Re: Back again.... looking...

Subject: Re: Back again.... looking...
From: Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:31:17 -0800

You never want to go into that kind of detail, unless it works in your favor, for example the entire doc team was let go, or you were the only writer and you were let go along with half the engineering or other dept you reported to.

If you were laid off, then "business reasons" is sufficient. If you quit, then say the scope of the work changed to something other than what you were hired for (which should ideally be the work you are interviewing for), or if the prospective employer is much closer to home than the old one, cite the killer commute (if your past employer has recently been featured in a 60 MInutes expose or has had to send its CEO before a Congressional inquiry, you can usually assume that everyone knows why you left).

Being fired for cause is a whole separate subject. Fortunately, very few tech writers get fired under those circumstances.

And NEVER talk about a previous employer by name in an open forum like this one. Every company I've ever mentioned working for in the past here has always been "some companies I've worked with." This is true for good things as well as bad. Remember those NDAs you signed when you were hired, and don't be bashful about citing them if an interviewer wants potentially uncomfortable details about your generic answer.

Gene Kim-Eng


On 12/20/2012 6:51 AM, Anne Robotti wrote:


I was laid off in October. As Fred says, it was a business decision. That's
the explanation. I can say more, but none of what I say will be negative
about my former employer or their reasons for their decision. I would even
go a step farther and say that who they kept on is irrelevant.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Writer Tip: Create 10 different outputs with Doc-To-Help -- including Mobile and EPUB.

Read all about them: http://bit.ly/doc-to-help-10-outputs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


References:
Back again.... looking...: From: Robert Courtney
RE: Back again.... looking...: From: Erika Yanovich
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Keith Hood
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Keith Hood
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Keith Hood
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Wade Courtney
Back again.... looking...: From: Tony Chung
RE: Back again.... looking...: From: Kat Kuvinka
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Robin Davidson
RE: Back again.... looking...: From: Wroblewski, Victoria
RE: Back again.... looking...: From: Erika Yanovich
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Lauren
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Robin Davidson
RE: Back again.... looking...: From: Fred Ridder
Re: Back again.... looking...: From: Anne Robotti

Previous by Author: Re: Back again.... looking...
Next by Author: RE: Outsourcing translations versus in-house?
Previous by Thread: Re: Back again.... looking...
Next by Thread: Re: Back again.... looking...


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads