The words used to describe layoffs...

• Microsoft Studios Suffers Layoffs
• Dead Rising 2 developer suffers layoffs
• PopCap Games suffers layoffs
• IGN Suffers Layoffs, 1UP, UGO and GameSpy to Close Down
• Report: Ghost Games UK Suffers Layoffs as Need for Speed Project Halted
• Sony Layoffs Hit Game and Distribution Studios
• Airtight Games hit with layoffs as part of 'necessary restructuring'
• Trion Worlds studios hit with substantial layoffs

The language used to describe layoffs is, to me, wildly hilarious.

Before you start crying foul, I'm not trying to make light of job losses, only the intensely passive language used to describe what happens when people are laid off.

What's bizarre about the wording is the implication that the layoffs are due to an unknown force. In all these cases we know who did the laying off, so why doesn't it say X company lays off employees from Y company. What's with the vagueries? It's such obvious political speak but what's it doing here?

PopCap Games didn't suffer layoffs as if they got caught in a hurricane, they did the laying off.

It's not exclusive to this industry, but this industry reports layoffs more than most. Google "suffer layoff" and "hit layoff" and you will get pages of videogame company layoffs with sporadic public sector news (hospitals mostly, which is pretty sad).

So why do we talk about job loss like this?

Most companies want to grow, having more employees generally means making more money, so the company is suffering when it lays people off, just not as much as the ex-employees are.

That sounds like you're imparting intent where there may not be, at least without more context. Of course, a title may not allow for as much context, so you go with language like this. It's still weird, since it frames the company as suffering from it (as opposed to the employees being laid off). Why not just, "200 Employees Laid Off at Microsoft Studios", for example?

Because of political correctness. They want to tell you something as safe as possible so no one can be offended by it.

my immediate thought is that maybe they're talking as if the company has lost something (a person) of value, so they are losing part of what potentially makes them great. I'd say you are right that it is their decision and it comes from them

Makes me wonder what's really happening behind the scenes.

Eh, it's no "police baffled".

Exactly. This isn't a simple, "Fuck the 1%" kind of situation. No company ever wants to lay anyone off. The people that they're firing made them money, so they know that they are reducing their own profits for the near future. Also, not all, but most big companies offer severance to anyone fired like this. My dad worked for DuPont, was laid off in the early 90's, and he got $60,000. And he was a low level travelling salesman.

"Layoff" isn't some political way of actually just saying "We fired all of these people! Hahaha!". It specifically implies that a company has lost profits and can no longer pay all of their employees so they're forced to fire some to remain stable. It makes sense to have a word for that, and that word means the company is hurting.

Because the enthusiast press are enthusiasts whose entire raison d'etre is directly related to the economic growth of the video game industry.

I don't have a clue why you're talking about the word layoff..

The words in question are "Suffers" and "Hit", and beyond that, my post was about the passive tense used in the headlines, as if the layoffs just happened, rather than having been ordered.

Before Zynga "suffered" layoffs last month they spent 1 billion on acquisitions, so don't come crying to me about how massive companies are suffering. The majority of layoffs are due to restructuring, not companies being so tight in the budget they can't afford to keep employees, that's a completely different beast, and still not what the thread is about.

And not to hammer a nail in the coffin, but "No company ever wants to lay anyone off" is just crazy talk. Again, restructuring is the key word. :D

That's a much better way of writing it. I don't understand what you mean about imparting intent though, sorry duder. PopCap actively laid off its employees, I dunno if that can be misinterpreted.. :S

This is very... linear. Most of the companies listed about oscillate between laying off hundreds and making hundred million - billion dollar acquisitions.

Microsoft Studios just didn't need to continue existing as it does now, hence the layoffs. Has nothing to do with financial difficulty or challenges or anything like that. Simply put, they had no reason for those people anymore. Only the employees are suffering in this scenario. :'(

Like they intended to do that, rather than circumstances ultimately forcing them (or not leaving a lot of options).

Oh I see what you mean now.

That's actually kind of too deep to answer, not to be lamely philosophical. But here's an example:

You're PopCap. You have 1000 employees. You realize you can:

A) Fire 500 employees and buy Company X which has Y desirably IP, most likely increasing your revenue by 5% or more

or

B) Keep the 1000, keep your head down and try to make more successful games and get that 5% boost you want

I don't think this scenario falls in to them being forced to do something or not having lots of options. They did what they believed was best for business.

