Would you take less after being laid off? If so, how much?

[North Beach Person]

At one time, if you were laid off and got an offer, you were required to accept whether it paid less or not. To refuse to do so would invalidate your Unemployment claim and you would no longer receive it.

[brownbagg]

most time with companies, if you got two people that have the same job task and both perform their task great, the one making the most money will be the one that gets laid off, so have ten years more time, doesnt mean he protected from lay offs.

[FBJ]

Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah

Because life isn't fair, and not everybody gets a trophy.

If you're unemployed, take whatever you can get. It beats sitting around twiddling your thumbs!

I would not go that far because accepting any job can make things very depressing depending on the job. It's better to create a list of jobs that you are willing to do until you get your preferred job so you won't be in a horrible situation. Plus accepting any job can cause you to perform at a low level which may cause you to get terminated. So people have to make sure they know what they are getting into before applying to a job and not get caught up in having employment gaps.

[candycanechick]

Originally Posted by introspectguy

None of the above.

I'd tell John to throw the "fresh grad salary" mindset out the window and not give what his friends are making a second thought.

Kinda Agreed. Kinda not. I think a lot of recent grads take a lot of hits for "unreasonable expectations" but Universities and society have made promises that they could not keep. Like if you PAY FOR a college degree, YOU WILL GET a job that pays XYZ. And, people pay 50k and up for these stupid degrees only to work at jobs that pay the same as jobs that don't require a degree.

It's funny how college's are allowed to make false promises to students, but students can't tell their student loan companies "I know you loaned me a bunch of money at X% APR. But, I don't think your worth it. That money that I took out didn't give me the return your sales man (the university) told me it would. So I'm only going to give you what your worth....nothing..."

Originally Posted by introspectguy

Two reasons:

One, if after a few months he's only offered an OK position, he should jump on it. It's a sign he needs more experience to coincide with his education.

Maybe, maybe not. I haven't put much any background to engage the thought experiment. But, John may need to do other things. Maybe John's local market is flooded and he could expand his geography job search, maybe he should fix his resume, or maybe get a higher degree, or a certification, or take a temp job?

Idk, I'm just wondering if adding options changes what people think.

Local labor pool can play a lot into an OK job at a low salary.

Originally Posted by introspectguy

Two, he can still keep looking for a better opportunity, and being employed makes him a more attractive candidate.

Everyone says this. But, what's he supposed to do? Say "Well thanks for the 2 weeks of pay, but this ain't working for sooo bye"? I suppose it's nice if you have a big industry and you don't have to move. But if you have to move, you have to work there a year to pay back relo (or justify the expense from your own point of veiw). And if your industry is small, word travels fast.

[candycanechick]

Originally Posted by nicet4

You are only worth what someone is willing to pay you. Not a penny more or a penny less.

Hunger is a great motivator.

This seems like a really bad and miss leading point.

1.) What if no one that is qualified to do the job will do it at such a low salary? <- this happens in certain fields. Exaggerating, but if a hospital offered a surgeon minimum wage but require surgeon credentials and all the surgeons said "i'ld rather work at BK and have less stress" That's an example. I've seen very skilled labor requisitions stay open for YEARS for this reason.

2.) It's about the value that that particular role adds to that organization. A person could get a position in another organization where they would be more valuable, but that position may require time or a vacancy.

3.) Your point seems very against the American Capitalist spirit. If yu tell someone "here is a low salary because think you are worth this little" why would that person EVER want to come in and give 200%.

[rabbitsong]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

At one time, if you were laid off and got an offer, you were required to accept whether it paid less or not. To refuse to do so would invalidate your Unemployment claim and you would no longer receive it.

That's the way it was when my hubby was laid off (after 19 years and working his way up into the company). He ended at a Big Box store fixing computers at $10/hr. My parents were so happy that he was working! In the mean time, we almost lost the house because of it. If he hadn't accepted it, he would have lost his UE. When my sister was laid off, she had this "I'm worth more" attitude I see on here a lot. She was extremely picky and turned down three offers one week. She was griping on FB the following week about how unfair it was that she turned down a job and lost her UE. When you're faced with less money vs. no money, it's not hard to see which way to go.