One CEO recently told us that the reason the company didn't want to call the loss of jobs a layoff is the employees weren't really laid off. The company just eliminated their jobs due to -- plug in your euphemism of choice here, such as optimizing the business structure, streamlining the workforce, realigning our resources, or rightsizing the company. Give us a break! If there were no layoffs, then are these "employees" now simply wandering around the building looking for a job that is now lost and hopefully will be found sometime in the future? No. Their butts are out the door.
A layoff is not a bad word. It is an uncomfortable one, that we will grant you, simply because when you are talking layoff, human lives and livelihoods are being affected. Families are affected. Futures are affected. There is nothing fun about job loss -- even when it is being done with dignity, compassion and for the right business reasons.
By definition, a layoff is a suspension or termination of employment (with or without notice) by the employer or management. It is that simple. And terminations hurt. We doubt anyone so affected is referring to his or her job loss by saying to friends and to SNEWS, "Hey, it's OK.... I was just rightsized you know. No big deal.... The company was optimizing its job structure and I was realigned." Nah, we don't think you'd hear that. So, for the rest of 2009 and into the future, let's talk straight about a topic that deserves straight talk. If an employee loses a job because of company restructuring, it's a layoff, OK?
Posts
