tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post4540015564433308295..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: redundantlynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-30903565409751666612019-06-15T13:19:54.170+01:002019-06-15T13:19:54.170+01:00The reason systems engineers 'felt the need to...The reason systems engineers 'felt the need to use "redundant" rather than "backup"' is because the original 1594 usage of the word meant "exceeding what is necessary or normal (e.g., superfluous)." <br /><br />Under normal circumstances, engineers don't add redundant systems. For instance, there is only a single radiator in your automobile. In critical systems, however, safety is so important that engineers add redundant systems, i.e. systems that 'exceed what is normal' so as to add an extra layer of protection. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-68412807225850907172017-06-19T02:29:14.382+01:002017-06-19T02:29:14.382+01:00The histories of layoff and redundancy as reporte...The histories of <b>layoff </b> and <b>redundancy</b> as reported in the OED show something of a convergence in meaning from very different starting points.<br /><br />Originally a <b> layoff</b> was<br /><br />• not permanent<br />• probably a desirable thing<br />• not necessarily associated with a <b>job</b><br /><br />The earliest quote (1889) speaks of <i>taking a lay-off</i> and the next (1904) is even more positive<br /><br /><i>The men who have been on for a year get a vacation of ten days. Those who have been working less than a year have to get along with only a five-day layoff.</i><br /><br />The equation with 'vacation' is echoed in 1919 in an apparent reference to seasonal work in the timber industry.<br /><br /><i>At the lay-off,..he had given each man enough money on account to make their vacation..a very wet spell indeed.</i><br /><br />Between this dates (in 1914) O'Henry used the word to refer to a break in <b> self-employment </b>:<br /><br /><i>Me and my partner..tried to take a layoff from our professional and business duties; but..our work followed us wherever we went.</i><br /><br />From 1923 comes a quote about sportsmen (footballers, I'd guess) who had a <b>seasonal</b> break<br /><br /><i>As a consequence of the ‘lay-off’ during the summer months it often happens that the muscles of the young player are not sufficiently supple for him to face the rigours of the game.</i> [note the single quotes]<br /><br />From 1926<br /><br /><i>I decided to take a lay-off [from burgling].</i><br /><br />Only as recently as 1969 do they quote a use denoting a mass dismissal<br /><br /><i>Workers protested at proposed factory lay-offs.</i><br /><br />This quote from the Telegraph is followed by the Guardian in 1972<br /><br /><i>Jaguar is one of the British Leyland groups where extensive lay-offs occurred. </i><br /><br />and the Times in 1973<br /><br /><i>Lay offs threaten 28,000 workers at Vauxhall as car unrest grows.</i><br /><br />There are earlier quotes for the verb lay off as mass dismissal. And I've found a use in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpsHT_VxFyM" rel="nofollow">this 1929 recording.</a><br /><br /> If you listen very carefully, you may be able to make out<br /><br /><i>Ninety men were laid off : at the railroad shop<br />And the strike in Chicago : Lordy Lord it just won't stop</i><br /><br />[The strike in question had started in 1911 and gone on for three years, affecting the whole of the IC line from Chicago to New Orleans. The 'railroad shop' Patton sang about was the repair shop in McComb, Mississippi.]<br /><br />So <i>layoffs</i> eventually became a euphemism — a word with nice associations applied to a nasty process of many people <b>involuntarily</b> ceasing to work (though dismissal).<br /><br />Redundancy and the adjective redundant originally referred to <b>how things were</b> rather than any <b> deliberately creating a situation </b>.<br /><br />Thus in 1908 the Times asked<br /><br /><i>Instead of dismissing men of lower grades in the service, why not dismiss redundant officials?</i><br /><br />Fifty years later the Spectator reported<br /><br /><i>Over five thousand other men were rendered redundant.</i><br /><br />Eleven years on, HE Bates objected to this change in use<br /><br /><i>Nowadays,..it would no doubt be said that I became redundant. I prefer the old way: I was unexpectedly sacked.:</i><br /><i>Redundancy</i> shifted from an UNCOUNTABLE noun denoting the state of being redundant to a COUNTABLE noun usually in the plural and referring to large numbers of employees being <b>made redundant</b>. Both senses are labelled <i>Chiefly British </i>. There's no corresponding labelling of <i>layoff </i> as American — but it's notable that the British quotes using <i>lay(-)offs</i> in the modern sense are all from newspapers, and may represent a specialist register only.