As a result of watching hours and hours of The Office on B.B.C. America, I learned that in England, the phrase “being made redundant” is a euphemism for being laid off or fired. References to “redundant” and “redundancies” were so frequent that I began to wonder whether a British person would recognize the non-euphemistic definition of “redundant” – a duplication that may either be unnecessary or intentional (for safety purposes, for example).
So, if I said –
– “This position is redundant”
– meaning – “The functions performed by the person in this position may also be performed by another person here.” With perhaps the addendum – “This duplication is intentional in case one or another person is for some reason unable to address a problem in this area.”
– would I be understood? Or would the only meaning that the British person would recognize would be – “We have eliminated this position and the person who holds it will soon be jobless.”
To be made redundant is NOT exactly synonymous with being fired.
It’s being laid off, usually in the process of “downsizing”, and there is usually a redundancy payment of some kind to soften the blow a little.
And yes, we get both meanings of the term, so you’d be understood.
But it is used as a euphemism for being fired, at least it was in The Office. David Brent is clearly being given the sack for poor performance and insubordination, perhaps only with the windowdressing of downsizing. “You’re crap and we’re kicking you out but we’re pretending it’s because of budget cuts” is a euphemism for a firing so far as I can see.
Like irishgirl said there is a difference between being sacked and being made redundant. If you are made redundant you are being “let go” from the firm, not due to poor performance or anything you have done wrong and as such it is usual to get a redundancy package. When my dad was made redundant he was given three months wages in a lump sum. When you are sacked you are just kicked out of the door.
And yes, you would be understood if you used redundant in the manner you explained.
Yes, I understand that when used honestly, the terms have differing meanings. My point is that, at least in the case of David Brent, the term “redundancy” was being used in a case when “sacking” was more accurate and everyone knew it. The dismissal was being dressed up as a layoff for face-saving purposes (and the money is often just a slightly painful price to pay from the company’s point of view), but the real reason he was being let go was incompetence and insubordination.
It is also the case in the United States that a firing will often be disguised as a layoff. Actually, the classic example, from the executive cabinet, is to require the person being sacked to “voluntarily” resign. In fact, it is rare for a company to admit that it is sacking people for cause, unless there is a legal reason to do so. (Such as in the case of employment contracts or union contracts, when it is advantageous to the employer to fire someone for cause.)
In the United States, in the case of an actual firing, the employee will often be eligible for unemployment benefits, which are distributed by a state government agency from funds collected from employers. Therefore, it’s often to the company’s advantage to pretend that a sacking was not a sacking.
Anyway, my point is that, at least in the case of David Brent, everyone was saying “redundant,” but they all knew that he was being sacked for cause. That makes “redundant” a euphemism for “sacked.”
It’s not impossible that it has been used that way, but I’ve never heard it. Layoffs, downsizing, rightsizing – I’ve heard all these, but not “redundancies.”
From searching about on the net I have found that in reviews of the episodes his sacking is frequently referred to like this:
Showing that it was understood he was actually being sacked but for whatever reason it was being dressed-up as a redundancy, similar to what happened to a lot of the staff when the merger took place IIRC. On another point David Brent successfully sued the company for wrongful dismissal in a later episode.
I had the great pleasure of being made redundant on 31st March last year. I worked for the Strategic Rail Authority, a “Non-Departmental Government Body” - the Civil Service, but not exactly. They had a big re-organisation of the section I was in; my particular post disappeared and I was obliged to apply for one of the new posts (in fact, I was eligible to apply for about 8 of them). I must have been absolutely useless because they didn’t appoint me to any of them.
Happily, I had over 16 years’ service (my previous Civil Service posts were taken into account) and collected a redundancy payment of 3 times my (gross) annual salary, plus 6 months’ in lieu of notice. Of which the first £30,000 was tax free. I am still not working and there is strangely still a few quid left in the bank.
And now the government has decided that the Strategic Rail Authority - which it established as long ago as 2001 - was actually a load of shite and is in the process of disbanding it and scattering its functions between the Department for Transport and Network Rail (the not-for-profit company that owns and maintains the railway infrastructure). Many of my former colleagues are facing redundancy later this year. I am very pleased to say that many of them are senior managers. Ha Ha Ha!
‘laid off’ here means not “we are letting you go” but “we are sending you all home without pay until we have some work for you to do”. It isn’t very common any more - I associate it more with the 1970s and the nationalised industries which were forever being forced onto short time working because of the knockon effects of a strike somewhere else causing component shortages.
I believe that in the 1970s that was also the purported meaning of “laid off” in the United States, but in reality it became clear pretty quickly that people who were laid off were very unlikely to be reactivated.