@kidavenger said:
Most companies want to grow, having more employees generally means making more money, so the company is suffering when it lays people off, just not as much as the ex-employees are.
Exactly. This isn't a simple, "Fuck the 1%" kind of situation. No company ever wants to lay anyone off. The people that they're firing made them money, so they know that they are reducing their own profits for the near future. Also, not all, but most big companies offer severance to anyone fired like this. My dad worked for DuPont, was laid off in the early 90's, and he got $60,000. And he was a low level travelling salesman.
"Layoff" isn't some political way of actually just saying "We fired all of these people! Hahaha!". It specifically implies that a company has lost profits and can no longer pay all of their employees so they're forced to fire some to remain stable. It makes sense to have a word for that, and that word means the company is hurting.
I don't have a clue why you're talking about the word layoff..
The words in question are "Suffers" and "Hit", and beyond that, my post was about the passive tense used in the headlines, as if the layoffs just happened, rather than having been ordered.
Before Zynga "suffered" layoffs last month they spent 1 billion on acquisitions, so don't come crying to me about how massive companies are suffering. The majority of layoffs are due to restructuring, not companies being so tight in the budget they can't afford to keep employees, that's a completely different beast, and still not what the thread is about.
And not to hammer a nail in the coffin, but "No company ever wants to lay anyone off" is just crazy talk. Again, restructuring is the key word. :D
@geraltitude said:
PopCap Games didn't suffer layoffs as if they got caught in a hurricane, they did the laying off.
That sounds like you're imparting intent where there may not be, at least without more context. Of course, a title may not allow for as much context, so you go with language like this. It's still weird, since it frames the company as suffering from it (as opposed to the employees being laid off). Why not just, "200 Employees Laid Off at Microsoft Studios", for example?
That's a much better way of writing it. I don't understand what you mean about imparting intent though, sorry duder. PopCap actively laid off its employees, I dunno if that can be misinterpreted.. :S
Most companies want to grow, having more employees generally means making more money, so the company is suffering when it lays people off, just not as much as the ex-employees are.
This is very... linear. Most of the companies listed about oscillate between laying off hundreds and making hundred million - billion dollar acquisitions.
Microsoft Studios just didn't need to continue existing as it does now, hence the layoffs. Has nothing to do with financial difficulty or challenges or anything like that. Simply put, they had no reason for those people anymore. Only the employees are suffering in this scenario. :'(
Log in to comment