friend drama may collide with job hunt

A reader writes:

I have a friend, Jane, who I used to be close to, but in the past few years she’s been very hot and cold, going through periods of being almost clingy and then turning on a dime to become unresponsive or even kind of annoyed that I’m talking to her. This has been emotionally difficult and I’ve decided I need to dial back the friendship.

I’ve also been trying to get out of a job that’s become untenable, but the job hunt has been rough because my industry is small and competitive. Another friend, Carol, works in the same industry and has been highly enthusiastic about getting me a job at her company, where I would really love to work. I have an application in with them now that she helped me a lot with, and I know she’s mentioned me to the hiring manager as well. I’m immensely grateful to her for this and definitely owe her one whether it works out or not.

Here’s the rub: Carol and Jane are BFFs. (Like, Carol was maid of honor at Jane’s wedding.) And while I’m hoping to transition quietly to a more distant friendship with Jane, she (for understandable reasons that are not mine to share) is very sensitive to perceived rejection or people being mad at her, so there’s a solid chance that she will notice I’m not as engaged. She may confront me or she may just silently be hurt, but either way I’m sure Carol will hear about it, and who knows what that will do to her opinion of me.

I know I’m borrowing trouble a little, but what do I do if my relationship with Jane blows up in the middle of a hiring process where I’ve been relying heavily on Jane’s best friend’s goodwill? At this point things are mostly in the hiring manager’s hands and I don’t technically need more help from Carol, but what if the manager comes back to ask her more questions about me after her original recommendation and she now hates me? Or what if she’s no longer comfortable working with me? Is there anything I should say to Carol about the Jane situation beforehand? Should I pull out of the application process if things go south with Jane and Carol seems upset? Or should I just treat these two things like they’re unrelated and let whatever happens, happen?

I do think you’re borrowing trouble. You’re not plotting a confrontation with Jane where you list off all her faults, tell her she’s a horrible person, and then kick her in the shins. You’re just … less engaged with the friendship.

If Jane tells Carol that you’ve been more distant, that’s not the type of thing that’s likely to make it into Carol’s comments to the hiring manager. (And if it did, the hiring manager would be confused by why.)

If your concern is that Jane will confront you about it and you’ll be forced to have a full reckoning of your problems with the friendship, which could lead to a blow-up that Carol holds against you or just wants nothing to do with … then yeah, ideally you’d avoid that conversation while you’re still in the hiring process for the other job. And really, is that conversation even necessary? Maybe it is, but maybe you can also just do the “I’ve been really busy” slow fade. (I do think that if you and Jane were very close once, you’d owe her more of a conversation, unless you’ve already tried raising the issues to no avail, but you also don’t need to have that conversation RIGHT NOW. You can wait until things aren’t as entangled, and it’s reasonable to want some distance while you’re deciding exactly how you’re going to handle it.)

Of course, if you get the job, you’re going to be more entangled with Carol, not less. And if things go south with Jane, Carol may feel she’s in the middle of drama between her best friend and a coworker. In that case, the best thing to do would be to just be a warm, pleasant, and professional colleague. Unless Carol is problematic herself (which in this case could mean some combination of petty, gossipy, vengeful, and unprofessional) she’s unlikely to insist on bringing someone else’s work drama into your office when you demonstrate that there’s no need for it.

I’m flooded by job candidates calling for more info

A reader writes:

My company has a very small number of permanent employees but we employ a large number of entry-level seasonal workers at a couple of points in the year. We don’t have landlines, only company cell phones. The phone number on our website, brochures, etc. is my number and job applicants often call my number, asking for more details about compensation, qualifications, job duties, etc. before they have been contacted for an interview.

On the one hand, I don’t want to be one of those snooty HR people, and I know this would be the first job for a lot of these folks. But I’m not in HR or the hiring manager for these jobs, many of these details are in the job posting, and honestly, it’s just annoying. The system is pretty automated — within three weeks, they are either contacted for an interview or sent a rejection — so it’s not like we’re leaving people hanging.

How much should I talk to applicants when they call? And is there some way I can gently educate young and eager job seekers about what is and isn’t appropriate?

I answer this question over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here.

