The question of whether to quit during a Performance Improvement Plan, or PIP, has become one of the most searched workplace dilemmas in 2025. Especially in corporate America, where mergers, layoffs, and quiet workforce reductions are accelerating. A recent case shared online captures the pressure many professionals face. A supply chain analyst at a $3.2 billion manufacturing company was placed on a 60-day PIP after months of working 60-hour weeks. The timing mattered. The company had just completed a merger on January 2 and was conducting silent reductions in force. The employee was the only person handling tariff compliance. The workload was unsustainable. Management was described as toxic. The job was fully on-site, five days a week.
The employee had savings to cover nearly a year of living expenses. A spouse with stable income. Several interviews already in progress. Yet no severance eligibility and a looming fear of burnout. The core question was simple but heavy: is it smarter to resign and protect health, or stay, do the minimum, and let the company decide?
This is no longer an isolated story. According to U.S. labor data, more than 41% of white-collar workers placed on PIPs in restructuring environments are terminated within three months. In merger-driven organizations, that number climbs higher. PIPs are increasingly being used not as improvement tools, but as legal documentation before exit.
In this case, the analyst was handling tariff compliance alone. Tariffs are among the most complex, high-risk functions in modern supply chains. Errors can trigger regulatory penalties and cost millions. Expecting one salaried employee to manage this function for a multi-billion-dollar enterprise while working far beyond standard hours raises red flags. Especially if historical workload had been reasonable before the merger.
Labor attorneys often advise employees to document everything during a PIP. Emails showing increased workload. Missed deadlines caused by volume, not negligence. Requests for support that were ignored. This paper trail can matter later. Courts and unemployment boards do not look kindly on employers who quietly double workloads, then penalize employees for predictable failure.
This approach is strategic, not lazy. By staying employed, workers preserve income. They maintain benefits. They protect unemployment eligibility. And they gain time. In sectors like supply chain, where hiring cycles can stretch for months, that time is valuable. Especially in 2025, when employers are cautious, selective, and slow to commit.
Importantly, staying does not mean overworking. Employment law generally does not require salaried professionals to work unlimited hours without compensation, particularly when they are not managers. If the job historically required 40 to 45 hours and suddenly demands 60 or more, that shift can carry legal implications. Especially if the excessive workload is the reason for the alleged performance failure.
Health is also central. Burnout is no longer treated as a personal weakness in modern labor disputes. Medical documentation of stress, exhaustion, or anxiety linked to excessive workload can matter. Some employees choose to use accrued leave strategically during a PIP, both to recover and to create additional documentation of strain.
For workers with savings and active interviews, resignation can feel tempting. But most experts agree it should be the last move, not the first. Until a new offer is signed, the balance of power favors staying put, collecting pay, and letting the employer make the next decision.
The employee had savings to cover nearly a year of living expenses. A spouse with stable income. Several interviews already in progress. Yet no severance eligibility and a looming fear of burnout. The core question was simple but heavy: is it smarter to resign and protect health, or stay, do the minimum, and let the company decide?
This is no longer an isolated story. According to U.S. labor data, more than 41% of white-collar workers placed on PIPs in restructuring environments are terminated within three months. In merger-driven organizations, that number climbs higher. PIPs are increasingly being used not as improvement tools, but as legal documentation before exit.
Why quitting during a PIP often hurts employees more than staying
Employment experts consistently warn against resigning during a PIP unless there is another signed offer. The reason is structural, not emotional. When an employee resigns, they typically lose eligibility for unemployment benefits. They also surrender leverage. Once resignation occurs, severance negotiations almost always disappear. In contrast, termination following a documented PIP often strengthens an employee’s position, especially if workload expansion or unrealistic expectations can be shown.In this case, the analyst was handling tariff compliance alone. Tariffs are among the most complex, high-risk functions in modern supply chains. Errors can trigger regulatory penalties and cost millions. Expecting one salaried employee to manage this function for a multi-billion-dollar enterprise while working far beyond standard hours raises red flags. Especially if historical workload had been reasonable before the merger.
Labor attorneys often advise employees to document everything during a PIP. Emails showing increased workload. Missed deadlines caused by volume, not negligence. Requests for support that were ignored. This paper trail can matter later. Courts and unemployment boards do not look kindly on employers who quietly double workloads, then penalize employees for predictable failure.
Why many workers now call a PIP a “paid interview period”
The phrase “PIP equals paid interview period” has gained traction for a reason. Once a PIP is issued, the probability of long-term survival in that role drops sharply. Many professionals now treat the PIP window as a transition phase. They work their contracted hours. They focus narrowly on the PIP goals. They stop absorbing extra work created by understaffing or mergers. And they aggressively interview elsewhere.This approach is strategic, not lazy. By staying employed, workers preserve income. They maintain benefits. They protect unemployment eligibility. And they gain time. In sectors like supply chain, where hiring cycles can stretch for months, that time is valuable. Especially in 2025, when employers are cautious, selective, and slow to commit.
Importantly, staying does not mean overworking. Employment law generally does not require salaried professionals to work unlimited hours without compensation, particularly when they are not managers. If the job historically required 40 to 45 hours and suddenly demands 60 or more, that shift can carry legal implications. Especially if the excessive workload is the reason for the alleged performance failure.
The role of documentation, health, and leverage in a PIP outcome
One of the strongest pieces of advice shared online was to narrow focus. Do the PIP work. Nothing more. Respond professionally. Meet deadlines where possible. Clearly state constraints when goals cannot be met due to volume. This demonstrates good-faith effort. It protects professional reputation. And it strengthens any future claim for unemployment, severance negotiation, or legal consultation.Health is also central. Burnout is no longer treated as a personal weakness in modern labor disputes. Medical documentation of stress, exhaustion, or anxiety linked to excessive workload can matter. Some employees choose to use accrued leave strategically during a PIP, both to recover and to create additional documentation of strain.
For workers with savings and active interviews, resignation can feel tempting. But most experts agree it should be the last move, not the first. Until a new offer is signed, the balance of power favors staying put, collecting pay, and letting the employer make the next decision.
