By that definition, they could lay off only 0.15% of their workforce and still qualify. Likewise, bigger companies are probably in a perpetual state of "mass layoff."
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.
If the layoff is part of one event, then why shouldn't it qualify?
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.
> If the layoff is part of one event, then why shouldn't it qualify?
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.
"Fired" generally means terminated for cause, though not exclusively so. "Laid off" implies a general workforce reduction, and maybe some severance payment, job placement help, etc.
Either way you're out of a job, so in that sense there's not much difference.
Depending on the country/state laid off and fired be very different legally.
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).
Might be a narrative. One reason would be to push the stock price down. Currently down to 330 from 360 a month ago. Could be a good time to buy if you're long.
