dasanman69
About
- Username
- dasanman69
- Joined
- Visits
- 95
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 435
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 13,002
Reactions
-
Apple investigated, took action against alleged sexism at Cupertino headquarters
tallest skil said:dasanman69 said:All written by misogynistic white men. Of course they're going to write something that proves them right and everyone else wrong.
Of course. -
Apple investigated, took action against alleged sexism at Cupertino headquarters
tallest skil said:paxman said:Rape culture, male dominance and bigotry are all… -
Apple investigated, took action against alleged sexism at Cupertino headquarters
Roxy Balboa said:Much ado about nothing. If you are so hyper-sensitive you shouldn't be working. Take whatever your new slave master - democrat party overlord - throws your way and be happy. -
FBI sued to divulge info on San Bernardino iPhone 5c encryption hack
pigybank said:Interesting choice of calling this a mass shooting rather than terrorist attack. Of course is was both, but interesting nonetheless AI. -
Apple fires dozens of Project Titan employees as autonomous car initiative shifts to underlying tec
anonconformist said:Soli said:anonconformist said:I hate it when people call people being let go "firing" when the people being "fired" have merely been let go due to business reasons, or things that aren't their fault.
At least in the US, being "fired" means it had something to do with your performance or something you clearly did wrong: there is a requirement that the employee was not fulfilling their end of the deal as they should, as an employee, whether it's poor performance, dishonesty/insubordination or theft or something else.
When a company lets someone go for business reasons (a change of plans, financial reasons, anything that has nothing to do with the affected employee other than the fact that they get let go) that's called a layoff.
The reason these terms are important to get correct is because this affects how readily ex-employees can be rehired, as well as their ability (depending on the state) to collect unemployment benefits, long-term. It's not remotely fair to say "so-and-so got fired from XYZ company." when it had nothing to do with their behavior: that puts a black mark on that person because you were careless and/or stupid. The facts are that companies make business decisions to pivot towards something else, either because of lack of money to pursue something, perhaps because they think they have some better use of their resources, or they conclude that what they were working towards just won't work out as well as intended, so it's simply time to pull the plug. Companies would ideally repurpose employees towards some other project rather than letting them go, but we don't live in an ideal world; if this were absolutely required of companies, people would be employed far beyond what makes sense for either the company or the employees, and the company would be financially more susceptible to things going wrong and not being able to reduce expenses, which would also result in even less job security overall for employees. I say this as someone that has been laid off from multiple places through no fault of my own, and yes, I've been fired at least once in my history: it is what it is.
For those that have been fired, they'd want "fired" to be a distinction without a difference from being let go through no fault of their own: for those that have not been fired, but laid off (i.e. employment terminated through no fault of their own) it's a very important distinction with a HUGE difference that affects their ability to potentially collect unemployment benefits immediately, and potentially future employment.
Precision in how things are used matters. What's used in the real world for how things are decided matters far more than some arbitrary dictionary or some other silly academic thing. Words can be destructive when used incorrectly.