WWYD (Job Hunt)

[sam_gordon]

Looking at the current trajectory of the economy, knowing you have both a high schooler (and you may have to carry the family health insurance?) and companies like to hire the already employed and not the unemployed, I'd 100% take the job offer.

No doubts.

I would also 100% quit the new job later if I got something spectacular after I took it. But it would have to be worth the double upheaval.

Can you explain the bolded please?

DW has the family health insurance (except for me). But no problem putting me on her account.

 

[TwoMisfits]

Can you explain the bolded please?

DW has the family health insurance (except for me). But no problem putting me on her account.

Companies always like to pull people from other companies b/c they know those employees are "wanted" and "effective" - people out of work always have the "question mark" of "why" are they out of work...and companies hate question marks.

You always want to try to be looking for a job while you're in another job. Since that wasn't possible for you, I'd suggest taking this job, b/c that will put you right back into that employed "there's no question mark on if this person is good and can work" category...especially since it seems this job uses your skill set and displays what you can offer to others (aka, you're not taking a minimum wage job at McD's - you're still working in your field at your former level, if not your former salary)...

Especially at your age. With 32 years in, you'll find fewer companies willing to open that 1st door to you if you are jobless and WAY more looking to do it if you are productively working.

EDIT TO ADD: Especially if you stay out of work for "many months" - the question just gets bigger and bigger on why you aren't working - work is too good for you? holding out for too much money/value yourself too highly? won't do anything beneath your former level? can't work/have medical problems/family problems?, etc, etc...companies won't want to have to worry about that answer - they'll just snipe someone from another company...

 

[tvguy]

You've mentioned before your concern about taking a job if you are still hoping for something better. To me the relocating part would be a deal killer for me. This is home and I'll sell cars if I have to for a living if it means I don't have to relocate. I work to live, not live to work.

 

[_19disnA]

Companies always like to pull people from other companies b/c they know those employees are "wanted" and "effective" - people out of work always have the "question mark" of "why" are they out of work...and companies hate question marks.

Not how it works at the company where I work and often do interviews of potential new employees. This is something difficult to generalize. Someone may have lost their job when the company eliminated a group/division or sold off part of the business to some other company, business consolidation, etc. None of that would be within their control. In that example both 'good' and 'bad' performers could be without a job. The fact someone is currently employed doesn't automatically mean they are a 'good' performer.

We typically ask someone about clear gaps in their resume employment history but that alone isn't a reason we would not consider someone for an opening.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I wouldn't take a new job if I was still actively looking for another one. If the issues is finances (which I'm not getting the picture it is) that's one thing. But I wouldn't personally take up a company on an offer while still actively looking. Maybe if you're in the new job after a year or so and not finding your groove. It IMO wastes everyone's time, can take away a position from someone else and can burn bridges although that last part may depend just how important networking and word of mouth accounts for in one's area and industry. If it was retail or food industry I'd count that differently, the turnover rate is part and parcel of the industry.

An old coworker of my husband's flew to another city (about a 2 hour flight) M-Th each week it worked for them but at that time they were just dating had no kids. They are married and now have a newborn and that type of schedule wouldn't fly (no pun intended). A 90min commute for me would be a no go but would renting be feasible either? That you'd have to ask yourself.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

With 32 years in, you'll find fewer companies willing to open that 1st door to you if you are jobless and WAY more looking to do it if you are productively working.

I think if it was years after their present job loss that might be different but their resume would show a recent job stop and length of time with a prior company. With the last several years a reasonable thing to think of is being laid off too

And to spin it around what would it tell someone if the OP had the job but had only just been hired that they are applying for another job? It could signal to this other company that the OP is willing to hop to another job quickly and could show a lack of presumed investment thus leading to an increased risk in hiring and training and paying for an employee who just started a new job.

