Log in

No account? Create an account
khalulu, kanji

khalulu in hp_britglish


When "redundant" is used in British English to mean laid off from a job, is it possible to just say a person is redundant ("you're redundant now"), or is it always the person has been made/is being made/will be made redundant?


ETA: Okay, "made redundant" it is, thanks everyone!


Always "made redundant" in my experience. Things can be redundant in the sense of being now surplus to requirements, or in the sense of being a duplicate backup system, and questions can be redundant meaning they've already been answered another way, but I don't remember ever hearing a person being said to be just redundant - certainly not in the job-loss sense.
Okay, thanks!
The short answer is, no. They have been made redundant. However, someone could say 'you're redundant now' as humourous word play. The response would something along the lines of a sarcastic 'gee, thanks' :P

Edited at 2016-09-03 06:43 pm (UTC)
Thanks! (non-sarcastically)
Always being "made redundant", and the cash received in usually referred to as"redundancy". An example: "I've been laid off, and they gave me 2 month's redundancy".
Legally, the post is redundant and removed, and the person has to go with it, thus is made redundant.

So someone would say they'd been made redundant, or they'd got redundancy (ie received redundancy pay). Sometimes there's an element of choice, so I can say I took voluntary redundancy last year (even though technically it wasn't redundancy as the job still needed doing, they just wanted fewer people doing it).
I've always heard it as "made redundant" - saying a person is redundant sounds horrible!
Thanks! That definitely seems to be the consensus.

Do you mean horrible grammar, or horrible meaning? Saying someone has been made redundant doesn't really sound any less insulting to me. ("You've become useless and unnecessary, because you haven't got anything to offer that we don"t already have.") But that's probably because the term isn't used in the US to talk about employment at all, so seeing the British usage has taken a bit of getting used to.

(I use the word "redundant" mostly to comment on writing, as in "you don't need to say this here because you just said it there.")
Horrible meaning it be mean or nasty - as it happens, we don't use "horrible" in the same way in British English, and "it's horrible grammar" is a weird sentence to most of us.
Divided by a common language yet again, sigh... Thanks for your patience!
I don't think it has those connotations here at all it's more "the situation has changed and the job you have been doing is no longer needed; this is no fault of yours, you haven't been sacked, when you go for a new job your prospective employer will understand this" (they do, too) "and you're probably entitled to a substantial payment". So there's nothing unpleasant about it, and there are times when it is actually advantageous.
Also, legally it is the job that's redundant, not the person. So although we do say that a person was made redundant in everyday speech, in anything formal it would be very clear that it was all about the job and nothing at all about the person who used to do it.
Thanks. What a lovely icon you have.
Out of interest, could I ask for clarification on terminology? To give my own experience as an example: I worked as a legal secretary in a small firm in London. Largely as a result of serious illness of one of the partners, the firm had problems and my boss needed to have a qualified paralegal who could do the work I had been doing and more besides, so I was made redundant: there was no fault or blame on either side, just unfortunate economic necessity. How would you describe this kind of situation?
In the US, we'd say you were laid off. The term no longer (unfortunately) carries the expectation that you would be rehired again later, although it's possible in seasonal industries. The noun (for the event) is lay-off. There have been/are going to be a lot of lay-offs in the industry/at the company.

Edited at 2016-09-04 07:01 pm (UTC)
I don't think that equates very well. The essence of redundancy is that a permanent job ceases to exist. It isn't used to refer to seasonal employment, where people aren't needed or employed in the off season, and there can never be any idea of re hiring because the position no longer exists. If the situation changes and somebody is needed in this function, a new job has to be created from scratch.

A situation higher up the tree can occur when two concerns merge or one is taken over by another. Two Heads of Human Resources won't be needed; if the one not selected is not happy to stay on in a subordinate role, they would be made redundant - would you say that they had been laid off? The pill is greatly sweetened by redundancy payments, which are affected by age and length of service: in my case, the payment came to the equivalent of three months' pay, which did indeed keep me going till I found another job.
We say laid off whether it's temporary or permanent. The term conflates the two situations. I don't know that people necessarily get any payment, either, although of course they can file for unemployment benefits.
It makes a big difference in the UK. If you're made redundant, and you've been in the job for long enough, you get a redundancy payment and when you're looking for another job prospective employers are perfectly happy. It's often quite difficult to fire somebody and it tends to imply that you have done something really bad, possibly criminal, so even if you get as far as an interview you will usually get an intense grilling to make sure that this isn't the case. The key issue is whether it's due to circumstances or your fault.
Well, being laid off is different from being fired. Employers would understand that being laid off is not the worker's fault. It's just that the term laid off in the U.S. can mean you lost your job permanently because of workforce reductions, mergers, plant closings etc. Depending on what the original agreement with the employer was, someone might get "severance pay" when they are laid off.
I think that's the thing: being made redundant always means the permanent loss because the job isn't there any more, never that the employer doesn't need anyone to do it at present. And there's nothing optional about redundancy payments: they are laid down by law, and entitlements can be looked up on the government website. There might be some kind of agreed payment, but that would be in addition.
The latter. I suppose it's because the phrasing "made redundant" is so common and understood to be shorthand for "my job no longer exists", whereas saying that a person is redundant sounds much more personal ("you, as an individual, are no longer of use to us").
Okay, thanks.