is it OK for job postings to require a “clean-cut appearance”?

by Alison Green on October 17, 2024

A reader writes:

There is a small family-owned butcher shop near me. They list job postings on their Facebook page, and I’ve noticed every time they post for counter staff, that they include “clean-cut” or “clean-cut appearance” in their list of requirements for applicants. I don’t believe this is specifically about food handling/sanitation requirements, since the employees currently working at the counter there do not wear hair nets or hats.

This bothers me, largely because it feels wrong to consider appearance when making hiring decisions. Also, that particular phrasing only references hair directly, but to me it has 1950’s-small-town-USA connotations a la Pleasantville and so feels to me like it would also exclude tattoos, goth style, brightly-colored hair, extra-large bodies, or anything other than fairly generic-looking white people. I know I personally would feel uncomfortable applying there with “clean-cut” included, so I suspect others would also self-select out of applying.

Which leads to my questions:
• Is it illegal (in the U.S.) to use appearance as a criteria for job candidates? I suspect not, based on the existence of the Hooters chain, but maybe it is?
• Am I overreacting or reading too much into the term “clean-cut”?
• If the job posting is problematic and/or illegal, would it be any better if the business had a well-defined dress code prohibiting facial hair, visible tattoos, non-natural hair colors, etc. and the job posting just said “must be willing to adhere to dress code once hired”?

It’s not illegal in the U.S. to require a “clean-cut appearance” as long as it’s not used in ways that discriminate based on sex, race, religion, or other protected characteristics.

For example, courts have ruled that employers can prohibit facial hair on employees as long as they make exceptions for religious practices and people with conditions that make shaving painful.

They can also legally prohibit tattoos, goth style, and other specific appearance choices (again, as long as they make exceptions for protected classes).

There are a few jurisdictions in the U.S. that prohibit appearance discrimination, but they’re the exceptions and are usually narrowly defined. For example, Michigan prohibits discrimination based on height or weight, but not other appearance-related characteristics. Santa Cruz, Calif. protects physical characteristics from “birth, accident, or disease” that are otherwise “beyond the control of the person,” including height and weight (but excluding things like dress, grooming, tattoos, and piercings).

I do think you’re probably reading more into “clean-cut” than is typically intended, at least in terms of assuming it’s code for white (but I can also see how you got there, given our history).

Because the term does allow so much room for interpretation, it would be better for any employer using it to spell out exactly what it means to them — since for all we know, they’re fine with tattoos but hate long hair on men, or it’s really just about facial hair, or any number of other possibilities.

You may also like:
{ 169 comments }

how can I reject former coworkers applying for jobs with me?

by Alison Green on October 17, 2024

A reader writes:

Several past coworkers have reached out to me on LinkedIn asking about a job posting at my company. The only thing is … they don’t know that I am the hiring manager for the role, and they are under-qualified. I already know I would not hire them for the position.

I have good relationships with them from my prior jobs, and I am sure if I tell them the role is on my team they will feel they have a better chance at the position, even though that is not the case. But it is tough out there right now with the economy and I know at least one of them was recently laid off. I am worried they would take rejection personally.

How do I approach this? I don’t want to discourage them, but I also don’t want to mislead them. I’d ideally like to preserve the relationships in the process.

I answer this question — and two others — 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.

Other questions I’m answering there today include:

  • My employee made an anti-Semitic joke in a meeting
  • Can I ask my office to stop announcing pregnancies at staff meetings?
You may also like:
{ 104 comments }

when terrible work systems become sacred

by Alison Green on October 17, 2024

I once worked for an organization where, years before, an IT person had created a database in an obscure coding language. He was long gone and no one knew how to make changes to it but the CEO loved it so we weren’t allowed to replace it, despite it being central to our work.

Nearly every office seems to have at least one broken/outdated/dysfunctional object, software, or process that Cannot Be Changed, no matter how inefficient. Examples shared here in the past include a lone employee grandfathered into being allowed to use WordPerfect … a team that refused to file anything in a central location … and some absolute chaos that resulted when a new phone system changed up the speed dial.

