Layed Off Or Quit... What's the Difference?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
December 17, 2006 1:12pm CST
Dupont annouced that it is laying off thousands of employees due to restructuring. Ford Motor Company discontinued thousands of positions because not enough of their cars were sold. Many manufacturing jobs have been moved overseas.
Recently the employees of a company decided to go on strike. Millions of people quit one job because they found one that pays more, or has better benefits.
Why is it that we are supposed to despise the evil corporation but congratulate the worker. Both of them are just doing what is in their own best interests.
Jobs are created for the simple reason that someone decides they would rather pay someone else to do something. Those jobs are filled by people who decide they would rather do something for money than for free. Both are out to get the most they can for the least they have to give.
So really, what is the difference?
3 people like this
38 responses
@froogle (775)
•
18 Dec 06
There is a huge difference. When you quit, it means you have already figured out your choices and chose the better place for u or atleast reaised this is not the best place for you. When you are laid off, you are shocked and that is when you start thinking of your future choices!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
And when you are layed off it means that your employer has figured out their choices and chose the better plan for them. When you quit, they are shocked and have to think about future choices.
1 person likes this
@deargoodbye (761)
• United States
17 Dec 06
You posted something like this on your blog I think Ted and I'm going with the power/control issue.
When you quit a job, the power and control is in your hands. You probably have another job or something lined up waiting for you.
When you're laid off, you have lost the power and control, instead the company/boss has all the control over you in a way. Now you have an urgency to find a new source of income.
Everyone needs to make choices that better themselves or their company. I'm not going to boycott a company because they had to lay people off.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Dec 06
Both you and your employer have equal "power/control" here. You can quit anytime you find what you consider a better situation, and they can lay you off if they feel they don't need the position you fill anymore.
On the other hand, they have no more power to force you to stay than you have to force them to keep you.
@deargoodbye (761)
• United States
17 Dec 06
Yes, both parties have power/control over what happens but an employee doesn't like that power/control to be taken away which happens when they are laid off.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Dec 06
Yes, both parties have power/ control over what happens but an employee doesn't like that power/control to be taken away which happens when they are laid off.
No more than an employer likes losing that power and control when an employee quits. Niether side likes it when the other cost them money, but we're somehow supposed to see the layed off worker as a "victim".
@remaster74 (4064)
• Greece
17 Dec 06
We workers are not satisfied with anything, at last. But come on! Companies are the money and the offers and workers are the ones who fight to make a living. Yes, it is acceptable for a company to lay off people because it goes no where, but at least lay off them with a price, that means pay them off and give them some money to live till they find a job. And don't lay off people that are older and it's hard for them to find a job. Loyalty must be rewarded.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Dec 06
It costs a lot of money to replace a worker. So should a worker who quits a job pay the employer?
@baysmummy (1637)
• Australia
17 Dec 06
Well if you are to walk in tomorrow and say i Quit, then you have all the power and control and you are choosing to quit but if you are layed off then that power and control is in your bosses hands! i hope that helps explain it a little!
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
It only reinforces my point. Both the employer and the employee make decisions that both benefit and cost each other money. So neither are "victims" of the other, they are simply in a position to effect each other.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
Right, both are the result of one side making a decision in their own best interests, that cost the other.
@emeraldisle (13139)
• United States
18 Dec 06
Most companies can lay you off without warning. Yes they may have to pay unemployment but that depends on the why's and where for's. If you quit a company most, in order to give you a good reference, demand that you give at least a two week notice. If you don't they can decide to say they won't hire you back and thus it reflects negatively on you when you apply someplace else. So yes the corporations have a great deal of power.
Now that power gets even more if you work in a state like Florida where it's a Right To Work state. Here they can fire you for any reason. They don't even need one. Yes they have to pay unemployment if you have been with them long enough to earn it (which is far more then just ninety days) and if they don't give good cause but this does not stop some companies from hiring people planning to fire them right before they would qualify. Yes they do that a great deal in this state or at least in the area I live in.
So no I don't think it's an even balance between companies and the common man.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
If the employee can quit for no apparent reason at any time, why should the employer have to have reason?
Freedom works both ways.
1 person likes this
@kawillow74 (1416)
• United States
17 Dec 06
There is a big difference when you quit that is or choice maybe you got a better offer at a new company layoff is when company's are down sizeing and you could be out of work and not get called back. And there is a certain amount of time you can collect umempolyment money.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Dec 06
Right, so there is no difference. Both sides are merely doing what they feel is best for their interests.
Yes, there is unemployment, it's interesting that your company has to pay into unemployment insurance so you can collect it if they let you go. However, if you walk off the job, they can't collect the money you cost them by your decision.
@bonnitabelle (143)
• Canada
18 Dec 06
It's quite simple really. If you quit your job, you are the one making that decision. Either you have another job lined up, or just can't stand doing what you do anymore, or many other reasons. If you are laid off, then the decision is not yours to make, just yours to accept. Your employer has made that decision for you.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
Right, and in the case of you quitting a job, you have made the decision, and the employer just has to accept it. YOu have made the decision for the employer.
@tlex107250 (667)
• United States
18 Dec 06
Being layed off is what happens when the Company no longer needs as many workers. Quitting is what an individual does when he no longer wants to work for a company.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Dec 06
Thanks for responding to the title without bothering to read the article.
