Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rvnx 1488 days ago
I feel it's better to use "fired" or "have to leave your job" or "layoff" or "terminate the employment contract" than "let go".

Because "let go" is to "allow someone or something to escape or go free" so it implies that you are the owner of the employee and you allow him to leave, just like as an ultimate humiliation he has to have your permission to go.
2 comments
nowherebeen 1488 days ago
Fired means you did something wrong. Let go means you were let go of your job through no fault of your own.
link
nvrspyx 1488 days ago
Wouldn't the latter be layoff? I feel like let go can be used for either; a more polite way of saying "fired" or an alternative to "laid off".
link
nowherebeen 1488 days ago
It's an alternative to laid off I think. When I think of let go, I think more contract work or temp workers. They were let go, but they weren't laid off since they weren't permanent employees to begin with.
link
cortesoft 1488 days ago
"Let go" and "layoff" seem to be similar euphemisms. Why does it matter which one is used?
link
ryandrake 1488 days ago
Can we all agree that "impacted" is worse than both of those? It provides no clear information about what is actually happening, relying on the entire audience to make the "aha, we're being laid off" connection themselves. "Impacted" appeared five times, "Affected" once, but it was left to the recipients' imaginations to figure out what they were actually being impacted by. Finally, they get around to framing it as "not being offered a role in the new organization"--another euphemism. I mean, it's one thing to soften the message a little when bearing bad news, but "impacted" is softened to the point of uselessness. George Carlin had a bit[1] about this.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

link