5 ms·

In my early (okay... mid) thirties now. I have been laid off once and left on my own will from three jobs through the last 12 years of my career. Being laid of

In my early (okay... mid) thirties now. I have been laid off once and left on my own will from three jobs through the last 12 years of my career. Being laid off puts kind of a stink on you, even if slight, that requires a bit of interview time be spent clarifying WHY you got laid off instead of entirely being able to focus on experience, accomplishments etc. When I was moving from one place to another, there seemed to be a noticeable sense of urgency on the new company's part to recruit me away. However, as long as you get your story straight I think it’s easier to explain a stretch of unemployment more now than it used to be. I can appreciate that I'm probably saying this from a place of privilege working in tech-orbit. I bet my tone changes if I suffer a layoff in my older age.

tathougies 7y ago
Reallt? I just say they didnt have money to pay me and ask the interviewer really pointedly if the company I'm interviewing with has money to pay me. I feel lay offs are easy to explain. Firing is different.
abc126589 7y ago
Is it required that one disclosure they were laid off vs saying was interested in changing companies?
- sharkweek 7y ago
  Nah, but I do think it's healthier to be upfront about that stuff.
lowercased 7y ago
I've always understood there to be a difference between "laid off" and "fired". "Fired" tends to be because of you, "laid off" is more on the company's side. I was "fired" once (well, twice, in the 90s) because I wasn't pulling my weight. I was 'laid off' once (in the 2000s) because the company was running out of money, and had to lay off around half the company. That wasn't really anything to do with my performance or ability - it was the company's finances. Explaining "I was part of the 50% of the company laid off due to financial pressures" (or "laid off after a corporate merger") wouldn't generally have the same negative connotation.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  The reason it has a stigma, though, is that when layoffs happen, companies tend not to layoff their star performers, or they do at least some amount of stack ranking. Of course that is not always the case (sometimes entire departments are closed if a company exits a line of business, or the entire company itself folds), but if the company had a ~5-30% across-the-board layoff, it's generally assumed some level of personal-level decision making goes into deciding who gets laid off. Which is why I'll repeat the advice: the best time to find a new job is when you've already got one. Layoffs very rarely come without any warning, so if things start to look even a little dicey, not a bad idea to at least put your resume out there.
  - lowercased 7y ago
    In my case, there were around 25 people, and 12 were let go. This was financial, and they primarily lost the higher paid people (me) and kept the jrs. Also, LIFO was a factor, and I was one of the last in. You're not wrong. Certainly people think "well, there must have been a reason you were let go..." and yeah, sometimes it may mean you were stackranked out. With smaller companies that's probably harder to do, or... there are bigger factors at play (more immediate cashflow in our situation). And yes, always be looking.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    when layoffs happen, companies tend not to layoff their star performers Positions are made redundant, not people. It doesn’t matter how good or bad you are if the company no longer has work for someone who does the thing you do, or in the location you do it. Some unethical companies do use layoffs as a cover for stack ranking but that’s an easy ruse to see through and reflects on them, not you.
    - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
      Large (or even not-so-large) companies very rarely have one person per position. If they've got, say, 10% extra capacity in one area, obviously they are going to look at all the people in those roles when it comes to deciding who to let go. Again, obviously that doesn't always apply in all situations (e.g. the closure of an entire business unit, or the loss of a big customer), but it also obviously applies in many situations. Furthermore, since on HN we like to think that skills matter, wouldn't we want it to? I mean, if there is a fantastic developer that just happens to be on a project that gets cancelled, wouldn't you want the company to figure out how to keep them over someone who is much less productive working on a project that just happened to not get cancelled?
luckydata 7y ago
This is very self aware of you and not many in our field understand that. Youth is something most employers are willing to bet on, but as you age things slow down and it becomes increasingly harder to make the case for "you".
goatinaboat 7y ago
Being laid off puts kind of a stink on you Not my experience. It’s just a fact of working life nowadays. Companies have financial disasters all the time, or take part in fads like outsourcing or offshoring.
southphillyman 7y ago
Do you even have to disclose that you were laid off? Why not just say you took time off to travel or something? Or just say that assignment/job ended and you are looking for new opportunities without going into further detail? I know several people who quit jobs to travel for months at a time, in a way it's a signal that you may be a good performer if you have that kind of luxury.
ultrasaurus 7y ago
Don't let it get you down, anyone with 12 years is going to have some pluses and minuses, and any good interview loop will ferret out most of both on everyone. I've spent far more time on the interviewer side of the table than the interviewee and I can promise we all have some stink on us :)

tathougies 7y ago

Reallt? I just say they didnt have money to pay me and ask the interviewer really pointedly if the company I'm interviewing with has money to pay me. I feel lay offs are easy to explain. Firing is different.