I help mentor college students … and the current crop is really immature

It’s the Thursday “ask the readers” question. A reader writes:

Outside of my regular job I hold a volunteer board position for the local chapter of a national philanthropic organization. A large part of our mission is to provide leadership opportunities and mentoring for college-aged women to help prepare them for life after graduation. I oversee a team of advisors as well as work directly with the students, who come from diverse backgrounds and socioeconomic levels. If it matters, I am in my mid-30s and the advisors on my team range in age from 24-65+.

Due to the pandemic and stay-at-home orders, almost all of the students currently in our program spent nearly half of their formative high school years isolated at home, and unfortunately it shows. They consistently demonstrate the maturity, communication, and interpersonal skills of much younger teenagers rather than young women who are old enough to enter the workforce. I’m not so far removed from my own college experience that I don’t remember my own catastrophizing and dramatics, but I’m failing to find ways to explain the need for basic courtesy and level-headedness with both friends and authority figures. These women are so intelligent and show so much potential, but if something doesn’t go their way, whether it’s with a friend, a professor, or a potential employer, the default seems to be to totally shut down and ignore the problem, lie about it/spread rumors, blame someone else, or even start screaming and crying. What was promised to be a 1-2 hour per week commitment on my part has turned in to at least an hour per day putting out fires and fielding phone calls where I tell them, no, I don’t think their professors are “morally corrupt” for failing them on an exam when they didn’t bother to study.

Some of the older advisors on the board have told me that they’re giving up on this group of women and have chalked it up to generational entitlement. There has also been talk about removing some of the more emotional or less productive students from the program. I’m not willing to go that route, at least not yet. I feel that I have a responsibility to these students, and as long as they continue to show up, even if they’re not taking my advice, then so will I. I want to see them succeed. What else can I try to help them understand that their volatile behavior will absolutely not fly in a future job?

Readers, what’s your advice?

should I correct a service person’s grammar, flower arranging as staff appreciation, and more

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. Should I correct a service person’s grammar?

Our family held a special event, and the staff at the venue were excellent, all very helpful and competent, they know their jobs well and I have nothing but good to say about the event. However, during the process of making arrangements via email, the young lady who was my contact person needed my credit card for a deposit and for a couple of payments. Each time, she sent me an email saying, “I have ran your credit card.” In the same way that a woman would subtly tell another woman that she has lipstick on her teeth, I would like to gently tell her that “have” and “ran” do not go together. I want to see this event planner be her best. Is there a best way to do that? Or do I let it go?

Let it go! It’s not your job to correct other people’s grammar; you’re not her teacher or her parent (and she’s not a child). I appreciate that you’re coming from “I want to help her fix something she would want to fix if she knew” but it’s an overstep. It doesn’t rise to the level of requiring correction from a stranger.

2. Flower-arranging as a staff appreciation event

This week the company I work for hosted a flower-arranging workshop as part of staff appreciation week (all our support staff is female). This was held in-person, and remote workers had the opportunity to participate virtually (the firm would arrange to have the flowers delivered to your home).

It all sounds nice, right? But why does this feel icky to me? It just seems so gender-specific. Am I too sensitive, or is this problematic. (For the record, I work remotely and declined to participate — this is just not something I’d enjoy, period.)

I think you’re reacting to the fact that flower-arranging feels gender-coded and your group is mostly women. Would you really see a flower-arranging workshop offered to a group of men? Plus it plays into “women’s job is to decorate and make the world more beautiful” tropes.

If a lot of people on your team were enthusiastic about it, I don’t feel super strongly about it . But if most people’s response was “this feels random and out of the blue, and none of us care about arranging flowers,” it comes across as your company just seeing you as Ladies and not as People.

Related:
we got weight loss tips for Women’s History Month

3. Who are big corporate meetings really for?

I work for a large international company and it’s my first office job outside of college. I mostly like it. The pay isn’t amazing but there are other benefits, a decent culture, and work that actually interests me. The one thing I don’t like is a two-hour mandatory staff general meeting where several thousand of us sit on uncomfortable chairs and are told how great a place to work this is.

Does anyone actually like these? I’m happy to know about the company’s successes, and even things that need to be improved on. I’m happy to learn about long-term strategy, and what projects are coming down the pipeline. But I’d much rather read a summary than sit in a crowd in an uncomfortable chair, all the while thinking about how much work I have to catch up on. It doesn’t help that for two areas in the business, mine being one of them, we’re in a particularly stressful period of trying to deliver a huge project on a constrained time frame. So losing two hours to what feels like an exercise in corporate fluff is a bit of a tough pill to swallow.

