More layoff spin -- sigh

A recent press release from Nike is an absolute award-winner for the utilization of hyperbole and spin in an attempt, it appears, to soft-pedal hard truth -- as many as 1,400 people may be out of a job by year's end.

"NIKE, Inc. (NYSE:NKE) today announced the next stage of its category business model execution, which includes the restructuring of its business to further enhance its consumer focus and drive innovation more quickly to market. This realignment will drive greater efficiencies throughout the organization and may result in an overall reduction of up to four percent of the company’s workforce. NIKE, Inc. employs nearly 35,000 people worldwide."

It might be useful, here, to provide a "keeping it real" translation by SNEWS® of the above soft-shoe dance around the word "'layoff:"

"...includes the restructuring of its business to further enhance its consumer focus..." = "We are not selling enough product "

"...drive innovation more quickly to market..." = "We need to quickly come up with more expensive gizmoes and gadgets to sell."

"This realignment will drive greater efficiencies throughout the organization..." = "We will find more ways than you could possibly imagine to get fewer people to do the same work for no extra pay. And yes, we're going to need you all to come in on Saturday to complete those TPS reports."

"...and may result in an overall reduction of up to four percent of the company’s workforce." = "We expect to layoff people."

This press release could have been a whole lot cleaner if Nike had simply stated, "Due to a challenging economy, we are taking a close look at our current business model with an eye to reducing jobs and costs that in our analysis do not directly contribute to selling more Nike product to more people." Yeah, we know, that would not be PC , but the challenging economy isn't exactly a secret.

Can we just call a layoff for what it is -- a layoff?

When did the word "layoff" become such a dirty word? Downsizing, rightsizing, headcount adjustment, reduction in force, realignment of resources, optimizing -- we've heard all the euphemisms from CEOs, CFOs, and other company executives, all seeking to duck the obvious simple fact -- someone lost a job.

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?