Let’s discuss the untouchable but inane things you’ve seen at work. What was the problem, what was the reason it couldn’t be changed, and what was the impact? And if it ever did eventually get changed, what happened?

You may also like:
{ 702 comments }

am I too old-fashioned about how I schedule calls, feedback said my enthusiasm can seem too aggressive, and more

by Alison Green on October 17, 2024

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

1. Am I being too old-fashioned about how I schedule calls?

I work for a mid-sized media company. My job includes emailing people outside of the office to set up a time for me to interview them for content that I write. I keep an old-fashioned paper calendar, and I prefer phone calls over Zoom or Teams.

Increasingly, I’m asked to send a “calendar invite,” or if the interview will take place over Zoom or Teams. I don’t understand why Zoom or Teams is preferable to the phone; personally I don’t want the added stress of having to fiddle with technology. Also, my transcription program works best off a phone call. Is it okay for me to say that I won’t be sending a calendar invite, and that I prefer a phone call? So far, I’ve gotten my way, but I’m worried that I sound rude, stubborn and old-fashioned. Or should I give in?

Start sending calendar invites. You’re asking people to do something for you, and you should make it easy for them to do; since a lot of people have told you they want calendar invites, send the invites. They’re asking you to do it because it will save them time, and it’s in your interests to have it on their calendar. You can continue using your paper calendar to track your own stuff.

But it’s fine to keep using the phone. People are asking if it’s Zoom or Teams because so many work calls these days are, but that doesn’t mean they care if it’s not. They also might be asking so they can be prepared if you’re planning on video. It’s fine to say, “It won’t be Zoom or Teams; I’ll just give you a call on your regular number then.” Alternately, it would also be fine to say, “My transcription program works best off a phone call, so I’ll call you at (fill in number) then.”

2. Expecting presidential candidates to release medical records

I’m a (long-time) UK reader. It’s been in the news over here that Kamala Harris has released her medical records and that there’s a lot of criticism for Trump that he is refusing to release his.

Leaving aside the particulars of these two candidates, as a UK reader the expectation to release private medical records to prove you’re fit for a job seems … problematic at best? It’s not something that we would ever expect of our political leaders. I’ve been wondering how it impacts others in the workplace — say if one of them was diabetic or needed ADHD medication to be at their best, could that lead to the average person being judged for the same? Even though that wouldn’t be legal. Would the same be expected for a CEO of a massive multinational? And what about Supreme Court judges? The list goes on.

I’m really curious what you/your readers think about this practice in general (again, leaving aside the particulars of these two candidates as no one needs that in the comments!) and whether it has any impact on the average person.

It’s a practice specific to presidential candidates; it’s not something that’s expected outside of that one very specific situation.

Presidential candidates aren’t required by law to disclose their health information, but modern day candidates — until Trump — have done so anyway. The idea is to assure voters that they don’t have significant health problems that could interfere with their ability to carry out the responsibilities of the office or to serve a full term. The tradition started after questions were raised about whether Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s had begun affecting him while he was still in office. (Of course, earlier history is full of examples of candidates and presidents who didn’t disclose medical information, like John F. Kennedy and, famously, FDR.)

Given the uniquely consequential responsibilities of the job, I’m fine with the practice. That said, disclosure should be restricted to factors likely to affect a candidate’s judgment or longevity in the role. Dementia is relevant; a Valtrex prescription is not.

3. Anonymous feedback said my enthusiasm can seem too aggressive

I recently received feedback in a performance evaluation (from an anonymous source) that my enthusiasm is great but can be taken as aggressive by coworkers and I need to be mindful of how others perceive me.

This has been puzzling to me because I am not someone who speaks up very much at all and when I do, I make an effort to be kind and clear in my communication. I rarely speak up in meetings and, if I do, it’s through chat. My interaction with coworkers is strictly through Slack and Zoom chat. Those interactions consist of asking questions to management, providing feedback to management (which they have thanked me for and made changes), or notifying coworkers that a customer reached out for them. These communications are through direct messages, not in the meetings, and it is mostly when asked unless I see a problem that is not being addressed that I feel they should be aware of. Sometimes I participate in team-building activities with my camera on and speak up but barely.

