[redmattred]

Being fired is usually the result of poor performance from the employee or violating company policies.

Being laid off happens when the company is performing poorly and isn't necessarily any fault of the individual employees.

[wayn3]

and whats the difference? how can you tell layoffs and firings apart?

[adamstober]

Thank you for asking. We Googled "layoffs vs firing", and got the following from Susan P. Joyce on Job-Hunt.org:

"Being laid off is NOT the same as being fired because it is not considered to be the fault of the employee. It is, actually, the fault of the employer. A layoff is often called a "reduction in force" or "down-sizing." ... This is often the reason that more highly-paid employees seem to be on the layoff candidate list."

Here's an article from Jan 2016 listing many VC-backed startups that laid employees off: https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/08/burn-slower-or-vaporize/

Here's a newer article from this year that also lists different VC-backed startups that laid people off: https://venturebeat.com/2017/01/14/early-layoffs-and-closure...

All the while, the tech scene and general economy have been growing. Layoffs in tech are a byproduct of the accelerated lifecycle of VC-fueled startups, leaving unsuspecting employees to unexpectedly look for a new job without having one, wasting valuable time and earning potential.

Existing job-search processes usually take months from kickoff to signing, as it takes time to both find the right fit and move through a company's various interview steps. Our platform will address the first problem by broadly circulating candidates to hiring startups that want to know about newly-available talent, and we address the second problem by incentivizing employers to compete on speed of interview process. If they don't, they'll simply lose these local, experienced candidates to some other firm.

Layoff-Aid only accepts candidates affected by layoffs from SF tech startups.

Let me know how I can clarify further.

[DrScump]

Unless a company is shutting down, the first to be laid off are (or are perceived to be by upper management) "poor performers".

[adamstober]

Would love to learn from data if you have any to back that up. From what we've seen, top reasons that determine who gets laid off include those who: 1) get paid well (the layoff is a desperate cost-cutting measure) 2) are randomly selected (the company is acknowledging that layoffs are not performance-related) 3) either got hired most recently or have most tenure (an attempt to reward longtime employees or respect those who just joined)

[adamstober]

There's also the "entire department" (often post-acquisition) rationale. In any case, your perception is pretty common, and that creates a hiring opportunity for savvy recruiters who know better and don't pre-judge.

[adamstober]

Here's today's example of an "entire department" layoff at SoundCloud: https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/06/soundcloud-the-youtube-for...

[wayn3]

the first to be laid off usually are local maxima - senior engineers who pull way more than their own weight but appear "expensive" due to seniority.

the first round of layoffs so often cripples a company because they make cuts on the wrong end of the performance spectrum.