Being a Human Resources manager, its nice to know the origin of words I regrettably have to use from time to time. Has me wondering what the origin is of other terms for “you’re not employed with us anymore”. You used 2 in the column – canned and dismiss. In record keeping of dismissals, I used the term terminated, which has a note of finality to it. Fired and let go have 19th century origins. Are these words and others like them examples of language that developed out of the industrial revolution when more of us became employees of companies?
N Stephenson:
July 10th, 2011 at 5:33 am
Hi Love the website!
On the definition of the word ‘Fire’ , as in to make someone unemployed, sack them from their job etc.
I’ve recently heard a definition that both explains the words ‘Sack’ and to ‘Fire’ someone, though I appreciate this may not be possible to trace the written words back via books such as The OED, but the story does seem to make a little sense.
I was told by an elderly Scotsman that both hose terms came about through the employment of Stone masons.
If a particular mason had done something really bad (either to his colleagues or , more likely, to the stone he was working on) then, sometimes the employers would burn his tools. This meant that not only could he continue his job there, but, they considered him SO bad that they had decided that they didn’t want to him to work elsewhere..hence the burning of the tools.
If, however, they thought, for one reason or another, that maybe he wasn’t TOO bad a worker, or that really they had no choice but to ‘let him go’, then they would ask him to depart, but, place his tools in a sackcloth so that he could still continue working elsewhere..just not there.
It’s hearsay, definitely, but one I’ve come across in England and Scotland a few times over the years and seems like a widely popular belief in the etymology of those words.
Do you think it’s plausible at all?
[…] We were surprised to learn that to be let go, or fired, is not an anachronism. This euphemism dates back to 1817, says the Word Detective. […]
Kate Sinclair:
November 23rd, 2014 at 11:13 am
In the U.K. if the work is no longer available then you are being made redundant – therefore it is not your fault. If however you are no good at the job then you are ‘given the sack.’ Being sacked is shameful whereas being made redundant is not.
Josh Sinclair:
April 7th, 2015 at 1:03 am
Maybe it should follow something along the following lines…
Fired: Generally used to cause some offense and indicate that the employer believes it was the employee’s fault. (After what happened yesterday, I FIRED that guy out!)
Sacked: Softer than fired, may indicate the the employee is good but unable to be used at the company. i.e. The employee may be better off joining another company. (I SACKED that guy, he can’t get along with the other employees if he’s too busy to go to the bar after-work.)
Laying Off/Made Redundant: Fault lies with the employer and employee is not at fault. (I had to lay-off that guy, he’s just to expensive and there’s no-one buying our products anymore!)
Leave a comment
Search us!
Search The Word Detective and our family of websites:
This is the easiest way to find a column on a particular word or phrase.
To search for a specific phrase, put it between quotation marks. (note: JavaScript must be turned on in your browser to view results.)
Ask a Question!
Puzzled by Posh?
Confounded by Cattycorner?
Baffled by Balderdash?
Flummoxed by Flabbergast?
Perplexed by Pandemonium?
Nonplussed by... Nonplussed?
Annoyed by Alliteration?
Hughe:
July 5th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Being a Human Resources manager, its nice to know the origin of words I regrettably have to use from time to time. Has me wondering what the origin is of other terms for “you’re not employed with us anymore”. You used 2 in the column – canned and dismiss. In record keeping of dismissals, I used the term terminated, which has a note of finality to it. Fired and let go have 19th century origins. Are these words and others like them examples of language that developed out of the industrial revolution when more of us became employees of companies?
N Stephenson:
July 10th, 2011 at 5:33 am
Hi Love the website!
On the definition of the word ‘Fire’ , as in to make someone unemployed, sack them from their job etc.
I’ve recently heard a definition that both explains the words ‘Sack’ and to ‘Fire’ someone, though I appreciate this may not be possible to trace the written words back via books such as The OED, but the story does seem to make a little sense.
I was told by an elderly Scotsman that both hose terms came about through the employment of Stone masons.
If a particular mason had done something really bad (either to his colleagues or , more likely, to the stone he was working on) then, sometimes the employers would burn his tools. This meant that not only could he continue his job there, but, they considered him SO bad that they had decided that they didn’t want to him to work elsewhere..hence the burning of the tools.
If, however, they thought, for one reason or another, that maybe he wasn’t TOO bad a worker, or that really they had no choice but to ‘let him go’, then they would ask him to depart, but, place his tools in a sackcloth so that he could still continue working elsewhere..just not there.
It’s hearsay, definitely, but one I’ve come across in England and Scotland a few times over the years and seems like a widely popular belief in the etymology of those words.
Do you think it’s plausible at all?
Boardwalk Empire: Our Favorite Words from the Final Season | Wordnik:
October 27th, 2014 at 12:00 pm
[…] We were surprised to learn that to be let go, or fired, is not an anachronism. This euphemism dates back to 1817, says the Word Detective. […]
Boardwalk Empire: Our Favorite Words from the Final Season | Ermine:
November 7th, 2014 at 7:03 pm
[…] We were surprised to learn that to be let go, or fired, is not an anachronism. This euphemism dates back to 1817, says the Word Detective. […]
Kate Sinclair:
November 23rd, 2014 at 11:13 am
In the U.K. if the work is no longer available then you are being made redundant – therefore it is not your fault. If however you are no good at the job then you are ‘given the sack.’ Being sacked is shameful whereas being made redundant is not.
Josh Sinclair:
April 7th, 2015 at 1:03 am
Maybe it should follow something along the following lines…
Fired: Generally used to cause some offense and indicate that the employer believes it was the employee’s fault. (After what happened yesterday, I FIRED that guy out!)
Sacked: Softer than fired, may indicate the the employee is good but unable to be used at the company. i.e. The employee may be better off joining another company. (I SACKED that guy, he can’t get along with the other employees if he’s too busy to go to the bar after-work.)
Laying Off/Made Redundant: Fault lies with the employer and employee is not at fault. (I had to lay-off that guy, he’s just to expensive and there’s no-one buying our products anymore!)