<br /><br />The history of<i> redundancy</i> is not so much a process of <b>euphemism </b> as downright <b>obfuscation </b> not to say <b>a damned lie.</b><br /><br />So <i>layoffs </i> and <i>redundancies</i> have converged as ways to avoid saying <b>'sackings'</b> — which nowadays is practically limited to 'dismissals that can be justified on ground of misbehaviour'.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-16948824026650480442009-12-09T18:51:47.383+00:002009-12-09T18:51:47.383+00:00I know I'm late in commenting on this, but thi...I know I'm late in commenting on this, but this year, when I was laid off (here in the US), I was officially told that "my position has been eliminated", which I suppose made me redundant quite literally. I suppose it's supposed to make me feel better that they won't hire someone to replace me (though there is no guarantee of that, of course).<br /><br />As for my usage, I'm an immigrant originally from Russia, but all of my English was learned in the US, have been in the workforce only since 2004. I definitely make the distinction between being laid off and fired, though my former Indian coworkers used fired as an all-purpose term (but laid off only for redundancy). I don't find "sacked" to be foreign, but am not entirely sure whether it is a synonym for my "fired" or my ex-coworkers' "fired".Boris Zakharinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16560756640621720539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-47236664943215913792009-06-17T05:55:24.400+01:002009-06-17T05:55:24.400+01:00"Laid off" in the US (or where I live an..."Laid off" in the US (or where I live anyway - New York State), has many meanings. If you work in a factory, it usually means that there isn't enough work and they lay people off and they come back when it picks up again. However, if work doesn't pick up again, or if they hire people who will work for less pay, you don't go back. Seasonal jobs also use this term. Where I live there are many leather tanning facilities and window factories, and when work slows down in the winter there is always a lay-off, and certain employees are sometimes offered the option to participate in the lay off or keep working. Many won't have a choice. If they choose to participate, they always get to go back. In the meantime they collect unemployment. Sometimes they let these people choose to be temporarily laid off before work slows down too much so that their unemployment payments will be higher (if they leave when work starts to slow and they have less hours in per week, their payments will be lower while they are "unemployed")<br /><br />A lay-off is also when a company/factory/whatever fires a large number of workers without the possibility of them returning. They use this term because it doesn't sound as bad as being fired and also because being laid off won't hurt you on job applications like having been fired would.<br /><br />There's a bit of an anomaly sometimes - in retail for example, workers can be fired for any number of reasons. Sometimes it is to cut costs - but they will actually fire you, rather than lay you off, and they will do it after only a few months, so that they don't have to contribute to your unemployment payments. They fire people when having laid them off would have been more appropriate.<br /><br />Most employers in this area won't do a lay off because jobs become "obsolete" or "redundant". They simply can't afford to over-hire in the first place, making this kind of situation pretty much non-existent.ff6mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-42149571512145725172009-05-07T16:38:00.000+01:002009-05-07T16:38:00.000+01:00From a UK legal perspective, redundancy in employm...From a UK legal perspective, redundancy in employment has a very specific meaning, namely that the post which the holder is filling is no longer required, either because the company itself is ceasing to trade, or because of a change in workload (restructuring for example). That post, once the present incumbent has been made redundant (and compensated in the manner others have described), cannot then be filled by a new recruit, or the original employee would have grounds to sue for unfair dismissal.<br />On another issue, hopefully it is of interest to note that in UK military terminology, a complete generation of a particular equipment which is nearing the end of its useful life will first be declared obselescent which means it will be maintained with consumables, and for as long as spare parts exist in the inventory, and once these spares run out, it will be declared obsolete. Neither of these stages necessarily require the original item to be replaced by a newer version, or indeed that a working but obsolete equipment will necessarily be taken out of service before it fails. To that extent there is no correlation between being obsolete and being redundant.