@edras_2 (299)
• United States
18 Dec 06
While part of what you say is true,don't you even question how fair it is?The large corporations,already rich,are downsizing companies here only to open factories in other countries,where the smae parts are manufactured cheaper and closing the plants here,True,they are looking to keep the dollars in their pockets,but so are we.This has happened to me this year,along with 465 other people.All the people working there had been there 10 to 20 yrs. and no one was looking for another job.We were making good money,which we needed to support our families,and had a good benefit package,which we also needed to provide healthcare for our families.We loved our jobs and our company,and even each other!Now,through fault of our own,we have been stripped of these things and have start back at square one.Gone is the money,the benefits,and the years put in.If this had ever happened to you,you would not be asking this,I think.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
Oh, I'm not saying it's fair. I'm not even defending management's often heartless or piss poor decision making.
Life isn't fair, in fact "fairness" is never really fair.
It is sad that you are losing the security and friendships that came with having a job at that company. However, if you had a chance for what you considered a better job, you reserved the right to pursue it, right? If a better opportunity came along, you would weigh that opportunity against what you would be giving up, and you would make your decision accordingly, right?
You wouldn't be thinking about what is "fair" to your employer. You wouldn't be thinking about how much it would cost them to find and train a replacement for you. You wouldn't be thinking of what is best for management... you would be thinking of what is best for you and those you support (and btw, that is exactly how you should be thinking).
Well, when a company decides to lay off workers, they are thinking about what is best for them and those they support.
So again, what's the difference?
and btw, yes, I have been laid off, and no, it's no fun and not "fair"... but I've also quit jobs, investing my time, skills and experience to another company, which wasn't very "fair" to the company I left either.
@tayyabs (35)
• Pakistan
18 Dec 06
U r right. No difference. Each one is working in its own best interest. But job left by one is just another thing while ''THOUSANDS OF WORKERS LAID OFF'' makes a great headline. What do u think??
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
You're right, the headline does sell papers. It also works to inflame the indignation of those who think the workers are everything and management just sits around drinking coffee and scheming better ways to screw the employees. ;~D
@Aali311 (6112)
• United States
18 Dec 06
They are not the same at all, being layed off is being let go without a choice, the company makes the choice for you, quitting is leaving the job by your own choice. They might still need you but you decide to leave, when they lay you off they don't need you anymore.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
When they lay you off, they don't need you anymore. When you quit it's because you don't need them anymore. So both are merely choices one makes that effect the other.
@sunita64 (6469)
• India
18 Dec 06
If you quit then choice is in your hands,so if the next employer asks your reasons for quitting you can give a respectable answer. If you are laid then next employer can think may be you were inefficient or some negative point.Thus quitting is better.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
The next perspective employer will think what they want either way. but btw, most people consider being layed off better than quitting.
@spangles94 (546)
• United States
18 Dec 06
Well most people dont quit a job unless they are either just mad or have found a better offer, fortunatly 80% of the people dont quit onless they already have somithing lined up and usually they will give the 2 weeks notice so they can get good refences , now if you are laid off , you have the option of getting unemployment benefits , wich is good but not great about 1/3 of what you would normally make but these days if you have cc's etc you can get that ins plan that will pay your min balance and such if you are laid off but you have to send them proof.. i think as for hating the "man" but congratulating the worker really biols down to the fact that alot of these people depend on that job and most of them have ebeen there for years or planned on being there and climbing the ladder etc but these big comanies only see them as $ signs and they all just think of the bottom line , and well at the bottom line , there are families to feed and some parents out there wondering just where they are gonna find another job like hat when their job was taken over by a machine or an over sea worker .... i hope im making sense .. but i really dont think we value our american workers here much and that upsets me but what can we do other than do our best to support comanies that employ hard working americans ??
~M~
~*~ wife to a hard workin steel man ~*~
next time your pumping gas thank him and his crew for helping to make the pipe to get that oil to make that gas ..... He as well as alot of others do the dirty jobs so you dont have too ;)
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
True, most people don't quit their jobs without something else lined up, but then again most companies don't lay off workers unless they feel it's in the best interest of the company. Both sides are merely making a choice in their own best interests.
Workers are out for their bottom line just like managers are. Most workers wouldn't do their job for free, so why is it only management who gets blamed for "just doing it for the money"? True, workers have mouths to feed and bills to pay, but so does the company. If they don't feed the investors and pay the bills there won't be a company to work for after too long.
I value the worker very highly, I just see that both labor and management are important. It's true that labor makes the product or performs the service, but if management isn't doing their jobs then the product or service goes nowhere.
~~~
And yes, we should appreciate those who do that dirty work, so we won't have to. ;~)
@Metallion (2227)
• United States
18 Dec 06
Many times if you are "laid off" you will receive compensation in various forms from the company (that is different than being fired for doing something wrong, then the company will give you nothing). If you quit you will receive no benefits.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
Right, so if turnabout is fairplay, should the employee have to compensate the employer for quitting?
@JustSimplyLissa (547)
• United States
18 Dec 06
Layed off is basically the company firing you on "friendly" terms, it means your services are no longer needed. Quitting is you not liking what's happening and you resign from the position you hold meaning that your position stay in tact and will be there after your gone unlike being layed off, it disappears basically.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
But you can quit a job on friendly terms also. All quitting is, is laying off your employer.
@Brittany011 (119)
• United States
18 Dec 06
laid off means you got fired and quit means you walked off.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Dec 06
Right, they are both a choice someone made that cost the other money. So what's the difference?