I struggle with the forced fun of it all, and I imagine most people do too. Everything is talking about how we need to get involved, join the fun, etc. They even hired a regionally relevent somewhat well known comedian for it. I just don’t know who this is for — is it exclusively for the high level CEOs? Do they just want to stand on a stage with a celebrity?

Some people like these. Most people don’t. They typically happen because high-level execs and the people who plan these meetings have lost touch with what actually resonates with and will feel relevant to the people working for them. It makes them feel good about themselves and the company they’re leading when they imagine running down the aisle to AC/DC and getting people all pumped up. Plus, they’ve seen other companies do them and so now it is The Way We Do Things.

But the reason they don’t email out a summary instead is that tons of people won’t read written materials. If you want to make sure everyone actually hears something, sometimes the only way to do it is a meeting. A long, boring meeting that could have been an email — but it would have been an email half the recipients didn’t read.

4. Should I not bring up with interviewers why I left my last job?

Last fall, I resigned from my job without another position lined up. I’d completed a major project and felt good about closing this chapter, but also wasn’t really happy with the way my role was shaping up after many re-orgs, didn’t feel like I fit in with the broader culture of the office, had concerns about my supervisor’s integrity, and (the final straw) had some family medical issues come up. This wasn’t a role I wanted to return to after time off, so I’ve used the break to spend time with family and recalibrate what I want in my next position. I left the office on good terms and am still in touch with people from the office.

Now that I’m interviewing, either as part of “tell me about yourself” or elsewhere in responding to questions, I’ve raised this work gap myself. I typically say something like, “I made the decision to leave Organization due to timing: I’d finished setting the groundwork for Project, and some family medical issues arose. I’ve been lucky that I’ve been able to spend some time thinking about what I’d like in my next position,” and then explain how this role meets those needs. At least once the interviewer appeared surprised when I said this.

However, now I’m wondering: Should I not bring up that I left my last job? Should I wait for them to ask about it? It’s very clear on my resume that the job ended in November 2023. Part of me feels like I’m being proactive so the interviewer can’t assume I was fired or let go if I own the story myself. Am I hurting myself?

I don’t see why that would be hurting you; that’s a pretty unremarkable thing to bring up. That said, I think the responses you’ve seen might be that you’re offering more information than they’re looking for. They don’t need to hear about family medical issues unless it’s directly relevant (like in response to “why did you leave your last job?”). Combining it with “I’ve been lucky that I’ve been able to spend some time thinking about what I’d like in my next position” might sound … not defensive, exactly, but like you’re anticipating a concern and trying to address it before they’ve even brought it up. Which you are! And that’s fine, and potentially even smart to do, but if you notice people reacting to it, that’s probably why. I also wonder if it sounds slightly overly polished/rehearsed, which will make people wonder if there’s something underneath it that you’re uneasy about.

However, did this happen with only one interviewer or multiple interviewers? If it was only once, I wouldn’t read much into it at all. In that case, you could try experimenting with not raising any of that on your own (but still using it if you need to in response to a direct question) and see if the conversation goes more smoothly, but I wouldn’t worry much about it at all.

5. Inconvenient internal interview location

I was just offered an internal interview for a job I know I want due to the exposure to the business and the executives. Multiple reliable people have told me I’m a great fit for it and it would be a good move for my career. I preface with that because it’s the only reason I didn’t bail on the interview, given the red flags I’m seeing.

The hiring manager asked to meet in person at an office that is two hours away from the local office where this position will report. No one interviewing for this position will live far from the local office because of the nature of the work (it is a requirement that we be able to commute within X time), so they should know what they’re asking. It would be perfectly reasonable for a candidate to be three hours from the office they are suggesting plus tolls and heavy traffic. The nature of the position means I would rarely be expected to visit other offices. The hiring manager is regularly in the local office for meetings.

I wrote back and asked to meet at the main office, which is about an hour for each of us, or on another day where my business takes me closer.

I confirmed with people who know the hiring manager that this is not thoughtlessness. It’s at best laziness, as that is the office closest to his home. At worst, it’s test to see if I’ll do what I’m asked.