I use a lot of exclamation marks? I’m very puzzled by this feedback. What are your thoughts? Is this something I need to work on?

Anonymous feedback without any contextualizing by your boss is pretty useless. Did your boss indicate whether she also sees this as a concern? Or is she just passing along something she hasn’t personally seen without knowing if there’s any merit to it? If the latter, this could be one weird outlier person who doesn’t represent anyone else, and it could be feedback that’s nonsensical, baseless, or simply not worth acting on.

So can you go back to your boss and ask for her perspective? Say you took the feedback seriously but can’t figure out what it’s stemming from, and if changes are needed you can’t make them without understanding what’s happening, and ask for a couple of examples of where you’re coming across as aggressive.

4. My company wants me to share its posts on my personal LinkedIn

I have been at my job for two years in a junior role. Our senior management team is a huge fan of using LinkedIn to connect with clients. In particular, one member of that team will often share links to LinkedIn posts in my department’s Slack channel asking us to like, comment, and reshare with our network. They have also encouraged us, in business strategy meetings, to leverage our personal LinkedIn accounts to build our own “personal brand,” as well as promote the company.

Although I have an account, I despise LinkedIn, and mostly keep my profile up in case I need it for any future job searches or networking. I also am not a big poster on social media in general — I probably post on my personal Instagram account four times a year, and that is the only social media account I actively post on.

I don’t mind liking or commenting on company posts if asked, but I really don’t want to reshare posts onto my personal account, especially since I very rarely post any of my own content. Perhaps complicating things further, this job is in an industry that I don’t see myself in long-term (although nobody there knows this), so I don’t particularly want to build a huge LinkedIn presence in this industry.

I’ve mostly managed to fly under the radar with this, but there have been a couple times recently where this manager has mentioned me by name when asking people to reshare the post. Is there a graceful way to opt out of using my personal LinkedIn account for my company’s business purposes?

There are some industries where LinkedIn is so inherently a part of the work that it would be unreasonable to refuse to do this (for example, recruiting, some forms of PR, or LinkedIn itself). But assuming you’re not in one of them, they’re welcome to ask people to share posts, but you should be able to decline. That’s your social media, not theirs.

The easiest way to deal with it is to just keep ignoring it. If you’re mentioned by name when the request is made, nod and make a note on your to-do list and then … just don’t. If you’re directly asked about it in a more serious way, feel free to say you never use LinkedIn or even that you haven’t been able to log in the account recently.

5. When a business contact dies mid-project

In my job, I’m often the only connecting point between organizations — a combination of my clients, colleagues, vendors, regional stakeholders, etc. Recently, a project missed its deadline because I couldn’t get ahold of my contact, John, at a regular vendor, Acme. He had known we would need to be in heavy communication in the runup to a Friday deadline, but he stopped responding to emails or answering phone calls on Thursday, and we couldn’t finish the project without his input.

Over the weekend, I happened to get dinner with a friend who used to work at Acme. I mentioned that we’d blown a deadline, and that it was really unlike Acme to leave us hanging. My friend asked who I had been working with, and when I told her, she told me John had died on Wednesday night! She’d only heard about it that morning, and it sounded like it had been very unexpected and, understandably, things were chaotic at Acme in the wake of things.

I spent Sunday stressing about how to reach out to Acme. I worked with John a few times a year, and we weren’t close, but I respected him and was sad to hear the news. I could imagine that this has been really hard on Acme’s team, and wanted to express my condolences. But I also had my client and other stakeholders breathing down my neck to get the project done, and I was unsure what to say to them in the meantime. John was a department head, so I wasn’t really sure who to reach out to, either. Luckily, my friend had sent some of her old Acme contacts a heads-up, so someone reached out to me first thing Monday morning with an explanation, an apology to send to my client, and a new point of contact. I was able to just respond with condolences and thank them for their help.

But if I’m ever in this situation again, what’s the etiquette around someone’s death? Is there a script for when and how to reach out after hearing the news? Who do the messages go to? And if I hear that someone has died, is it fair to discreetly share that with someone like my client, as an explanation for the delay?