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-56744578170847497002009-05-03T02:20:00.000+01:002009-05-03T02:20:00.000+01:00Redunduncy in automation is a good thing. In redun...Redunduncy in automation is a good thing. In redundant systems 2 or more systems, controllers or sensors are working at the same time. Usually each is being checked for proper operation and consistency. In very critical operations, such as the space shuttle, or financial back offices, 3 systems may be operating simultaneously. An additional controller checks that the results are the same, and if there is disagreement, goes with the majority and takes the wayward unit off line for repair.<br /> The space shuttle has redundant redundancy. If the 3 main computers disagree and even the majority result seems wrong, a back-up computer is available to take the data stream and process it independently of the main computers if it is felt they cannot be trusted.<br /> Redunduncy is a good (but expensive) technology.<br /> So redunduncy can be good or bad, depending on the situation. Unfortunately for me, my employer is about to conclude I am redundant, and not in a good way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-83602501348224537642009-05-02T09:29:00.000+01:002009-05-02T09:29:00.000+01:00Anonymous on 6th April, to make that claim, nineve...Anonymous on 6th April, to make that claim, nineveh_uk doesn't need to be familiar with the employment law in every EU state, just in one other country which happens to be stricter than the UK.Roshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02669423378438380019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-28087764083166086812009-04-17T13:35:00.000+01:002009-04-17T13:35:00.000+01:00Regarding at-will employment with termination from...Regarding at-will employment with termination from either side at any time... this is a state-by-state thing, some states have at-will employment, and some do not, and contracts will vary depending where you are in the USA. It isn't one-size-fits-all :)webhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05938934194973454729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-44873020784401259602009-04-08T13:01:00.000+01:002009-04-08T13:01:00.000+01:00I am English, working in the UK, for an American c...I am English, working in the UK, for an American company.<BR/><BR/>A few years ago many hundreds of workers lost their jobs including UK workers. Our US CEO wrote to us that the company was aiming to eliminate redundancies. Meaning I suppose that they were 'chopping out dead wood'. Of course, to UK workers they were creating redundancies.<BR/><BR/>A prett awful faux pas.panhandle xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-91817960565985874842009-04-06T15:12:00.000+01:002009-04-06T15:12:00.000+01:00Sorry, this does not concern the difference in the...Sorry, this does not concern the difference in the meaning of "redundant" and "obsolete", but @ nineveh-uk - I don't think it to be justified to call the UK employment law (or is it "labour" law?) the by no means strictest in Europe. Did you complete comparative research considering the law of every single EU member states?<BR/>By the way, may, for example, scientific theories also be "obsolete" if there is newer research that proofed them to be not true?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-76645459964636918282009-04-06T03:27:00.000+01:002009-04-06T03:27:00.000+01:00I'm being furloughed along with everyone else at m...I'm being furloughed along with everyone else at my company for a week at the end of this year. Except in my UK based job they're calling it "unpaid leave".Ginger Yellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06103410278129312943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-34118939965014452082009-04-05T17:25:00.000+01:002009-04-05T17:25:00.000+01:00I remember reading the difference between 'sacked'...I remember reading the difference between 'sacked' and 'fired' once and its etymology. <BR/><BR/>Sacked refers to the dismissal of a tradesman (in the context discussed it was masons in the middle ages) when he was no longer needed (i.e. redundant to the project). Sacked was used because his tools were returned to him in a sack so he could travel and find more work.<BR/><BR/>Fired referred to when a worker was dismissed due to his behaviour. In this case his tools were burnt or 'fired'.<BR/><BR/>It's probably a load of rubbish though.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05481519195527179610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-39269223847836736802009-04-04T12:25:00.000+01:002009-04-04T12:25:00.000+01:00"Furloughed" is even more temporary than "laid off..."Furloughed" is even more temporary than "laid off" in my experience, typically referring to a few days or weeks. It's been used for government jobs for quite a while.