I’m at the point in my career where interviews are as much about me interviewing my potential manager as it is for them to interview me. However, I’d like your opinion on the pushback I gave. Is it alright, especially internally, to negotiate the interview location, especially given how ridiculous of an ask they were making? Would your advice change based on the level of seniority of the interviewee? I would say the hiring manager is technically one rung above me in company hierarchy. If they were a VP I would not likely have pushed back, which is why I ask.

Obviously, red flags are everywhere (they have gone through three people in the last six months in this position) so I am approaching this very cautiously. However, I’m not looking for advice on if I should take the job itself.

Nope, you’re fine. The answer might be no, it needs to be at the local office, but it’s not unreasonable to ask and see what they say.

can I ask to be reimbursed for my expenses in a driving-heavy job?

A reader writes:

I recently started my dream job — amazing start-up, coveted industry, huge promise, incredibly competent management (a gift I do not take for granted).

However, I’m working in arguably the most expensive metropolitan city on earth, one that is notorious for being a literal nightmare to drive or own a car in. I agreed to bring my car because I’m covering the entire state. However, my immediate responsibilities are focused on one metropolitan area. Uber costs are exorbitant and I’m transporting tables and merchandising display with me on a regular basis. I’m parallel parking an average of eight times a day, paying $30 or more in tolls a day, and redefining “wear and tear,” but lacking the 30-mile reimbursement minimum.

Additionally, I’m also the swag and merch hub for this regional market, as headquarters are in an entirely different state — which is getting a little tight because my city has tiny living spaces. I can’t leave items in my vehicle because I’d end up with broken windows.

I’ve been promised, and it was recently reiterated, that I will be making a far more accommodating salary in two months’ time. However, I entered this position with a very small savings account, and am already breaking the bank to keep up with the demands of the position (examples: “ADHD tax” of forgetting food at home, Ubering because I don’t feel focused/alert enough to drive safely, etc)

I’m trying to organize and prioritize my asks moving forward and would love your take on what is and isn’t appropriate, and what is the best approach in asking. It mostly includes:

• Parking: $400/month which could be avoided if I didn’t need a car, was able to afford a neighborhood with better parking, or didn’t need to use my car every day, as it takes about 45 minutes (sometimes twice that) on average to find street parking
• Tolls: EZ pass (but on the rare occasion I pass a toll for personal reasons doesn’t feel kosher)
• Stipend: possibly to cover parking + tolls + inevitable parking tickets (they’ve already agreed to pay tickets)
• Shelving and organizational items as I prefer a home space that doesn’t resemble a storage unit

I’m struggling to find a fair solution and want to present the information as professionally as possible. I knew this position would require hustling and organization, but I’m already feeling the financial stress impact my work performance. Hours of honking doesn’t help. I want to solve this proactively before its impact is noticed or I go broke.

You shouldn’t be paying to do your job, period. If your job involves traveling around the state and visiting various locations, the expenses involved in that travel — including parking and tolls — are business expenses. If they expect you to personally pay for the costs of doing your work, that’s outrageous. (The only exception to this is your actual commute to and from work. So if you have a home office you sometimes drive to, you’re generally responsible for getting yourself there and back. But the rest of it is on them.)

I’m not sure how your 30-mile reimbursement minimum works, but you should be tracking your mileage over the course of an entire week or month and submitting the total — not foregoing it just because an individual trip doesn’t add up to 30 miles.

It’s also reasonable to say that now that you see the full extent of their storage needs, you don’t have space in your home. If separate storage space isn’t possible, you’ll need to expense shelving to make it doable to store items at home.

It is not reasonable to expect they’ll pay for food because you forgot to bring lunch or for Ubers because you don’t feel focused enough to drive. (There are situations where the latter could be reasonable, but generally not in a driving-heavy position where you agreed to use your car as part of the job negotiations, unless it’s something like a short-term accommodation for a specific medical need … but not generally just “I don’t feel alert today.” If that’s happening a lot, a driving-focused position might not be a really good fit.)

