I can’t speak for Patrick, but there is actual value in calling lay offs what they really are (firings) so you avoid falling into euphemistic thinking. The whole reason we have the babble of management speech is people are avoid facing up to what they are really doing. When you fire some to save the company be honest about it and don’t pretend you are giving them the “chance to pursue other opportunities”.
I agree that "chance to pursue other opportunities" is bullshit. But there's a real difference between "fired" and "laid off". Being fired and being laid off are two distinct ways of leaving a position. Being fired vs. laid off can impact your eligibility for unemployment as well as your hiring prospects for the future. [0] If the distinction is relevant to the unemployment compensation system, I don't think you can wave it away as a euphemism.
I am not suggesting that you don't do the right thing by the employee, and making sure their employment is end in the right legal way is important, just that you should try to avoid euphemisms when faced with difficult situations.
Here in Australia we call laying someone off as being made redundant. I have often thought this is an anti-euphemism - you are not only unemployed, but you are redundant.
Not to speak for Patrick, but a layoff is a specific kind of exit; as an example: in a factory, workers will be laid off for a month when orders are low, then called in again when volume picks up.
It's probably the case that if one is contemplating shutting the company down, an hour with a HR-oriented lawyer would be worth it to avoid saying the wrong thing (and thus ending up in court).
