San Diego Union-Tribune lays off 178

Are you suggesting that, until now, reporting on the decimation of the media industry has been painted in a positive light?

 

I'm suggesting that media companies in general tend to accept the buzzspeak of the business industry by calling them "layoffs" instead of what they really are, which are "firings".

"Layoffs" used to imply that the job loss was temporary, as either in the company was going through financial issues and had to let people go, and that once the company was back on its feet, they would bring the workers back, or that there were seasonable operational procedures.

Nowadays, when "layoffs" happen, they're usually permanent. Which means that really, people are "fired" without cause.

But businesses don't want to say they fired 5,000 people. So they try to make it sound gentler, and the media companies play along.

 

Layoffs still are "temporary" in a lot of other industries. The difference is those industries WILL bounce back, while traditional media will NOT.

I don't think anyone thinks media job losses aren't permanent. And, I don't think the job losses will stop if you call them something else. You think calling them "firings" would make, for example, Gannett feel enough shame to keep people employed?

 

In some states (California I know for sure), there's a difference between a layoff and a firing for unemployment purposes. You don't necessarily get benefits if you're fired; if you're part of a Reduction In Force, though, it's automatic.

 

My former paper wouldn't use terminology such as "layoffs" in its reporting because it didn't run stories on its cutbacks at all. The editor's somewhat strange rationale was that he didn't want our bad news to turn into a media circus, with competitors picking up the story and reporting them inaccurately. That didn't work because the local alternative weekly's investigative editor had dozens of sources in our newsroom, and he'd write brutally accurate accounts of what was going on (without management buzzwords).

 

My understanding is that if, like you said, it's a layoff, it's automatic. If you're fired, you still get unemployment, but the employer can fight it and most big companies don't do that. A friend who was fired got unemployment and then found out later that his company was fighting it and was told that, basically, unless they can prove you committed fraud or got fired intentionally, that unemployment would continue. He won his case. It might be different state to state.

 

I do know that at some Gannett papers, certain people who were laid off/let go/downsized were the first people hired back when different spots opened up.

 

Of course not, but they, and other businesses (I'm not just referring to media companies here) do care about their image, which is why they do call them "layoffs" or "RIFs".

To put it another way: Did George Steinbrenner say he was laying off his managers (although in Billy Martin's case, it was kinda true), or did he say they were fired? He didn't care about his image, heck, he cultivated it. Yet a lot of companies don't want that image, which is why they avoid the term, "fired".

LTL's point is valid, although in most states, to not get unemployment, you have to be fired with cause. Which implies that you can be fired without cause. So "firing" isn't necessarily what it means when it comes to getting unemployment.

I doubt very much that using "firing" would change companies' minds on letting people go, but why let them cop out?

 

It's a lot nicer to the people involved to say they were laid off instead of fired. There's some psychology there aimed at the worker. And, in general perception at least if not in the dictionary, there's a big difference between the two.

"Fired" means "we think you are unfit for this job and we will commence efforts to find someone better than you."

"Laid off" is not a commentary on the person's job performance, but rather a recognition that the job itself no longer exists.

 

Because the person let go would rather tell potential future employers he was "laid off" or "downsized" than "fired."

 

Which is that person's choice. They have a stake in their choice of words.

The media, on the other hand, have no stake. They're just reporting.

 

That's great -- unless the potential future employer has read or heard a report that [INSERT MEDIA OUTLET HERE] has "fired" X number of employees.