It's more than common vernacular in English.

"Fired" implies wrong-doing on their part.

"Laid off" or "let them go" means the company couldn't afford to pay them, or didn't need them anymore. It leaves no black mark against their name.

I've always found it striking to note how laid off has migrated over time. When my grandfather got laid off, there was an expectation that he would come back to the same job with the same company some time in the near future.

When I get laid off there is no expectation that my job will come back.

The term for that is furlough.

Companies like Boeing (who have boom and bust years) still use the term "laid off" like that. But they're also union jobs where you basically can't get fired, short of taking a piss in the coffeemaker. So the word "fired" is still fine for those employees "exceptional" enough to get permanently laid off.

that's exactly right - factories in town use to lay off workers seasonally, then call them back in later.

Can't put my finger on when exactly, but during one of our recessions they stopped getting called back, and then companies started to realize once the local union was busted they could hire new workers at a fraction of the price, and...here you are.

I agree - "Fired" clearly implies wrong-doing. I never had a problem firing people who deserved it (and met HR's thresholds for firing). On the other hand, the worst thing I ever had to do is lay people off (who were working hard) because the company's fortunes had declined and we couldn't afford to pay them.

What made it worse was the morning of the lay-off, one of them told me a joke: "What's the difference between a recession and a depression? A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours". You know why a good manager goes into his office and closes the door after executing the "terminations"? In my case, it was to hide the fact that I was crying.

Meh ... I just think the issue is just so sensitive that it moves through the euphemism treadmill a lot faster.

When I was growing up, it felt like there was a clear distinction between "fired" (with cause) and "laid off" (bad revenues, can't afford you). But over time I increasingly saw people refer to all terminations as being "laid off".

Then "let go" entered the fray, and I heard of recruiters who told people to refer to any for-cause firing as "being let go".

Whatever term you use on this, people will abuse until it doesn't mean that anymore. They want to make it sound like any termination wasn't for-cause, while having plausible deniability if anyone calls them on it.

And yes, I know the usual ivory tower lecture about "that's how language normally works!" But normally it's slow enough that you can reasonably infer what someone means because of mutual knowledge of what the words mean. Not here. And probably, not ever.

Fired does not imply wrong-doing. Fired can be termination w/out prejudice.

I disagree, and I think Evernote engineers would be making a huge mistake if they tell future interviewers they got "fired" instead of "laid off." Maybe not to you, but to many people "fired" implies wrongdoing on the part of the employee.

"Fir[ing]" an employee suggests they did something wrong. These 47 people did nothing wrong outside of working on a product or products that are no longer relevant to Evernote.

I think the wording used by the new CEO shows his attitude to the company. Reading the announcement, he is very much focusing on making more money for Evernote. There are no details on how those 47 people will be assisted post Evernote. It reads like the CEO really fired them.

No, it doesn't. Fired can mean termination w/out prejudice.

I suppose it can mean that, but in practice, it doesn't. Being fired and being laid off are very different things in this year's English.

So different, in fact, that I have been "laid off" when the employer really had a mind to fire me for poor performance but wanted to avoid hurting my future prospects.

Here, don't take my word for it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=fired+laid+off

Well, it can, but there are several people here, as well as several Google results, which say that "fired" carries a much more negative connotation.

I think it's the opposite. Layoffs are when mgmt is at fault. Firings are when the employees are at fault.

But layoffs often come from above as "fire the worst 20% or your team so we can get lean." So in that case the employee does play a part.

The problem with these moves is that the top 20% often see the writing on the wall and leave shortly after. Then the second 20% start testing the waters. Then...

"Fired" = "let go because the employee did something to deserve it" "Let go" doesn't not have the same meaning.

Being laid off and being fired are not the same thing.

"Fired" or "terminated" tends to imply for cause which is something different from what's happening here. I'd prefer "laid off", but I think "let go" is pretty unambiguous.

The dictionary agrees with you. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fired?s=t

Depends on the dictionary. Some will also clarify that "with cause" is a big part of it. Or just look at the etymology. It means they've been forcibly ejected from the company. Like a cannonball. You don't do that to employees you'll miss.

What were the directions/products that have now been discontinued?

"I was removed from evernote"