"Laid off" vs. "fired" vs. "terminated" in New Jersey (unemployment benefits, law)

[diorgirl]

There's been a lot of discussion in the New Jersey unemployment benefits threads here about eligibility for the most recent extensions following Tiers I and II (the latest EB and the yet-to-be-announced TUC) being based on the circumstances surrounding the way you departed from your last job.

I found this legal explanation of the terms "layoff," "fired," and "terminated" as used in new Jersey at NJ - lay off or termination? [Archive] - Labor Law Talk

Thought it might be of interest to some of us grappling with these terms as used by Unemployment!

"Loss of job is intended to be temporary and employee may reasonably expect to be recalled - layoff.

"Loss of job is intended to be permanent and employee has no reasonable expectation of being recalled - fired.

"Fired is NOT a synonym for 'bad employee' despite what many people think. But the fact remains that if you're the most excellent employee in the world, you walk on water, you have skills up the yin-yang, you have a spotless record without so much as a one-minute tardy, but your employer is having business difficulties and can't afford to keep you on and there's no reasonable expectation that he will ever be able to return you to work, face it, you've been fired.

"Employee no longer works for the company no matter what the reason - termination. There are involuntary termination and voluntary terminations. If you quit, that's a voluntary termination. If your employer instigates the end of employment, no matter what the reason, that's an involuntary termination."

[joe moving]

To me fired means you were a bad employee. How many people get laid off and expect to get recalled?

[SilkCity0416]

^^^

That isn't always the case. I've know plenty of people who were model employess, and they've been fired for little to no reason. Usually, this happens at retail jobs.

As for being laid off, if you're not recalled, you've been canned.

[CaptainNJ]

does a "reasonable expectation of being recalled" matter with regards to unemployment? so long as you are terminated without cause, you should qualify i believe. i consider it a "layoff" if we terminate someone due to a lack of work. typically, it is unlikely they will be recalled (im sure that varies a lot company to company).

just thought of an example. i have a position that is soon becoming obsolete. i have 2 employees performing that task. when the position becomes obsolete (estimate 1-2 months) we will terminate those employees'. i would consider that a layoff. i dont do the unemployment stuff so im no expert, i am sometimes involved in the discussions though.

[diorgirl]

Originally Posted by diorgirl

I found this legal explanation of the terms "layoff," "fired," and "terminated" as used in new Jersey at NJ - lay off or termination? [Archive] - Labor Law Talk

Thought it might be of interest to some of us grappling with these terms as used by Unemployment!

Nobody ever said that legal definitions reflect the "feelings" of the people -- or reality! LOL!

I just posted this to give us a sense of the terms as defined legally. I agree that "fired" and "terminated" still have very negative connotations in the real world -- and that "layoff" is not currently interpreted as suggesting an eventual recall to the job.

[diorgirl]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

does a "reasonable expectation of being recalled" matter with regards to unemployment? so long as you are terminated without cause, you should qualify i believe. i consider it a "layoff" if we terminate someone due to a lack of work. typically, it is unlikely they will be recalled (im sure that varies a lot company to company).

In another thread, someone posted that in order to be considered eligible for EB unemployment benefits (the third level of extensions), he was told that he had to have been laid off. Any other kind of termination would disqualify him. So far, the only responses to that posting have been anecdotal -- people sharing what happened in their individual cases. I think a lot of this confusion arises from (1) the ambiguous way in which the unemployment benefit extension qualifications are written; and (2) what sems to be some inconsistency in the manner in which those eligibility qualifications are being applied (or the understanding of individuals of how they have been applied).

[revelated]

Your definitions might have applied a few decades ago, but not now. Now, we see people get let go for whatever reason - downsizing, finances, etc - and the company has no intentions to hire them back. Not because they were a bad employee necessarily, but because they see the value in just hiring some inexperienced kid for a fraction of the pay to do the same job. That's what got Circuit City in trouble, but they did it, and a lot of companies do it. IMO, those people got fired. Not laid off.

[diorgirl]

Originally Posted by revelated

Your definitions might have applied a few decades ago, but not now. Now, we see people get let go for whatever reason - downsizing, finances, etc - and the company has no intentions to hire them back. Not because they were a bad employee necessarily, but because they see the value in just hiring some inexperienced kid for a fraction of the pay to do the same job. That's what got Circuit City in trouble, but they did it, and a lot of companies do it. IMO, those people got fired. Not laid off.

I didn't create the definitions, but they are in current usage -- despite your opinion of reality -- per the web site I provide as a reference in the original post in this thread.

I addressed this issue last June when I explained why I posted what i did:

Originally Posted by diorgirl

Nobody ever said that legal definitions reflect the "feelings" of the people -- or reality! LOL!

I just posted this to give us a sense of the terms as defined legally. I agree that "fired" and "terminated" still have very negative connotations in the real world -- and that "layoff" is not currently interpreted as suggesting an eventual recall to the job.

I see no reason to revisit what is basically a question of semantics -- particularly definitions that are well documented.

[revelated]

Originally Posted by diorgirl

I didn't create the definitions, but they are in current usage -- despite your opinion of reality -- per the web site I provide as a reference in the original post in this thread.

I addressed this issue last June when I explained why I posted what i did:



I see no reason to revisit what is basically a question of semantics -- particularly definitions that are well documented.

They're not semantics. I'm offering an alternate perception. Be open to it. Especially since the definitions you posted were incomplete. You really need to research the idiom rather than the HR terminology.

layoff: Definition from Answers.com

Originally Posted by Answers.com

1. Terminate a person from employment. For example, When they lost the contract, they had to lay off a hundred workers. This expression formerly referred to temporary dismissals, as during a recession, with the idea that workers would be hired back when conditions improved, but with the tendency of businesses to downsize in the 1990s it came to mean "terminate permanently." [First half of 1800s]

Which reiterates what I said. A long time ago, it did mean temporarily with the idea of hiring back, however time changed that stance. Businesses have made "Lay off" analogous with "Fire". That's all I'm saying.

[diorgirl]

Originally Posted by revelated

You really need to research the idiom rather than the HR terminology.

layoff: Definition from Answers.com

I don't "really need" to do anything. The definition was supplied in the legal context of HR -- and, therefore, more than appropriate to the situation.

Taking something out of context is a very transparent way to provoke an argument when there is no reason for one.

Try the pedantic behavior on someone else -- someone who enjoys the drama of needless confrontation as much as you apparently do. It will be much more satisfying for you.