abc126589 7y ago

Is it required that one disclosure they were laid off vs saying was interested in changing companies?

sharkweek 7y ago
Nah, but I do think it's healthier to be upfront about that stuff.

lowercased 7y ago

I've always understood there to be a difference between "laid off" and "fired". "Fired" tends to be because of you, "laid off" is more on the company's side. I was "fired" once (well, twice, in the 90s) because I wasn't pulling my weight. I was 'laid off' once (in the 2000s) because the company was running out of money, and had to lay off around half the company. That wasn't really anything to do with my performance or ability - it was the company's finances. Explaining "I was part of the 50% of the company laid off due to financial pressures" (or "laid off after a corporate merger") wouldn't generally have the same negative connotation.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
The reason it has a stigma, though, is that when layoffs happen, companies tend not to layoff their star performers, or they do at least some amount of stack ranking. Of course that is not always the case (sometimes entire departments are closed if a company exits a line of business, or the entire company itself folds), but if the company had a ~5-30% across-the-board layoff, it's generally assumed some level of personal-level decision making goes into deciding who gets laid off. Which is why I'll repeat the advice: the best time to find a new job is when you've already got one. Layoffs very rarely come without any warning, so if things start to look even a little dicey, not a bad idea to at least put your resume out there.
- lowercased 7y ago
  In my case, there were around 25 people, and 12 were let go. This was financial, and they primarily lost the higher paid people (me) and kept the jrs. Also, LIFO was a factor, and I was one of the last in. You're not wrong. Certainly people think "well, there must have been a reason you were let go..." and yeah, sometimes it may mean you were stackranked out. With smaller companies that's probably harder to do, or... there are bigger factors at play (more immediate cashflow in our situation). And yes, always be looking.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  when layoffs happen, companies tend not to layoff their star performers Positions are made redundant, not people. It doesn’t matter how good or bad you are if the company no longer has work for someone who does the thing you do, or in the location you do it. Some unethical companies do use layoffs as a cover for stack ranking but that’s an easy ruse to see through and reflects on them, not you.
  - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
    Large (or even not-so-large) companies very rarely have one person per position. If they've got, say, 10% extra capacity in one area, obviously they are going to look at all the people in those roles when it comes to deciding who to let go. Again, obviously that doesn't always apply in all situations (e.g. the closure of an entire business unit, or the loss of a big customer), but it also obviously applies in many situations. Furthermore, since on HN we like to think that skills matter, wouldn't we want it to? I mean, if there is a fantastic developer that just happens to be on a project that gets cancelled, wouldn't you want the company to figure out how to keep them over someone who is much less productive working on a project that just happened to not get cancelled?

luckydata 7y ago

This is very self aware of you and not many in our field understand that. Youth is something most employers are willing to bet on, but as you age things slow down and it becomes increasingly harder to make the case for "you".

goatinaboat 7y ago

Being laid off puts kind of a stink on you Not my experience. It’s just a fact of working life nowadays. Companies have financial disasters all the time, or take part in fads like outsourcing or offshoring.

southphillyman 7y ago

Do you even have to disclose that you were laid off? Why not just say you took time off to travel or something? Or just say that assignment/job ended and you are looking for new opportunities without going into further detail? I know several people who quit jobs to travel for months at a time, in a way it's a signal that you may be a good performer if you have that kind of luxury.

ultrasaurus 7y ago

Don't let it get you down, anyone with 12 years is going to have some pluses and minuses, and any good interview loop will ferret out most of both on everyone. I've spent far more time on the interviewer side of the table than the interviewee and I can promise we all have some stink on us :)