Connect with us

Finance

When You’re Laid Off But Still Have to Go to Work

Published

on

When You’re Laid Off But Still Have to Go to Work

Photo-Illustration: by The Cut; Photo: Getty Images

Advertisement

When layoffs happen, they’re often immediate — former employees are shown the door and locked out of their company email within hours. Others are given a few days to tie up loose ends. But in a few cases, the good-byes drag on … and on and on. Sometimes laid-off workers have to stay on for weeks if they want severance and even train their replacements themselves. It’s awkward! Still, you’re getting paid just to keep showing up. Here, three laid-off women share what they did — and didn’t do — with the extra weeks they had to hang around their old jobs.

At the beginning of December, we all woke up to an email that was like, “The company’s closing in three weeks.” I think it went out at 7 a.m. on a Monday. Everyone came into the office and met with their bosses. And then it was basically several weeks of intense senioritis. No one was working hard or doing much of anything. People were openly interviewing for new jobs at their desks. You’d walk by and hear someone being like, “Well, my strengths are …” Everyone was like, “Who are you talking to? Do you know anyone hiring?” There was a sense of solidarity, and no one gave a shit anymore. Even our bosses were getting laid off, so there wasn’t anyone to be mad at — I mean, maybe extreme upper management, but they weren’t in our office.

It was a weirdly fun time to be at work. All the guise of professionalism was gone. We were all in the same boat, using that time to network and stealing company swag. Within a few days, the office supply closet was completely bare. All I managed to get were some mugs and pens.

They also gave us really good severance — six months of full pay. I wound up having a new job lined up before our last day. Frankly, I don’t think anyone was really that surprised that we were closing. It was a start-up and terribly managed, and they just threw money at everything. At the beginning, they were flush with VC cash, and we could do whatever we wanted — I’d pitch a project that would require me to fly across the country, and they’d be like, “Okay!” It was clear that it wasn’t going to last. There was almost this sense of having gotten away with something.

Five weeks ago, a meeting was put on my calendar on a Friday to discuss changes within my organization. I knew that layoffs were coming at some point — our chief marketing officer had told us a few months ago — but I didn’t think I’d be affected. They’d hired a consulting firm to go through and “streamline” certain departments, but if anything, I thought I’d get good news. I’d built a lot of relationships in my role, and I’d heard that the team I managed, which consisted of 20 people, might be expanding. So I got on the meeting — we’re mostly remote — and made some stupid joke and then I saw my manager looking terribly sad. And they said my role had been eliminated and my team would be decentralized. My boss was sending me text messages the whole time like, “I’m so sorry, I had no idea.”

Advertisement

Come Monday, I found out which members of my team had been laid off too, and was completely shocked. One was a top performer. There were huge cuts across the company, almost at random. But no one knew who was safe and who wasn’t, which created more gossip. I got a call from a colleague who was like, “Oh my gosh, it’s a bloodbath.” He started listing all these people who were being let go. And I was like, “Yeah, and me too.” He couldn’t get off the phone fast enough.

Some people were dismissed immediately; others were given two weeks. They gave me five weeks, which I think was an attempt to be nice. But is it nice? It seems like they picked my final date based on the end of the quarter, so that they wouldn’t have to budget for my salary next quarter. Ultimately, it was just very awkward. I care a lot about my team, and I wanted to try to help with the transition as much as I could. But five weeks is a very long time to be hovering and feeling useless, the object of people’s pity. My end date was conditional — I had to stay for that five weeks if I wanted my severance package — but toward the end, I was just hanging around. During my last week, I got an automated email from the company congratulating me on my two-year work anniversary.

I stopped setting an alarm in the morning. If somebody needed me, they knew how to reach me, but I was only working for about two hours each day. There just wasn’t that much for me to do. I live near Disney World, so I went there a fair amount. I did a lot of reading. I went to 4:30 p.m. pilates classes. I’ve been looking at my LinkedIn. I trained for a 10K. I spent more time with my friends, and my dog got a lot of exercise. With my severance package, I technically don’t have to work for the rest of the year. Hopefully I find something new before then. But I also need some time to mend from this experience. I know I was valuable here, but they didn’t care — I was just a number on a spreadsheet.

