Redundancy is very different to being fired though. When you're fired you just lose your job and that's it. If you get made redundant, you lose your job but get paid X amount of months worth of wages to make up for the fact you may be jobless for a while, while you look for a new one. X being different depending on both the countries laws and the company's policies. But usually it increases the longer you've been with the company.

[–] phonyphanty@pawb.social 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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".

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It does. Because being made redundant means you get a pay package when you lose your job. If you get fired, you get nothing.

[–] iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The article states the layoffs will affect the UK division and EU division, I am assuming you are basing your statement on US laws. https://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 4 points 9 months ago

I am in the UK, so I'm basing it on what I know of the UK