Anonymous User wrote:Would rather be part of a massive layoff than be stealthed for "performance reasons." In the former situation I get severance and I don't have as much of a black mark when looking for a new job. In the latter situation, some firms used the situation to provide no severance, whereas other firms didn't even provide as much severance as Latham, and on top of that stealthed associates looked like they were fired because they were incompetent, which put them at a disadvantage when they looked for that new job.
I'd go so far as to say that I'd rather have been Latham'd than pushed out of Davis Polk.
You don't really know how stealth layoffs work, do you? There's no black mark, and it's not immediate, so you're actually at much more of a disadvantage if you get Lathamed.
How stealth layoffs generally work is you'll be told in your performance review that your future at the firm is in question, and be given 6 months to look for a job. During this 6 months you continue to be employed at your firm, but obviously they aren't giving you too much work given that you'll be leaving soon. So when you go on interviews, it looks as if you still have a job and are performing fine, you just want to change firms (for cultural reasons, practice areas, whatever). Unless someone directly asks (which they never do), you don't have to say anything about the fact you were told to look for a job. And as a matter of policy firms will not say you were laid off for performance reason - all they will ever confirm to a prospective employer is that you in fact worked there, and your dates of employment.
If you are Lathamed, you are called into an office and told you are being laid off and made to leave the same day. When you look for work, there's no way you can disguise the fact you were laid off, since you're not currently employed.
Would you still rather be Lathamed?