So you get the golden (or at least silver) parachute from work - now what?

[Judge Jude]

sure, I can take the next 37 weeks off at full pay (actually 7 percent "raise" because they don't take out FICA)

but I'm only 56 so I'll work again, alas

anyone been in this spot?

I like the idea of a nice hiatus, but it's also nice I already am getting multiple offers A DAY LATER

rush into interviews so you don't go stale?

take months off because you deserve it?

something in between?

also, I was effectively handling a lot of different sectors that kind of overlapped, but I expect in the next phase I'll have to specialize more. any upside or downside to that?

fortunately this is not an issue of money, but I may also have to mull something fun at similar or less pay - or something less fun but geesh that paycheck looks nice so maybe it is about money?

I sure have enjoyed these first two days, at least

I'll hang up and wait for your response

[Mithrandir]

If you are pretty positive that you can get work if you need it after the 37 weeks i would take the time off in a heartbeat. I would retire tomorrow if i could.

[Sour Masher]

I have had anxiety about employment since my first job at 14, and don't excel in my field to the extent I'd feel comfortable turning down lots of offers for employment and taking a long time off. However, it sounds like you have highly desirable skills and the supply/demand for those skills seems very different from what I am used to (higher ed). If you are confident that good opportunities will be there a few weeks or few months down the line, I agree that you should take that time, if you want it. Most folks dream of putting themselves in a position to have both the financial cushion and the highly coveted skills to be in the position you are in. You are in that spot now, so think it through, and relish in being able to do whatever it is you choose to do for the next 6+ months.

Again, if you are certain employers will want you in 6 months, why rush into anything now? Enjoy being a free agent for a bit. Of course, if a position really speaks to you in the short term, and your desirability is high enough, you could accept a position with a start date a month or two down the line. As I've said, I'm not wired to turn down a good job offer, so I'd ideally want my cake and be able to eat it too. If you get a great offer, and they are willing for you to take a couple of months before starting, that is the best of both options.

[Judge Jude]

thanks, guys!

yes, I am inclined to wait a few weeks if feasible, work something out, and see if I can backdate it (one scenario in particular would seemingly work best to start in late January so I'd get my full ride til then, and be tanned/rested/ready from there)

I am blessed that this is an opportunity and not a burden, and I fully realize that

[hacko]

Does having
insurance come into play. If not take the time off unless that job comes up that you really want.

I could be facing the same situation . I am 60 - making good money - about 5 years ago they create my new position. New managements came in about 6 months ago and we are going through Huge changes( 80-20 program) Sooner or later I am sure they will look around and see we could find someone younger who will make a lot less to do what I do.

I already put feelers out looking for my scale back semi - retirement job ( that has insurance) cover my diabetic.

[revo]

I actually read about your "plight" this morning, but glad you're OK.

Man, getting double-paid for 37 weeks seems sweet to me!

And BTW, if you need help with your 401(k) rollover, give me a shout!!

[Judge Jude]

not sure if I'd get double paid. in some cases that has happened - might not be here, though. will check on that next week

I can go on Mrs Judge's insurance, so no issues there

[revo]

not sure if I'd get double paid. in some cases that has happened - might not be here, though. will check on that next week

I can go on Mrs Judge's insurance, so no issues there

If you land another job quickly, it should not affect your severance pay at all. It's not a non-compete!

[Gregg]

I actually read about your "plight" this morning, but glad you're OK.

Man, getting double-paid for 37 weeks seems sweet to me!

And BTW, if you need help with your 401(k) rollover, give me a shout!!

Yep. I too like the idea of double pay.

I probably would take 3 or 4 weeks off and get back to it.

I also think that if I took off too much time I might not want to work.

[Mithrandir]

Yep. I too like the idea of double pay.

I probably would take 3 or 4 weeks off and get back to it.

I also think that if I took off too much time I might not want to work.

You say that like it's a bad thing??

[Fresno Bob]

I'd interview with the thought of looking for your absolute dream job after taking 2 weeks off. I'd also look to push my start date back as long as I could

[baldgriff]

And BTW, if you need help with your 401(k) rollover, give me a shout!!

Ahhh the joys of acting as a fiduciary................ I hate the DOL.

[TranaGreg]

Way back in 1999 my company got bought out & they laid the entire IT dept off. Very different situation as I was in my 30's, but I took a few months (2-3) off before looking in earnest; I really enjoyed the time off - caught up on all the home renos I had wanted to do, did a bit of travel. Obviously it's a very personal question whether to enjoy time off or double income, but for me I wanted to enjoy some time.

fwiw, in my case it was a salary continuance as opposed to a one-time payout, with a condition that the salary continuance would stop if I got full-time employment. I pushed & managed to get it dumped into a one-time payment which obviously had no conditions attached; you might want to read the fine print to make sure it isn't something similar.

[Judge Jude]

"in my case it was a salary continuance as opposed to a one-time payout, with a condition that the salary continuance would stop if I got full-time employment."

yes, turns out to be this. I think what they did is rather than focus on value of workers, they focused on who would most likely get another gig quickly - that saves them a lot of money. many of my equally experienced colleagues might never be able to get another job, so they'd run out the clock on the matching pay. and if someone is over 60 or not that lively, the same could happen.

seems like this is a key turning point for a dying company - quality becomes irrelevant; at this stage, dump the guy with the best attributes to get a new employer soon AND demoralize the rest enough so that they quit (several already have told me my scenario was their last straw) and you don't give them anything, and replace with younger, cheaper people -or don't replace them at all.

it's a perverse compliment, really, and indeed I keep getting more inquiries.

[Gregg]

"in my case it was a salary continuance as opposed to a one-time payout, with a condition that the salary continuance would stop if I got full-time employment."

yes, turns out to be this. I think what they did is rather than focus on value of workers, they focused on who would most likely get another gig quickly - that saves them a lot of money. many of my equally experienced colleagues might never be able to get another job, so they'd run out the clock on the matching pay. and if someone is over 60 or not that lively, the same could happen.

seems like this is a key turning point for a dying company - quality becomes irrelevant; at this stage, dump the guy with the best attributes to get a new employer soon AND demoralize the rest enough so that they quit (several already have told me my scenario was their last straw) and you don't give them anything, and replace with younger, cheaper people -or don't replace them at all.

it's a perverse compliment, really, and indeed I keep getting more inquiries.

This changes some things.

I thought it was a buyout without the strings.

If I knew that I was in fairly high demand, I would drag my feet and take some time off.