It would be fine to reach out to any other contact you have there and say something like, “I was so very sorry to hear about John. He was (insert something personal here about what you valued about John/the relationship, if possible). He was working on X for me; when we missed the deadline Friday, I hadn’t known what had happened, but now of course I understand. I’m so sorry to bother you with this right now, but when you’re able, would you let me know who I should be in touch with about the project? I understand it may take some time to sort out.” Depending on the context, you could add that if they’d like you to look for non-Acme resources for completing the work so they have time to sort out what will happen from here, you can do that.

It’s fair to share the situation with your client; most people will be a lot more understanding of delays in a situation like this than if they’re left in the dark.

You may also like:
{ 579 comments }

our in-office employees are upset that they have to use more sick days than our remote workers

by Alison Green on October 16, 2024

A reader writes:

I’m the staff liaison to the board for updating the HR policies at a nonprofit where we’re transitioning to independence from our fiscal sponsor. We’re a small, mission-driven team, and while some roles could technically be remote, we all truly prefer to work on-site due to the collaborative nature of our work and wanting to be with our served community as much as possible. We serve a high volume of in-person clients, and everyone wears multiple hats to get things done. No one has ever expressed any dissatisfaction with this! However, it has created challenges with our sick day policy.

We have two groups of employees, both of which are salaried-exempt:
• Group A: Employes whose specific job duties must be done on-site and no part can be performed remotely.
• Group B: Employees who work on-site but could do most of their specific job duties remotely when necessary.

The issue arises when an employee is sick but still capable of working. Group A employees must take sick leave, as they can’t work remotely, while Group B often has the flexibility to work from home, allowing them to preserve their sick time.

This situation creates a sense of unfairness for Group A, who must use their sick days, while Group B becomes frustrated if they are forced to use sick days when they could be working.

Group B gets frustrated because there is a necessary disparity in the way in which responsibilities are handled during absences. Group A’s tasks are critical front-facing roles serving clients in need in the moment, but they are not highly technical. When one of them is out, someone must step in to serve the client and can easily do so. However, Group B’s tasks are much more technical and require skills others don’t have, so the work can’t be done when they are out. Group B steps in to do Group A’s work when they are out sick, but no one can do Group B’s work when they are out, so it piles up and that frustrates them, since they could have chosen to work remotely instead of using sick time.

Additionally, Group A expresses concerns about the potential for abuse of the work-from-home policy. While the team maintains a close-knit and trusting environment, instances of turnover can disrupt this balance. Previous employees have sometimes struggled with productivity while working remotely, leading to worries that similar issues could arise again and exacerbate tensions between the two groups.

Compounding the problem, our current policy allows unused sick time to be paid out at 80% upon leaving the organization, resulting in higher payouts for Group B. Group A worries about the strain this puts on the organization and feels it’s unfair that Group B receives a larger payout, while Group B argues that since everyone is still paid during sick leave, Group A is not losing out financially and that the organization needs to budget properly for pay-outs on this policy either way.

Here’s an example. I am Group B and recently tore my meniscus and was strictly instructed to stay in bed. Even though I was fully capable of working on my laptop, I took three sick days, to avoid upsetting Group A during these tense policy discussions. But this left important tasks that require technical skills that others can’t easily perform to go undone. Usually, I have a backup to handle these tasks during my planned absences, but my backup was on vacation. Despite being on sick leave, I still received messages asking for urgent help because my absence created strain on the team. I was bored out of my mind watching TV shows while resting my knee, so I was happy to help where I could. I ended up logging 3-4 hours of remote work each day on just those tasks. I would have preferred to work full remote days to get some of my own work done too, because I was capable and I knew my unique technical tasks were piling up. But I was asked to keep that as sick time and not work, to be considerate of the tension we currently have around this policy.

We’re trying to create a fair and equitable policy that balances both sides, and I’m struggling to find a solution! Any insights, resources, or suggestions you have would be appreciated!

It is inequitable, and you have to navigate that without ignoring the reality that some jobs can be done from home and some can’t.