<BR/><BR/>I have also, by the way, heard the term "excessed." That usually means somebody has a fixed time period to find another position within the company before being laid off.<BR/><BR/>It's pretty much impossible to generalize about U.S. labor law, which varies from state to state. For corporations which have multiple locations, policies are often determined by labor law in the state where their headquarters are. For example, I work in Virginia, but my company's severance pay policies are more generous than Virginia demands because our HQ is in California.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-77310954823165250992009-04-02T11:50:00.000+01:002009-04-02T11:50:00.000+01:00I haven't read all the other comments yet and am p...I haven't read all the other comments yet and am probably just duplicating them, but maybe it will be statistically useful to do so. My intuition is that something is redundant when it is not needed, which might simply be because you have something else that does the same job, but something is only obsolete when it is out-of-date and a newer, better version is available.Dothttp://kenanddot.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-22414562034769010352009-04-01T07:57:00.000+01:002009-04-01T07:57:00.000+01:00I would instinctively use redundant when two or mo...I would instinctively use redundant when two or more things are doing the same job, even of they are both/all top of the line. so for exapmle the emphasis on redundant systems in space-craft design. So this may be used perjoratively, when one of the things is a waste of space/resources or simply technically as in the shuttle example.<BR/>Obsolete would be outdated to me.Peregrinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-92070717717576860132009-03-31T17:31:00.000+01:002009-03-31T17:31:00.000+01:00Just wanted to add that the idea of temporarily be...Just wanted to add that the idea of temporarily being out of a job these days (in the U.S.) is "furloughed" - I just heard that term this week on NPR, with respect to the auto industry (I think). Workers are being furloughed. Also a relative is in a union where he is being furloughed to spread the work around so that everyone has enough work this year to continue qualifying for pension benefits.<BR/><BR/>I am also with Rick S. on the redundant issue, although I am also from a technical background. My (native US English speaker) idiomatic use of redundant means that it is unnecessary because it is duplicated elsewhere, like saying "ATM machine" is really "Automatic Teller Machine Machine". Saying "machine" after "ATM" is redundant.<BR/><BR/>And mollymooly, sometimes a system is designed to be redundant - that is, safe even in case of failure - but it is not clear which is the "backup" and which is the .. uh... frontup? In the case of redundant circuits, there are two points which have to fail to make the circuit fail, but both operate equivalently until one fails. Redundant systems assume that the probability of multiple failures is small, but that a single failure should not cause the system to fail. Backup systems is one way to accomplish it, but it implies that one is primary and the second (redundant one) is secondary, possibly not even operating until it is needed (and then we worry about whether it will in fact come up). Redundancy doesn't really say whether it is a primary with a backup or two equivalent ones, although my feeling is that it slightly implies two equivalent ones.Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03658570531652539325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-79277566759031640382009-03-31T09:03:00.000+01:002009-03-31T09:03:00.000+01:00There's an excellent Dilbert cartoon which I am no...There's an excellent Dilbert cartoon which I am now going to wreck, like your drunk uncle telling jokes at a party, by trying to recount. Sorry. Sadly I can't currently find it but it goes something like this: <BR/><BR/>Dilbert has been made CEO of a dot.com company just as the bubble bursts and all he can do is shut it down. He explains to the staff (who are young, naive - perhaps even children, I'm not sure) that they are all laid off. One of them, not knowing what it means but assuming it's some kind of hip compliment, replies something like "yeah, you're <I>pretty laid-off yourself</I>". Or words to that effect.<BR/><BR/>Oh well, it made me laugh anyway. Sorry. I'll get me coat.Strawberryyoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01088158170872265875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-58158317638158217452009-03-30T16:10:00.000+01:002009-03-30T16:10:00.000+01:00'Redundant' is often used for safety measures and ...'Redundant' is often used for safety measures and it is a good thing. If you have a belt and braces one is redundant but in a nuclear power station you want redundant safeguards.