It does when it’s part of eliminating an entire division and 7,000 others are losing their jobs.

For clarity 7,000 jobs are being eliminated while the division is being folded into other business units and will no longer exist separately. Division being eliminated, while still correct in a way, can easily sound like the entire division is no more not moved around.

The division is eliminated. Some people are relocated to other divisions. This isn't really a confusing point.

When said with certain context absolutely. That is all I was trying to highlight - not that the concept itself is complex. There are, after all, plenty of times a division is truly just shut down instead of folded in. The article does a good job of putting in context and comments can lose that so I had to refer back to the article to make sure I understood what happened.

Being fired and being laid off have very different ramifications though, and generally different exit packages.

For top executives who have contracts and golden parachute clauses, not really.

Exactly. For top execs to get "fired" without a shit ton of money (like, more than your average person makes in a lifetime, sometimes more that a large group of people will make in their lifetimes) there is usually something pretty egregious, like sexual harassment or overt legal problems. Les Moonves was originally going to get $120 million in severance before there was a considerable uproar having to do with the Me Too movement, and CBS held firm on saying they were firing him for cause.

Arguably, everything that isn’t for a serious breach of contract or other cause which allows stripping the golden parachute is “laid off” for them.

But even with that, they occasionally do get “fired”.

right, I doubt this guy is worried about COBRA coverage

Because he wasn't fired for cause. It was a normal re-structure.

And Perlmutter was never a threat to Iger more just an annoyance for Feige who is critical to the future of Disney.