Unfortunately, it’s also probably not reasonable to ask them to pay for parking costs that aren’t incurred in the actual performance of your work. It sounds like part of that $400/month in parking costs is for parking near your home at night (“could be avoided if I didn’t need a car or was able to afford a neighborhood with better parking”). That part is something you signed on for when you took a driving-heavy job and agreed to use your own car for it. Ideally you would have factored those costs into your salary negotiation, since you’re unlikely to be able to expense them now … although you could possibly lump all these costs together into one overall monthly driving subsidy and argue for it that way.

I will say, I am wary of promises that you’ll be making more in two months, particularly when they’re combined with any whiff of “so you should just suck up these expenses now.” Businesses should pay their own costs of doing business, not transfer them to employees — period. And if you are going to be paid more in two months (which I hope is in a written agreement!), that amount shouldn’t be reduced by having to continue to pay the business’s travel costs.

If this company really does have incredibly competent management, you should be able to lay all this out and transfer their business costs back to them (including getting reimbursed for costs you’ve already paid on their behalf). If that doesn’t work, I’m sorry to say it but you’d need to revisit that “incredibly competent” assessment.

your non-compete agreement is now illegal (or it will be in 4 months)

The Federal Trade Commission yesterday banned non-compete agreements for most U.S. workers, saying that they stifle wages.

The ruling not only makes non-competes illegal, but it also requires employers to to inform employees with existing non-competes that they are null and void.

An exception was carved out for existing non-competes for senior executives; the ruling would allow existing non-competes only for that small group but bans new ones for them too. It’s also important to note that the ruling will not apply to nonprofits since the FTC doesn’t have authority over them.

The ruling is slated to take effect in 120 days … but court challenges from business groups are expected.

Meanwhile, non-competes have already been banned in California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, and 11 more states and Washington, D.C. prohibit them for hourly wage workers or workers below a salary threshold.

my boss wants us to meet with a spiritualist to fix the negative energy in our building

A reader writes:

I work at a small nonprofit and recently the employee with the longest institutional knowledge just left her position because of the years of abuse, micromanagement, and overwork she endured.

Now, the executive director is trying to set up an all-staff meeting with a “spiritualist” so that she can figure out why there has been so much negative energy in the building. Setting aside the issue that she will find any way to avoid responsibility for her bad behavior, I feel deeply offended that I’m being required to attend a consultation and a subsequent “cleansing.” I don’t have a connection with this sort of spiritual practice and it feels unethical to require staff attendance, but is it illegal?

Best,
Disgruntled Nonprofit Employee Attempting to Leave a Toxic Work Environment

Yes! Or rather, it would be illegal if they refused to let you opt out if you frame it as a religious accommodation.

Say this: “My religious tradition doesn’t permit me to participate in that, so I will not be attending.”

Religious accommodations apply to lack of faith as well as faith, by the way. Legally, your employer cannot require you to participate in someone else’s religious or spiritual ritual/observance/practice if it’s contrary to your own bona fide religious beliefs or lack thereof.

If you’re told your boss wants you there anyway, say this: “We can’t legally require that and could get in trouble for trying to.” If you need to cite the law, it’s Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Caveat: that law only applies to organizations with 15 or more employees, although some states have laws that kick in at lower numbers. If you’re not covered … well, honestly, you might try it anyway because your boss sounds clueless enough that she might not figure that out. Otherwise, just call in sick.

Also, I hope she hires this man.

coworker is bitter that I wouldn’t play a game, employee has bad BO, and more

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. My coworker is bitter that I wouldn’t play a game with her

I (19M) am a college student with a single source of income. Before my shift today, my coworker (18F) sent me a Game Pigeon text out of nowhere. I sort of went along with it, we went back and forth with Cup Pong a few times, and then I started my shift at work. I assumed it was okay to leave the game unfinished until I got off of my shift, but my coworker kept trying to distract me and get me to finish the game. I feel it’s perfectly reasonable to patiently wait to finish a Game Pigeon game until later, but apparently she didn’t share that conviction. She got increasingly irritable the entire shift, even at one point going as far as trying to call me and then leaving a succinct voicemail with just two biting words: “fuck you.” This was the final straw for me and when I decided I was going to draw the line in the sand. I made it clear to her that I wasn’t going to finish the game until I got off work. I politely informed her that I would get off at 11 and that we could continue the game then.

