Hacker News Reader

Comment by bostonvaulter2 | Hacker News Reader

Is there something inherently wrong with firing "low performers" rather than laying them off?

Question is whether they are actually "low performers", or just culled as most of the staff became unnecessary and legalisms lead to one choice of euphemism over another.

Well, generally speaking "firing" reduces the amount of unemployment insurance you get, while a layoff gets you the full amount. So an employer that shrouds a layoff in a firing is screwing the employee twice.

I generally think that the employer should have a very high bar on proving that it was performance based when you are laying off significant % of the workforce at one time. Every time I was involved in an employee firing, it happened out of phase with the typical performance review cycle, and it was typically one person at a time.

> "firing" reduces the amount of unemployment insurance you get

Could you describe how this works? Do you get unemployment for a longer period of time or larger payments if you were laid off?

severance pay is given out for layoffs and not firings. It always seemed like a weird system to me b/c if you're laying people off, you're probably already strapped for cash - so you'd try to find an excuse to fire the person.

Yes and no... if your fiscal management is that shoddy that severance is a problem, you're beyond screwed as a company. The idea is that "Well, we're running down our funds, best to get these people out the door now with x month's salary, rather than hope something turns around in x+y months."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com