With the recent discussion in the news about “furloughed” employees, I decided to ask my friend, Maggie Peters, long-time HR expert and owner of HR Options, to help me understand the differences among the following employment terms. Here are her comments.
- NOTE: This is not legal advice. It is for educational purposes only. Please consult your employment attorney. The US Dept of Labor (enforces the FLSA) and the IRS (for tax withholding) provide guidance on how to distinguish between an Employee and an Independent Contractor. There are actual ‘tests’ that employers are to utilize to make sure they are classifying correctly. If an employer gets it wrong, they risk penalties, back wages (such as overtime), taxes, and benefits going several years backward. It doesn’t matter if the worker agrees to the arrangement.
Employees – think W-2; on the payroll. If working regularly 30 hours a week or more, then eligible for benefits. Employers pay payroll taxes, provide equipment, and control the employees’ schedule. Usually an on-going relationship. Often there is an employment letter or similar agreement.
Independent contractors (IC) – think 1099; not on payroll, usually paid via an invoice. Pay their own taxes and benefits; control their own schedule; use their own equipment. Usually project-based. Based on a contract or written agreement. Employers can get into trouble with government regulations if the ICs do the same work as people on payroll, as the employers are trying to avoid paying taxes and benefits which can be 20% or more of a worker’s salary.
Furlough – initiated by the organization. Basically, someone who is in limbo; not fired (yet). Their status if they return to work is up to the company and any prior agreements, such as a ‘furlough policy.’ Issues like benefits continuation, pay, paid-time-off (PTO), reporting relationships, and what if the employee finds other work can cause problems.
Leave of Absence: Similar to furlough except an LOA is initiated by the employee. It may be for Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) if they are eligible, military leave, personal leave, short-term leave, etc. LOAs also differ on how benefits and compensation work, depending upon the company’s size, policies, and benefit plans. “It depends” is the best answer :).
Salary – usually means a base, annualized pay. Salary also usually implies someone who is Exempt, meaning not eligible for Overtime pay.
Wages – include all types of compensation, such as commission, bonus, regular pay, holiday pay, overtime, PTO, sick pay, etc. A broader term than salary.
People who are let go – an involuntary termination that could be the result of a performance issue, layoff, position elimination, reduction in force, etc. Generally, someone who is let go would be eligible for Unemployment if the reason for the termination is not gross misconduct, etc.
People who are fired – same as ‘let go,’ but the wording is harsher. May be couched in phrases like “the business is moving in a different direction,” but at the end of the day, the employee is still = fired.
- From an HR perspective, turnover statistics are usually tracked and reported to executive leadership to identify hiring/firing trends. Typical codes are under the larger headings of Voluntary and Involuntary. Under Voluntary, reasons can be – retirement, resignation, pay, benefits, work/life, return to school, family, management conflict, lack of development, career change, promotion opportunity, etc.). Under Involuntary, reasons can be – lay off, restructure, performance, code of conduct violation, reduction in force, loss of contract, etc.
Contact Maggie if you have any Human Resources questions! She may be reached at [email protected].
Here in Australia, they call being let go, being “made redundant” and it really rubs me the wrong way. I’m not sure why, but I find it to be a really lame euphemism. Regardless of the reason (aside from gross misconduct) it’s being called made redundant.
Hi, Eric,
I agree that being “made redundant” sounds like a made-up excuse. I remember working for a company that was bought by another company, and the job that I was doing was handled by the new company’s department in California. So, I guess, in a way, that my job was made redundant. The end result was that I wasn’t let go; they found another position for me.
The great and insane Slavoj Zizek talks a lot about how authority masks itself. I can’t remember if it’s his or not, but he basically says modern culture has “the iron fist that receives a shiny white glove.” In this case a lot (not all!) of HR wields tremendous power over employees, but hides its power in nice sounding language. Being “let go” or “redundant” sounds passive, when in reality there’s no functional difference between that and getting fired.
Hi, Adam
I have no idea who this Zizek person is – you bring so much philosophy to these discussions!
However, I respectfully disagree that HR has such “white glove” power. Applicable laws plus management decisions = HR communications.
Another interesting thought is that these phrases are fairly recent, indicating perhaps that employees are not comfortable with being fired OR that they want to establish that the reason they are being fired is not because of their work.
According to Wikipedia, euphemisms are often used to “soften the blow” in the process of firing and being fired. In fact, a quick look at the references cited shows none before 2000.
SO, yes, these phrases are “HR Speak,” but maybe these folks are just trying to soften the blow when communicating decisions made by others.