[deleted]
I get the sentiment. But to me personally, “redundancy” is pretty clear and doesn’t mask the pain that comes with being let go. There’s also generally a difference between being “fired” and being “made redundant”. Redundancy suggests that their job doesn’t need to be done anymore b/c of a restructure, bankruptcy, merger, and the company needs to meet certain obligations for that redundancy not to be considered an “unfair dismissal”.
xantoxis@lemmy.world 7 months ago
ABCDE@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’s not the same thing so I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with commonly use and understand vocabulary. Being fired means there was a fault on the employees’ part, which isn’t true.
phonyphanty@pawb.social 7 months ago
I feel like we’re maybe getting confused about terminology here? “Redundancy” is a specific term for a specific form of dismissal. It’s not a euphemism for “firing” because firing someone is a different kind of dismissal. Terms like rightsizing, reset, re-allocating resources, trimming the fat – these are certainly euphemisms for redundancy that should be called out.
xkforce@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That distinction means jack shit to the people that are “made redundant” and everything to the people that have an interest in marketing this as anything other than someone losing their job.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
It does. Because being made redundant made you get a pay package when you lose your job. If you get fired, you get nothing.
iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world 7 months ago
This is a UK company, I am assuming you are basing your statement on US laws. www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/notice-periods states that you will get paid for X number of weeks depending on how long you have been in your job.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I am in the UK, so I’m basing it on what I know of the UK