I don’t blame Group A for being upset that some of their coworkers end up with far more accrued sick leave that gets paid out when they leave the organization. You’re essentially paying a departure bonus to employees in Group B, and that’s not fair. I understand how you got there — but Group A isn’t wrong to be upset about it.

Would you consider offering additional sick days to people who can’t work from home, in recognition of the fact that they necessarily end up needing more sick leave because of that?

Also, people won’t like this, but I might also rethink the policy of paying out sick days when people leave. It makes sense to pay out unused vacation days, but paying out sick days is less common and creates an incentive for people to come to work sick (thus exposing other people to whatever they have). Sick days are supposed to be a safety net for when you can’t work, not something you hoard for later payout.

Alternately, you could consider moving to unlimited sick time (not unlimited vacation, because of all the issues that come with that, but unlimited sick time). Unlimited sick leave isn’t uncommon anymore, and that would help solve this too.

But otherwise recognize the higher burden on your in-office workers by giving them additional sick time. It would go a long way toward easing some of this resentment.

You may also like:
{ 253 comments }

our new hires keep quitting after their first week

by Alison Green on October 16, 2024

A reader writes:

Several times recently, we’ve had new graduates accept a job at our company, then quit after their first week with no notice. Should I say something about how unprofessional this is, or let them learn the hard lesson on their own? Or can we do something during the hiring profess to make it clear this isn’t acceptable?

It’s frustrating for us, but also damaging to them as this is a very small industry where employees move between companies frequently. Burning a bridge that early in their career is going to hurt them badly in a few years either when they try to come back here, or when someone from here is now working at their next company. And yes, it’s absolutely going to happen — our entire industry is set up for this constant shift and flow between companies depending on who has active projects.

My guess is they say yes to our company and sign on, then get offered a job at a company that is working on a flashier project.

Where this gets even more unfortunate is that most of the people in this industry aren’t full-time staff, but per-project contractors. (We’re following the law there.) That said, everyone is treated with full benefits like retirement and health insurance. It’s just an industry where you get hired for a fixed duration instead of as ongoing. That leads to the huge company mobility, but also means that it’s very frowned upon to break a contract instead of completing the project.

I’m frustrated for what these abrupt departures mean for my teams when they’re suddenly short-staffed, but I’m also concerned that these new graduates don’t understand how quickly they’re going to get a reputation for being too flakey to hire at all. They aren’t facing any explicit repercussions for bailing to another company after just one week, but they’re trashing their reputations. That they might not even realize it is why we’re trying to figure out if and how we should say something to them.

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.

You may also like:
{ 187 comments }

the company I want to work for employs a guy who’s abusive to women on dating apps

by Alison Green on October 16, 2024

A reader writes:

I have a tricky situation involving prior sexual harassment/creepy behavior by a potential future coworker at a job I’m applying for.

A year ago, I matched with a man on a dating app who works in my (very small) field. The conversation was pleasant but we never met up and eventually lost touch. Months later, he added me on social media and messaged me, essentially saying he was masturbating to my photos. I blocked him. I also belong to one of the “Are we dating the same guy?” Facebook groups in my city and he was also posted there for saying extremely vulgar, demeaning things to women on dating apps. At least six women shared similar interactions with him (with screenshot evidence). Since then, he attempted following me from a different account, which I also blocked.

Through LinkedIn (we have mutual connections), I saw that he started a job at a company that’s doing a lot of innovative work in our field. I’ve always dreamed of working there eventually and a recruiter from that company just contacted me for an amazing role on the same team he works on. I don’t know what to do. I’m so icked out at the idea of working with this disgusting man. On the other hand, I hate that I’m letting this man stop me from going for a job I really want.

Is there any way I could report him for harassment and anonymously send the screenshots to their ethics hotline before even starting? Or if I turn down the job, could I share this information with them? Is creepy behavior to women outside of work even something companies can take action on? It all just feels unjust.

Ugh, I’m so sorry. It’s not right that you’re reluctant to go after a job you want because a creep works there.

