[robertoandred]

lays off*

Layoff is not a verb.

[Karellen]

Verbing weirds language - but in a good way.

https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/verbing-weirds-langu...

[happytoexplain]

I appreciate verbing, but I don't think this is what happened when the user submitted the (now corrected) title. Not on purpose, anyway. I think what happened is a confusion between "lay off" and "layoff" (which also happens between "log in" and "login", "set up" and "setup", etc).

There's no motivation to verbify "layoff", since the verb version already exists and is very close ("lay off").

[syrrim]

You could read it as "disney layoffs: 7000 people", I guess.

[Syonyk]

The world you're looking for is "Fires."

"Disney Fires 7000 People."

Not "Lays off," "Let go," "Set free to chase their dreams," or whatever other euphemism you care to find. "Fired" is the word, and it's a perfectly good one to use, unless you're a PR flunky trying to tiptoe and weasel word around what just happened.

[toast0]

Firing and laying off are different things. You're fired if you're more or less at fault (misconduct, not meeting goals, not doing the job requirements, failing a drug test, violating policies, etc, etc); you're laid off if the position is being eliminated.

Sometimes there's a little bit of both; when you eliminate 7000 positions, you may or may not consider recent performance reviews while you're doing it. Sometimes the employer doesn't want to go through the process of firing for cause, so they claim it's a lay-off, etc. But there's a difference.

Layoff is better than the Britishism "made redundant" anyway. The action to make someone's position redundant generally happens at a different time as when the position is declared to be redundant. A merger may make many people's positions redundant, but they won't generally be laid off until a later time when their position is declared redundant.

[galaxytachyon]

Personally, layoff carries the connotation that it is not the employee's fault while "fired" means the employee's performance was the cause.

Depend on the context, it may make a difference.

[brokencode]

There’s an important difference between getting fired and getting laid off.

A layoff is usually due to overall company performance or outlook, and doesn’t necessarily reflect badly on the employee.

Getting fired outside of a layoff could mean a lot of things, such as poor performance or inappropriate behavior.

It’s more accurate in this case to use layoff.

[glitchc]

Firing means at fault. Layoff is not at fault. For an employee collecting EI or looking for another job, the distinction between the two makes a world of difference.

[r00fus]

Words matter for legal details like, getting unemployment insurance and stuff. You don’t get UI payments if you’re fired. You do if you’re laid off.

[wendyshu]

It's not a euphemism, it means they get severance

[woah]

Language is constantly evolving and changing. The hubris required to think that you, as an HN commenter, can stop that must be immense.

[happytoexplain]

There is a deep hypocrisy in using such a dramatic insult about hubris to describe what is merely a person pointing out a (now corrected) grammatical mistake in a headline (which may or may not be in the process of evolving to no longer be a grammatical mistake, but as of now it's still pretty obviously wrong to say "Disney layoffs 7000 people").