Two sides of the same coin, both I don't think are absolutes and both may draw questions. If I was a recruiter I would probably take the person who clearly shows on their resume they just left a job (and potentially enquire why) but might be hesitant to take on an employee who just started a new job and is actively looking for another one after seeing the length of time with their old one (the one they were laid off from). It would to me actual signal what you think not being employed would that they are essentially too picky, looking for the unicorn employment if you will. I'd be wondering will they stick with our company or if something more enticing comes along leave.

 

[TwoMisfits]

I think if it was years after their present job loss that might be different but their resume would show a recent job stop and length of time with a prior company. With the last several years a reasonable thing to think of is being laid off too

And to spin it around what would it tell someone if the OP had the job but had only just been hired that they are applying for another job? It could signal to this other company that the OP is willing to hop to another job quickly and could show a lack of presumed investment thus leading to an increased risk in hiring and training and paying for an employee who just started a new job.

Two sides of the same coin, both I don't think are absolutes and both may draw questions. If I was a recruiter I would probably take the person who clearly shows on their resume they just left a job (and potentially enquire why) but might be hesitant to take on an employee who just started a new job and is actively looking for another one after seeing the length of time with their old one (the one they were laid off from). It would to me actual signal what you think not being employed would that they are essentially too picky, looking for the unicorn employment if you will. I'd be wondering will they stick with our company or if something more enticing comes along leave.

I'm assuming he's not updating his resume to include the new job at anywhere he's already applied. So, to them, he's not hired to anyone, anyway, at least til the OP gets to the point they might actually want to hire him - which is usually either soon or never, since getting one's resume tossed in a drawer for later doesn't tend to get anywhere.

And at the top level analysis - right now, the 32 years at one job is gonna be aa much a detriment to OP as a positive in a lot of ways - possible inflexibility with new employers, possible staleness of skills in varying areas (ie - too much of an expert in one thing and one way), possible belief that work has to be done just one way, age, etc. So, if he wants a shot at any of the other more attractive jobs, they'll either hire him on what he's already sent, so no harm done (but which doesn't seem to be happening yet) or he'll have to wait a year or two and reapply, when he will have 2 past employers with varying job tasks and responsibilities, and be WAY more attractive to the ones not biting now.

This is general b/c OP hasn't said what he does, but having seen this process just this summer, when the job level is high "enough" and attractive "enough", the level of pickiness from the employer comes into play. They want the perfect...even when it's not available, and they will keep letting jobs stay open or take chances on younger and cheaper if they have to take chances...

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm assuming he's not updating his resume to include the new job at anywhere he's already applied. So, to them, he's not hired to anyone, anyway, at least til the OP gets to the point they might actually want to hire him - which is usually either soon or never, since getting one's resume tossed in a drawer for later doesn't tend to get anywhere.

And at the top level analysis - right now, the 32 years at one job is gonna be aa much a detriment to OP as a positive in a lot of ways - possible inflexibility with new employers, possible staleness of skills in varying areas (ie - too much of an expert in one thing and one way), possible belief that work has to be done just one way, age, etc. So, if he wants a shot at any of the other more attractive jobs, they'll either hire him on what he's already sent, so no harm done (but which doesn't seem to be happening yet) or he'll have to wait a year or two and reapply, when he will have 2 past employers with varying job tasks and responsibilities, and be WAY more attractive to the ones not biting now.

This is general b/c OP hasn't said what he does, but having seen this process just this summer, when the job level is high "enough" and attractive "enough", the level of pickiness from the employer comes into play. They want the perfect...even when it's not available, and they will keep letting jobs stay open or take chances on younger and cheaper if they have to take chances...

Just a correction... 32 years at one EMPLOYER, not one JOB. All told, I've had eight(?) titles in those 32 years, spread among three departments.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm assuming he's not updating his resume to include the new job at anywhere he's already applied.

The scenario though that the OP was talking about was taking the job and then dropping that should another job come through or another one he was looking at he applied for and got an offer.

What you're saying above is the same as him not being employed as he's leaving off employment history, my apologies, but that doesn't make sense with your whole argument of being presently jobless and being unattractive from that stance.

