“redundancy” is pretty clear and doesn’t mask the pain that comes with being let go
The whole point of this euphemism is to mask the pain.
And “facing redundancy” doesn’t even make sense. People can keep jobs that are “redundant”, this is only a meaningful event if they become “redundant” and then are fired. In fact, if two people have the same job, they are both redundant. Why even write a headline about that until you’ve chosen one of the two to get rid of? And yet, they did write a headline, because people being fired is a newsworthy event. People being “redundant” is not.
This is not merely a semantic argument. They are choosing to phrase it this way because they don’t like the taste of the word “fired” but they can’t avoid making some kind of announcement about it. I will not give them cover, I will demand that they say what they mean. This phrasing is cowardly.
It’s not the same thing so I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with commonly use and understood vocabulary. Being fired means there was a fault on the employees’ part, which isn’t true.
I feel like we’re maybe getting confused about terminology here? “Redundancy” is a specific term for a specific form of dismissal. It’s not a euphemism for “firing” because firing someone is a different kind of dismissal. Terms like rightsizing, reset, re-allocating resources, trimming the fat – these are certainly euphemisms for redundancy that should be called out.
The whole point of this euphemism is to mask the pain.
And “facing redundancy” doesn’t even make sense. People can keep jobs that are “redundant”, this is only a meaningful event if they become “redundant” and then are fired. In fact, if two people have the same job, they are both redundant. Why even write a headline about that until you’ve chosen one of the two to get rid of? And yet, they did write a headline, because people being fired is a newsworthy event. People being “redundant” is not.
This is not merely a semantic argument. They are choosing to phrase it this way because they don’t like the taste of the word “fired” but they can’t avoid making some kind of announcement about it. I will not give them cover, I will demand that they say what they mean. This phrasing is cowardly.
It’s not the same thing so I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with commonly use and understood vocabulary. Being fired means there was a fault on the employees’ part, which isn’t true.
I feel like we’re maybe getting confused about terminology here? “Redundancy” is a specific term for a specific form of dismissal. It’s not a euphemism for “firing” because firing someone is a different kind of dismissal. Terms like rightsizing, reset, re-allocating resources, trimming the fat – these are certainly euphemisms for redundancy that should be called out.