[dudul]

The difference in the US is that employment is mostly "at-will". An employee can be let go pretty much any day without notice.

So when you change job of your own initiative, it is assumed that you first get a new position, then give a notice and start your new position. If you have gaps, we can imagined that it's because you were let go (and therefore were unprepared to start something new). Now, why were you let go? Were you not performing well?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong; just explaining how long and recurrent gaps can be interpreted.

[enrmarc]

> So when you change job of your own initiative, it is assumed that you first get a new position, then give a notice and start your new position.

It's pretty much the same in Europe (except when you take gaps, of course).

> I'm not saying it's right or wrong; just explaining how long and recurrent gaps can be interpreted.

Recurrent gaps can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, but there is just one real reason behind them. But I see how recruiters can assume things before asking for real answers (e.g. 6 months gap and this guy hasn't been able to find a job? Next!). It's a pity.

[dozzie]

>> So when you change job of your own initiative, it is assumed that you first get a new position, then give a notice and start your new position.

> It's pretty much the same in Europe

Not exactly. If I understand things correctly, in US when your employer fires you the very same day you're unemployed. There's no mandatory notice period. In Europe, there usually is a notice period guaranteed in employment laws, so if you're fired, you can still find a job before termination.