Quit or Get Fired?

SixofNine

I have a good friend who is probably going to be moving out of state within six months or so. Her problem is that she doesn't think she can endure six months in her current work environment. It's a huge international corporation, with really nasty, stupid, ineffective middle management, and she has zero political or managerial power there.

However, there is no guarantee that she can just walk out and get another job making the same amount of money or with anywhere near the same insurance package. She would in fact like to change industries altogether when she moves.

My problem is that I've been self-employed so long that I have very little idea how unemployment compensation works, or what the risk are of being fired vs quitting (in terms of both unemployment compensation AND how it looks to other employers), so I don't have much advice to give.

My understanding though, is that large corporations HR dept's no longer give recommendations or negative comments to prospective employers about their past employees? They only confirm that the person did work there, is this correct?

If I'm correct about that, my thought is that it would be better to be fired and have the chance to get unemployment in the event work was not available quickly. Why not just "office space" it for a while, keep the job for as long as possible w/o really stressing over the personal politics (for the benefits), and let them terminate if and when they so choose?

Any suggestions from those who have played the cube-rat game in corporate America?

hillbilly

If she just quits for the heck of it she wont be eligible for Unemployment benefits. If she quits with reasons, like harrasment or whistle blowing she may see benifits after hearings and going through the system. If she gets laid off from her next job she would have to meet some limits to draw a check, as funding goes back a job or two.

Getting fired? Again, discharge will not always disqualify a person from drawing benefits. The employer must fire you with a qualified reason: insubordination or violence, theft are a few that come to mind. If you get fired for some reason like "your not a good fit" or some vauge reason she could contest and win her check.

If I had 6 months I'd do my job... and look for one that I want. That old saw, "easier to find a job while you have one", is pretty true.

HR will only confirm employment. A personal letter of recomendation from a coworker or boss may be the only way to go... and many managers are hesitant to offer those now days.

That being said ...the grapvine can be long, epecially in some industries. Burning bridges is risky business.

~Hill

Crumpet

Hillbilly's advice is spot on, if US employment law is anything like UK. I'd definitely try and stick it out, but if she cant there are jobs which will pay her a bit that she can do from home and she can still put down on a resume so it does not put off future employers. (I've also pm-ed you)

AudeSapere

My problem is that I've been self-employed so long that I have very little idea how unemployment compensation works, or what the risk are of being fired vs quitting (in terms of both unemployment compensation AND how it looks to other employers), so I don't have much advice to give.
My understanding though, is that large corporations HR dept's no longer give recommendations or negative comments to prospective employers about their past employees? They only confirm that the person did work there, is this correct?

If I'm correct about that, my thought is that it would be better to be fired and have the chance to get unemployment in the event work was not available quickly. Why not just "office space" it for a while, keep the job for as long as possible w/o really stressing over the personal politics (for the benefits), and let them terminate if and when they so choose?

Last I heard, there are essentially two questions asked: Confirmation of dates and nature of employment and 'Is the person eligible for re-hire'. My personal experience however, was that my current employer did a full background check on new-hires and asked very pointed questions of my 3 prior direct supervisors (who happened to be the owners of the companies). So there are probably still ways for a future employer to learn about work ethic, etc.

Still, I think it's better by far to let the job run its course and risk being fired than to just up an leave with no prospects. Best method may be to seriously seek alternative employment before giving 2-weeks notice.

Hopefully we have some recruiters and HR people on the board who can provide more sound advise.

-Aude.

Xena

Yep hillybilly pegged it.

beksbks

I only have experience with California. Did a bit o Human Resource work. If you quit, you will not get benefits. Unless you go through some lengthy and often unsuccessful attempt to prove they "forced" you to quit. If you get fired, that is still no guarantee that you will get benefits. If they had cause, you're out of luck. A previous employer is legally allowed to give only information on length of employment, dates, etc. But I will tell you, that as a prospective new employer I have been able to coax more information out of previous employers.

littlerockguy

Human Resources for the company I work for told the managers where I work (me being one) to direct all inquires on former employees to the HR department and not to give references except for verifying dates. It is hard to do background checks on prospective employees and I dont think the HR department where I work check out anything judging by some of the people I have ended up with.

LRG

lonelysheep

There is no point in quitting a job in this country unless you 1) don't have to work or 2) you already have another job to go to!

I feel her pain.

Quit or Get Fired?

Share this