Zynga recently laid off 314 employees, then turned around the next day and spent 512 million buying NaturalMotion.

This was a smart purchase. But Zynga wouldn't have vanished had it kept the employees. So what I'm trying to say is the reasons for layoffs are pretty complex, and I'm not daming companies for laying off employees because they believe it is the path to success.

I just find the tone of the headlines bizarre and detached.

Companies don't ever want to do mass layoffs but when the numbers don't work in your favor the payroll is the first thing looked at to make budget cuts so yes the company in question is probably suffering.

@geraltitude:

In those cases, you probably could "write" intent into the headline (for lack of better phrasing). I guess it's one of those case-by-case affairs.

On the tone thing, I can see what you mean. Those headlines treat the companies like people rather than, you know, the people.

I guess it might sound crazy if you pretend that the success of a business and the success of its employees are two different things.

Consider your Zynga example. Say they fire 500 and keep 500, then spend a bunch to try and grow again. Those remaining 500 now have a better chance of keeping their jobs.

If they keep all 1000, yeah they could spend the remaining cash on them, and then give them a warm farewell when all 1000 get laid off because Zynga as it was is no longer profitable. You say, "...Zynga wouldn't have vanished had it kept the employees.", but you have absolutely no idea if that's true.

The "suffering" that irks you so much seems to be because you think they're talking about how we should feel bad for the rich CEO's who had no choice other than to get rid of innocent people. They're not. The suffering is born by all of the employees. When a company does poorly, it's bad for everyone involved.

(Not to mention that just grammatically the word is being used in a different sense than "Undergoing strife, pain". In these headlines it's used more as, "To be impaired, damaged".)

I'm sorry, no one isever going to make me believe that Zynga and PopCap are always at the edge of death's door and only lay people off when it's 100% about survival. Business is not evil, but business =/ survival.

The decision to buy NaturalMotion and axe 300 people is a long term one. And yes, I did now Zynga wasn't going to up and vanish the next day because I tend to follow them closely. They didn't do poorly. That's not why anyone was laidoff. In my post to VGK I said I think Zynga made the smart decision, and in the end it is absolutely a positive for their remaining/new employees.

I'm very confused by the end of your post, but you're not the only person reading me as anti-corporation - must be Americans! :D :D :D

I didn't pick "Suffering" and "Hit" because I find them to hurt my tiny feelings or because I'm all Oh! EVIL CEOS!

Not at all.

Read the headlines again. They are all passive and move any blame outside the phrase, whether or not a third part was involved.

Zynga was not hit by layoffs. Zynga laid off 300 of their employees.

PopCap did not suffer layouffs. PopCap laid off 500 of their employees.

All I am interested in is this passive tone.

Sheesh.

"Down sizing" is a funny term.

On a side note, I recalled in a recent article Sony mentioned they cut back on Sony Liverpool. I thought that was closed but they worked on the Sony Playroom.

I guess it's just comes across as the most neutral/uninflammatory way of describing the situation.

I'm not sure why we would imply blame on the company in layoffs. That would be unnecessarily aggressive.

@audiobusting said:

Not blame, responsibility.

@geraltitude:

Simply put, because layoffs are supposedly involuntary on management's part due to low sales, low proftitability etc. In other words external forces happened to company forcing the layoff. That's the idea anyway.

The problem is management of course pretends everything is a layoff, when far too often just salary dumping greed to line management's pockets (or wall street;s) or they just want to downsize for some reason (in your Zynga example perhaps to eliminate redundancy due to the naturalmotion acquisition). But yeah the term layoff is used as a convenient way to deflect blame regardless of the situation.

Could it partly be that when journos talk about companies "suffering" layoffs, they aren't looking at the company as being the people at the top, but as the entire business, so when they refer to "irrational" they aren't referring to Ken Levine, but everyone from Ken Levine to their lowliest QA Intern.

I suppose another reason is just that you can't have a headline saying "Company x suffers economic circumstances possibly of their own making which lead to them having to lay people off" which I think is sort of what you're saying?

Sidenote: My SO works in HR at a fairly large insurance company. Around the time she started they were having a bad year and had to lay people off, which they did under the banner of "project simplify" which always sounded terribly callous to me (even though in a lot of ways it's not the worst company to be laid off from).