<BR/><BR/>It is also a common term in linguistics.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05952564820382472228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-72413259624725626422009-03-30T05:33:00.000+01:002009-03-30T05:33:00.000+01:00Please remember that there are fifty states in the...Please remember that there are fifty states in the United States and each state makes it's own labour laws, unless they affect interstate commercegaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09546857562269702882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-82611432212260882992009-03-30T05:19:00.000+01:002009-03-30T05:19:00.000+01:00I think that a person can be laid off/fired/sacked...I think that a person can be laid off/fired/sacked/canned/let go/dismissed, while a job/position can be deemed obsolete/redundant, and a company/work force is downsized. To refer to a human being as obsolete or redundant is cruel, or at best weaselly, as another commenter put it.<BR/><BR/>I just sat through a whole on-line class about (US) Labor Laws. There is no special terminology used for people who are let go and need to collect unemployment. It just depends on how long they were employed for and whether they caused their own dismissal. I also know that unemployment benefits can be collected by seasonal workers during the off season (ie, ski resort workers during summer months).<BR/><BR/>As to what term indicates "for cause", I wouldn't expect some one to use "laid off" or "let go" unless they were trying to downplay what they had done. However, I wouldn't necessarily assume that some who was "fired/sacked/canned" had caused the "canning". I think those terms also convey very negative emotions about being let go, as in "I was fired 'cause they sent my job overseas".<BR/>(US-English speaker)Vanessanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-46594775098899597322009-03-29T19:06:00.000+01:002009-03-29T19:06:00.000+01:00I certainly don't think of redundant flight instru...<I><BR/>I certainly don't think of redundant flight instruments in aircraft or redundant cooling systems in nuclear power stations as unnecessary!<BR/></I><BR/>I think this is one of those cases of semantic extension where a word ends up meaning the opposite of what it originally meant. I'm not sure why the systems engineers felt the need to use "redundant" rather than "backup" to describe such systems.mollymoolynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-55177448099996048272009-03-29T16:32:00.000+01:002009-03-29T16:32:00.000+01:00My understanding of the word "redundant", from wor...My understanding of the word "redundant", from working in the Citizens' Advice Bureau in Scotland some years ago, is that the person loses their job because it'sthe post that becomes redundant, not the person who filled that post, so technically we're <EM>still</EM> talking about a thing being redundant. I hope this muddies the waters sufficiently.Frugal Dougalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459572116047155640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-47511262349861561132009-03-29T04:23:00.000+01:002009-03-29T04:23:00.000+01:00RickS said..."Oops! Sorry for the duplication!"You...RickS said...<BR/>"Oops! Sorry for the duplication!"<BR/><BR/>You mean the redundant posting?PaulatNorthGarehttp://northgare.blogs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-79699100086600168862009-03-28T14:42:00.000+00:002009-03-28T14:42:00.000+00:00Oops! Sorry for the duplication!Oops! Sorry for the duplication!RickSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-720734014295435342009-03-28T14:40:00.000+00:002009-03-28T14:40:00.000+00:00To those who say "redundant" has the sense of "not...To those who say "redundant" has the sense of "not necessary" or "no longer necessary": Are you referring to its use in terminating employment, or its more general meaning? For the latter, I (AmE) am influenced by what I remember as my first exposure to the word: redundant systems for failsafe applications. I certainly don't think of redundant flight instruments in aircraft or redundant cooling systems in nuclear power stations as unnecessary! To me, the more central meaning of "redundant" is superfluity by virtue of duplicated potential or capability.<BR/><BR/>I think something can be obsolete even if no better replacement is available. Obsolete to me simply means "no longer fulfills the need for which it was originally used", which can be either because the need no longer exists or because the need has grown beyond its capabilities. I remember an outdated payroll system that was being supplemented with manual recordkeeping. (Can you tell I have a systems engineering slant?)Rick Snoreply@blogger.com