zlacker

>>jcalab+(OP)
At this point it looks obvious that GitHub RIF’d a bus factor earlier this year.

>>mullin+b2
Why don't we just use plain language like "laid off" like we used to for decades?

>>smcin+kb
Technically, a layoff could be temporary, and that was once upon a time the meaning of the term. RIF signals that it's permanent.

>>teduna+jm
No, in general almost never in tech, only rarely and when unionized or when protected by contract or labor law. And we're not talking about seasonal jobs (logging, fishing) either. And we're not talking about unforeseen circumstances/force majeure like in 2020/1.

"RIF" is US jargon; you can see that ~0% of worldwide Google usage outside of North America for "RIF" is "reduction in force" [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&q=%2...]. A tiny amount (<<2%) of usage in UK, Scandinavia, Poland, Australia (possibly mainly from US multinationals).

More corroboration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIF

There is zero reason to adopt managementspeak jargon, or its 2022 neologisms "impacted"/"affected"/"displaced". Just say "layoff" (n) / "laid off" (v), already.

In the very unlikely event [in tech] you actually needed to say "temporary layoff", you can easily say "temporary layoff".

The language was working fine for decades and there's no reason to pander to management euphemisms. It harms clarity.