> "Mass layoff" is defined by the United States Department of Labor as 50 or more workers laid off from the same company around the same time.
Context is important, though. The term can be simultaneously technically correct in the context of US Department of Labor terminology and misleading to a general audience. I think that is happening here.
Your "bigger company" example is just an example of scale, there's just lots of individual events.
Instead, here is SolarCity firing 1,200 employees on the same day and saying that it's all just coincidence on their individual performances, not a unified decision.
It does qualify. My argument is that the statement out of context is misleading.
> Your "bigger company" example is just an example of scale, there's just lots of individual events.
Yes. It's an example of how using the term "mass firing" to describe "any 50 employees of a company being terminated around the same time" as the headline has done is misleading.
> Instead, here is SolarCity firing 1,200 employees on the same day and saying that it's all just coincidence on their individual performances, not a unified decision.
No, former employees estimate Tesla is firing a total of 1,200 employees, some of which are SolarCity employees. And there was no statement it was a coincidence or not part of a coordinated effort (of course it was). That's not mutually exclusive with legitimately culling your low performers.
In SolarCity case, that means 0.15% of their workforce.
firing an entire team of 10 or so for malfeasance I could buy - btw collective punishment of employees is allowed under common law
Either way you're out of a job, so in that sense there's not much difference.
Laid off generally comes with a severance package that is consistent across the laid-off employees. The reason for the employee termination is (at least outwardly) the companies fault due to the company not having a use for that subset of employees - department closure, cashflow, product cancellation etc. In the UK a company must announce it is going to go through a lay-off some weeks before actually terminating employment contracts.
Firing someone puts the 'blame' on the employee. Generally the company has to document the reason for firing the employee. Even in places with 'at will' employment law a company will want documentation in place in order to defend against wrongful termination or discrimination claims.
Companies will often offer some cash sweetener to a fired employee in return for them signing a termination contract that makes future legal claims more difficult (or costly).