She proceeded to harass me throughout the entire shift and made it clear that I was no longer a friend to her, just a coworker. It was so bad at the end of the night that she wouldn’t even speak to me. I tried to say bye in a cheery voice and she just gave me a blank stare, her lips pursed as she glared at me. I tried a few more times to lighten the mood, but it was clear that she wasn’t gonna bite. She then left and now I just feel bad. Am I the a**hole?

No. Your coworker is a petulant child.

2. Older employees give me basic life reminders

I am a relatively younger manager (early 30s) and keep running into a minor issue when I manage people older than me — they keep giving me advice and reminders like I am not a capable person. For example, when planning a big cross-country move, one gave me unsolicited advice on the best way to pack and lift a box (!). Today, a person I manage reminded me that I need to file my taxes or get an extension if I am not ready (they were done weeks ago).

Answering the question in good faith rubs me the wrong way because I wouldn’t even like this type of “advice” from my mom, but I also don’t want to be abrasive about such innocuous comments. I don’t have any issues with them following my instructions or adhering to my decisions, so it feels silly to be fixated on this, but I also don’t want my colleagues to think I need basic concepts like “file your taxes on time” explained to me.

I would love a script or advice on what to say next time so I don’t accidentally blurt that I have been a grown adult for several years now and don’t need another parent.

Are you a woman and was the box-lifting advice from a man? Because you might not ever cure them of that. But you can try with a dry, “I’ve moved before, thank you” or “I’m good with that stuff, but thanks.”

With the tax-filing advice and similar topics, it might be interesting to think about how you’d respond if the comment came from someone your own age or younger. If someone younger than me reminded me about taxes, it would probably feel more camaraderie-ish than parental — more like “ugh, taxes are due for all of us / have you filed yet / I’m still working on mine” and less like a parental reminder. But even if it’s clear they don’t mean it that way, you could try responding as if they did — “I did mine last month, have you done yours yet?” And responding as a peer might reinforce to them that you are not in fact a child in need of guidance.

If it’s not possible to respond like that because the advice or their manner is so infantilizing, sometimes the most effective thing is to allow your face to pointedly convey “what an odd thing to say” and/or to dryly respond, “I’ve got it covered.”

3. My employee smells bad

I have a team member who has some pretty bad BO (body odor). I’ve had a conversation about it with her, and, without prompting from me, two other team members have politely mentioned it to her. Both times she said she’s had Covid and couldn’t smell much, but also swears she used deodorant and cologne. I even had gotten a new stick of deodorant and put in a drawer I keep hair spray and a few other such things in and told her it was in there if she needed it, just in case it was a financial issue. She said she had sensitive skin and couldn’t use that kind.

Now, I would think that once someone has told you that you stink, you would be mortified and make it a point to handle it, and if not after the first, the second time!? Everyone says she has really bad BO and one other team member in particular is very upset at working with her like that. I hate to write up or fire someone for BO, but what else to do? Is it an offense worthy of such?

It’s reasonable for you as an employer to set baseline expectations that people will show up at work clean and not smelling of body odor so extreme that multiple coworkers have complained. So it’s time for another conversation. This time say something like: “We’ve spoken about this before but it’s continued to be a problem. You might need to wash your clothes more frequently or shower more often, or it might be something medical that you should speak to a doctor about. I know you mentioned you were unaware of it previously, but this time I do need you to see what you can do about it.”

(Obviously if she informs you that there’s a medical reason for the problem, that changes the situation. But unless that happens, it’s reasonable to expect her to come to work with appropriate hygiene.)

Related:
how to talk to an employee about body odor

4. Manager recorded training role-plays without employees’ knowledge

My husband works for a large company at a location managed by Bryan. Bryan isn’t his supervisor or in his reporting line, but he does have the ability to assign him some tasks and can make some decisions that affect my husband as an employee based out of that location. However, all of the other employees at this location are directly supervised by Bryan. He has made some odd management decisions in the past, but nothing especially egregious until last week.

All employees at this location went through a training session with corporate HR and Bryan. They were paired with another employee to act out scenarios in front of Bryan with the HR person joining remotely over Teams on Bryan’s laptop. After everyone had completed the training, Bryan sent out a link to a recording with everyone’s session. No one taking the training had any idea that they were recorded. Some folks have tentatively raised this issue with Byran, but he doesn’t seem to get that this was inappropriate.

