[ysofunny]

kudos for giving out an actual number of humans fired.

instead of the usual, de-humanizing percent of employees usually given

[MarkusQ]

Percentages may be "de-humanizing" but they are much better for understanding the relevance and severity of layoffs. If your local bakery lets 20 people go it's much more likely to be a sign of significant issues with the business than if Apple lays off twenty people (which wouldn't even be news).

In fact, when reading news stories you should _always_ look for the denominator (and be on guard when it isn't provided), lest you be mislead by emotionally framed numbers floating in the void.

[taf2]

I kind of wish they did both... percentages are more helpful in understanding the impact (in this case to the company). But you're right in the case of layoffs a count is more meaningful... although i'd argue whether it's 1 or more the impact to the individual is the same and usually very negative.

[muwtyhg]

The article says this is an estimate based on an "about 10%" figure:

> Implied was that they would be doing this without the help of an undisclosed number of newly former employees. That number has been guesstimated at around ten percent of the workforce – about 12,500 people – as part of an effort to get the overall workforce from 120,000 to below 100,000.

[nolok]

Depends on who they're talking to.

For press release or to investors, the percent is the number that matters.

To the internal communication to the employee losing their jobs or those that have to keep the torch going, the number is usually better.

With that said, seems like it's part of a larger downsizing plan: "That number has been guesstimated at around ten percent of the workforce – about 12,500 people – as part of an effort to get the overall workforce from 120,000 to below 100,000."

[denotes]

Note that these are layoffs not firings. The fault is with the employer, not the employee, and exit packages generally reflect this.

[SkyPuncher]

It largely doesn’t matter to most people. It’s a gap.

When an employer has a choice, they almost always take the gapless candidate.

[scblock]

A semantic difference only. They were "made redundant", "let go", "laid off", "fired", "terminated", and any other set of convenient choices.

[dgfitz]

The first 3 give severance, the last two do not.

There is an enormous difference.

[AceyMan]

Not so. Being included in a RIF (reduction in force) is legally different than getting fired. Ask anyone who knows anything about corporate HR.

[xnx]

I'm not finding any legal difference in the US. What difference do you know of?

[dgfitz]

If you're fired with cause, no severance, else, severance. It is quite common knowledge.

[xnx]

This may be convention, but it is not law. No federal or state law requires severance pay in the US.

[datavirtue]

Unemployment insurance.

[myth_drannon]

At least they didn't label the laid off employees as low performers like Intuit did.

[triceratops]

How is a count more "humanizing" than a percentage? They're both numbers.

[amy-petrik-214]

I agree. 10 is 10% of 100, 1,000,000 is 10% of 10,000,000. They're mathematically equivalent. Why do I care if it's 10 people, or 10,000,000 people, or if it's just quoted as 10%? These are all abstract numbers, numbers are not matters of humanity.