this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
136 points (89.5% liked)

Games

16696 readers
739 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
136
Xbox Is Not Your Friend (www.kotaku.com.au)
submitted 9 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/games@sh.itjust.works
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bobbytables@feddit.de 27 points 9 months ago (5 children)

"made redundant" is such a terrible euphemism. They were fired. Say it like it is.

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's not a euphemism; redundancy is legally different from being fired, with different protections, compensation, etc.

[–] bobbytables@feddit.de 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] Thalfon@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

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
[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] bobbytables@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

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

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd go even further: "They were fired so rich executives and shareholders could become more rich."

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 9 months ago

"Those freeloaders were eating from my profit pie!"

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's a crock of shit platitude too if you look at the statements from workers that are affected