Most companies won’t act on evidence that an employee is a disgusting jerk on dating apps. I’d argue that they should, and your situation is a prime example of why: it will affect who’s willing to work with them (and not just prospective employees, but prospective clients too) and it raises questions about his ability to deal with female colleagues respectfully and professionally. But still, most companies won’t consider it their business unless it shows up at work in some way.

However, if you’re offered the job and turn it down, you could certainly tell them why. They should be aware that employing this dirtbag is driving away good candidates (and it should make them question how he might be interacting with the women he works with as well).

You could also be up-front with the recruiter that you’d love to work for the company but you and other women have been harassed outside of work by one of their employees, and ask how closely the position they’re hiring for works with this guy.

Or, of course, you could go for the job, accept it if you want to, and after you’ve been there a while discreetly let other women know about the jagoff they’re working with.

I’m sorry there aren’t better solutions.

You may also like:
{ 283 comments }

new employee isn’t cut out for the job, former boss blasts his music, and more

by Alison Green on October 16, 2024

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

1. Telling a new employee he’s not cut out for the job

I began managing a new team last month. The team is very green — over half graduated less than two years ago. In the last two years, this department only had a manager for nine months, and by all accounts she was completely unqualified. I was brought in as an experienced manager to provide technical oversight / development.

My field is one where you get a pretty generalized degree, and then choose a specialty that you receive on-the-job training for. It’s pretty easy to change specialties for early career folks.

One of my new direct reports, Tom, has … zero to negative natural talent for his chosen specialty. I know it’s pretty harsh to say that about someone I just began working with, especially one who has not received adequate training. But I have worked with a lot of early career people in this specialty, and he stands out as one of the worst of all time. Past interns have grasped core concepts and tools more quickly.

I’m not saying he’s not smart! He is! I can see ways he would be a great fit for other specialties, including available jobs within our company. But the more I talk through tasks with him, the more I realize that his brain is just not wired to understand this particular job. It’s like trying to explain to him that an apple and a snake are nothing alike … over and over again, with diagrams, while he grows increasingly agitated that I don’t understand they’re both smooth-skinned and therefore interchangeable. (He definitely has a touch of “defensive know-it-all-ism.”)

On the one hand, I just want to spare him. I can tell he’s really frustrated and burned out, working 10 times harder than he should have to on basic tasks. His teammates are thin on patience and try every trick to avoid being paired up with him. His peers in other departments don’t trust his advice and constantly find ways to circumvent him. I think it’s a disservice to lay out a training plan and have both of us invest significant effort into improvements that are unlikely to ever materialize, when the gap is so fundamental. On the other hand, I have no idea how to look an exhausted and low-confidence young man in the eyes and say, “You’re not going to make it here, why don’t I help you find a different job you’re a better fit for?” Especially since I suspect he will be so reluctant to “fail” that he will just double down on learning this job, now dragged down by the knowledge his manager doesn’t believe in him. What would you do?

Whether or not you can do this depends on whether your company’s internal policies will let you, but I’m a big fan of just having a really honest conversation along the lines of, “Here’s what I’m seeing. Your strengths are X but this job requires Y. In my experience, it’s very hard to move from where you are to where you need to be in the amount of time we have available, and I would recommend we instead think about other roles in the company that would be a better fit. If you don’t want to do that, the next step would be a formal improvement plan, which would mean ___. If you choose that path, I’ll try my best to help you succeed, but I want to be up-front about the concerns I have and the path I think would play more to your strengths in the long run.”

Related:
alternatives to firing

2. Off-site activity excluded me even though my boss knew about my disability

I am just home from a week of travel for work abroad, meeting both my own team and agency partners I work with.

The final evening of our trip was a secret planned event. As a disabled person (I have MS and have functional limitations in my leg muscles and use a cane), “secret” is not my favorite!

Ahead of traveling, I had a 1×1 over the phone with my boss (we live in different countries, but have met several times) to remind him that I’m not able to do a lot of physically activity, have difficulty with stairs, etc. so will need to, for example, take direct taxis instead of trams. He said of course and all was positive.

The final evening arrived, we were given a location to meet at, and when I turned up, it was a boat. With 10-12 steps to get to the dock, and then a ladder to get down into the boat. And while I may have awkwardly made it in, there was zero chance of me getting out of that boat with any dignity.

