Does it look better to quit without another job or be layed off?

[ackmondual]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

Rubbish.


I've seen phenomenal people laid off simply due to their lack of seniority or because their manager didn't like them for some reason (usually for being the wrong age, wrong gender, or wrong race).

One coworker ended up getting into a "spirited gamer debate" about which is better... he was a Playstation 3 fan, while his project manager was an Xbox 360 fan. From the conversations I've heard, they kept it civil, but the pM *may* have taken things a bit too personally. This was part of the reason he didn't ask if that pM to be a professional reference.

[BigDaveyL]

Sometimes, it's okay to quit and easy to give an excuse, i.e. family issues, health issues, etc.

But I would opt for a lay off instead unless you are independently wealthy. Reason being, you will sometimes get a severance package and out placement services as well as be eligible for UI.

Even though the U3 levels are at their lowest in 20 years or so, I heard the average time to find a job is something like 30-35 weeks.

[Xanathos]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Employers would think you were laid off because you weren't a good worker.

Would they, though? Most companies have planned annual layoffs these days, and the reasons for them are always opaque. If you ever came across an application that asked why you left, you could just write down something like "I was laid off in the name of "corporate synergies"" which is the latest, greatest buzzword in executive speak. Which basically just boils down to saying the company decided that instead of paying 2 people to do the work of 2 people, they should have 1 person do that same work of 2.