He presently is jobless so in order to not be he has to take a job, be employed and put that on his resume. Otherwise like you were saying from your viewpoint a company wouldn't hire him because he shows no present employment by way of his resume.

 

[TwoMisfits]

The scenario though that the OP was talking about was taking the job and then dropping that should another job come through or another one he was looking at he applied for and got an offer.

What you're saying above is the same as him not being employed as he's leaving off employment history, my apologies, but that doesn't make sense with your whole argument of being presently jobless and being unattractive from that stance.

He presently is jobless so in order to not be he has to take a job, be employed and put that on his resume. Otherwise like you were saying from your viewpoint a company wouldn't hire him because he shows no present employment by way of his resume.

Op has only one bite so far that has now gotten to interview stage 2 - not technically even the job yet. That's in what I'm assuming (from following the severance saga) is 3 months or so of being unemployed and having packages sent out to everyone he "wanted".

So, everyone has had his package 3 months. If he gets and takes this current job, he can easily tell anyone who might call on the original package (which I think is unlikely if everything went out at the same time, but I don't know the field, so it might not be) that he hadn't heard back, so he took the opportunity that presented itself to him, and it would take quite a good opportunity from them for him to want to move on so quickly - so that 2nd theoretical company would know it would take something better to get him under the original "not employed" package. But, I doubt any of this comes to pass, but it could...and if Op is in a job, it works well for him. He's a sought after commodity then.

If nothing comes to pass from anyone else, and the OP is unhappy in 18 months to 2 years, he has 18 months to 2 years of income and more experience and he can then reapply to everywhere he did, and now has a great package to show, which may open more doors.

Either way, it's a win/win for OP by taking the job.

EDIT: Although now I see his last "official day" at the old job was Friday from the old posts...so maybe it hasn't been as long with the packages out for new jobs as I thought...although none of my thoughts have changed on taking the job. The perfect is the enemy of the good in an economy that's on shaky grounds right now. I knew a VP of marketing in the banking industry who had the thoughts like OP a decade ago and had similar very long tenure at a single employer. He never got rehired after turning down good, but not what he wanted, work in the 1st few months...and now he's finally on SS.

 

[sam_gordon]

Op has only one bite so far that has now gotten to interview stage 2 - not technically even the job yet. That's in what I'm assuming (from following the severance saga) is 3 months or so of being unemployed and having packages sent out to everyone he "wanted".

So, everyone has had his package 3 months. If he gets and takes this current job, he can easily tell anyone who might call on the original package (which I think is unlikely if everything went out at the same time, but I don't know the field, so it might not be) that he hadn't heard back, so he took the opportunity that presented itself to him, and it would take quite a good opportunity from them for him to want to move on so quickly - so that 2nd theoretical company would know it would take something better to get him under the original "not employed" package. But, I doubt any of this comes to pass, but it could...and if Op is in a job, it works well for him. He's a sought after commodity then.

If nothing comes to pass from anyone else, and the OP is unhappy in 18 months to 2 years, he has 18 months to 2 years of income and more experience and he can then reapply to everywhere he did, and now has a great package to show, which may open more doors.

Either way, it's a win/win for OP by taking the job.

Actually, the longest anyone has had my application is just over a month. I agree if I was three months in and this was the only nibble I was getting, my decision would be a little easier. My last day of work was this past Friday (yes, I got 5 weeks notice). I've put out around 40 applications, spread out over those 5 weeks. So some people have only seen my resume for days (if they've even looked at it yet), some have had it for weeks.

 

[fly girl]

This is a tough one.

You have to follow your gut. I think when you go on Wednesday you will probably get a better sense in what choice you should make.

And I hear you on the commute. Obviously dh's job is a different type commute as it is not your typical work environment, but it is still not easy when his base is 4.5 hours away. We stayed here for dd to finish HS (she's a freshman, we have 4 more years!). Last year we had her shadow by his base as well as here to see where she wanted to go. She truly gave all of them full consideration, but she chose a school here. So far we couldn't be happier with her choice. This is where she belongs and that is more important than anything.

