Talk:Layoff/Archives/2012

Comment
While i may agree with some of the points, i challenge the neutrality of this article.

I'd also note that this article is probably redundant with some of our other economics articles. Honestly, it reads like it was written to express anger over being downsized. Pakaran 20:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

UK english
I was watching the BBC2 show, The Office, and noticed they did not use the word 'layoff' or 'downsizing', but instead used 'redundencies'. I do not know enough about this usage to add to the article, but feel a sentence or two mentioning this would make the article more global. --Andrew c 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Redundancy (law). Richard W.M. Jones 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't believe this was the nearest I could get to 'redundancy'! No one talks of 'lay-offs' anymore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.43.186 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to Layoff?
Currently Downsizing is the main entry; Layoff redirects to it. Because "Downsizing is a euphemism" I think the article should be moved to Layoff (layoff has no history so this move should not require any admin assistence). Any suggestions or objections? Ewlyahoocom 10:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I found this article by searching for lay-off.

Limited geographic scope
I'm tagging this article for limited geographic scope. Comments? --Smithfarm 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a worldwide view? In what way? Could there be more of a description of the concern?--Dreaded Walrus 20:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Limited meaning
The article completely misses the meaning of Downsizing as used to denote the substitution of heavy centralized computing machinery by lesser equipment such as minis, or (more frequently) by networked or stand-alone PCs. It is lacking not only in geographic scope, but in meaning as well. --AVM (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged
I've merged together a number of articles including most of those mentioned above. I think it's a lot better now and deals with most of the concerns raised here. I'm not sure what to do with the RIF abbreviations though, are they that important? If not the content could be rewritten, merged into the rest of the article. Ewlyahoocom 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Streamlining
Why does Streamlining a corporate business term lead to downsizing, granted downsizing is often a side effect of streamlining but it is not synonymious with layoffs or downsizing

Streamlining leads to downsizing which leads to layoff's thats just wrong


 * Agreed, I also found that "efficiency expert" redirects here. WTF???

Too many inserts at beginning
It makes the article not worth reading because it causes the pereception that the article is incorrect in some manner. Remove ASAP.

Efficiency expert
A search for "efficiency expert" automatically redirected me to this page. This has nothing to do with efficiency experts. I don't know how to fix it. DFurlani 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Efficiency expert now redirects to Ergonomics. jnestorius(talk) 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So-called "efficiency experts" are notorious for being brought in to initiate layoffs. For examples, Desk Set or Office Space or The Efficiency Expert. This aspect is not covered at Ergonomics. Ewlyahoocom 02:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy
The article is mainly about redundancy rather than Lay off, although Redundancy (law) redirects here. Needs a bit of radical editing by someone who udnderstands the legal definition of these terms in English speaking coutries.Billlion 09:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC) what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.21.103 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy Pay
As a Brit wanting to know about SRP (Statutory Redundancy Pay) I entered "Redundancy pay" and was redirected to "Layoff". If I must be redirected to a vague US equivalent of what I'm actually looking for, "Severance Package" would seem to be the nearest Americo-centric equivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmackematix (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncredited Quotes Need to be Fixed
It seems that much of this article (particularly the intro and the "Unemployment Compensation" section) was cut and pasted directly out of several papers, including Wilkinson. Is there a subject matter expert around that can start completely over, or can we at least send this back to stub so we don't have unquoted quotes in the article?

Jminthorne (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Engine downsizing
Whether en.wikipedia.org is really US related, I don't know. But as a European, typing "downsizing" and being redirected to this page is disturbing, to say the least.

The word, "downsizing", by itself, has been related for quite a few years now in Europe to the "art" of manufacturing engines such as:


 * their peak horsepower is the same,
 * their peak torque is the same,
 * but their displacement is far less,
 * and as a consequence, for the same peak hp and torque, their mileage is MUCH better.

This has been an ongoing trend for years in Europe, particularly with the Volkswagen group: their (now retired) turbocharged 1.8l engine was a benchmark, producing as much as 225bhp and 280 Nm torque in the previous Audi TT (I don't know the revs for these peaks these could be found easily enough with a little research), and more recently the fifth generation Golf was sold with a 1.4l engine producing 240Nm of torque and 170 hp - and this is a 1.4l!

The above examples are limited to only one engine type (gasoline engine) and one manufacturer (Volkswagen), but there are more: look at Fiat (the Bravo has a downsized petrol engine), BMW (the Cooper S has a downsized petrol engine), BMW again (the 335i is a 3.0l with a turbocharger, with the peak horsepower and torque of a normally aspirated V8). And, if we switch to Diesel engines, look at BMW again (535d and 335d, 123d), Mercedes (C 250 CDI), Opel/Vauxhall (Insigna Diesel), and so on.

Downsizing SHOULD point to this technology trend, not to an obscure economical trend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.20.157.58 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

General talking of Downsizing ‘Survivors’ are the employees who manage to keep their job after the downsizing process of the organization. The downsizing process of the organisation depends or its effectiveness could be seen on how the survivors of this process react. Many times it happens that survivors who have been relocated or had their immediate work situation changed in terms of assigned work tasks and perceived obligations may react differently compared to survivors whose work situation is more or less the same as before the downsizing process. Employees who have been subject not only to the stress of potential job loss but also experience changes in job content, obligations and responsibilities, may perceive a higher level of uncertainty and tension in the work situation as compared with survivors who remain in their old familiar jobs. However, the most affected individuals by the downsizing are those who lose their jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.128 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

General talking of Downsizing
‘Survivors’ are the employees who manage to keep their job after the downsizing process of the organization. The downsizing process of the organisation depends or its effectiveness could be seen on how the survivors of this process react. Many times it happens that survivors who have been relocated or had their immediate work situation changed in terms of assigned work tasks and perceived obligations may react differently compared to survivors whose work situation is more or less the same as before the downsizing process. Employees who have been subject not only to the stress of potential job loss but also experience changes in job content, obligations and responsibilities, may perceive a higher level of uncertainty and tension in the work situation as compared with survivors who remain in their old familiar jobs. However, the most affected individuals by the downsizing are those who lose their jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.128 (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Euphemisms
Currently, a lot of the article is spent listing euphemisms (alleged or true). This, IMO, brings little value and wastes space. Further, many of the alleged euphemisms are, in fact, perfectly valid expressions that are not "used to 'soften the blow'" (in the words of the current article), but can be used for more precise meaning, to indicate a way of thinking, or similar. Why e.g. would "workforce reduction" be a euphemism for "layoff"? By analogy: Why would "myocardial infarction" be a euphemism for "heart attack"?

(Not to deny that this terms may often be abused as euphemisms or for other rhetorical purposes.)

I suggest that the euphemisms are thrown out. If needed, they can be mentioned as examples on the entry for euphemisms. 88.77.131.54 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

recussion
While hilarious, is there any evidence in any source anywhere that anyone has ever has used this word to refer to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.127.97 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Early retirement
Isn't "quit now yet still remain eligible for their retirement benefits later" usually called a retirement bridge? "Early retirement" is something different, getting retirement benefits now for which you wouldn't normally be eligible yet. Not R (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)