People are understandably upset. We live in a one-party consent state, meaning that nothing illegal has occurred from what we can tell. Even so, my husband is surprised that Bryan wouldn’t realize the implications of recording employees without their knowledge. The presence of an HR person over Teams makes this particularly baffling, since they would have received a notification on their screen that it was being recorded. My husband plans to let his own supervisor know what occurred since she works closely with Bryan’s supervisor. Are we correct in thinking that Bryan did something wrong here? And is there a better way to elevate the concerns of employees in this location, given the fact that HR may have known that people were recorded without their consent?

Yes. You don’t record people role-playing without their knowledge. It would be reasonable to ask HR for a clearer policy on recording, one that at a minimum ensures anyone participating in a meeting or training session is aware when something is being recorded. (Ensuring you have everyone’s consent can be more complicated in a work situation since sometimes people’s discomfort with recording is trumped by business needs— but at a minimum people should be informed and have the opportunity to raise concerns if they have them.)

Your husband could also ask that the recording be deleted since it was made without people’s knowledge or consent, but I’d be more concerned about ensuring Bryan is told it was inappropriate and that it won’t happen again.

5. Wearing a swimsuit around coworkers

I just came back from a week of travel out of state for work. Typically when I travel to this location, there are many people from my company who stay at the same hotel so the odds of running into one of your other traveling coworkers around breakfast, in the gym, in the elevator, or at the bar at night is pretty high.

However, this week while I was at said hotel, I was walking by the pool and I thought how nice it would be to go for a swim that evening after all work events and obligations were complete. I did not have my suit with me anyway, but then started to wonder if it would even be appropriate to go for a swim? As mentioned above, the chances of running into someone you work with (including your own manager) in the elevator is pretty high. Assuming that you wouldn’t be walking around the hotel in JUST your swimming suit (wearing a coverup or something), is it appropriate to go swimming (or use the hot tub) while on a work trip?

Yes. Just like it’s not inappropriate for coworkers to see you wearing gym clothes in the gym, it’s not inappropriate to be spotted wearing swimwear in the pool. You’re wearing the right clothing for the occasion.

have we changed our views about working from home?

A reader writes:

I’d love to have your take and the readers’ take on whether society as a whole has changed its view on working from home.

Most of last year, I was job searching, and something an interviewer said once has stuck with me. I was in a second interview for an office job in a non-customer-facing role. When it was time for me to ask questions, I asked if the team was usually fully in-office, hybrid, or remote. I added that I didn’t have specific expectations around remote or office work and was just curious since the job description didn’t say.

They said they do allow remote work upon approval for specific circumstances, like being sick or needing to stay home to let in a repair technician. One of the interviewers said, “But it only takes one missed phone call when you’re working from home for your colleagues to lose all trust in you.” They agreed that the first time that someone isn’t immediately available, the privilege of working from home would be taken away. And then they bashed the former employee in this position because he once let an unscheduled phone call from a colleague go unanswered during work hours and didn’t call back for a couple minutes. A couple minutes. They also implied that that contributed to him being let go because, based on that one missed call, he clearly wasn’t working when at home (they said this with eyerolls and attitude). I was taken aback and said something like “oh, maybe he was just in the bathroom?” and tried to lightheartedly move on. But they responded that even if you’re just stepping away for a quick bathroom break when working from home, of course you’d need to communicate that with all staff first via chat. It was a small number of staff — I think 10 or so — but still.

They continued harping on the point that it was a “trust issue” (implying that people at home can’t be trusted, and I guess also that no one in the office steps away from their desk or goes to the bathroom?). I nodded and smiled but I was confused on why they spent so much time reiterating that when working from home you need to prove every second that you’re working, when it didn’t sound like they worked from home much, if at all, to begin with.

I still wonder about this. I’ve only had office jobs that have been quite flexible (still true with my new job, thankfully!), where bathroom breaks weren’t micromanaged or timed and taking small breaks and pouring another cup of coffee during the day were usually encouraged — regardless if your work location is at home or in the office.

I’ve worked on hybrid teams since 2020. The occasional missed phone call would be a non-issue in the places I’ve worked, so I don’t have a frame of reference for this. The need for WFHers to be always immediately available (when you’re probably not always immediately available when you’re in the office either) seems to come from the now-outdated stigma that “all people who work from home are slackers” or whatnot. Or at least, I thought that view was outdated … Is it more common than I think, even now in 2024, to expect more from people who work from home than people in the office? How evolved are we? I’d love your take.