So I excused myself. And it was mortifying. The boss tried to convince me to go, got the organizer to try and find another boat, asked the driver if he could help (he offered to help lift me, which was so much worse). This went on for 15 minutes while my entire 25-person team looked on with pity, and I was overwhelmed with embarrassment. I put all my effort in to convincing them all I was fine on my own and they should go just so I could retreat to the hotel in utter shame. I missed out on the culmination of our week-long session, during which they announced we had won an award and had a champagne celebration. The next day my boss hugged me goodbye, looked at me with pity, and said sorry. And that was it.

What do I do? I will travel again. I missed out. I fear this experience has hurt me professionally. I shouldn’t have been put in that situation to begin with. I really am lost on how to manage. Any suggestions?

Oh no, I’m sorry, that never should have happened. And when it did happen, your boss and the organizer should have handled it differently, and then your boss should have followed up with you to let you know what will be done differently next time.

Absent any of that … do you have HR you can talk to? There’s no way to undo what already happened, but you might be able to ensure future events are more thoughtfully and inclusively organized.

I do emphasize to say that you aren’t the person who should be embarrassed; your boss and the event organizer should be, and your team should be irate with them, not pitying you. There’s nothing here that warrants shame on your side; you had medical needs that you disclosed ahead of time, and they should have been met. The embarrassment is on your boss and the organizer, not you.

3. Former supervisor blasts music from his cubicle

My former supervisor recently moved to a new position, and with that came a move from an enclosed office to working on the floor in a cubicle. Typically the office has been pretty quiet, as most of us are working on data requiring concentration. Unfortunately, my former supervisor apparently enjoys working with background music and blasts a collection of country and classic rock throughout the day from his cubicle! It’s highly distracting, and my noise canceling headphones are no match.

He is no longer under the “jurisdiction” of anyone working in the office, and our staff-supervisor relationship was challenging at best. I feel unable to say anything, nor do I want to, but am finding myself unable to concentrate and feeling angry as a result. I just can’t understand how anyone can think forcing the entire office to listen to their music all day is reasonable, and it’s seriously impacting an already shaky relationship.

Is this something I could reach out to a manager about, or am I being petty?

You’re not being petty. It’s generally considered rude to blast one’s own music around coworkers, unless everyone agrees on (a) having music in the first place and (b) general selection parameters. The fact that he’s doing this in a quiet space where people are trying to concentrate makes it worse.

Ideally you’d start by saying something to him yourself — for example, “Could you turn that down? It’s making it tough to focus.” Or, “Could you please use headphones? I’m having trouble focusing.” If you don’t want to do that because the dynamics around him being your former supervisor, any chance one of your other coworkers would be willing to?

But it’s also reasonable to ask a manager to handle it for you, and it’s okay to say, “I feel awkward about asking him myself since he was previously my manager.” They might suggest you say something yourself first, but they also might just handle it for you.

Related:
my coworker tries to drown out my music with her own

4. I’ve heard horrible things about the manager my company is considering hiring

My department has been without a manager for nearly a year. Applicants are scarce, because of massive time expectations and a frankly lowball salary. But my grandboss has finally interviewed someone they think is qualified, and I’m going to be in on a staff interview this week.

At this candidate’s last job, she happened to manage a few people I know from outside work. I reached out to these friends to ask what they know about her. Everything I’ve heard back has been shockingly negative.

It’s not just that her performance was bad and she micromanaged everyone to death. They’re also telling me stories of outright discrimination. Multiple staff members there went to HR with complaints of abusive language and racial slurs. The accusations were substantiated but she apparently resigned before being punished.

Obviously I don’t want to work for this person. But how can I report the problem to the hiring team in a believable, professional way? I don’t want them to ignore these issues. I worry they might hire her anyway out of desperation, because they have so few other prospects.

As a last resort, I suppose could confront the candidate about that situation in the staff interview. But because this person might end up being my manager, the power dynamic there makes me hesitant. I would need to stay on under her leadership for weeks or months while looking for a new job.

