Xbox Is Not Your Friend
Xbox Is Not Your Friend
After laying off almost 2,000 people, Xbox finds itself in a position at odds with the community-first image it has cultivated for itself.
After laying off almost 2,000 people, Xbox finds itself in a position at odds with the community-first image it has cultivated for itself.
You're viewing a single thread.
"made redundant" is such a terrible euphemism. They were fired. Say it like it is.
It's not a euphemism; redundancy is legally different from being fired, with different protections, compensation, etc.
Thanks for the insight! I look at it from a European/German perspective and here that distinction doesn't really exist or doesn't really make a difference. TIL!
I don't know exactly how it works in the US (probably it varies by state), but to give an idea, in Canada employment can end typically in one of three ways: quitting, being fired, or being laid off. (Some other less common cases exist of course like long term injuries or medical issues etc.)
Generally being fired means it was somehow the employee's fault (anything from not being good enough at the job to being caught doing something actively wrong), while being laid off is due to lack of available work (when a business has to scale down, or dies completely). Laid-off workers can start collecting employment insurance almost immediately, and have certain rights to getting their job back if the company suddenly has work available again, among other things (i.e. it's not meant to be possible for employers to use layoffs as a way of getting rid of employees they can't or don't want to fire).
A fired employee can't get employment insurance as immediately since they're seen as at fault for their own job loss from a legal perspective, but if the firing was wrongful, then they might have legal recourse against their employer.
The US is again probably very different in details but the basic difference of employee-at-fault job loss vs the work no longer existing is essentially the same, I think.
It's pretty similar, but it does vary a lot by state.
For example, my state is an "at-will" employment state, which means employers can fire employees for pretty much any reason at any time, and employees can leave for any reason at any time, and the only restriction is if the reason is because of a protected characteristic (race, religion, etc). As long as the reason isn't provably due to a protected characteristic, an employer can end the agreement at any time. Other states require severance pay, notice, etc for anything that's not a breach of company policy, but my state does not, and those states could force the company to retain the employee if they violate some part of that agreement (though they don't have to allow the employee on company property).
But at least in my area, it's pretty similar to yours:
- layoff/downsizing/redundancy - you get unemployment, no expectation of rehire if financial situation at the company changes (you could apply again though)
- fired - no unemployment if you were fired for violation of company policy - social worker will verify w/ company
- quit - no unemployment - you'd basically need to sue the company to prove you left under duress or something
Well there is a distinction between the two though right? When you get fired, that's it. You just stop working there. Being made redundant you also get given X amount of extra pay depending on their policies and the laws of where they are to make up for the time that they may be unemployed between jobs.
Thanks for the insight! I look at it from a European/German perspective and here that distinction doesn't really exist or doesn't really make a difference. TIL!
It's also worth noting when companies combine there are many positions that are redundant as things are shuffled around, that is literally different then just laying off people because of company performance or w/e
I'd go even further: "They were fired so rich executives and shareholders could become more rich."
"Those freeloaders were eating from my profit pie!"
It's a crock of shit platitude too if you look at the statements from workers that are affected
It also shows they have no idea what they're doing. Redundancies are good for tech.
It’s not good in tech to have 2000 people employed who have nothing to do.
I agree with that. So the contracts made beforehand should reflect this and expire naturally rather than actively laying employees off.
Or is the title clickbait?If you need to fire a large number of employees then someone in management failed to manage.
You’re forgetting there was a merger. Jobs that were necessary when there were 2 separate companies are now not necessary when there is only 1 merged company.
Also it seems a large number of layoffs were for:
- blizzards survival game that was reportedly in development hell after 6 years of development
- the physical games department because Xbox is going all digital
Depends on the ratio to total employed. A team of 3000 with 2000 with nothing to do, for sure! 20,000 with 2000 as backups/currently learning the ropes? A bit more reasonable.
You don’t employ people as backups. What you do is you share knowledge across the existing people so there is no single point of failure.