 

[kdonnel]

Actually, the longest anyone has had my application is just over a month. I agree if I was three months in and this was the only nibble I was getting, my decision would be a little easier. My last day of work was this past Friday (yes, I got 5 weeks notice). I've put out around 40 applications, spread out over those 5 weeks. So some people have only seen my resume for days (if they've even looked at it yet), some have had it for weeks.

Are you using recruiters?

I only got one response from an application sent directly from a job posting on a company web page despite submitting at least 30.

I got tons of responses from applications submitted by recruiters. I had to create a spreadsheet so I could keep up. Some ending at a screening interview but most went to a full on interview.

 

[sam_gordon]

Are you using recruiters?

I only got one response from an application sent directly from a job posting on a company web page despite submitting at least 30.

I got tons of responses from applications submitted by recruiters. I had to create a spreadsheet so I could keep up. Some ending at a screening interview but most went to a full on interview.

My (former) company has outplacement services as part of the severance. So I signed up for that and my first call with them is next Monday. Other than that, I'm just looking at indeed, linkedin, and whatever other websites (including company ones) for job openings.

 

[kdonnel]

My (former) company has outplacement services as part of the severance. So I signed up for that and my first call with them is next Monday. Other than that, I'm just looking at indeed, linkedin, and whatever other websites (including company ones) for job openings.

Make sure your LinkedIn profile is up to date and set to looking.

The recruiters will start contacting you in about a week.

Once you get a job, turn the setting to not looking and the recruiters will slow down but not stop. I still get one or two contacts per week and I am almost 3 years past setting my profile to not looking.

 

[QueenIsabella]

We were in kind of the same situation, a few years back. DH's plant closed, he had the choice of being transferred to the Syracuse area, or Massachusetts. He chose the latter, while having feelers out to move elsewhere (we're currently in North Carolina). He commuted, with the school excuse (DS #1 was then a senior in HS). I think he started in November, got his "real" offer in March or so, our house-hunting trip to NC was over April vacation, so it was a done deal by then. In his case, corporate relocations were part of the package--you'll need to eventually evaluate these, as well (he got corporate relocation, pro-rated, for his time in MA, then a different package for the move to NC).

What I wanted to let you know was how he handled the commute. The first couple weeks, he stayed in a hotel, and had permission to work, basically 40 hours straight (actually, 3, 12-hour days, then 4 hours and head home). He put out the word to his co-workers that he was looking for a room to rent during the week, (3-4 nights, we paid $100/week in cash at the time). He had a co-worker with extra space, so he got a bedroom, bath, and kitchen access for that. Sometimes, the couple would feed him dinner, sometimes they would go out and he'd stay with their dog. Meals weren't included in the deal, but he could make breakfast and dinner, leave stuff there, etc. If the weather was bad, he had the option of staying an extra night. He'd also help shovel out the driveway if needed. The set-up worked well all-around.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Op has only one bite so far that has now gotten to interview stage 2 - not technically even the job yet. That's in what I'm assuming (from following the severance saga) is 3 months or so of being unemployed and having packages sent out to everyone he "wanted".

So, everyone has had his package 3 months. If he gets and takes this current job, he can easily tell anyone who might call on the original package (which I think is unlikely if everything went out at the same time, but I don't know the field, so it might not be) that he hadn't heard back, so he took the opportunity that presented itself to him, and it would take quite a good opportunity from them for him to want to move on so quickly - so that 2nd theoretical company would know it would take something better to get him under the original "not employed" package. But, I doubt any of this comes to pass, but it could...and if Op is in a job, it works well for him. He's a sought after commodity then.

If nothing comes to pass from anyone else, and the OP is unhappy in 18 months to 2 years, he has 18 months to 2 years of income and more experience and he can then reapply to everywhere he did, and now has a great package to show, which may open more doors.

Either way, it's a win/win for OP by taking the job.