Relay what you heard to the hiring committee! That’s incredibly relevant information, and I’d be horrified if someone knew those things about a candidate I was considering hiring and didn’t tell me. Of course, be clear that you haven’t worked with the person directly and are hearing these things secondhand, but also be clear that you’ve heard it from multiple people whose judgement you trust (assuming you do). The framing you want is a matter-of-fact, “Jane Warbleworth has worked with several people I know and trust, and they’ve shared XYZ with me, which I thought I needed to pass on to you.”

Stress the discrimination and abuse more than the micromanaging; micromanaging can be in the eye of the beholder (and can sometimes be warranted in the short-term if an employee is struggling), but it’ll be hard for anyone to think “well, maybe the racial slurs and forced resignation weren’t so bad.”

5. Returning to my maiden name after a divorce

I recently got divorced and am now unsure what to do about my name. Personally, I’ve changed back to my maiden name. But I’m not sure how to handle it professionally. It was easier when I got married several years ago to explain it with, “I got married.” That’s a pretty positive one for people to respond to. But now? I’m happy to be divorced, but it’s a more complicated one for people to respond to. I’m hesitant to change my name at all because of it. What’s the way forward here? I work in construction and don’t have a lot of women to talk to about it.

“I’ve changed back to my maiden name, Mulberry, so am now Cressida Mulberry.” That’s it! Handle it exactly the way you would if you’d changed it for any other reason. Some people may ask if you got divorced, and you can just be breezily matter-of-fact if they do: “Yes, we split up earlier this year. I’m fine! Just going back to Mulberry.” You don’t need to get into it more than that.

You may also like:
{ 430 comments }

coworker’s wife works remotely from our non-remote office

by Alison Green on October 15, 2024

A reader writes:

Weird thing just came up at my work that I’d be curious to hear you weigh in on. I work at a university that is 100% in-person, on-the-ground. My colleague Fergus has an office in an obscure little corner of the building. We rarely see him come in and out, and he tends to be around for odd hours.

Recently, a grad student who works at our front desk mentioned that she sees Fergus’ wife Jane coming to work with him quite often. This was news to me — Fergus’ wife has a 100% remote job that we thought she was doing from home. What I’ve gathered is that Jane seems to be coming to work with Fergus to do her work in his office, and it’s regular enough that our grad students know who she is.

What are your thoughts on this? Our school requires us to be 100% in-person because we work with confidential student records and so that students can stop by to see us at any time, and Jane does work related to confidential medical data, so it seems like it’s inherently a problem if they’re working in the same room. At the same time, that’s a pretty common setup for couples where both partners work remotely. But it also seems … just kind of odd, especially because he hasn’t mentioned this to anyone and almost seems to be sneaking her in. Like, it would make sense if they only had one car and they were coming into the city together because she had an in-town appointment, but they both have their own separate vehicles.

What do you think?

Yes, this is weird and it’s almost certainly a problem.

In many jobs, it wouldn’t be a big deal if it happened occasionally — like for an afternoon a couple times a year when she needed to do something nearby, or for one day because, I don’t know, there was construction happening in their house. But it shouldn’t be happening regularly, for the same reasons that any other random person shouldn’t be regularly working from your office.

Your employer hasn’t agreed to provide office space and other resources to Jane, there are confidentiality issues, it’s likely to pose at least some distraction to Fergus, people stopping by to talk to him may be deterred by her presence, there’s potential legal liability to your employer if something happens to Jane while she’s there … the list of problems goes on and on.

Personally, I’d mention it casually to your boss and see if they know about it.

You may also like:
{ 296 comments }

how to ask for a raise and get it

by Alison Green on October 15, 2024

I’m always surprised by how many people tell me they’ve gone their career without ever asking for a raise. Sometimes they feel awkward starting the conversation or aren’t sure when the right time to broach it is, or they’re not sure how much is reasonable to ask for, or they’re even worried they’ll seem greedy. As a result, they end up earning far less than if they had overcome their fears and spoken up.

So I’m here to tell you: Asking for a raise is a totally normal thing to do! At New York Magazine today, I have a guide on how to do it.

You may also like:
{ 115 comments }