Kathy,
The advice about "quit" vs "fired" is a double-edged sword: an employee who "quits" or is "fired for cause" is not eligible for unemployment $. One who is "laid off" (i.e. no fault of his own) is. Since the workforce commission goes back to the employer for some of the money that they pay out, an employer might be only too happy to agree to a "yeah, you quit voluntarily" deal, since it saves them $ without having to prove "for cause". Of course, if they do prove the "fired for cause" deal, it's the worst of both worlds, "fired" on the resume AND no unemployment $. But one can appeal the "for cause" determination, at least in the state where my source has firsthand experience in the matter.
It's a tradeoff: "quit" looks better on a resume in the future, but guarantees no unemployment benefit now. "Fired" may tip toward "laid off" & $, or to "for cause" and nothing.
Just a thought. Crummy spot to be in.
Snoopy
The advice about "quit" vs "fired" is a double-edged sword: an employee who "quits" or is "fired for cause" is not eligible for unemployment $. One who is "laid off" (i.e. no fault of his own) is. Since the workforce commission goes back to the employer for some of the money that they pay out, an employer might be only too happy to agree to a "yeah, you quit voluntarily" deal, since it saves them $ without having to prove "for cause". Of course, if they do prove the "fired for cause" deal, it's the worst of both worlds, "fired" on the resume AND no unemployment $. But one can appeal the "for cause" determination, at least in the state where my source has firsthand experience in the matter.
It's a tradeoff: "quit" looks better on a resume in the future, but guarantees no unemployment benefit now. "Fired" may tip toward "laid off" & $, or to "for cause" and nothing.
Just a thought. Crummy spot to be in.
Snoopy