EDIT: Although now I see his last "official day" at the old job was Friday from the old posts...so maybe it hasn't been as long with the packages out for new jobs as I thought...although none of my thoughts have changed on taking the job. The perfect is the enemy of the good in an economy that's on shaky grounds right now. I knew a VP of marketing in the banking industry who had the thoughts like OP a decade ago and had similar very long tenure at a single employer. He never got rehired after turning down good, but not what he wanted, work in the 1st few months...and now he's finally on SS.

I don't disagree about the length of time at the new job (hence my comment about waiting a year or so into the new job and not getting in the groove) but employers are getting tired of hiring people (often ones who have been in long term jobs/employers and were laid off) only for them to leave soon for something else quickly. There's a risk either way, not a win/win not when your intent is to keep looking or quit quickly after taking it should something better come along and that's the predicament the OP is in right now since they have this less than ideal offer and is hoping for a better suited one. If they were satisfied with their offer, intended to take the job and stay in the job it's a different situation all together.

I didn't disagree with your cons, I was saying it's for both sides. Where I disagreed is the virtue of the OP not having a job (when we're not talking years worth of a gap) in between their last long term employer while looking for a new one being an absolute on an employer bypassing them immediately. Their resume tells the story they were with an employer for decades. I think both being unemployed while job hunting and being employed while job hunting can prompt questions and alarm bells.

If a company asks the OP about his job status during the interview what is the OP going to do? Lie and say they are still employed by their prior employer? And if a company cared (and not all do) if the law allows for it the potential new employer can call the old one for employment verification. And if you don't put on your resume the job the OP is pondering taking should the OP end up taking it it would be just the same as being unemployed with that gap.

As for the person you knew I'm betting there's much more to the story than you know (just a general comment). For the OP this offer is not really that good. It comes with a significant pay cut although from past comments it appears the OP is aware finding a job with their prior income may be difficult and concedes that most jobs they are seeing would be a similar reduction, it comes with either a long daily commute or a semi-relocation during the week and reading through the lines would be a job that would get boring and unfulfilling fast. I'm not saying the OP should just continue to hold out and hold out. I'm just saying that taking a job you don't intend to stick with right after having a long employment history with one employer can be a con as well to another perspective employer.

 

[mefordis]

My personal rule is not to accept a job unless I can commit to it for a year. My dad drilled that into my head and i still follow that today. So, no, I would personally not accept a job unless I could commit a year -- even if something better came along.

At the level I am at now you have to sign a contract anyway, so that is moot. You can't just quit -- well you can but you can't work in the industry doing the same thing for 18 months after you quit.

 

[sam_gordon]

Make sure your LinkedIn profile is up to date and set to looking.

The recruiters will start contacting you in about a week.

Once you get a job, turn the setting to not looking and the recruiters will slow down but not stop. I still get one or two contacts per week and I am almost 3 years past setting my profile to not looking.

Yup. Updated and set to looking weeks ago. All I've gotten is "if you'd like better career options, contact us".

 

[kdonnel]

I live in Metro Atlanta, a 3 hr round trip commute is not all that unusual.

The first job I took after my layoff was 42 miles away. Those 42 miles took an hour and forty five minutes each way with a combination of me driving and public transportation. If I drove it took about an hour and a half each way. If I drove and paid to use the HOT lanes it took right at an hour each way.

I also was told to expect a 15-20% pay cut. I was told there was little hope of being hired at my prior pay even if hired for a senior level position because I would not have the time in that particular senior level position.

In the end I took an 18% pay cut.

After about a year with the new company I decided to look for something closer. I had lucked out with Covid and had only commuted into the office for 3 months before the world shut down. Once there started to be rumblings about a return to the office I decided I didn't want to lose those 2-3.5 hours a day again to a commute so I started looking and found another job that clawed back a few more % in pay and is only 20 miles away which translates to 30-35 minutes each way.

Don't feel guilty about using the offer as a stepping stone into something better later, even if later is just a short while later.