There are indeed still places like the one you interviewed with. But they’re in a shrinking minority, as they should be.

The people you interviewed with weren’t giving you data about what’s reasonable in the work world — they were telling you about themselves and their dysfunctional culture. It’s a good thing that they did, so that you knew not to accept a job there.

The idea that someone working from home needs to announce their bathroom breaks is absurd. The idea that someone taking a few minutes to return a call is clearly slacking off and unresponsive is absurd. As you point out, these wouldn’t be the expectations if everyone were in the office. Both of those statements betray a mindset that anyone working from home will slack off at the smallest opportunity and therefore we must subject them to excessive pressure to “prove” they’re working. They also betray a lack of ability to actually manage people — because effective managers know that the way to spot someone who’s not working is to look at people’s work output, not to ask them to log when they pee.

We saw a ton of this in early 2020, when so many employers switched to remote working overnight and managers who had never been expected to manage remotely before (and who maybe never managed all that well in person either) suddenly had to figure out how to do it. Witness the slew of 2020 letters here about bosses who wanted everyone to stay on video all day long, panic-buying software to spy on remote workers, demanding three check-in’s a day, and so forth.

But it’s been four years. Most companies have figured it out. You just ran into a crappy one.

update: there’s nothing I can do about my nightmare workload … right?

Remember the letter-writer asking whether there was anything they could do about their nightmare workload? Here’s the update.

I wrote in about getting through a staffing crisis after both my coworkers quit right when one of my company’s two owners went on maternity leave. I wanted to make sure that my “this is awful but that’s what all the extra money is for” outlook wasn’t distracting me from anything else the remaining owner could potentially do to help.

My letter was posted in March but I wrote it in January, during what was definitely the worst few weeks of the entire stretch. The owner came back in early February, and I was unsure of how that would go — she can be very exacting, and previously most conversations related to my work went through my supervisor. Turns out it was great! Her number one priority was figuring out what she could to do help me out and what she could take off my plate. By the time my letter went up, things were already much, much better than they’d been in a long time.

The owners were grateful I’d kept things running significantly better than they’d hoped. That was great to hear but also concerning, particularly since at the same time, we were working on two transitions to streamline the business. My biggest concern was that between the “that wasn’t so bad (for us)” relief and the efficiency gains from the transitions, they’d decide maybe we were actually fine with the one new hire we made and there wasn’t any need for another. But when we sat down for a post-maternity-leave state of the union, I was clear that I was only happy if the hiring plan was unchanged, and our next new hire is starting in a couple of weeks.

As things stand now, my workload and stress level are significantly lower than they were even before everyone started quitting, which is great considering the multiple raises I’ve gotten. I can basically do no wrong in the owners’ eyes and they’re really invested in my happiness and my growth in the company. So in theory, when it comes to my self-imposed “quit if it’s not fixed by July” deadline, there should be nothing to worry about.

In practice, I don’t think the owners have learned any lessons about the importance of staff retention, and I’m really unhappy with how our first new hire (who’s now five months in) is being treated. I get all the credit for getting the company through this mess and endless grace for any balls I’ve dropped in the process. There’s no recognition of the fact that our new hire was a huge help and that I couldn’t have done this without her, or that she was a great sport about being hired into a complete mess of a situation, with only me to guide her when I barely had the time or the brainpower for it. She’s taken on so much and made my job so much easier, and the owners extend zero appreciation for that and make her miserable holding her to a standard that’s massively unfair given how haphazard her training has been. My old supervisor used to say she was shielding us from a lot, and I took it with a grain of salt, but now I get what she meant.

So that’s where I’m going to be spending my capital for now. Most of it is that I think my coworker deserves better, but it’s also because if she quits or gets fired, I’m going to quit rather than take on the extra work. I’m gathering my thoughts right now and planning to meet with the owners soon to make it clear that if history repeats, I’m not sticking around to bail them out. I guess we’ll see how that goes, but no matter what I should have a happy update later this year — either I’ll be able to report that they’ve righted the ship, or I’ll be out of there.