I’d planned to send out a nice farewell note and put up an out-of-office message on my last day. But then, after I had five weeks to plan it, I got cut off from the system early, before I could do it. After all that, I didn’t even get to say good-bye. Now I just have to mail in my laptop.

When I was laid off and told that my last day would be in a month, I was in such shock that my immediate response was Maybe if I work extra hard before my last day, they won’t actually let me go. It was like a bad breakup where you hope you can change their mind. I had just turned 30 and gone through an actual bad breakup with my college boyfriend, too, so I was grappling with my self-esteem on multiple fronts.

Advertisement

Not that I even considered it, but if I’d left before my end date, I would just get two weeks of severance. So the choice was either get paid for six more weeks or two more weeks — sort of a no-brainer. I was looking for a new job the whole time, but I was also still working my butt off. I stayed in this denial phase that maybe, if I proved myself, they’d be like, “Oh, we’ll keep you on for one more month, and another month after that.” It was delusional.

Some people have the intuition that they’re getting let go. I did not. I was never really given a reason. It seemed like a weird mismanagement issue, though I never really got to the bottom of it.

After I talked to HR, I went back to my desk. I sort of assumed my boss would say something, but she didn’t. So I waited for maybe an hour and then was like, Fuck this, I’m going home. Then I went out with a friend and got really, really drunk. The next morning I was so hungover, but I went into work anyway. And for the next few weeks, I was just trying to do everything as perfectly as possible. There was actually a lot of work to do. I had to finish up all of my deliverables and create a handover memo for all my responsibilities. I was also trying to be strategic. I figured that everyone I worked with might hopefully be a reference for me someday. So I wanted to be in everyone’s good graces.

I had a lot of access to free products at my job, but I didn’t take anything. I was honestly too nervous. I downloaded my contacts and some of my work off the company server, and I even felt guilty about that, which I know I shouldn’t have. At one point I asked my boss if we could say that I was leaving — not that I had been laid off — and she was like, “No.” She was not interested in being remotely helpful. Looking back, I’m so glad I got out of that job. It was such an awful workplace. And it’s wild to me that I was so desperate to stay for as long as I could.

Email your money conundrums to mytwocents@nymag.com (and read our submission terms here.)

Advertisement

Finance

Norway faces dilemma on openness in wealth fund ethical divestments, finance minister says

Published

on

Norway faces dilemma on openness in wealth fund ethical divestments, finance minister says
When Norway’s $2.2 trillion wealth fund — the world’s largest — sells a company’s shares over ethical concerns, should it explain why? This seemingly simple question has ​become a dilemma for its guardians, the finance minister told Reuters, as a government commission reviews the rules that have made the fund a ‌global benchmark for ethical investing.
Continue Reading

Finance

Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change

Published

on

Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change

Banks have had a stellar first quarter. The major U.S. banks raked in nearly $50 billion in profits in the first three months of the year, The Guardian reported.

That was largely due to Wall Street bank traders, who profited from a volatile stock exchange, Reuters showed.

But even without the extra bump from stock trading, banks are doing well when it comes to interest, the same Reuters article found. And some banks could stand to benefit even more from this one potential rule change.

Morgan Stanley thinks it could have a major impact on Citi in particular.

Upcoming changes for banks

To understand why Morgan Stanley thinks things are going to change at Citi, you need to understand some recent bank rule changes.

Advertisement

Banks make money by lending out money, which usually comes from depositors. But people need access to their money and the right to withdraw whenever they want.

So, banks keep a percentage of all money deposited to make sure they can cover what the average person needs.

But what happens if there is a major demand for withdrawals, as we saw during the financial crisis of 2008?

That’s where capital requirements come in. After the financial crisis, major banks like Citi were required by law to hold a higher percentage of money in order to avoid major bank failures.

For years, banks had to put aside billions of dollars. Money that couldn’t be lent out or even returned to shareholders.

Advertisement

Now, that’s all about to change.

