After laying off almost 2,000 people, Xbox finds itself in a position at odds with the community-first image it has cultivated for itself.

  • MurrayL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s not a euphemism; redundancy is legally different from being fired, with different protections, compensation, etc.

    • bobbytables@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Thanks for the insight! I look at it from a European/German perspective and here that distinction doesn’t really exist or doesn’t really make a difference. TIL!

      • Thalfon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t know exactly how it works in the US (probably it varies by state), but to give an idea, in Canada employment can end typically in one of three ways: quitting, being fired, or being laid off. (Some other less common cases exist of course like long term injuries or medical issues etc.)

        Generally being fired means it was somehow the employee’s fault (anything from not being good enough at the job to being caught doing something actively wrong), while being laid off is due to lack of available work (when a business has to scale down, or dies completely). Laid-off workers can start collecting employment insurance almost immediately, and have certain rights to getting their job back if the company suddenly has work available again, among other things (i.e. it’s not meant to be possible for employers to use layoffs as a way of getting rid of employees they can’t or don’t want to fire).

        A fired employee can’t get employment insurance as immediately since they’re seen as at fault for their own job loss from a legal perspective, but if the firing was wrongful, then they might have legal recourse against their employer.

        The US is again probably very different in details but the basic difference of employee-at-fault job loss vs the work no longer existing is essentially the same, I think.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s pretty similar, but it does vary a lot by state.

          For example, my state is an “at-will” employment state, which means employers can fire employees for pretty much any reason at any time, and employees can leave for any reason at any time, and the only restriction is if the reason is because of a protected characteristic (race, religion, etc). As long as the reason isn’t provably due to a protected characteristic, an employer can end the agreement at any time. Other states require severance pay, notice, etc for anything that’s not a breach of company policy, but my state does not, and those states could force the company to retain the employee if they violate some part of that agreement (though they don’t have to allow the employee on company property).

          But at least in my area, it’s pretty similar to yours:

          • layoff/downsizing/redundancy - you get unemployment, no expectation of rehire if financial situation at the company changes (you could apply again though)
          • fired - no unemployment if you were fired for violation of company policy - social worker will verify w/ company
          • quit - no unemployment - you’d basically need to sue the company to prove you left under duress or something