. In nursing, for example, it costs 1.2X the nurses salary to hire a new nurse.

I think we can all agree that unions are a good thing, as long as they don't abuse their power. As Proof said, they have kept wages and hours reasonable. But...there have been problems, too. I think unions are still viable, but they need to change for the 21st century. Some of them (like the Chicago Teachers Union) are still working in the 1950s.

Bob, your reality of "laying off" may be true in the UK, but there are still the old-fashioned lay-offs here, too. They are fewer and far between, though, thus my kids not understanding the term correctly.

I was thinking about this thread and wondered what those of you who don't use "laid off" would call a situation where someone was told there's not enough business now, but they'd be called back when business picks up. Would that be "termination," or "sacked" or "fired?" That sort of thing particularly happens to seasonal jobs in in the U.S. When my daughter worked at Yellowstone, she (and many others) was "laid off" when winter came, but invited back in the spring. At least that's what she called it. Perhaps it's just a euphemism?

I think that is a classic layoff. "Layoff" to me suggests the possibility of returning to the job.

"Lay off" is the term used extensively in the manufacturing industry around here for "slow times" for business. It gives management the opportunity to lower their payroll and also the ability to rid themselves of employees who for one reason or another have fallen into disfavor.

Aha! So you agree that "laid off" is a current term in the U.S., right? I certainly have seen it used recently. It must be used differently in the U.S. than the U.K.

What is it called in the U.K. when a seasonal employee is laid off?

quote:

What is it called in the U.K. when a seasonal employee is laid off?

"Laid off".

Bingo!

Interestingly, my son today told me about someone whose job was eliminated, and he called him "fired." I'd never call it that! I think our younger generation uses the words "fired," "laid off," etc., differently than I do. I see "fired" or "canned" as a huge insult; that is, there is a reason, like stealing...not just that the job was eliminated.

If their job is eliminated we say that the person is "made redundant". People can apply for voluntary redundancy in some concerns where the workforce is shrinking. If an individual is forced to take redundancy they are by law entitled to a larger pay-off than otherwise.

If their job is eliminated we say that the person is "made redundant".

Having suffered this event twice in my life, we say: riffed from RIF "reduction in force".

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
If their job is eliminated we say that the person is "made redundant". People can apply for voluntary redundancy in some concerns where the workforce is shrinking. If an individual is forced to take redundancy they are by law entitled to a larger pay-off than otherwise.

Though, from experience, I can say that the voluntary severance payments can be quite generous.

I worked for a decade in the engrg end of the power & chemical plant construction. The terms we used in the '70's and '80's are still current (this is my husband's field).

"Fired" implies either the person or the specific post is gone for good. In practice it is synonymous with 'layoff' when the post is eliminated; redundant employees are technically laid off & receive better severance packages than someone fired for cause.

Other rules apply to upper mgt, who are always called 'fired' regardless of fancy severance packages. Such firings are often political and the firee generally lands on his feet elsewhere in short oder. Where such a person is actually "laid off", the very term denigrates their high level and does not bode well for future employment at the same level.

Where many jobs are lost in a downsizing or merger, as happens during the long slow decline of a waning industry, "fired" is used as often as "laid off"; the implication is there will be no call-back list even if times improve.

But in fields where the companies are 'lean and mean' even in good times, retaining just enough employees to complete the next big contract, the term "layoff" is used, and you'll see a bunch of people get laid off, then picked up immediately by whichever competitor won the big contract.

Although these are not union jobs, and the associated jobsites may be union or non-union, the office and field work closely together, and rules which apply to the rank-and-file in the field also apply to rank-and-file in the office (such as draftsmen/CADD people) and many higher as well, particularly in terms of overtime for non-mgt, holidays, and terms of firing/layoff.

"Fired", to me, always had an unpleasant connotation associated with it, as opposed to "laid off", which generally occurred at holiday or bonus time. "You're fired" was the outraged outburst you heard when you were caught like George on top of the desk with the cleaning lady.

quote:

Having suffered this event twice in my life, we say: riffed from RIF "reduction in force".

We do?

quote:

Other rules apply to upper mgt, who are always called 'fired' regardless of fancy severance packages. Such firings are often political and the firee generally lands on his feet elsewhere in short oder. Where such a person is actually "laid off", the very term denigrates their high level and does not bode well for future employment at the same level.

I am not sure that is the case here in the midwest (upper management "always" called fired). I agree with Proof, at least here in the midwest, we use "fired" sparingly because of the negative connotation. I am learning from this thread that these terms are not used consistently in the U.S. or across generations. Also, I've never seen the word "redundant" used here, though Bethree indicates that it is used here.

Actually I just picked up on Arnie's term "redundant" (it's so descriptive). I think you're right Kalleh, it's not a term of art over here.

I suspect usage of these terms varies by context. In a social context one wouldn't say fired, or even laid off; more likely 'lost his/her job' to avoid specifcs & keep it from getting gossipy.

Even in a business context, the usage of fired vs. laid off could vary from one industry to another. At one time Mad Ave was considered a cutthroat biz. The term 'fired' seemed to have little stigma as people moved rapidly around among the agencies.

In the UK, if you're fired then you have no entitlement to any remuneration apart from your pay up to the moment of your dismissal. If you are laid off or made redundant, then you are, at the very least entitled to your pay up to the end of your contract, plus redundancy pay at the statutory level (which depends on several factors, including the amount of time the redundant person has been employed).

Of course, most sensible organisations pay more than the minimum, even to those who have been fired, since this will help avoid the cost and hassle of redundacy tribunal hearings.