Morgan Stanley thinks Citigroup could see an uptick in profit. Getty Images

Capital change requirements for major banks

Banks that are considered globally systemically important banking organizations (G-SIBs) have a higher capital buffer than community banks as they usually engage in banking activity that is far more complicated than your average market loan.

The list depends on the size of the bank and its underlying activity, according to the Federal Reserve.

Current global systemically important banks

A proposal from U.S. federal banking regulators could drastically reduce the amount that these large banks have to hold in reserve.

Changes would result in the largest U.S. banks holding an average 4.8% less. While that might seem like a small percentage number, for banks of this size, it equates to billions of dollars, according to a Federal Reserve memo.

Advertisement

The proposed changes were a long time coming, Robert Sarama, a financial services leader at PwC, told TheStreet.

“It’s a bit of a recognition that perhaps the pendulum swung a little too far in the higher capital requirement following the financial crisis, making it harder for banks to participate in some markets,” he said.

Citi’s upcoming relief  

Citi is a G-SIB and as such, is subject to the capital requirement rules. And the fact that it could get 4.8% of its money back to spend elsewhere is why Morgan Stanley is so optimistic about the bank.

In a research note, Morgan Stanley analysts said they expect Citi’s annualized net income to be better than expected due to the upcoming capital relief.

Advertisement

While Citi stated its return on average tangible common equity (ROTCE), a type of financial measure, to be close to 13% by 2028, “the fact that Citi’s near-term and medium-term targets excluding capital relief were only marginally below our expectations including capital relief actually suggest upside to our numbers if Citi can deliver,” the note said.

More bank news

In fact, Citigroup’s own projections are likely conservative and it’s likely to show improvement each year, the analysts expanded.

“We have high conviction that the proposed capital rules will be finalized later this year and expect Citi can eventually revise the medium-term targets higher, suggesting further upside to consensus,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote.

Related: Citi just added an AI agent to your wealth management team

Advertisement

This story was originally published by TheStreet on May 11, 2026, where it first appeared in the Investing section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.

Continue Reading

Finance

Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale

Published

on

Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale
Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, settled on their new home last month. (Source: Supplied)

Natasha Luscri and Luke Miller consider themselves among the lucky ones. The couple recently bought their first home in the northwest suburbs of Melbourne.

It wasn’t something they necessarily expected to be able to do, but some good fortune with an investment in silver bullion and making use of government schemes meant “the stars aligned” to get into the market. Luke used the federal government’s super saver scheme to help build a deposit, and the couple then jumped on the 5 per cent deposit scheme, which they say made all the difference.

“We only started looking because of the government deposit scheme. Basically, we didn’t really think it was possible that we could buy something,” Natasha told Yahoo Finance.

RELATED

Last month they settled on their two bedroom unit, which the pair were able to purchase in an off-market sale – something that is becoming increasingly common in the market at the moment.

Advertisement

Rather perfectly, they got it for about $20-30,000 below market rate, Natasha estimated, which meant they were under the $600,000 limit to avoid paying stamp duty under Victoria’s suite of support measures for first home buyers.

“They wanted to sell it quickly. They had no other offers. So we got it for less than what it would have gone for if it had been on market,” Natasha said.

“We didn’t have a lot of cash sitting in an account … I think we just got lucky and made some smart investment decisions which helped.”

It’s a far cry from when the couple couldn’t find a home due to the rental crisis when they were previously living in Adelaide and had to turn to sub-standard options.

“We’ve managed to go from living in a caravan because we were living in Adelaide and we couldn’t find a rental with our dogs … So we’ve gone from living in a caravan, being kind of tertiary homeless essentially because we couldn’t get a rental, to now having been able to purchase our first home,” Natasha explained.

Advertisement

Rate rises beginning to bite for new homeowners

Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, are among more than 300,000 Australians who have used the 5 per cent deposit scheme to get into the housing market with a much smaller than usual deposit, according to data from Housing Australia at the end of March. However that’s dating back to 2020 when the program first launched, before it was rebranded and significantly expanded in October last year to scrap income or placement caps, along with allowing for higher property price caps.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending