I bring my dog to work — but an anonymous note asked me not to

by Alison Green on February 7, 2018

A reader writes:

I have kind of a silly question about a job perk I feel strongly about.

I work at a company that tries to have a strong culture and provides some cool perks. I’m not really interested in most of these — things like unlimited vacation, free food, etc. The only one I care about is being able to bring my dog to work.

My girl is a sweet, well-trained, and friendly standard poodle. I checked to make sure it was okay to bring her — dog-friendly doesn’t necessarily mean large-dog-friendly — and management said as long as she was well behaved, it would be fine.

This is a huge perk for me. I live alone, I commute about 40 minutes each way, and I’d hate to leave my dog alone for hours every day. I also really enjoy having her in the office. People comment constantly on how well-behaved she is, and they ask about her on the days I don’t bring her in.

Today, my manager came to talk to me. The company has an anonymous complaint box. They’ve received a couple of complaints that my dog is too large to be allowed in the office, and someone left a note last week saying that they’re afraid of dogs. My manager very kindly asked me to stop bringing her to work.

I completely understand where they’re coming from, and I know very few offices would let me bring such a big dog to work regularly. But this was something that influenced my decision to take this job, and has a real impact on my happiness at work. I’m also a little frustrated about the whole anonymous complaint system. I can’t even offer to make a point of keeping my dog away from the person who’s afraid, or come up with another solution.

Does it make sense to try to discuss this with my manager to see if there’s an alternate solution, or do I just have to accept the loss of this uncommon perk?

Oh, this sucks. I’m sorry.

This is tricky because this kind of perk can always potentially change. If someone started working there who’s allergic to dogs, your company would have to tell you to stop bringing your dog in anyway. (The sometimes-exception to this is if you’re working somewhere large enough that they can easily move one of you to a different building without it impacting anyone’s work.)

I hear you on this perk being a key factor in your decision to take this job. It’s really upsetting when a major reason you took a job goes away — like the manager who you were so excited to work for leaves two months after you start, or the company moves from five minutes away from you to 45 minutes away, or so forth. This is in that same category, and it sucks.

But like those other examples, there’s probably not a lot you can do here. Bringing a dog to work always relies on the agreement of others, and that agreement can change, unfortunately.

The one thing you could try is to say something like this: “I understand that bringing a dog to work is a privilege that can change over time, if someone is allergic or afraid of dogs. That said, the ability to bring my dog to work was a major factor in me accepting the job — it influenced me heavily and is more important to me than any other perk we get. I understand that ultimately there just might not be a way to make this work, and I’ll need to accept it if that’s the case, but since so far we just have an anonymous note, I wonder if there’s room for more discussion. Could we try to have a more open conversation about whether other options would work, like the dogs being confined to one particular part of the building, or even me just ensuring Ophelia doesn’t leave my office?” It’s possible that your manager would be willing to tell the whole group that she’s heard some complaints about dogs that she’s trying to work out, and ask that anyone who prefers not to be around dogs come talk to her so that she can see if there’s a solution that will work for everyone. She’d need to be clear that it’s completely okay for people to say that, since otherwise people may worry that they’ll be branded as the person who ruined the dogs in the office for everyone else. (Frankly, they may still worry about that, which is probably why the complaint was anonymous.)

But if your manager isn’t willing to do this — and she may not be, which wouldn’t necessarily be unreasonable — then at that point you can’t really push it more. Again, this arrangement might have needed to change if they hired someone allergic anyway, so might always have just been a matter of time.

You may also like:
{ 1,280 comments }

{ 1,280 comments… read them below }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    I’m putting this up here so that hopefully people see it before adding new comments: There’s already a ton of discussion below about d0g-friendly offices in general. I’d love to see discussion that isn’t so dog-specific and is more about “what do you do when you’re told you’re going to lose a perk that was part of the reason you took the job?” Because ultimately that’s what this letter is about — and it’s genuinely upsetting to anyone who experiences it.

    1. Thursday Next*

      Oh I definitely sympathize, OP—but as Alison points out in her response, lots of work features are subject to change. Was the dog friendliness spelled out in a written policy? If so, you have more room for pushback than if it was informal.

      Are you the only dog owner affected, or can you band together with others to talk with management about possible mitigation?

      My sense is that (unfortunately) there may not be much ground for an on-site solution, but maybe you can negotiate some WFH time.

      1. Thursday Next*

        Hit reply too soon—unfortunately there are some things that employees can’t do much about, like when health insurance premiums rise or coverage changes. Do you otherwise like your workplace? Your coworkers? Is your salary sufficient to absorb the financial hit of a changed policy (in this case, a dog walker)? Are you likely to find another workplace that offers the perk that has been rescinded?

        1. Veronica*

          One of my (excellent!) coworkers actually left her last job because of changes to the company insurance. She has an expensive, chronic condition, and she has to work somewhere with really good benefits. She was lucky that when her old job made the decision to switch providers, her manager let her know a few months before open enrollment so she’d have time to look for other jobs. My coworker has said to me before that she could easily make $20K more in the private sector, she’ll probably always need to work for a university or similar large, public employer because her $100,000 a year medical costs would eat that right up, especially if the out-of-pocket max in Obamacare ever goes away.

    2. neverjaunty*

      I think it helps to keep in mind that what might be a perk for me could be something really terrible for one of my co-workers.

      1. Fabulous*

        And that is something that should be assessed when an employee is hired on. If you know a workplace is dog-friendly and you’re allergic or terrified of dogs, you probably shouldn’t pursue employment there.

        1. Helena*

          I don’t think many people would, if the dog-friendliness was spelled out. There was a previous letter where the OP was severely allergic and the dogs in the office were sprung on her after she started the job.

          And we don’t know who has seniority here – it may be the dog-phobic co-worker has been there for years without issue and then OP gets taken on and brings their dog, or OP could have been there for years and dog-phobic co-worker is the newbie. There’s no way of knowing from an anonymous note.

          1. Bob*

            The anonymous note complicates further discussion. I dislike it when people do these things anonymously but I get it. Nobody wants to be known around the office as the person that tried to ban dogs (or insert your favorite perk) from the company.

            1. One of the Sarahs*

              But if the office culture is to have an anonymous suggestion box, it’s not about someone not wanting to be the bad guy, it’s using the same structure they use for everything there.

            2. Ann Nonymous*

              Exactly why the anonymous note writer chose to be anonymous. There has developed a cult of extreme dog lovers that no one is allowed to oppose without being vilified. I don’t love dogs, I don’t hate dogs, but I sure don’t want them in my workplace. And thankfully I have not been put in the position of having to deal with this issue. If I am, you can be sure that I will keep my complaints anonymous.

        2. Vizzini*

          People’s conditions can change over time. I had a mild allergy to pet dander when I was younger (easily controlled with OTC medication when it bothered me), but it has worsen and developed over time. I could have worked in a dog-friendly office when I was younger, but today I can’t. Am I supposed to predict my future medical history when applying for a job?

        3. Retired Not Fired*

          I agree. I not that fond of dogs, however if I knew a job allowed employees to bring dogs I would strongly consider not working there. And if I did, I would not send a note later when I knew full well what was going on. Not saying this is what happen.

      2. Luna*

        The OP recognizes that in her letter, and it still doesn’t change the impact on the OP. This was a big reason why she took this job. I think it is worth asking the manager about the possibility of another solution, either keeping the dog in her office or working from home a few days a week. If that doesn’t work, OP might need to consider if this job is worth it; given the new situation, looking for jobs closer to home might end up being the best thing for the OP’s work-life balance.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          Perhaps the lesson here, then, is not to take jobs based on things that aren’t actually integral to doing the job. Perks like a dog-friendly office aren’t usually a necessary aspect of getting work done (even when I worked for a veterinarian, we could lose the bring-your-dogs-to-work perk if our dogs were cranky or got in the way) so they’re the most vulnerable to being eliminated if they become a problem for other employees.

      3. CutUp*

        Everything in the office could be terrible for another person. In the thread yesterday, people were talking about their severe anxiety with respect to receiving emails on their phones outside of working hours. For some people it’s a benefit to be able to fire off a thought at 2 am.For others it’s an extreme stressor.
        I work with many monitors, but for some people, it causes painful eye strain.
        Some of my coworkers have to stand all day. Some people have standing desks because they want to stand all day. Some people have arthritis.
        There’s no perk in the world that *no person* could claim is terrible for them, specifically. Dogs are no exception. For the vast majority of people, this is a great perk.

        1. NK*

          But the difference is, those things you mentioned facilitate the actual *work*, and if they don’t like them, it’s probably not the right job for them. Having dogs in the office does not facilitate work, at least not directly. It’s more like the perk of having free food or a fitness center on site.

          1. CutUp*

            There’s actually substantial research that shows pets lower stress and blood pressure – which would have a positive impact on work.
            Free food encourages people to work longer hours. Having facilities on site that workers would ordinarily leave to use (gyms, dentists, etc) similarly increase productivity. Additionally, having any perk will make a person feel more positively towards their workplace, so there’s a large impact on attracting and retaining high quality employees.
            As Allison points out, most comments are about people’s suspicions that the dogs are poorly behaved, not about handling the loss of a substantive perk.

            1. Else*

              Only if the people around pets aren’t afraid of them or allergic to them. As being around pets isn’t important to being able to do a job except in very specific circumstances, you can’t ethically require them to put up with it.

            2. Dust Bunny*

              Dogs don’t lower my blood pressure. Cats do, but they’re sort of dicey in an office setting (mine are, at least. Even if I were allowed to I wouldn’t bring them to work). But I find dogs needy and usually smelly, and I would really rather not work around them.

        2. Samiratou*

          Your bunch of monitors or cube-neighbor’s standing desk doesn’t impact my work in the slightest, so while some perks might not work for an individual, not all perks can actively affect other people. Dogs in the office are an exception because they can affect other people.

          Dogs aren’t the only perks that affect other people, to be sure, but they are among the perks that slot into “perks that may make my job better but could make other people miserable” vs. “perks that improve my performance but have no real impact on those who choose not to take advantage of them.”

      4. Green*

        This relates to the legal secretary letter (the ability to take unpaid vacation as a substantial part of the reason for having the job vs. the other secretaries not appreciating the person taking unpaid vacation), and is really on the business to manage.

        For example, I think maternity and paternity leave is great. I’m glad workplaces have it, and I’m glad my workplace expanded parental leave, because it’s good for society, advancement for women, diverse workplaces, single parents, child development, etc. But I’m not planning to have children, so this is not a perk for me. And, in fact, it is extra work for me (a burden) when colleagues in similar roles as me utilize this perk. Obviously I don’t hate the burdens of parental leave on me enough to leave my job because they have good parental leave, but for some people it’s *the perk* that makes them want the job, while for others it’s neutral or a burden to some degree.

        What’s important is to assess how important a benefit is to you, whether you’re willing to leave over changes to the benefit, and if the answer to the previous question is yes, then there’s not really much harm in telling them the circumstances under which you’ll continue to work for them and either part ways or negotiate.

        1. Very Anonymous*

          Yes, thank you. I’m glad I work for a company that offers paid family leave, but it doesn’t mean I’ll take maternity leave myself, and it doesn’t mean I’ll always be thrilled to cover for coworkers who do take advantage of our paid parental leave policies.

      5. Very Anonymous*

        My coworkers with kids would probably tell you it’s a perk that they can bring their kids to work when they’re sick. As an immunocompromised person, this is so very terrible for me, but I bite my tongue (and burn through my sick leave every winter) because I know what the backlash would be if I requested that this practice stop. I’d be the mean coworker who doesn’t want to hear children laughing, not the chronically ill coworker who’s tired of being exposed to daycare germs.

        1. Clare*

          Oh my god, you should say something! That is terrible. Let them work from home when their kids are sick, why are they exposing everyone else to their germs?? Even as a non-immunocompromised person I would definitely complain about that situation. If the daycare doesn’t want them the office shouldn’t either.

          1. I prefer tea*

            Yes, this really is a big deal. I’m not immunocompromised, but I live with someone who is, and regularly spend time with someone who is undergoing chemo – I am highly invested in staying well. But I have to admit, I’m probably more likely to push back on this situation in order to keep my loved ones well, rather than if I were the one in danger. But it’s not fair to ask you to endure this “perk” any more than it is to ask someone with allergies to be around pets at the office.

          3. Amanda*

            Strongly agree. I am not immunocompromised and still do not want to be surrounded by sick children — or sick people, period.

          4. KellyK*

            Yeah, I completely agree. Anyone who is willing to make their immune compromised coworker terribly sick (especially if work from home is an option) is being *really* unreasonable. You know your office better than we do, obviously, and some parents *can* be really unreasonable where their kids are concerned, but you shouldn’t have to put up with that.

          5. Dust Bunny*

            No way. My mother, whom I visit almost daily to help with housekeeping, is immunocompromised. I would NOT be OK with this policy.

            People who are contagious should not be at work, whether they’re employees or employees’ children, period.

        2. Advice-monger*

          @Very Anonymous, you should absolutely say something. You might even be surprised how much support you get.

        3. Detective Amy Santiago*

          Sick kids have no business in an office (unless it’s a doctor’s office). You should definitely speak up.

        4. calonkat*

          A FAR better perk for both the office and the kids would be to allow work from home when a child is sick. Or at the very least, using personal sick leave for family members who require care/supervision.
          But unless a child is older/incredibly mature, a good portion of time in the office is going to be setting up entertainment/taking to the bathroom/feeding said child. So the productivity is really not there, and more work can probably be done at home where the child is comfortable and familiar with the surroundings.

        5. sfigato*

          Have you noticed that a lot of people at your work tend to get what these kids have? Because bringing a kid who is too sick to be around other kids to work to be around adults seems…counter-intuitive.

        7. Chi*

          I agree with the others. Say something. I have kids but bringing my sick kids to work and causing someone else to suffer is not cool.

        8. Annoyed*

          O!M!G!

          As an immunocompromised person I would insist this crap stop.

          No way are their walking petri dishes more important than my “fragile and complicated” (per my doctor) health.

          Nor would I willingly burn through my sick leave because someone chose to bring their contagious offspring to work.

          You matter too. You should push back on this practice.

          1. BCgal*

            The mind blowing part of this thread is that parents feel they have to resort to bringing their sick kids to work. When you’re sick, you need to rest and wfh is a joke when kids are young – would I be drafting reports before or after I pull my sick toddler off the stove for 35th time?

            I’m an American living in Canada and I get 1.5 years mat leave. The first year is covered at 80% salary, the additional 6 months, which is optional and not as widely available (yet), is not. I also have family leave time and my employer would roll their eyes if I said I was wfh with my 22 month old because anyone who’s had kids knows the quality of work would be a joke.thankfully, I don’t have to do that because I have family leave and my own leave., because as we all know, that first year of daycare is killer and after the kids have hand, foot and mouth etc, you get it too.

            I’m sure if you’re not familiar with Canada’s policies and you’re used to the US approach you’d be worried about productivity, you’d think it’s a free for all or assume we’re a bunch of anarcho communists.

            Not the case. It’s just that smart policies and legislation have provided families and employers with rational and kind tools for dealing with real life. As a parent, I think it’s terribly sad that someone would feel their only option is to bring a sick kid to work. As a manager, I much prefer being able to wave off someone’s sick day when they need it.

            As a result of these policies I’m very dedicated to my employer. My little guy is sick and after he goes to bed I catch up because I figure why not? I had insomnia at 4 am so I worked from then TIL 7 am, same reason. I’m motivated because I feel supported and I am part of a big project at the moment. At another, slower time, I wouldn’t even bother working while on family leave for a day or 2. But I do it because I feel respected and have options. The ability to take family leave isn’t a ‘big deal’ to me – it’s part of modern working culture here.

            I’ll never understand how we Americans can be such great innovators and lead so much culture but have such a huge blind spot about building in realistic policies to match needs. It’s as simple as deciding that offices should have washrooms. Why? Because humans poop. We should also have mat/pat and family leave because humans make humans and we need to fucking care for each other,duh! Even if you don’t have children you were someone’s child. When they raised you, you got sick. And if you don’t have kids, you still will have ageing parents, etc. Will some people abuse it? Yep. There’s a proportion of people out there who will screw the pooch EVERY DAY, ALL DAY. They’re the minority and they exist everywhere regardless of rules, social norms etc. But the rest us, and we’re the majority, can and should be trusted to self regulate and balance the nature of being human – getting sick, having kids, having ageing parents, getting divorces, having mental health issues, etc – with work.

            The system of control and command, including tight controls and silent retribution for using sick time (not getting promoted, being judged) is outdated and counter to building a better, happier workplace and home life. We just have to normalize a better alternative.

    3. Detective Amy Santiago*

      In my experience, perks are generally subject to change at any time, so I personally don’t put as much stock in them when considering whether or not to accept a job. Which I realize may not be a terribly helpful thing for the OP, but is something to keep in mind.

      1. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

        I don’t know… everything can change (salary, workload, project assignments, office location, etc. etc. etc.) , but we have to put stock in something or we literally couldn’t make a decision.

          1. JB (not in Houston)*

            I think Victoria’s point is that it’s ok to rely on something in taking a job because almost nobody would take a job no matter what was offered, and you can’t be flexible about *everything.* If it’s a minor benefit that you like having but wouldn’t be a dealbreaker for you, sure, be flexible and don’t get to invested in it over time because you could lose it any time. But if someone says “I took this job specifically because they promised me I’d be making X and I’d never have to work on Y, and now they’ve cut my salary substantially and I’m only doing Y,” sure, that can happen. But that doesn’t mean the compassionate or realistic response to that is to say “that’s why you have to be flexible! Anything can change!”

            I totally get what you’re saying. You are talking about perks and not the major factors that usually drive people to accept or decline jobs. But Victoria is addressing those things that you it’s not so easy to say “be flexible” about–and you’re both right (though that doesn’t mean that leaving a job because they took away a perk isn’t reasonable, because what might be a minor but nice perk to you could be what makes a job acceptable to someone else).

          2. Amanda*

            I don’t agree with this. Even if change is inevitable, it is also OK to not be flexible and decide that a change in salary/insurance/location/manager/perks/coffee type in the office/whatever is not a change you are willing to accept. Different things matter to different people, so for some not being able to bring a dog to the office might be a deal breaker.

      2. Lil Fidget*

        I also think it’s exceptionally hard in this case that, through no wrongdoing of her own, ONLY the OP lost the perk, which presumably everybody else in the office still has. That is extra hard to swallow. I would try to ask my employer for *some* kind of reparations here – more time from home? Something, to help me feel better about this, or I would probably start job searching.

        1. Detective Amy Santiago*

          That’s a fair point though I do wonder if other employees had similar conversations and OP just isn’t aware of them.

        2. Not Yet Looking*

          Does anyone else think that it’s worthwhile to create a battle zone here, and go all “If the perk of employees being able to bring dogs to work is removed, that will make me sad, but if the perk of being able to bring dogs to work is removed ONLY FROM ME, despite my dog being at least as well behaved as the rest, then I will fight to have ALL dogs removed. I’m happy with equity in either direction.”

          2. Chatterby*

            …honestly, I totally would.
            Because if someone is afraid of dogs, all the dogs need to go. Not just mine.
            And I’m vindictive like that.

            1. Nonsenical*

              Vindictive like that wouldn’t play well nor would it help anyone in this situation. It would also create resentment.

              1. Lil Fidget*

                Haha it would never have occurred to me to try to get the perk taken away from everyone else … a literal “dog in the manger” lol. I just sympathize that it’s going to make OP feel even worse about losing the perk herself. Like I said, I think more work from home opportunities would be the best case scenario (or more money).

        3. Boo R*

          This is the thing I wonder about. This seems to be banning her dog, but not all dogs. (And I am firmly on the side that dogs don’t really belong in the office and should only be there under really specific and very agreeable circumstances for anybody.)
          This reads as her dog is large and therefore scary. Little dogs would be OK though? This is bananas because of sizeist unfairness and also inaccuracy. I know many, many more gentle giant dogs, especially standard poodles, than chill little dogs. Little dogs are crazy wild beasts with Napoleon complexes (I know this is true. I have owned 5 of them.)

    4. Susana*

      Alison, you’re right that we need to talk about the lost-perk part of this. The reason it’s hard to do that is that this is a perk that affects other employees in a way that, say, discounted gym memberships don’t. Even a perk that has an effect on other workers – like working from home when others might need you in person to work on projects – has workarounds the pet issue might not. I love dogs and think a well-behaved one can lower the tension in an office (there’s a reason a lot of members of Congress bring their dogs in – unconditional love, and they’re not pressuring you to slip something into the tax bill). But if someone is afraid of dogs, what can you do? Does it make sense, when interviewing people, to say, this is an office where we welcome well-behaved dogs – knowing that might solve the issue by discouraging folks who don’t like dogs?

      1. Lil Fidget*

        I don’t think you can even discriminate against those with allergies. But yes, this letter reminds me of the Bird Letter, where somebody with a phobia ended up harming somebody else. In this case, the perk is zero sum – OP’s happiness is apparently correlated to somebody else’s unhappiness. And the perk isn’t related to the business of the office, so … unfortunately, I don’t see an outcome where OP gets to keep the perk.

      2. Antilles*

        Does it make sense, when interviewing people, to say, this is an office where we welcome well-behaved dogs – knowing that might solve the issue by discouraging folks who don’t like dogs?
        There are offices that do openly call out that they welcome dogs; I’m vaguely recalling that there might have even been a couple AAM questions from people who were told in their interviews that it was a dog-friendly office.
        Does it make sense? Hard to say. There are definitely people who would love to be able to bring their dogs, but probably a much larger number of people who would hate the dog-friendly office (not just people who hate dogs generally but also people who are fine with dogs generally but not while I’m trying to focus). So it’s definitely a trade-off and it just comes down to figuring out what the company values.

    5. Goya de la Mancha*

      Of course always start with asking, because you don’t know where it might get you. Eventually it would come down to some serious soul searching and number crunching. Are you able to take on the extra costs that might be attributed to the loss of the perk? Are the other pros of the job worth giving up this one perk (that may be hard to find elsewhere)? I don’t get any of those fun perks mentioned, but if I had to lose something unwritten like flexibility, it would be enough for me to start seriously job searching. I like my job, but one of the biggest pro’s is the flexibility I have with my Supervisor.

    6. Wubbletelescope*

      I’ve worked at a company who shut its onsite daycare, asking employees to use the daycare available at a sister sitemin away. Eventually that whole office was shut down completely and the employees moved to a different location which was 45minutes away.

      Losing perks happens. In my case the company offered more flex time, and allowed some people to work from home 1-2 days a week. But for the most part, employees just had to grin and bear it.

      Perhaps it is because LW is the only one affected that this seems unfair. But it’s not personal.

    7. LCL*

      Losing the perk is the end result. To me the main point of the letter is ‘management made a policy change that was detrimental to me, because of anonymous complaints about me. Should management be making policy decisions because of anonymous complaints?’ By making one rule change the way they did, management has embittered one employee, and empowered the backbiters. Management has allowed coworkers to anonymously target one employee. Things will only get worse from here.

      OP should definitely talk to the manager, and ask for an explanation. Start with asking why manager gave an anonymous complaint so much weight. Look, I fall on the side of the loves dogs, would love ’em in the office. But I don’t work in that environment, and I accept it. But if we were a dog office, and everyone was allowed to bring their dog EXCEPT me? That’s personal, and management would have to do a lot of talking to convince me I wasn’t being targeted. The fact that OPs dog is bigger is frankly, irrelevant bull excrement.

      1. Pet Friend*

        Empowering backbiters? Why can’t these people have a valid complaint? Management can target one employee if their dog is disruptive or causing issues for others. And the dog’s size is very relevant. Can’t you see how someone could fear retribution by coming forward and being “that” person. The person who needs to advocate for their health and wellbeing. And allergies and phobias are very (wrongly) hotly debated as something people can deal with or get over. I’m sure these people didn’t want to deal with OP trying to wrangle them into an agreement they aren’t comfortable with just to keep the peace.
        The hostility over this really reinforces that anonymously was the right thing to do. I have gained perks and lost perks. I have reported issues anonymously and I have come forward to talk to the person also. It depends on the issue and how management/coworkers have reacted before. Management could give no weight to this and lose multiple good employees. Why not focus on advice for OP going forward as opposed to slamming management with only one side of the story?

        1. LCL*

          Because all I have is OPs side, based on the letter. And based on the letter, management looks really bad in this. My opinion is based on bitter experience, both learned and observed. Whatever the issue is, whether it’s dogs in the workplace or who gets the choice parking or something equally important to someone yet irrelevant to someone else, making decisions based on anonymous suggestions is almost always the wrong way to do things. The end result is, the more popular and more adept at dirty tactics group get most of the goodies. Disclaimer-when I complain about the anonymity model, of course I’m not talking about legal/compliance/criminal matters.

          1. Pet Friend*

            I think if you are bitter about your own experiences then you really aren’t ready to provide healthy advice or insight based on them. Workplaces cannot always be fair. Sorry. Some people get better parking and others have to park further away. Op isn’t going to get very far if they are shouldering advice that you provided based on bitterness and feeling slighted.

            1. LCL*

              Bitterness can totally be a healthy response and allow one to provide good advice. It depends on what you learn, and how you apply it. The best effect of bitterness is it makes it easier to recognize when someone else is being mistreated. Make no mistake, OP is being jobbed on this because of HOW IT HAPPENED.

        2. Luna*

          There is no indication that the dog’s behavior is a problem. There is no indication that this complaint has anything to do with allergies or any other health-related issues, so we really need to stop assuming that’s the case.

          I think the empowering backbiters comment was mostly referring to the anonymous nature of the complaint. Anonymous complaints should not be used to target one employee, and having a culture where that is allowed is very toxic. In my experience those complaint boxes are usually meant to be used for complaints about managers or company policies that are difficult for lower-level employees to address in any other way. If the complainer has an issue with the company’s dog policy in general they should have said that, rather than complaining about just one co-worker and her dog.

          1. Advice-monger*

            I do not see how ignoring the 800-lb gorilla (er, poodle) in the room is wise when talking about the issue in the abstract.

      2. calonkat*

        Dog size can actually be a big part of this. Due to apartment restrictions, many people don’t get exposure to big dogs a lot. I, on the other hand, am always nervous around tiny dogs (they look so fragile and the ones I’ve met tend to nip/bite more (because it’s “adorable”???) and am fine with large dogs (we have had Newfoundlands). But I’m very familiar with people who automatically assume that size=aggression! And no matter how often you explain how calm your dog is, there are always people who are basically terrified if they are presented with a large dog.

        1. Kyrielle*

          And I grew up with large dogs, and am now scared of them. Why? It’s a large dog that bit me. Initially I was terrified of all dogs (I was shaking to be in the room with a geriatric toy poodle that I knew to be docile and arthritic, from my own personal prior experience, and had to stay out of reach). I’ve been working on it and now I can be around a large dog that I know well, or one that is clearly restrained a leash without acting aggressively, and not be very scared.

          But if I had trouble with a dogs-in-the-office policy because of my fear (phobia? it was, but I’m not sure it rises to that level), it would _absolutely_ be the larger dogs I had issue with, unless someone had a smaller dog that was actually and clearly aggressive. (Which, speaking of, I think is more common with smaller dogs…but unless they’re doing that they scare me less, because them, I can imagine effectively fighting off if I had to.)

          As it is, I have allergies, so constant exposure to them in the office would be a problem anyway. There was one company on my job search that I would have taken myself out of the running once I saw their dog-friendly office, except they turned me down. (It wasn’t a good fit all around, and I think they saw that too. Nice people, good work environment modulo the dogs, but I wasn’t the employee they needed, and then there were the dogs. Who were all very laid-back and napping when I was there, but not all small.)

          1. Argh!*

            Good for you for working on it. I was bit by a pit bull but I don’t automatically assume all pit bulls are biters (or all dogs for that matter). They’re individuals.

          2. Specialk9*

            I was bit by a Rottweiler as a kid, on the face. I didn’t know enough to know that she has given me lots of signals that I didn’t recognize. I don’t blame dogs for that, I blame that owner (more harshly as I grew older).

            But I recognize that other people *are* afraid of dogs, and they get to decide for themselves what they’re comfortable with. When I walk my dogs, I’m courteous and take care to give people space if they need it – I move them to the side of the sidewalk when approaching people, every time, and ask before entering an elevator with people (apt building).

            That said, there’s a limit to how much I’ll do – one lady (in my apt building that allowed dogs from the beginning) would see my dogs across the parking lot, or way down a long hallway, and start SCREAMING in terror like the horsemen from the Apocalypse were stealing her soul. There wasn’t much I could do for her, and I wasn’t going to respond by moving or sending my dogs to a kill shelter just because she moved into a pet friendly apt building, and apparently wasn’t getting the therapy and/or meds she desperately needed. All I can do is be respectful of people within a reasonable spectrum, and expect people outside of that range to own their own shit.

    8. Lauren*

      The nature of responses whenever there are pet-related issues tends to be highly predictable: you have one group who are strongly for, one strongly against, and a small group remaining who are trying to address the issue (but will get talked over by the first two). At this point this announcement should probably just be inserted into the post itself as default whenever pets are even remotely related to the question being answered.

    9. NorthernSoutherner*

      I started a job — after relocating and a very long job search — that was supposed to end at 4 pm, according to my interview. On my first day, I found out it was actually 5. I questioned it and the person training me said the interviewer had made a mistake. Because it had taken so long to land the position in the first place, I decided to try making a go of it, but I didn’t even last a full six months. That hour made a huge difference to my schedule and ended up being a deal-breaker.

  2. Murphy*

    I’m curious about whether there are other dogs in OP’s office and if anyone else has been asked not to bring their dog in.

    1. Bostonian*

      I was wondering the same thing. Either OP is the only one taking advantage of this perk, or everyone else has been bringing in smaller dogs with no complaints. Personally, I would be more afraid of a chihuahua than a poodle.

      If other people are also bringing in dogs, maybe that will help OP’s case in finding a different solution (e.g., that group of employees can work in a specific area of the building).

      2. Anon for This Post*

        Me too. I absolutely love large dogs; I don’t care for small dogs. When I was in fourth grade, I was attacked by a cocker spaniel out of the blue. I’d been playing with her all afternoon, and when I turned to walk away from her and get in the car to go home, she attacked me from behind. I managed to yank my upper arm out of her mouth, but she bit me on the wrist, sending me to the ER for stitches. I would not say I am frightened, but I would just prefer not to have a small dog around.

        1. I can do it!*

          I’m with you, Anon. Small dogs are usually SO much more disruptive than larger ones. I’d take a greyhound passed out in the corner any day over a Min-pin running laps around the office. True story, at my last dog office, the person who brought their dogs in the most just put the puppy pads wherever the dogs pooped around the office, including UNDER MY DESK?? and rarely cleaned them, so you’d be sitting next to feces for a week. She, like OP, thought her dogs were fine and everyone liked them.

          1. Sam.*

            I just had flashbacks to the roommate who brought home a kitten without telling me or the third roomie, set the kitten up in the second bathroom (read: the one third roomie and I used) – again, without telling us – and then just kind of assumed we’d take care of it? NOPE. I don’t like cats, and I’m definitely not becoming the litter box-minder of a cat that was thrust upon me. Like, feel free to love your animals excessively. Just don’t expect everyone else to do the same…

            1. Triumphant Fox*

              A friend of my lived in a house with roommates during grad school. One of the roommates decided to get a cat without telling anyone, then decided to train the cat to use the (only) toilet in the house. Apparently the way you do this is put a litter box or something in the toilet for a while and the cat figures it out, then eventually you remove the litter box. Every time anyone human wanted to use the bathroom, they had to remove the litter box.

          2. Porygon-Z*

            Well that’s completely disgusting. How about she potty train her dog like most of the world? And if it was a temporary measure while she worked on training, confine her dogs to her own area. The mind boggles.

          3. Hera Syndulla*

            Some people need to realise that small dogs need to be trained as well.

            A friend of mine has a chihuahua, but she trained him like larger dogs are trained. He is not allowed to jump or bark, is not to go on the furniture unless allowed, not allowed to beg for food, etc. I always forget that he is a chihuahua because my experiences with that breed are far from nice (as a child my neigbhours had them and when I rode my bike past them, those 3-4 bastards chaised me).

            So training is essential with smaller dogs as well.

            2. A grad student*

              I’ve had similar experiences as yours with chihuahuas, and HATED the breed. Now I have a rescue dog whose DNA test says is 1/4 chihuahua, so I’ve had to begrudgingly rethink my prejudices :)

              But it’s always a huge shame when anyone fails to train their dog, and it’s just a lot more likely that people with small dogs don’t try to train them because they can’t cause the same degree of damage. It’s not good for anyone, dog included.

              1. fposte*

                Yes, it’s a known problem–people move small dogs bodily rather than training them to respond, so they get really defensive about bodily autonomy.

              2. Specialk9*

                Interesting, I too had noticed that contrary to stereotype, tiny dogs are usually terrible awful horrible scary things, whereas big dogs are usually chillax and lazy… But I hadn’t thought about the difference in training being responsible. Hunh.

            3. Dog is my co-pilot*

              God knows what the “consequences” were for this poor chihuahua if it begged (the horror) for food.

              1. fposte*

                That sounds like you think you can’t train a dog without abusing it, though, and of course you can.

              2. TL -*

                A well behaved dog doesn’t beg for food. That’s a very, very reasonable expectation of any dog – even our chihuahua, who had, for lack of a better term, food insecurity issues, learned not to beg for food after we worked with him.

              3. Perse's Mom*

                That’s unhelpful and the scare quotes are uncalled for. Proper training of a dog is teaching them good manners and behavior and that’s it.

          4. chocolate lover*

            OMG how long did you put up with that for?! I hope someone cut that short real quick. That’s awful.

          5. Elspeth*

            Yeah, but according to the OP, her dog IS well-trained/well-behaved. There’s a big difference between the person who won’t control their dog (and let it poop everywhere!) and someone like OP who doesn’t allow the dog to disrupt the office.

        2. CMFDF*

          I was bit by two dogs as a child – one was an aggressive and frightening dog who left a small scar, and one was a sweet dog whose stress signals I didn’t respect because I was a jerk child but only scraped my skin, barely breaking it. One was a Chihuahua and one was a Chow Chow.

          As an adult, I own a Chow Chow and try to avoid Chihuahuas and smaller dogs like them. (I also think that most of the issues I have with small dogs come from the owners either not training their dog because they’re small, so they “can’t really” hurt someone, and/or not respecting their dog’s comfort levels because they’re so cute and portable. It’s not the dog’s fault, they’re probably doing the best they can.)

          1. Specialk9*

            Spaniels are some of the most biting-prone dogs out there, but nobody thinks that, they think Pits and Rots and Dobies.

      3. LBK*

        This really depends on the person – I was bitten badly on the face by a dog when I was younger and it’s mostly under control but I still get panic attacks around dogs sometimes. I’m fine with small dogs, even more active, yappy ones, because frankly if worst comes to worst I know I can physically overpower them. I don’t like being around big dogs that I feel could attack me beyond my ability to fight back, even dogs whose owners swear up and down are well-behaved. Frankly, I’ve found there’s plenty of dog people who enjoy behavior I find anxiety-inducing, so our definitions of well-behaved can often be very different – I don’t think it’s cute for a dog to lick me, and definitely not on my face.

        Irrational or not, it’s a fear I have, so I don’t think you can just logic away the idea that some people don’t like bigger dogs, period.

        1. Nonnon*

          I was raised around dogs, I love dogs, and I’d still find a random dog jumping up at me and licking my face to be a bit scary. Especially a bigger one. I understand dog behaviour enough to know that jumpy, “kissy” dogs are unlikely to attack, but I am small and easily knocked over by larger dogs.

          Like, I don’t care that your Newfoundland/Leonberger/domesticated bear is a big softie and wouldn’t attack anyone. My head hitting the floor is still dangerous! Being covered in oceans of dog drool is unpleasant! Being trapped under a large animal is intimidating! And if I’m honest, being stuck with a pack of urinating, humping, biting chihuahuas is also a horrible experience!

        2. Alexandra Hamilton*

          100% with you on that – both the not loving large dogs I can’t physically control and the fact that maaaaaany dog owners think absolutely terrible dog behavior is “so cute” or “friendly” or whatever. I don’t know your dog, lady! It shouldn’t be jumping at me!

    2. Kittymommy*

      Ooh, good question. My initial thought on the letter is that the primary complaint that I would be concerned about is the person afraid of dogs. That might be hard to overcome depending upon their level of fear.

      1. AvonLady Barksdale*

        Same here. If Ophie (as I will now call her because of the name Alison chose) is the only one asked to leave, then I’d be a little more hesitant to comply, but if she’s the only dog who ever comes in, then I get it.

        I’m admittedly biased, but she sounds like a good girl. I have fond memories of a former dentist who brought his standard poodle into the office (but not the exam room!). However, as the owner of a somewhat big bud myself, I try to be extra sensitive when people are afraid of big dogs. My dog is friendly and super chill, but fear is fear and can’t always be rationalized.

      2. Lizziebeth730*

        Yes, as we’ve all learned here… someone who’s afraid of something might push you in front of an oncoming car….

      3. Zombeyonce*

        Agreed. And the person afraid of dogs shouldn’t be asked to try and overcome that fear just to go to work every day when it has nothing to do with their job.

    3. Goya de la Mancha*

      Size sometimes really is the issue. My supervisor is afraid of dogs – she has fewer issues with smaller dogs (Poms, shih tzu’s, etc.) but the few times my 70lb lab was in the office she was taking back hallways to get to the bathroom.

      1. Zombeyonce*

        Sometimes it’s not even size, but a specific breed. I’ll admit I’m not a big fan of dogs but I can handle being around them as long as they leave me alone no matter the size…unless it’s a Doberman. I was chased by one as kid and will cross the street if I see one. I might be able to get by in an office where people brought in everything from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, but if someone started bringing in a Doberman I’d be asking to work from home every day.

        1. Argh!*

          … or you could contact a Doberman breeder and ask to spend time with some of their dogs to help you de-sensitize.

          1. Zombeyonce*

            I don’t run across enough Dobermans in my life to make that worthwhile. Also, that sounds like the last thing I’d want to spend time and money on.

            1. KellyK*

              +1

              I really strongly dislike the idea that it’s always the job of anyone with a phobia or trigger to spend whatever time and money it takes to fully desensitize themselves to that trigger, no matter how long that takes or how much the trigger impacts their life.

              You’re not working in a vet’s office or a doggie daycare; you don’t owe it to a hypothetical future Doberman-having coworker to pre-emptively desensitize yourself. Like, if you suddenly find yourself surrounded by Dobermans, it may become something you want to look into, but it’s still your call.

              (Argh!, I know your suggestion was kindly meant and can be helpful in a lot of cases. But I think it feeds into the assumption that anyone with a phobia or other mental issue is obligated to “fix” it so that they never inconvenience anyone else.)

              1. APoster*

                I disagree. They are working in a dog-friendly office. Unless the rules were changed after they agreed to work there, it’s on them to figure out how to cope or work elsewhere. What if it were a service dog? Does their phobia supercede the needs of the person with the dog? You might reasonably expect the person with the dog to keep it in a certain area away from them. But complaining and causing the whole office to lose a perk (that was a big factor in why some people chose to work there) over their unwillingness to try to deal with their problem is not the answer.

  3. I GOTS TO KNOW!*

    OP, are you currently the only one who brings a dog to work? Where does your dog stay during the work day? Do you have an office?

    I get being afraid of dogs, but if you have an office, and your dog is only out of your office when on a lead and heading out for a walk, I think you have room for some push back. If you are at a cubicle, it might be a little harder, but if the office can be separated into dog cubicles and non-dog cubicles, maybe there is some room for push back there too.

      1. L*

        I venture to guess based on the “free food” and “unlimited vacation” thing that this is a startup environment, so it’s probably open concept for most employees.

    2. Casuan*

      Cat person here, who likes dogs yet prefers to live with a cat. Also I’m allergic to most animals although when I’m in frequesnt contact with one my allergies aren’t as bad; thankfully my fur allergies aren’t too serious to begin with.
      I’m ambivalent about pets in the office, which has nothing to do with cats or allergies. If I were in a dog-friendly office I’d roll with that & probably I’d go for my share of puppy love.
      (also there are already hundreds of comments & I’ve only read a few of them; I know I’m probably being redundant although I want the OP to know she has lots of support :)

      Disclaimers aside, OP, I think it sucks you were told not to bring your pet to the office & I hope you can successfully get this perk back. As others said, small dogs can be even more of a nuisance than larger dogs.
      What’s the time frame with all of this- I mean, for how long have you worked there? The unwritten company culture could be that you need some time under your belt before taking this perk so if you’re relatively new that could be a factor.

      If you’ve been doing this for more than a few weeks, presumably your colleagues would have spoken up already. Could there be a particular incident that occurred that gave others reason to complain?
      Are you the only one who brings her dog to the office? If not, were others also told they must stop?
      I’d love to know why Scared-of-Dogs hasn’t already mentioned her fear to anyone. It’s possible that she thought she’d be okay & she got triggered although still… It isn’t like SoD’s fear developped overnight (although it’s theoetically possible). I’m thinking that the scared comment is just another way of saying that person doesn’t want your dog in the office.

      Along with Alison’s suggestions, ask if your manager can determine more specifics:
      Why is your larger dog worse than a smaller one? Does she take up too much floor space, does she walk by desks & others get distracted by her size, does her tail knocks things off desks, etc?
      These things might be easily solved.
      OP, are you certain your dog is as well-groomed & well-behaved as you think she is? Often we ignore the faults in our own pets… or kids… or even ourselves…
      If there are any complaints on grooming or behaviour then you might be able to correct those enough to bring her back in.

      Good luck!

      ps: Your letter said you have a “silly question about a job perk.”
      As you can see, your question isn’t silly at all & I’m glad you wrote in to Alison.

      1. senatormeathooks*

        It’s possible her colleague hasn’t spoken up because perhaps no one else was taking this benefit beforehand.

        1. Zombeyonce*

          It’s also possible the colleague is only afraid of this particular kind of dog, or only large dogs, which is a reasonable reason to ask it not be in the office no matter how well behaved.

    3. Grapey*

      I get being afraid of dogs too, I don’t get being afraid of dogs AND signing up to work at a place that includes a perk of “is dog friendly”.

      1. Zombeyonce*

        That’s not always clear when taking a job. I dislike dogs but wouldn’t think to ask if a place were dog-friendly in a job interview simply because I’ve never worked anywhere pets were allowed so it wouldn’t occur to me unless they were all over the place when I walked in. And OP might be the only person that brings in a dog so it may not have been an issue until now.

    4. nonymous*

      adding to the push back sentiment, what about asking the company to explore partnerships with a local doggie daycare? While I love my dogs and would be very sad to see that kind of perk withdrawn, sometimes it’s not possible to reverse that kind of decision. But the logistics of going from dog-friendly to dog-prohibited are more than emotional – I’d have to find a dog walker or dog daycare, which can get quite expensive. If the company mitigated that expense by negotiating a discount, or arranging for pickup/dropoff from work (which in OP’s situation would give an extra hour+ of time together!), that would be very helpful.

  4. Sassy AE*

    That’s a bummer too because poodles are generally considered hypoallergenic. My mother, who has terrible asthma is able to have a little Apricot poodle named Butter.

    I do understand the fear issue, though. Hopefully your manager and you can figure something out. Or if this is company that values a lot of perks maybe you can figure out a remote work situation occasionally so you can still work and care for your dog.

    1. legalchef*

      Just bc this is a pet peeve of mine (a constant argument bw myself and my husband), there’s no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog. There are dogs that are much lower allergen (such as poodles), but there are a lot of people (such as myself) who are still allergic to them. The mislabeling makes it much harder for someone to complain about this dog due to allergies (not that this seems to be the situation here).

      2. ThatGirl*

        Yeah, we have a maltipoo, who’s often considered “hypoallergenic” because he doesn’t really shed.

        But the whole reason we got to adopt him is because the first lady who took him home turned out to be allergic to him.

      3. SnowyCold*

        Yep. My son came home needing his puffer years ago after a play date at house where they had “the most hypoallergenic dog.” They were surprised to hear of my son’s reaction.

      4. Allison*

        Gahh I hate when I say I’m allergic to dogs and people insist their dog wouldn’t be a problem, because he’s hypoallergenic and “no one” is allergic to him, not even their aunt who’s normally super allergic to dogs. Sure, it’s possible I really wouldn’t have a problem around that dog, but simply insisting the dog would be “totally fine” isn’t gonna convince me. It’s your dog and you love him, you might be a biiiiit biased.

      5. Happy Lurker*

        Family member is only allergic to the “hypoallergenic” dogs. Regular dogs are fine. Dogs with hair and cats make him miserable.

      6. FD*

        Huh, I had no idea that was the case, and my family had standard poodles! I can see why that misconception would be a big issue for people with allergies still set off by them.

        1. nonymous*

          My understanding is that because the dogs with hair (vs fur) don’t shed as much, all their dander (the stuff most people are allergic to, a mix of skin and hair or fur) doesn’t fly all over the place. However, I’d imagine someone with a dog allergy would still react to the dog itself, who now has a greater concentration of dander in it’s near vicinity, but might have a lower reaction to the space.

      7. EddieSherbert*

        +100 I hate the “hypoallergenic” trend. ESPECIALLY on the mixed breeds (like the ever-popular goldendoodle), where only about 1 in 20 puppies get the “less allergens” gene…

      8. Sue Wilson*

        there’s no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog. There are dogs that are much lower allergen (such as poodles),
        this is a contradiction. the “hypo” prefix just means “low/less than normal”. I think you mean people need to stop understanding hypoallergenic is an absence of allergens. the word itself is fine and appropriate.

      9. Legal Beagle*

        Yep. I’m highly allergic to poodles, but have no problem with my own dog (a beagle). Allergies are weird!

        1. KellyK*

          I’m much the same. Allergic to both dogs and cats, but I’ve apparently been exposed to my own pets enough for my immune system to shrug it off. I also have a hyperallergenic cat, who I react to much more strongly, and so do other friends who are allergic. She grooms anyone who’ll hold still long enough and has longish fur that sheds a lot, so I guess it’s not surprising that she’d be spreading allergens a lot more.

    2. cheeky*

      There really isn’t such a thing as a hypoallergenic dog- some breeds perhaps don’t provoke allergies as much as others. I’m allergic to all dogs and cats, even the “hypoallergenic” breeds. The allergen is a protein in their saliva and urine.

      1. Say what, now?*

        I have this issue as well. I’m allergic only to Viszla saliva. All other dogs seem to be fine. But I discovered that my neighbor’s dog would give me kisses and I’d break out in hives. I tried it with another Viszla and the same thing happened. Curious.

      2. animaniactoo*

        For me it’s the dander in addition to the hair… and I have yet to meet a cat or dog who doesn’t shed some dander.

        1. ClownBaby*

          I’ve got 2 hairless dogs (a Xolo and a Chinese Crested…which has hair on her head and tails, I guess, so not fully hairless) and one hairless cat (Sphynx) so I’d be curious to see how you’d do with them! They don’t affect my friends with bad allergies in the slightest! Though my friends aren’t lifting them up and inhaling their skin and they always wash their hands after petting/holding them. I’m sure they still could elicit an allergic reaction if someone tried hard enough.

          1. LBK*

            Not sure about the dogs but Sphynx cats are still not generally considered hypoallergenic because the issue for many people is the dander and the saliva, not the fur.

            1. ClownBaby*

              Yeah but the lack of saliva-covered fur to shed definitely helps out. She also has to get regular baths. Had I known how high maintenance they were… I may not have taken her in. The dogs too- weekly baths, sweaters in the cold and sunscreen no matter what…which can lead to clogged pores/acne…ugh.

              My aunt was weird and loved her hairless animals, so when she passed…I became the crazy hairless animal lady. Been a few years now and they are still the strangest things.

              1. Say what, now?*

                I suspect it’s the regular bathing you give her that helps more than anything. My friends tried a special shampoo for their hair-filled cats and that seemed to take the edge off for me.

          2. TootsNYC*

            Dander isn’t hair.

            Dander is skin.
            (well, sometimes hair is dander too, if you use the “any material shed by an animal)

            And when hair sheds, it often brings skin along with it (standard poodles have tightly curled fur, so their skin flakes probably don’t have an easy time escaping).

            I would think a hairless animal would actually shed MORE skin flakes. Or at least as many.

            1. ClownBaby*

              I know dander is not limited to hair.
              I was just stating that my animals don’t seem to cause reactions in allergy sufferers who have come into contact with them.
              Frequent baths (Since healthy skin is so important for them, they can’t go more than 7 days without a bath) and moisturizing that are required for them help to keep dander at bay.
              Did I ever claim that my animals were hypoallergienic? No. Did I ever claim that they don’t have dander? No.
              I simply made a comment saying, I wonder how this commenter would deal with them. In fact, I even stated that I am sure they could elicit an allergic response.

        2. Allison*

          That’s me as well. I wish more people knew that hair is just one allergen a pet can produce. Nearly all pets have dander and saliva.

          1. TootsNYC*

            and with cats especially, the hair will carry dried saliva around. So, the presence of hair can affect the reaction if it’s the protein in saliva that’s causing the problem.

        3. Jesmlet*

          The so-called “hypoallergenic” dog breeds are genetically prone to producing less dander than other breeds but of course it can vary dog to dog and breed to breed. Fortunately my parents, who are both highly allergic to pet dander, are fine with my Portuguese Water dog, even while we were living with them.

    3. Archives Gremlin*

      Just an FYI there is no such thing as hypoallergenic dogs. Poodles and similar type dogs shed less and their dander usually doesn’t bother people but again there is no such thing hypoallergenic dogs.

    4. Rusty Shackelford*

      To everyone saying there’s no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog – “hypoallergenic” means less likely to cause an allergic reaction, not that it won’t cause a reaction in anyone at all. As far as I can tell, the word is being used correctly, if it means poodles cause fewer reactions than the average dog.

      1. legalchef*

        But in common vernacular, when people say “hypoallergenic” they generally mean that it won’t cause a reaction, so the usage is problematic.

        1. Rusty Shackelford*

          But it’s still frustrating when people say “there’s no such thing!!!” when in fact it’s simply that they themselves are using/understanding a word incorrectly. And now I will crawl back into my hole on this particular tangent.

      2. hermit crab*

        Right – the “hypo” prefix means “under” or “lower than normal,” not “none” (e.g., someone who is hypoglycemic generally has low blood sugar, not zero blood sugar). But I think “hypoallergenic” has evolved to mean “definitely will not cause a reaction” in casual conversation.

        1. animaniactoo*

          Absolutely – witness me on a train with someone trying to tell me that their dog was fine for me to sit next to because it was hypoallergenic. It was almost impossible to get across that if the dog scratched me even by accident I had a strong likelihood of heading to the e.r. and so no – it doesn’t matter how well behaved the dog is, I cannot sit next to your dog.

        2. Mallory Janis Ian*

          I hate it when that happens with a word: the actual correct usage becomes somehow incorrect because the common, vernacular usage overwhelms the actual meaning of the word. Bleh.

          1. Mallory Janis Ian*

            I understand that this is how language evolves, but it’s a PITA while it’s in the process of happening.

            1. Ex-Academic, Future Accountant*

              I’m as descriptivist as they come, but I think it’s different when it’s a technical term!

              1. Database Developer Dude*

                Tell that to my government lead in my office. He likes to invent his own terms for common database functions and gets upset when I correct him. I’ve stopped correcting him, but he also gets upset when I use the correct terms in describing what I’m doing. I’ve stopped talking about what I’m doing.

    5. Em*

      Poodles aren’t “hypoallergenic”, but they are very low dander. My husband has a dog allergy and asthma, but we have a miniature poodle. He still has to be careful about not touching his eyes after petting her, or they’ll get pretty irritated, but we’re able to make it work because we wanted a dog.

  5. KR*

    Hi OP. If you have the ability, could you work from home for a day or so so that to still get to hang out with puppo during the day some days? I can bring my dog to work but it’s kind of a pain because I have to bring his bed and a toy and treats too (lots to carry) so sometimes I just work from home so I can hang out with him and the cat.

    3. Turquoisecow*

      My suggestion is that maybe OP can work from home certain days, or that certain days can be “dog free” office days where employees who have an issue with dogs can be in the office without concern. Like maybe OP works from home two days, and two of those days are “no dogs in the office” days. And maybe people who don’t want/can’t handle dogs can work from home on days the dog is there?

      If this is an allergy concern though, it might not be feasible – dog hair and dander lingers even if the dog is gone. We have two cats at home, and moving the cats out of a room does nothing to relieve allergy symptoms in that room, unless we also do an extensive vacuuming/dusting and possible carpet shampooing. So if a coworker is allergic to dogs and OP limits the time the dog is in the office, Coworker may be still miserable afterwards. (I’m going out on a limb and assuming the cleaning in the office is not sufficient to remove allergens.)

      2. Marie*

        I am not sure I like that option; for one it means the dog owners can not work directly (as in seeing in person) with the people who fear dogs.
        Also, you’re basically imposing working from home (not everyone sees that as a perk) everyone who fear dogs because of someone else’s pet.

        2. Important Moi*

          Everyone may not see it as a perk, but some people may. Unless you saying it shouldn’t be offered at all?

          1. Marie*

            No that is not what I meant.
            OP lost a perk; that’s between her and the company. It seems unfair to me to demand the solution comes from a third party: “Jane, because you’re afraid/allergic to dogs, we now require you to work from home three days a week. A poodle is more important than your ability to go to meetings, and we would like you to adapt your schedule accordingly”.

            Dogs issues aside, it’s not up to the coworkers to compensate for a lost perk.

    4. Hills to Die on*

      I think that would be a great compromise if your company allows it!

      If you are still unable to bring your dog in after further discussion, perhaps doggie day care during the week is also an option? I’m sorry you had to do this—it doesn’t seem fair. If someone is afraid of dogs, they shouldn’t really work someplace where dogs are allowed to come into the office or they should find a way to cope. I don’t feel like the onus for this should be on you. Just my opinion.

      1. ProfessionalNosyButt*

        My dog goes to daycare every day, and I can tell you, if I had this perk at work, and it was taken away I would be livid. Daycare is one of the most expensive line items in our monthly budget. Being able to take her to work would make up for a pay difference of multiple thousands of dollars.

        I do think that in order for a dog to be allowed to hang out in an office it should pass the Canine Good Citizen’s test. It’s the bare minimum that shows a dog has some semblance of being well behaved.

        It feels super unfair to me that someone who chooses a job based on a perk, can lose that perk because of someone who never took advantage of it, and most likely knew the situation before working there. Almost like a non-smoker choosing a smoking room because it’s cheaper, then complaining about the smell and demanding to be moved because of their allergies.

        1. Hills to Die on*

          I agree—I think it’s very unfair. And while I don’t use dog day care, I once had child care when my kids were little and it’s crazy expensive!

        2. kb*

          I think we also don’t know how the dog-friendly office was presented to the coworker who complained. I could see a situation where it was not brought up before the person joined. Because I don’t own a dog, I wouldn’t think to ask and I could see an interviewer not realizing they need to mention it. Or if it was brought up, I can see it being minimized to the interviewee. Like, “Oh yeah, people only bring in tiny dogs and you’ll never even have to interact with them.”

          I’m not a dog person, but I think dog-friendly offices can be a great perk. I think a lot of workplaces don’t really fully think it through before they implement it, though. I think people tend to get too distracted by their love of dogs or think it’s a quick and free way to boost morale when there’s a actually lot of prep work and policy-setting involved. You have to figure out a behavioral baseline for the dogs, you have to determine who is in charge of dealing with doggy drama, if you are an organization that hires new people you have to figure out accommodations for those who can’t be around dogs… To me, it seems like the biggest problem in this letter is that management hasn’t really set clear policy and expectations around dogs in the office.

      2. Not In US*

        I think sometimes people take jobs because they need a job and they may even think they can deal with the fear – but then find out that it really is impacting them. I don’t think it’s reasonable to hold someone’s ability to earn a living hostage to the fact that OP want to bring the dog to work.

        Full disclosure – I’ve self selected out of job opportunities once I realized dogs were allowed in the office because I am that allergic. I didn’t want to be the person who “ruined” the culture. But I could afford to do that. If I had been in a more difficult spot, I could see trying to make it work with more medication only to ultimately realize it really didn’t work.

        1. nonymous*

          I both agree and disagree with this comment. While I think people definitely take jobs that are really unhealthy in the name of paying bills, most of the time the solutions available don’t cost coworkers thousands of dollars. So why jump to a $$ penalty on OP?

          In my area doggie daycare costs $25-35/day. Having someone come to your house and give the dog a potty break costs about the same. So OP is now in a situation where, in order to allow the dog an option to pee more than 1x in 8 – 10hrs (my bladder is bigger than that of a 80lb dog, and I pee more than that!), she is looking at a weekly bill of $125 or >$6K (assuming 50 weeks). Now if she works 4-10s, with one day from home, that cost could be reduced to ~$4K, but it’s not a small chunk of change.

          Compare that with the unhealthy situation of dramallama coworkers or other stories we see on AAM. Rarely is the solution “just fine the offender $5K a year”. The advice I generally see is (a) move on to a different employer if possible and (b) minimize impact.

          1. Loony Luna*

            just to clarify tho…wasn’t OP a newer employee? So theoretically whoever wrote the anonymous note has been there longer than OP. So it’s not about whether anonymous-letter-writer should or should not have taken the job….they were there first. I really agree with the comments regarding the management failing in terms of setting up clear guidelines for how dogs in the office would work. I think there are a lot of considerations such as phobias, allergies, behaviour that don’t seem to be something the company has actually given a lot of thought to.
            Honestly i love the idea of a dog friendly office, but if I were allergic or had a phobia and someone new came into the space which caused me to become suddenly uncomfortable or sick…I wouldn’t be too pleased

            1. nonymous*

              I didn’t see anything about seniority in the original letter, all it said was that the perk was a deciding factor in taking the job. The OP said that it was an anonymous note, so it really could be either, although presumably anyone senior to OP could have voiced their fear of large dogs before OP’s hire. And I was responding to @Not In US ‘s comment, not evaluating the situation as a whole.

              At the numbers I mentioned above, I can see an OP counting the perk as part of their compensation package, like some couples consider transit subsidies as a way to cut their household down to 1 car or the value of an awesome retirement/healthcare benefit. So losing this perk would cost $. Now it is entirely the company’s prerogative to rescind the perk at any time, but I disagree with @Not In US ‘s statement that other people’s livelihood are being held hostage unless the company is willing to go dog-free. In this case, a non-trivial part of OP’s livelihood is held hostage to someone’s anonymous note. This should not be an either/or proposition and the comments are full of examples of compromise.

              I agree with you though, if the company’s policy was actually subject to veto, they should have communicated that to OP. And there definitely needs to be a clear policy of dealing with health issues or a preference for distance – I love dogs, but there are definitely some that I find annoying.

              My advice to any company considering a dog-friendly policy is to require annual CGC classes/certification. This would help standardize behavioral expectations. There’s actually a protocol for how dogs greet strangers (they’re not supposed to jump up or nudge for attention), and a lot of CGC is about teaching owners how to handle their dog in a way that is respectful to the general public, including getting used to the concept of a long settle.

    5. CatCat*

      This sounds like a really good solution. If it’s not feasible and OP decides to look for another job, OP can cast a wider net than “dog-friendly” offices by looking for offices with generous telework policies. I think telework is a much more common option than dog-friendly.

      1. Purplesaurus*

        Agreed. If OP could telework the same number of days she already doesn’t bring her dog to the office, that would seem like a reasonable compromise to me.

    6. Retail4Life*

      I was thinking the same thing of asking for an alternate perk. The first thing that came to mind was doggie daycare (either fully paid or maybe a negotiated discount). I think losing any perk that you rely on getting taken away deserves that chance to ask for an alternative replacement.

  6. Dust Bunny*

    Honestly, I think you need to be less invested in this perk. Whatever your job is, you have a whole lot of perks going on (free food, unlimited vacation, dogs, reasonable commute–mine is 45 minutes *if I’m lucky*). You could change jobs but my guess is you’ll be hard-pressed to find another that’s a step up perk-wise. Animal-related perks are always going to be on shaky ground, mostly because of the allergy factor, since you can’t really blame somebody for being allergic. It sounds like the company as a whole needs to have a big discussion about dogs in general, though.

    1. Penny*

      +1

      I wouldn’t give up this job over one thing if you love it otherwise. Invest in a dog walker or dog sitter.

      1. TootsNYC*

        you mean, “Take a pay cut,” right?

        Because that’s essentially what you’re suggesting.

        (Oh, and, no matter how valuable they might be, dog walkers and dog sitters are expenses,, not investments.)

        1. Indoor Cat*

          I dunno, I think that’s too pessimistic an assessment of Penny’s idea.

          Lots of people use paid pet sitters, or they figure out a trade system or something. Having to pay for a non-essential part of my life that I enjoy, whether it’s having a dog or ordering $$ food a lot (if, for example, it was the “free food” perk that was lost rather than the dog perk), is just, well, choosing to spend my money on my values. It doesn’t affect how much money I have coming in.

          Plus, I think the reason people use the term investment is because of the phase, “sometimes the easiest way to pay is with money.” Which is to say, not paying money for certain things can lead to increased stress or reduced joy, and the quality of life improvement and time saved by certain optional expenses is pretty high compared to the amount of money spent. If time is money, then it’s like an investment.

          This is also why nobody calls paying utility bills an investment. It’s not optional.

        3. TL -*

          I have a lot of food allergies that means I wouldn’t be able to take part in the free food – would I also be taking a pay cut by working there?
          The OP chose to get a dog; pets are pretty expensive. The perk is nice but it’s not a pay cut to decide that you want to spend your money on your pets – that’s just you making a choice with your disposable income.

          1. Perse's Mom*

            If you had taken the job with the understanding that the free food included food that you can eat and this meant you weren’t having to purchase groceries for most of the week (thereby saving a lot of money) and then the allergy-safe food or the free food entirely was taken away, then yes. That would, imo, be the equivalent of what the OP is dealing with.

        4. Esme*

          Presumably, OP had the dog before she lucked into this dog-friendly job, so she should have been aware that doggy daycare might be something she’d have to consider at some point. Also, I think some people might have overlooked the fact that it was more than one coworker who complained (the OP said her manager mentioned a “couple of” complaints). For all we know, there may have been more than two (perhaps the manager didn’t want OP to think people were ganging up on her). Since there were more than one, there also could have been different reasons (fear, allergy, plain old animal hatred). So the issue may be even more complicated.

          1. Elspeth*

            We’re supposed to take the LWs at their word. Two complaints were about the dog being too large, and one complaint was related to fear of dogs. So the question is, are all other dog owners now banned from bringing their dogs to the office, or is LW being singled out?

        5. Loony Luna*

          But as an animal owner, it’s still your responsibility to deal with your animal during work hours. I understand being able to take the dog to work was a huge perk, but it’s probably not a guarantee that every job you apply to is going to be dog friendly. So I don’t get the argument that OP is now going to have to spend thousands of dollars per year on doggy daycare. If OP lost their job suddenly and had to take a job where dog perks didn’t exist, they would still be responsible for the dog during the day. That’s how owning an animal works.

          1. KellyK*

            Sure, if they lost their job or changed offices or any number of things, they would have to pay for the dog’s care. But the point is that this specific job promised them a perk, they took the job in large part because of this perk, and then the perk got yanked. If they were promised $50k a year and it was cut to $45k after 6 months, or they were promised reimbursement for mileage and that policy was changed, then they’re still out that money. It’s not really relevant that other jobs only pay $45k or don’t reimburse for mileage.

      2. Pet sitter*

        Dog walkers and pet sitters are less expensive than doggie daycare, but still difficult to fit into many people’s budgets daily. If you got someone to do it for $10 a day, you would pay $200 a month, and $10 a day isn’t standard.

        I’m not sure what I would tell OP to do – asking an employer to compensate for it seems unreasonable. But then again before being a pet sitter I never worked in a pet-friendly office and I don’t know what they consider normal.

    2. Say what, now?*

      Allergies for sure, but also phobias. They aren’t something that can be just shirked off either since being exposed to something you’re afraid of (rationally or not) is going to impact your health in a negative way. I’d urge the OP to remember that as much joy as your dog brought to you at work, the coworker is likely experiencing an equal amount of anxiety and that’s not good for them either.

      1. MK*

        Unfortunately people are very dismissive of phobias about pets. I am afraid of dogs to the point of hysterical anxiety attacks if one run towards me barking, and most of their owners, instead of trying to get hold of their dog (that should have been on a leash in public anyway, according to the law), keep trying to talk me out of my distress by insisting the dog doesn’t bite.

        The OP’s suggestiin that she could make a point of keeping her dog away from the person who is afraid is another example. Someone who is afraid of dogs isn’t going to be at ease with one in their office space, even if it doesn’t try to jump on them.

        1. Malibu Stacey*

          “Unfortunately people are very dismissive of phobias about pets.”

          Which, imo, is likely why the complaint was anonymous and why it seems unlikely the coworker will come forward to the LW or her supervisor in order to work out a compromise.

            1. Jesca*

              Well, that comes down to a business decision, and I do not think a lot of employers are going to fire/not hire people just because they do not like to be around dogs. Also, phobias and allergies and ADA and all that. So, the business here is making a decision, and I think it is important to realize that. Some places make take your stance, but I think a lot of business take the stance of not turning away talent based on a perk. And, they will allow that perk until it becomes a problem for others – not the other way around.

              1. Hills to Die on*

                I was thinking of it more toward the note writer. If it’s that much f a problem for him/her, why would they work at a place where they are likely to be around large dogs in the first place?

        2. Rainy*

          There are a lot of bad dog owners. My old dog was dog-aggressive, and when people would let their off-leash or leash-trailing dogs run up on him and I stepped between them or signed him to sit facing away or began speed-walking off (depending on his level of chill that day), the owners would invariably bleat “BUT SHE’S FRIEEEENDLY” at me. Like that matters! I started yelling back “My dog isn’t!” but that still didn’t deter a lot of people, who frankly should have known better.

          1. Riding along*

            I get the same thing while out riding. Most dog owners are helpful/sensible and get their dog under control or back on a leash as they see us riding up, but i’ve had plenty who don’t care about it running up to the horses because it’s “friendly”. Lady my horse doesn’t know that, if it spooks I’m in danger, if it decides to kick out your dog is dead.

        4. Mallory Janis Ian*

          most of their owners, instead of trying to get hold of their dog (that should have been on a leash in public anyway, according to the law), keep trying to talk me out of my distress by insisting the dog doesn’t bite.

          If only more people had an accurate view of their dogs’ behavior! It seems that so many people think their dog is a sweetie-pookums who wouldn’t bite anybody, despite all evidence to the contrary. My son was bitten by a dog who came charging after him with its owner calling after him, “Oh, don’t worry! He’s a sweetie! He won’t bite you!” and then CHOMP! I really appreciate the dog owners who have a good enough handle on their dog’s temperament to advise, “Please don’t touch him; he may bite”, but it seems like obliviousness is more common.

          1. Beanie*

            You know what? My baby is a sweet angel who has never bitten or growled at a living thing in her life (chew toys are a different story). Her breed, temperament, and most importantly, my years of experience with her have me confident that she wouldn’t bite. HOWEVER, in public she is always on a leash, I’m monitoring others around me for potential discomfort (like phobias), and if she is approached by someone wanting pets I do give warning about the kissing. Despite everything I said above I can never really know. I just have to be a vigilant owner and respectful of those around me (fyi this is in dog friendly places like the pet store!).

            And yet: if I was the OP I would be frustrated w/this situation enough that I probably would be looking for a different job (w/the dog perks or more work from home options). Not that it’s entirely rational…

          2. Fiennes*

            Even dogs who generally very good can have moments. My dog is extremely well-behaved; every time I take him out in public, people comment on how quiet & relaxed he is. So imagine my surprise last spring when another dog came in for a sniff and my dog snapped at him! It was so odd that I called his vet, who only then chose to tell me the meds he was taking for an eat infection were, essentially, dog meth.

            Tl;dr — sometimes even good boys have to be on dog meth.

            1. Elizabeth West*

              ANY dog can bite, under the right set of circumstances. And owners are often blind to this because 1) their dogs don’t bite them, and 2) they love them, or 3) they’re entitled AF.

              Whenever we have one of these threads, all I can think of is Diane Whipple.

              1. Globetrotta*

                I don’t disagree that any dog can bite – I had to go to the hospital and get a rabies shot because of a that most suburban of family pets, the black lab. And obviously, this attack was horrific. But drawing comparisons between giant breed dogs that were bred for fighting and treated in a way that increased their aggression with a family pet that might tweek is a stretch.

            2. Amanda*

              Yup, this. We adopted our dog two weeks ago and she is a super sweetheart, but also, she is a rescue dog who (we think) was likely abused in some way and is mouthy (she is a border collie/shepherd mix, both herding breeds). She has a loud bark and she’s strong, and we know that it will take a few weeks to months for her to fully relax in her new home. So that means that she is always on a leash (when she’s hanging out in our apartment so we can take control in any situation if we need to), we’ve invested in weekly obedience training, and we do not let her near other dogs until she’s better trained and she meets them under supervision.

              I really wish all people and dog owners would 1) ask before they try to pet her, and 2) BELIEVE ME when I ask you to not pet my dog/not let your dog near my dog. Also like, just don’t stick your hand in front of a dog’s face, especially if you don’t know the dog. I know you think it’s cute but will it still be cute if it bites you? Oh, you don’t know if it bites? Cool, so don’t try to pet my dog.

          3. Stealth mode for this, because hoo boy*

            Yup. Here’s an experiment: get yourself a baseball bat. When dog owners tell you “oh, he won’t bite! He’s friendly!”, tell them “good, because if he bites me, I’m defending myself with the bat.” Suddenly they’re not so sure.

            1. Fiennes*

              This is creepy, and you’re right to be ashamed of posting it. While respecting different points of view, could we maybe have a moratorium on suggesting animal cruelty?

            3. Wow*

              If you’re going anon to advocate violence against animals perhaps you shouldn’t be saying anything.

            4. Sure, I'll go anon for this, too*

              I like dogs on a case by case basis. When I was a teenager, I was forced to go with my parents to visit their friends (staying several nights), and they had some little yappy dog that wouldn’t leave me alone. The owners thought it was funny that I didn’t like this behavior. One night, we were all sitting around watching TV, and the wife was playing with the dog and one of his toys. She thought it would be hilarious to toss the toy onto my lap so the dog would jump on me.

              I have no idea where the dog landed, as my flailing around wasn’t exactly voluntary. This was nearly two decades ago, and I still feel zero guilt over it. On the one hand, I can see why people are having a negative reaction to the suggestion of threatening a dog with a baseball bat. On the other hand, if you don’t like the idea of someone threatening your dog with a baseball bat? Then control. your. dog.

              (And lest anyone think I am a terrible dog-hating monster, once when I was in college, one of my roommates dogsat his sister’s little yappy dog who attached himself to me and followed me wherever I went, but that dog was well-behaved. We were best friends by the end of the week and I was sad to see him go.)

              1. Green*

                Moratorium fail.
                “On the other hand, if you don’t like the idea of someone threatening your dog with a baseball bat? Then control. your. dog.” At least the original comment was self defense, now you’re just outright threatening other living creatures because you don’t like the behavior of *the person.*

                1. Sure, I'll go anon for this, too*

                  Yes. That is exactly what I wrote. I am totally advocating people arm themselves with baseball bats and roam the streets looking for poor defenseless little doggies to threaten. It’s not like the rest of my post had any context whatsoever about dogs physically touching, or even attacking people when they don’t want to be touched while their owners did nothing about it, which is also what Stealth Mode was responding to. Reading comprehension fail.

                2. Green*

                  People–including Allison–have already asked you, repeatedly, to just stop with the weird threats. And you then doubled down saying that someone’s failure to control their dog now gives you the dependent right to threaten dogs with baseball bats, whether or not it poses any risk for you. I can’t beat everyone with a baseball bat who physically touches me on the subway…

                  So… why not just stop?

              1. Anon2*

                Legitimately exercising your right to self defense against an attacking animal doesn’t make you cruel to the animal, it makes the owner cruel to the animal. It make the owner a cruel to the animal because they let the animal get into a situation where someone may have a need to hurt the animal, and it’s being cruel to fellow humans because it’s endangering them.

              1. Anon2*

                Defending yourself from an attacking animal doesn’t mess make you cruel. If someone’s pet gets hurt because someone legitimately defended themselves from its attack, then the person who was cruel to the animal was the owner for letting that animal get in that situation.

              2. Teddie*

                This reminded me of when we adopted a dog that my sister (she was a toddler back then) loved so much. Unfortunately, the dog likely had an abusive former owner and the trigger for him was any stick/pole of some form. My sister made the mistake of picking up a stick to play in the yard while he was watching a few feet away – not even playing *with* him, and he charged and bit her to “defend” himself. She required 13 stitches, but she came back and loved the dog the same as before (just carefully avoiding carrying long objects around him). So yeah, literally carrying a bat as an argument for defense is not really for the good of everyone.

                However, I do understand the need for self-defense if people cannot keep their pets under control – if anything attacks my cat I can only imagine what I’d do to keep her safe.

            7. Mary*

              I think perhaps a metaphorical baseball bat, aka using the word lawsuit to the business owner, is a better idea, if you’re truly afraid. I once worked somewhere that allowed occasional dogs to come in, and of course one guy had to take advantage and bring his dog in every day all day even when we had events or other things going on where that caused issues. That was annoying but we dealt with it, until…
              His sweet puppy became an extremely aggressive one year old who started snapping, jumping and was just uncontrollable. After several instances where he almost bit a visitor, I finally told my boss that I was absolutely going to personally sue the company if I got bit. The dog did not return after that. And more importantly no person or dog got hurt. I think it was also a wake up call for the dog owner.

          4. FD*

            I know, it drives me crazy! I have to walk by a house every day where the owners insist on regularly tying one of their pitbulls out on a very thin line and it goes for me every. damn. time. Their other one got out and ran around me barking aggressively while the owner stood there like “derp, what’s the problem here?”

            (I have nothing against pit bulls. They are however large dogs and like any dog, you need to *train* them, especially if you’re going to leave them out in your front yard, and they are more capable of yanking out a thin stake than a chihuahua.)

        5. animaniactoo*

          fwiw, I will allow you to borrow my standard line which is true for me even though not for you. Because I have yet to see it not work.

          “Yes, but I’m allergic.”

          Then they start hurrying up to make sure and keep their dog away from me (except the one time on the train with the guy who tried to convince me it was fine for his dog to nose me because it was hypoallergenic, see thread above on issues with that). I suspect that it is the idea that I am being “innocently harmed” by their dog rather than their dog’s behavior and the fact that it has a known physical reaction is enough to “prove” to them that they need to reign in the dog rather than defend it.

        6. CEMgr*

          I once had a dog run up to me and bite me on the leg. Then the owner came out of the house and said, “Don’t worry, she won’t bite.” Blood was running down my leg from the puncture wounds.

        7. Esme*

          And someone who is truly allergic is unlikely to find relief even if the animal is moved into another area (unless the workplace is massive). In any case, I don’t see this perk as comparable to telecommuting or unlimited vacation. I love animals as much as the next person (I have six of my own), but I wouldn’t think of inflicting any of them on my colleagues. Coworkers’ needs have to take precedence over those of pets. I’m also curious as to whether the pro-dog contingent would feel as strongly if we were talking about people bringing their kids to work.

      2. Tuxedo Cat*

        Without knowing the lay out of the office, the OP’s dog might always be around the person is who is afraid of dogs. If they work close by, it would be uncomfortable bringing up this issue to the OP.

      3. Green*

        I also want to flag “allergies” and “phobias” as being *automatically* needing to be accommodated due to ADA. Both of those things come in degrees–from mild discomfort, manageable symptoms and a preference to avoid it to severe reactions that would seriously impact one’s ability to engage in activities of daily living.

        Like “protected classes”, ADA is a buzzword that many HR/managers overreact to. I am allergic to dogs and cats. I have two dogs and a cat and volunteer at the animal shelter because my allergies are manageable. I am also allergic to cigarette smoke (even stale smoke on clothing) and perfumes. There are some allergies that the person with the allergy just has to manage themselves (i.e., peanuts in public places), some that make everyone more comfortable with just minor adjustments (me sitting in open space away from people who wear heavy perfumes or smoke), some that require reasonable accommodations under the ADA, and some that just can’t be resolved because the accommodation that would solve the problem isn’t reasonable. (Also, sometimes people have conflicting accommodations! This also comes into play with religious accommodations vs. nondiscrimination — Bob can’t be alone with women, Jane needs a manager who treats her the same as male colleagues.)

        Responsible HR and managers will probe and make serious efforts to determine where on the spectrum this falls and explore as many options as possible to reach resolution. Asking only one individual to give up a substantial job perk because of an anonymous complaint is not responsible management here in my opinion.

        1. Argh!*

          Yes! I have worked with a few people who demand accommodation without any documentation of an actual disability. Three had a rolling series of demands that became downright ridiculous. I don’t know if they just enjoyed emotional blackmail or truly infantalized themselves to the point that they had numerous actual problems, but they are so so so annoying.

          Someone with one single problem (like getting migraines from perfume) is just fine with me. Someone who starts with perfume then creates a whole series of petty demands loses my respect and sympathy.

      4. Pine cones huddle*

        I would ask if the office was always let friendly. As in which came first? The pets or the people complaining about the dogs. Isn’t an office allowed to say “hey we are pet friendly so if you accept a job hear you need to know that” and is there a reasonable expectation that a person who doesn’t want to be around dogs shouldn’t take that job? I mean, I recently saw a job posting and in the job requirements they specifically said “must be comfortable around dogs, seriously a lot of dogs and large dogs”. So should this place have to change their policy if someone took a job there and then told them by the way, I’m allergic/have a phobia…?

        1. Loony Luna*

          But I think that’s where management/the company has failed in implementing a solid policy. If they want to have a dog friendly policy that’s fine, but that requires for there to be clear guidelines about behaviour, size of breeds allowed potentially, amount of dogs allowed (maybe there shouldn’t be more dogs than people), what happens if a dog makes a mess, phobias, allergies etc etc etc. Maybe this office being ‘dog friendly’ was that Bob and Jane had both been bringing their itty bitty, dogs and so it was never an issue for the person with the phobia. What if the phobia writer was there before the poodle?
          If there were clear guidelines, as well as transparency in the interview process- this probably wouldn’t be an issue right now.

    3. Future Analyst*

      I’d be all over the vacation aspect, but it’s not up to us to decide for the writer what they should value most. Telling someone to be less invested in the thing they care most about isn’t terribly helpful.

      1. grace*

        +1. What is a big deal to someone is nothing to another person; that doesn’t make it any less of a big deal for the first person.

        2. Rebecca*

          I’m very afraid of dogs — bitten and sent to the hospital for stitches three times. I would not want to go to work every day knowing there would be a dog there. I wouldn’t even be able to walk over to OP’s for a work matter!

          1. penty*

            To me though, then dont take a job where this is allowed. Thats like saying “im afraid of fountains so the office should remove it to accomodate me”

            90% of jobs you cant bring a dog in. people like this ruin it for everyone who only searches for jobs with perks like this.

            1. fposte*

              We don’t know what the dog-unhappy employees knew when they took the job, though. And if they’re allergic and not just unhappy, the law is likely to be on their side.

              2. Perse's Mom*

                The letter makes no reference to allergies, though – just fear of dogs and that the LW’s dog is – in the complainant’s opinion – too large for the office. If the complainant is that impacted by dogs in the office, they should make a formal request for accommodation.

                I mean it’s not like there are a lot of offices promoting bring-your-snake-or-tarantula-to-work days, I’m terrified of both of those things (if probably not clinically phobic), but there may be ways to accommodate that fear without revoking the perk for others. Those ways can’t be explored without management knowing who has the issue.

            2. TRex*

              A legitimate dog phobia (or allergy) could have developed after they had already accepted the job. Since this anonymous complainant is anonymous, it’s not certain whether they were working at the company for 1 month or 10 years.

            3. Esme*

              But we don’t know the timeline; why do you assume the complainer took a job there AFTER the perk was initiated? Who’s to say that it wasn’t OP who was the first to inquire about bringing her pet to work? Also, it’s not as though a pet-friendly office is common. If I were interviewing for a job, this isn’t something I’d think to ask about. And the perk might be applied so informally (or maybe only 1 or 2 people take advantage of it), that the hiring manager might not mention it. Also, the manager said it was more than one person who complained anonymously. I for one would need more information before coming down definitely on one side or another.

              1. Elspeth*

                Actually, LW states, “I completely understand where they’re coming from, and I know very few offices would let me bring such a big dog to work regularly. But this was something that influenced my decision to take this job, and has a real impact on my happiness at work. ”

                LW wasn’t the first to inquire – this policy was already in place.

          2. JessaB*

            I get this, I’m not scared of bites and things, as long as the dog is under control, but I’m allergic to a lot of dogs myself, and also none too steady on my feet so running at me dog? Really scarey because I can be very very badly hurt if I fall with what’s wrong with me already. But then running at me children scare me too because the fear is not what’s running, but THAT they’re running and may physically hurt me. I am however more likely to ask for an office in a pet free corridor if I choose to take a job in a pet friendly place.

            And people who are afraid need to be protected TOO. Especially if the dog friendly thing post dates their employment. Also if management is not forthcoming in advance about pet policy, it is unfair to expect a new employee not to have a FIT if they’re allergic/afraid and took the job.

            On the other hand if you were looking for work, all things equal you’d probably self select out of an office where everyone bringing animals was a major perk. Not start there and then complain there are dogs/cats/bunnies/whatever.

            The other problem with anonymous complaints is that you don’t know if the person is allergic/scared or someone trying to undercut the OP. I get that it’s necessary, but I agree with Alison that a discussion regarding it needs to be had. Because you don’t just implement things from a suggestion box will ye nil ye. Because they impact many people, especially since OP is silent on how many other animals are there.

            1. Green*

              People who are allergic or afraid only need to be protected if that allergy or fear rises to a *protected* disability and the accommodation is reasonable.

              1. fposte*

                Do you have any sense of how finely that gets parsed at the HR level? My completely uninformed guess is that it’s all over the map, from places that CYA with compliance with any ADA claim accompanied by a doctor’s note regardless of how slight to places that really don’t care if they breach the ADA or not.

              2. Eliza*

                Aside from the ADA issues, failing to accommodate dog allergies could also fall afoul of racial discrimination laws on disparate-impact grounds. The immune system is one of the fastest-evolving parts of the human genome, and specific allergies are often significantly correlated to race.

      3. Alton*

        Agreed. People should have realistic expectations, but you weigh that against what matters to you and what sacrifices you’d be willing to make. The OP is entitled to care about this (and isn’t obligated to care about things like free food or lots of vacation time if they don’t use those benefits much).

      4. paul*

        It isn’t our place to tell them a perk isn’t nice, but I think it can be reasonable to point that, if you leave over this perk going away…it’s highly unlikely you’ll get another job that does offer it. My brother got to learn that the hard way (left a job because the insurance got worse…but it was still better than the insurance he wound up with at his new job).

      5. anomonom*

        Exactly. The other person was aware that the office is dog-friendly upon being hired (if not, shame on management; they need to find a compromise for *both* parties). She/he took the job under that agreement and doesn’t get to change it.

        1. JM60*

          If someone has a health related need, it should be reasonably accommodated. Depending on the health related reason and the severely of it, getting rid of the perk of bringing dogs to work might be a reasonable accommodation, with there not being any compromise they would both take care of the health issue and allow the bringing of the dog to work.

          Of course, if having dogs in the workplace is somehow intrinsic to the business (e.g., a veterinarian’s office or a pet store), then the health issue probably makes the person unqualified for the job. Otherwise, they shouldn’t have to suffer through health issues just because of a perk that some other employees like.

          1. anomonom*

            I agree but that’s not the point I made. Whatever the perk is, the employee agreed to it upon being hired. They don’t get to insist that a perk they agreed to should now be removed for everyone else.

            2. JM60*

              “They don’t get to insist that a perk they agreed to should now be removed for everyone else.”

              If it’s causing them health issues, then they should be able to request that it be removed. People have the right to not be subject to health/safety issues caused by work, unless it’s somehow intrinsic to the job (e.g., a flight attendant having a small chance of being in a plane crash).

              When you talk about things people “agreed to” in a context where their livelihood depends on it, you have to keep in mind that consent is very tenuous in this arena. There are certain things that someone should never have to ‘consent’ to in order to get a paycheck, unless it’s intrinsically related to the job. This would include things like having to have sex with a film producer (to take an extreme example) or having to donate to charity (much less extreme, but comes up in this blog all the time). I think safety/health issues fall under this. Unless bring around dogs is intrinsic to the business, or there’s a conflict with else’s need for accommodation, people shouldn’t have to ‘consent’ to health issues caused by dogs in order to get a paycheck.

              1. Pine cones huddle*

                If I’m allergic to peanuts, I wouldn’t take a job at a peanut butter factory. If the perk existed before this person was hired and it was clearly stated as a benefit, then shouldn’t the onus be on that person to make a realistic choice when accepting a job?

                1. JM60*

                  Like I mentioned in the post you’re responding to, it makes a difference whether or not the health issue in question is intrinsic to the business. The presence of peanuts is intrinsic to the job at the peanut butter factory, whereas the presence of pets isn’t intrinsic to most businesses (with a few exceptions like a pet shop or a veterinarian’s office). It’s only something that some employees like to have.

                  A better (albeit imperfect) analogy would be working at an accounting firm that provides lunch to everyone, but everything they serve at every lunch is filled with peanuts, even though they know you have a peanut allergy. Maybe everyone in the in this absurd hypothetical office really likes peanuts that much, but unlike the peanut factory, this exposure to peanuts isn’t intrinsic to the business. However, this hypothetical is probably much better for someone with allergy problems than pets in the office, because you could probably avoid most issues by bringing your own lunch. However, pet allergies tend to be airborne, and may not be avoidable in a confined workspace.

                  “If the perk existed before this person was hired and it was clearly stated as a benefit, then shouldn’t the onus be on that person to make a realistic choice when accepting a job?”

                  Not if it’s a significant health threat to someone and it’s not intrinsic to the business.

              2. Betsy*

                I think the definition of health issues is at stake here too. The OP hasn’t mentioned anyone suffering from allergies, so that can be ruled out as an issue.

                I think it’s important to for the company to establish whether the phobia is severe, as in diagnosable as part of an anxiety disorder, or mild, or of moderate severity.

                For me, I am scared if I walk past a fenced yard and dogs are barking aggressively, even if I know they can’t get out. However, that obviously doesn’t cause major issues in my life. If the co-worker has panic attacks when they see or think about a dog, this is very different to if they just don’t like dogs, or feel mildly perturbed about the idea of one being in the building.

                1. JM60*

                  “The OP hasn’t mentioned anyone suffering from allergies, so that can be ruled out as an issue.”

                  It’s possible for someone in the OP’s workplace to be having issues with allergies without the OP knowing. Sometimes it’s very obvious is someone is having allergy problems (e.g., if they’re sneezing all the time), but other times, it’s not as obvious (breathing problems that are moderate and/or occasional). I could be wrong, but I believe that some people who are at high risk of life threatening airborne allergy attacks won’t show obvious signs of allergy problems during their typical day.

            3. TL -*

              What if the person complaining is a highly skilled, rare-find employee who is intrinsic to the employee’s business?
              Perks are nice, but the company exists to fulfill a purpose and that purpose most likely is not to provide doggy day care. Thus, the perks are more flexible than the people.

      6. JM60*

        While I agree that it’s up to each person to decide what they value in a job, or is worth pointing out that this particular perk is a very volatile one because it can rub against other worker’s abilities to have a reasonable hypoallergetic and fear free workplace. If the OP decides to leave this job in favor of another job that offers this perk, she should probably keep in mind that she may run into the same situation in the new job.

    4. Tuesday Next*

      But OP said that “I’m not really interested in most of these — things like unlimited vacation, free food, etc. The only one I care about is being able to bring my dog to work.”

      You’re basically telling them to change their priorities in life which doesn’t make much sense.

    5. TootsNYC*

      I don’t think that’s fair at all. We all get to choose what is most important to us.

      Some of us decide we don’t like our job because our decision-making capability has been taken away from us. And so we go look for another job.

      Maybe finding another job with this perk will be really difficult (and maybe it would be hard to find a job that’s 20 minutes away to allow for noontime visits, or some other workaround), but I think people get to choose their own priorities, and how they affect our lives.

      I had a job with an onsite daycare center. When that was threatened, I went job-hunting.

  7. Anony*

    You could also ask if one day a week could be designated as a day you can bring her in (and keep her confined to your office). That would still be a lot better than you would find at a to of other offices and might be enough to make whoever made the complaint happy since the dog would not be there more often than not. This obviously would only work if you have an office.

    1. Hills to Die on*

      That’s a really good idea too! If they could be flexible, you could work from home 2 days a week, bring her in 1 day, and put her in doggie day care 2 days.

    2. Fiennes*

      Who knows—the person afraid of dogs might LOVE one day a week of working remotely. Maybe not, but it’s worth asking. There may well be a compromise that can leave all parties satisfied.

      1. EddieSherbert*

        We do a monthly dog day at my work, and anyone with allergies/that dislikes dogs/who just doesn’t want to deal with it can work from home that day :)

        (not as nice as weekly, or daily, but a nice “perk” for us!)

        1. JessaB*

          And I presume the cleaning staff is warned so they can vacuum extra to get the pet hair out of the building. So that works nicely

          1. EddieSherbert*

            Yup! And we have designated workspaces where the dogs are allowed (booked conference rooms/offices), so (at least in theory), it’s not the like building is overrun and covered in fur :)

  8. Dog Mom*

    If you don’t have an office, would a crate fit under your desk? They make really nice travel ones (check out Chewy!) that fit my golden retriever just fine. Maybe you could agree to keep your dog crated when you can’t attend to her or she could be contained when you were in meetings or otherwise unable to supervise her.

    I work in a city with a lot of dog friendly offices and many of them only allow a certain number of dogs and only on certain days. Perhaps you can work to better define the perk so everyone can get some of what they ask for.

    1. Plague of frogs*

      There was a lady at my office who had a lovely standard poodle that she brought to work. He stayed crated unless she was walking him or one of us was playing with him. He never made noise or had accidents, and his presence was great stress relief for most of us.

      One person complained, and so the dog had to go. It was…pretty frustrating for everyone else. I wish my company had tried to accommodate the dog and the complainer on different floors. That said, I can understand why someone would complain anonymously. It did generate a lot of anger to have the one bright spot in our day taken away.

      1. Luna*

        The anonymous nature of the complaint is actually the thing that bothers me the most about the OP’s situation. Not only is there no opportunity for something to be worked out that can accommodate both of them, but if the complainer ever leaves the company for another job the ban on dogs still stands, because no one knows who complained! So this one person is removing this perk for everyone at the company, permanently, whether this person continues to work at the company or not. Complaining anonymously just seems so childish to me.

        1. TootsNYC*

          But I can see why someone would do it, and I can see why it’s necessary to have a place to put comments anonymously.

          1. Luna*

            Anonymous complaint boxes are, IMO, typically meant for complaints about managers or company policies that would be difficult for lower-level employees to address. They should not be used to complain about one specific co-worker. These complaints did not ask for the company to revoke the policy itself, they specifically complained just about the OP and her dog. That is not what complaint boxes should be used for, and it can create a really toxic environment if people use them to complain about co-workers behind their backs instead of addressing situations 1-on-1 with that coworker or their manager if need be.

            1. That Lady*

              I hear you, but as someone who is very uncomfortable around dogs, let me tell you most peoples’ responses in re: their dog are completely and resoundingly irrational and borderline bizarre. I would never feel comfortable addressing the issue with my name attached because I know I would be hounded (groan) until I left the job about hating dogs and ruining peoples’ lives. Not worth it.

              1. Perse's Mom*

                If there were likely scenarios for accommodation that allowed LW’s dog to remain and you to avoid said dog, would you still leave it anonymous, though? Or would you approach a manager you trust to say ‘I’m really uncomfortable around dogs, but I recognize that a number of my coworkers really value being able to bring their dogs to work. I would like to consider X or Y as possible solutions, what do you think?’

                Or even offering possible solutions IN the anonymous note! ‘All dogs should be resident in Cubicles A through F only and owners should use Hall Z when coming or going with their dog. This would allow dog owners to retain the dog-in-office perk while letting coworkers avoid the dogs if they so wish, and allow our cleaners to focus their pet-cleaning efforts in specific areas.’

                1. That Lady*

                  I personally would still leave them anonymously, yes. People are, in my experience, completly irrational about their dogs and have very strange, over the top reactions that include bullying, freezing out, and other ridiculous, childish behavior. BUT I feel so strongly about not working in a place with dogs that I would just silently start looking for new employment. It wouldn’t be worth it to me to deal with–either the dog or anyone’s reaction to objecting to the dog.

        2. JM60*

          “but if the complainer ever leaves the company for another job the ban on dogs still stands, because no one knows who complained!”

          I suppose you could get around this by occasionally (perhaps a few times a year) float the idea of allowing pets again, suggesting that people leave anonymous complaints of that would cause a problem for them. If someone leaves an anonymous complaint similar to the one before, you can reasonably infer that they haven’t left (or that someone with similar issues has joined).

          I don’t think we should fault people for complaining anonymously in cases like these. I think it makes sense to shield people from the unfair ire of others when there are potential health or phobia issues at play.

          1. Zombeyonce*

            I like this suggestion. People can be incredibly sensitive about their pets and I understand not wanting to publicly say you don’t want dogs in an office when other people are gung-ho about it.

        3. Afraid of beasts*

          It’s not childish. It’s childish to think less of someone because they don’t like your dog. But in our pet worshipping culture saying you don’t like dogs can be a social suicide. I hate dogs and I’m very afraid of them. I don’t think I should limit my choice of places I can work for if the job has nothing to do with animals. Dogs at work are a luxury. I shouldn’t be forced to be around dogs every day but I don’t want all the dog lovers to hate me either. When most dog lovers learn to react in a mature way to someone not liking their pet and not wanting to be around them (so never) then it will be safe to complain publicly.

          1. Bagpuss*

            The thing is, management could address that – the concern could be raised to a manager, if the policy then changes then no-one other than the manager / HR needs to know who raised the issue. I think there is a middle ground between changing the policy based on a single anon. complaint, and having to make it publicly known to everyone who raised a concern.

          2. Plague of frogs*

            This is not particular to dog owners (I am not one, by the way). If you tell anyone that you have a blanket hatred for a type of creature that they have a close personal relationship with, it will get you disliked. Shouldn’t it? You’re being extremely rude.

            Try framing your statement as a self-depreciating, “Oh, I have a terrible phobia of dogs. I’m sure yours is lovely and I’m sorry I can’t appreciate that, but I need him to be away from me.” I think you will find you get a different response from most people.

            1. Astor*

              Sure, but a not-insignificant number of people:
              * only hear that I hate a type of creature and find me rude
              * only hear that I’m sure their dog is lovely, and so don’t bother to do anything to help
              * both of the above

              1. Plague of frogs*

                Yeah, I know those people. They’re the ones that thrust their infants into my unwilling arms.

                Still, if you use preemptive rudeness because of those people, you are, not unnaturally, going to offend everyone. Including a lot of people who would have respected your phobia if you had been polite.

            2. Afraid of beasts*

              I am polite. I don’t say I hate dogs. I’m just very scared of them and it’s hard not to show it. I try to be positive about the terrible hairy creatures. That’s why I welcome anonymous box complaints – so that people don’t end up hating me for wanting their dog away from me.

              1. Argh!*

                There are therapies for getting over fears. If you feel you shouldn’t have to live in fear, de-sensitising therapy will be the best answer for you.

        4. Academic Addie*

          Agreed. Are the employees next going to all complain anonymously that someone is using vacation days wrong, and get them taken away for everyone? I can see the need for anonymous suggestions, but removing perks of someone’s employment based on anonymous feedback seems really extreme.

          1. Afraid of beasts*

            Vacation days are totally different. People should be entitled to paid vacation and is crazy that they’re not in the US. And someone using vacation days doesn’t cause extreme discomfort to their coworkers – unless management is really bad and doesn’t know how to plan for people not being there 100% of the time.

            1. Academic Addie*

              But they’re a perk, and they aren’t legally mandated. They could be taken away. If I were OP, I’d certainly wonder what other restrictions of benefits, or other workplace changes I’d be subject to because someone complained anonymously.

            2. Plague of frogs*

              So what about any other perk?
              -Your workplace has free alcohol. A non-drinker starts working and insists that it be removed.
              -Your workplace has free food. A compulsive over-eater starts working and insists that it be removed.
              -Your workplace allows you to bring in your children. Someone who doesn’t like children starts working and insists that they can no longer come in.
              -Your workplace provides caffeinated coffee. Someone with a religious objection gets it removed.

              The list goes on…incidentally, I would never work at a job where people routinely brought their children in. But I sure as heck wouldn’t start working at that job, and then insist all the children be removed.

              I wouldn’t work at a job that requires me to wear shoes, or won’t let me swear. These are just basic cultural fit things that I find out about when I interview.

          2. Zombeyonce*

            Except that someone using their vacation days in an unacceptable way doesn’t have anything to do with someone else’s work. Having a dog at the office is a completely different type of perk, one that’s rare for a reason (allergies, phobias, liability). No one wants to be the person that “ruined the fun” by asking someone not bring in a pet. There are quite a few comments here that prove how upset people would get at that perk being taken away, and it’s hard to tell who might be vindictive about it if they knew it was you.

            1. Academic Addie*

              Sure, it’s different. But it’s not legally mandated, so it could be taken away. A reasonable workplace wouldn’t take them away, but I don’t think a reasonable workplace would take away any perk just on an anonymous note. I’m not saying the person should have to go public in front of the office, but I don’t see why discretely telling a manager that you require an ADA accommodation for allergies or phobia is such a big deal, especially when it comes to taking other people’s perks away.

              1. Zombeyonce*

                I think that, aside from this commentariat, the general working population wouldn’t realize that allergies and phobias could fall under ADA to even consider that. I know that I didn’t have any idea they did until I started reading this blog.

  9. Penny Lane*

    I would feel differently if there were an explicitly pet-accommodating workplace (say, the owners had dogs around, so it would be considered no big deal for employees to add their own to the mix, assuming of course that all are well-behaved). It feels to me – and I may be mistaken – that the granting of permission to bring the dog was more of a “I guess it’s fine” rather than “OMG we are so excited to meet your dog!!” in which case I think you just have to deal with the fact that in 99% of workplaces, dogs don’t get brought in.

    Just because the complaints are anonymous don’t mean they aren’t real, and I wouldn’t put too much stock in “but my coworkers seem to like Fido!” I wouldn’t want a dog in my workplace either, I would make use of an anonymous complaint box, yet I could easily fake caring about the dog when it was there or pretending that I care enough to go “awww, Fido’s not in today!” when really I’m secretly delighted. I think there’s a lot of faux small talk around these things (just like when someone brings a baby in the office and everyone coos and goos).

    1. Alice*

      I get why people might feel uncomfortable talking to OP about not liking her dog, but I don’t understand why someone would actively pretend to like the dog when that’s not true.

      2. Emi.*

        Because some dog owners get really upset if you don’t like dogs in general and their dogs in particular. Some will go so far as to call you a “heartless monster” or shove their dogs at you (“But he’s so friendly!”), and it’s very, very difficult to tell in advance which ones are going to be like this and which ones are going to be reasonable.

        1. K.*

          Yeah, I don’t like cats. I would never harm one, of course, but I don’t like having them around, I don’t want them sitting in my lap, I don’t want to pet them, I don’t find pictures of them interesting … I don’t like them. People are horrified by this. I’ve literally been called a monster. “What kind of person doesn’t like cats?” Or “But my cat is cute!” Or they try to uncover some deep-seated fear – was I attacked by a cat? No, I just don’t like them in the same way I don’t like asparagus. I’m not out here trying to rid the world of asparagus, but if it is presented to me, I will decline, and I don’t incorporate it into my life. There’s nothing monstrous about that.

          I would just ignore an office cat, but I could see keeping my dislike of them hidden at work and I would absolutely be relieved if an edict banning cats from the office were issued. I don’t think I’d complain publicly because that AAM letter about the workplace where everyone turned on the allergic colleague is burned in my mind, and I’ve known some overzealous pet owners. If I knew the office was pet-friendly during the hiring process, I would opt out – I like medium to big dogs but I just don’t think pets belong at work.

          1. legalchef*

            I would love to get a kitten, except I am highly allergic. But I wouldn’t want a cat, anyway. Cats are evil and will steal your soul. :)

            1. Brittasaurus Rex*

              A lot of people are open about disliking cats, but it seems less acceptable if you don’t like dogs. I much prefer cats, but dogs are fine. I don’t think I’d even say that to some dog owners!

              Cats ain’t evil. We humans is.

              2. Jeannie Nitro*

                I read a comment once that suggested that perhaps it’s because in our culture, cats are associated with women (“cat lady”, all of the various cat-themed sexual slang relating to women) and dogs are associated with men, which is why it’s considered more acceptable to hate on cats but not on dogs.

              3. Relly*

                I am perfectly okay with my cats being called evil, because they are adorable tiny serial killers that purr and snuggle and chirp.

                I am weird, yes.

          2. Dolorous Bread*

            I mean, I HAVE a cat and I don’t like pictures of peoples’ cats. I also have 2 dogs, and literally everything a dog does is more interesting (to me) than what a cat does.
            Similarly, I find everything dogs do more interesting and cute than anything my colleagues’ kids do. I guess I am a heartless monster.

            ;)

          3. Julia the Survivor*

            I didn’t see the letter about the allergic colleague, but people should never be blamed for allergies! Allergies are *not* voluntary or chosen! This is one of my specialties, since I have several – but luckily not to animals!
            I like cats more than dogs. I used to have cats and I think they’re great. When I was younger and living in a more ignorant place, I encountered many men who, when I mentioned my cat, would say “I HATE cats!” and then rant about the one bad experience they had with one cat. K., maybe if these people have encountered such ignorance, it might explain some of the attitudes you’ve encountered.

            1. K.*

              Oh, you MUST read the letters about the woman who found herself in an office full of dogs & she was allergic to dogs. AAM classic. (Spoiler: her office was bonkers.)

          4. Plague of frogs*

            I have pet rats, and recognize that a lot of people have a strong dislike or phobia of my darling angels. So, no pictures of them up at work, and no talking about their cute antics except to co-workers who have specifically opted in.

            That said, there is a workplace in my area that has office rats (that live in a cage, not free-range). If you take that job, you should like or at least be able to tolerate rats.

          5. Argh!*

            Workplaces that have cats don’t confine them. Cat lovers seem to think it’s cute that cats roam the neighborhood, jump onto book shelves, knock stuff off the counter, etc. Well-trained dogs don’t do those things, and in most dog-friendly workplaces they are confined behind a baby gate or in a crate, not roaming loose.

          7. Teddie*

            Wow. If a person says “I’m not a cat person” I stop there, not shove cats in your face or get all emo about how horrible you must be that you hate cats. They are the inconsiderate people. I won’t even try to ask my in-laws to cat-sit if I knew they hated cats (good thing MIL doesn’t mind, but I always make sure she wants to do it every time). I don’t care much for human kids – so I’d be pretty annoyed if someone just tried to shove their babes into my arms trying to convince me otherwise. People bring their babies to the office and I don’t gush over them compared with my other coworkers but I politely smile then really just leave people be. I make my own share of gushing when my coworker brings her Schnauzer pup. :P

            People have preferences, and I really don’t care about the reason as long as they aren’t rude or cruel about it.

        2. Spreadsheets and Books*

          This is so true. I’m a huge cat lover, but I’m allergic to canine saliva and, quite frankly, I just don’t like dogs. I don’t want to be around them, I don’t want to play with them, I don’t want to have to worry about one licking me… I just don’t like dogs.

          But god forbid you ever say that to a dog owner. I have had so many people get irrationally angry about the fact that, quite simply, I just don’t like dogs. I feel like not liking cats is far more normal and acceptable, but not liking dogs is akin to murder or something.

          1. Salyan*

            “People who don’t like cats always seem to think that there is some peculiar virtue in not liking them.” — L.M. Montgomery

        3. bonkerballs*

          So, so true. I just love those dog owners who brush aside the trauma of a very serious attack I suffered as a kid and tell me that of course I couldn’t help by love their angel, everyone loves their doggo, he’s the absolute best creature in the world.

          1. Zombeyonce*

            The worst is when they tell you their dog is the best and so well behaved while that dog is trying to jump on you “just to give you kisses”. Those owners make the rest look bad.

        4. agmat*

          I’m sure some do get upset, but I’ve never had push back regarding this (coworkers, friends, strangers). I don’t like dogs and generally ignore them or even push them away when they come toward me for “kisses.” Maybe it’s just because I’m blunt about it, but no one has ever forced their dog upon me. And if someone ever does, that’s their problem because I won’t tolerate it.

      3. Boris*

        Because saying you don’t like animals to people who love animals is akin to telling them you’d like to defecate on their beloved family members’ graves, in my experience.

      4. Rusty Shackelford*

        For the same reason they pretend to like babies who are brought into the office. Because they’re afraid of being judged.

        1. JaneB*

          I do it – I do not like dogs in general (though I’ve known some lovely ones) and I do not like having a dog in my office building – I also think pets at work in a work building are not appropriate – I don’t like that the dog pees on the grass around the building every day etc, and I hate that colleague with dog asks for breaks in meetings to take the dog out to pee (which takes longer than a human comfort break). But I’m not the decision maker and as it’s not an allergy or a phobia, I am friendly and polite to the dog when i encounter if, ask it’s loving owner about its welfare as I would any other pet I know folks are fond of, and even pet it when offered if I can easily wash my hands before I need to do anything work like (it’s got nice silky fur). It’s a very good dog – it’s not ITS fault I don’t much like dogs and don’t think they belong at work. But if I was asked in a way which wouldn’t get back to the owner, I’d definitely say I’d rather it wasn’t here most days.

        2. The Other Dawn*

          Yup, that’s why I pretend to like babies and kids in general. I’ll smile at them and tell their parents they’re cute, but I’m just being nice. To say I’m not a kid person means I’m a monster. Or, in my earlier days, I’m just going through a phase, or it will be different when I have my own, etc. Luckily I’m entering my mid-40s so people don’t say that to me anymore.

          2. Elizabeth West*

            I like dogs.
            I like cats.
            I like kids.

            I don’t like any of them if they’re not well-behaved, and that’s on the owners/parents. I lose respect for people who don’t seem to care for their dogs/cats/kids properly, and that includes training and discipline. It’s not only an issue of them not crawling all over me and drooling, but of safety, both for the beings in their care and other people. Obviously, especially with kids, nobody is perfect 24/7. But it’s the complete lack of effort that bugs me.

          3. Zombeyonce*

            I have my own kid and I STILL don’t like other people’s kids. I am definitely a heartless monster.

          4. Relly*

            I love babies but don’t want to have any of my own, which also qualifies me for “heartless monster” status.

          5. Argh!*

            I can’t stand babies. I don’t know why. Once they start walking I think they’re cute, but I’m not entranced by spit-up and poop. And yet people will shove a baby into my arms as if it’s just something all people are expected to do, or like I should think I’m lucky to be holding it. They all look the same to me, but I’ll say how cute they are and go along with the social niceties. I won’t go as far as claiming I see a resemblance, though, because I never do. They don’t look like their parents to me. They look like other peoples’ babies.

      6. katydid*

        As someone who is lukewarm to animals, I find that it is almost politically incorrect to not love dogs. I certainly underplay my indifference to other people’s animals. I can imagine that in a workplace, where there are other interpersonal dynamics and politics at place, that would be magnified.

      7. Mb13*

        Why do people say “You don’t look fat in that dress” or “I can definitely see you doing it you should apply” or “no I don’t find your friend attractive” or “oh wow it’s so delicious”?

        Because they are being polite.

    2. 5 Leaf Clover*

      Yes – I hate dogs but have gotten such horrified reactions from people when I confess to not wanting their pets around me that it makes me uncomfortable expressing it. And the OP seems to feel so strongly about this that of course they’d be resentful of the person who got this perk taken away. As someone who would be miserable with a dog in the workplace, I feel sorry for this coworker (and grateful that my office is pet-free.)

      1. Mousie Housie*

        Agreed 10,000,000%. Workplaces are for the benefit and comfort of people, not pets.

        I do not like dogs because:

        1) Most of them smell and shed fur.
        2) Most of them bark. Some of them whine. Loudly.
        3) Most of them wander over/jump up on people without warning.

        Aside from the whining, my human coworkers do none of the above. “No” training is a work in progress…

        1. ThatGirl*

          My pupper hardly ever barks. and while he wanders over for pets or attention, he doesn’t jump.

          But he does whine sometimes, and I’m sure he smells like cornchips sometimes. So if someone’s not a dog person, that’s their right, and I get it.

          1. bonkerballs*

            But see for someone who doesn’t like dogs, that wandering over for pets and attention is just as unwelcome as the jumping.

        2. Health Insurance Nerd*

          Replace the “most” with “some”, and you are correct. You’re obviously free to dislike dogs, but classifying most of them as smelly, loud, and badly behaved is inaccurate.

        3. Elizabeth West*

          The smell is the only thing that really bothers me about some dogs. A friend of mine has two French mastiffs and they drool–a LOT. Drool washes off, no big deal. Hell, my cat would drool when I held and petted her.
          Another friend’s entire house reeks of her dogs and it’s overwhelming.

          I grew up with dogs and cats, but they were outside. It does take some getting used to for me to be around inside dogs, especially if they are a little stinky. When they’re outside, it’s not so bad. An ex and I had seven outside dogs at one point, and I gave them all a very thorough bath a couple of times a year. They all had flea treatments and were wormed. (Tip: to bathe large wiggly dogs, leash them to a pole and use a kiddy pool!)

          If the office dog were clean and friendly and well-behaved, I’d be okay. But if he were smelly, I don’t know how I’d feel about it. I wouldn’t want to have a client meeting with dog scent lingering around me.

            1. K.*

              I worked for a PR firm where someone floated the idea of an office pet day and the CEO vetoed it immediately because there were clients in the office pretty regularly and you never know who’s allergic, phobic, etc. (Plus the office design was horrible for pets, which she pointed out, and since there had never been pets in the office before, we couldn’t know if they would all play nicely, and God forbid we had to break up any fights.)

        4. Argh!*

          They’re all different. I have one that would be a total pest, but I have another one that would just go to sleep and only bother me if he had to potty. They are trained rather well, but the boy will jump on people. If they’re not dog people I explain they just need to bump out their knee and he backs right down (not training – they all do that).

          They also shouldn’t smell bad. Dogs with oily coats may get stinky, but that’s what doggy shampoo is for.

      2. DrAtos*

        I am an animal lover, but my mother really dislikes being around animals. She has allergies and her skin is sensitive. She also had had bad experiences with neighbors who don’t pick up after their dogs. I don’t blame the animals, I blame the pet owners, a growing number of whom view their animals more important than the safety and comfort of human beings. Even though I like animals in general, I also do not feel comfortable around pit bulls, many of which live in my state. I also dislike people who bring animals into areas that should/need to be very sanitary such as grocery stars (especially the hot food/salad bar) and hospitals.

        It’s unfortunate for OP that his/her co-workers are uncomfortable with her pet, but if there is even one person who feels that way, I do think that the worker’s comfort/safety needs to be a priority. Although progressive to have a pet-friendly work culture, I really don’t see how this can be implemented without opening up a lot of conflicts among people who aren’t pet lovers or who are allergic to pets, and potentially lawsuits if someone gets bitten by a co-worker’s pet. If I were an employer, I wouldn’t even start a perk like this one. It’s the same with children. Okay to bring in during an emergency, but not everyday. I had a co-worker who brought her son in once and she apologized to everyone although we were okay with it and know that she is a single mother. I could see this becoming a problem if she were to bring him in every week, or if more people in the office started bringing in their children. I feel the same way with a pet. Cute once in a while, but ultimately a distraction for workers who choose not to have children or pets, and don’t want to deal with them in an office setting.

        1. Julia the Survivor*

          I’ve met many very nice pit bulls. Apparently it all depends on how they were raised/treated.
          Dogs have been trendy where I live for several years now. All the yuppies and hipsters have dogs (at least it seems like it). I’ve seen dogs in grocery stores a few times recently. I thought that was against the law? Also what about customers or staff who are allergic?
          I work in a hospital and we have therapy dogs! I see them and their handlers coming and going.

          1. Argh!*

            Breeding can affect temperament, just like human DNA can affect personality traits & mental illness. So it’s not 100% training.

            1. Julia the Survivor*

              All I know is, I’ve met several pit bulls and most were very nice, respectful and friendly. One or two were ok, not friendly but not threatening.

            2. KellyK*

              Sure, but that has much more to do with dog aggression than aggression toward people. It’s dog aggression, not human aggression, that pit bulls have been bred for. If anything, the people who breed pit bulls specifically as fighting dogs select *against* aggression toward humans, because the last thing they want is for the animals they’re horribly abusing to turn on them.

              The primary issue with pit bulls in a lot of cases is that it’s a popular breed with people who want a dog that looks tough to stick on a chain in the back yard and not really socialize them, and dogs who live like that tend to become aggressive. (I’d be pissy too if I were outside on a chain all day.) I haven’t been able to find a source for it today, but I seem to recall reading that in Alaska, the majority of dog bites are by sled dog breeds, for similar reasons.

    3. Natalie*

      I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that allowing the dog was some specific perk granted to OP? They describe the office as dog-friendly and only asked management about their dog specifically because it was large.

        1. JayneCobb*

          Does the fact that the office is upfront about being dog-friendly change anything about how the manager should respond to the anonymous complaint? It seems like if they let people know upon hiring that dogs are a thing, then that person loses a bit of standing to anonymously get rid of the perk for everyone else later on for no apparent reason.

          3. KHB*

            It sounds like the office is upfront about being small-dog friendly, and the complaints have centered on the fact that OP’s dog is not a small dog. So they’re not trying to get rid of the perk for “everyone else” (and it’s not “for no apparent reason”) – they’re taking issue with the exception that OP was granted.

            1. Luna*

              I don’t think the OP was granted an exception, it sounded like OP was asking to be polite and confirm that the policy applied to all dogs, big and small.

              1. KHB*

                …which means that the OP had reason to think the policy might not apply to dogs the size of hers. Which means her dog-averse coworkers might reasonably have been under the same impression.

          4. LCL*

            It doesn’t change how the manager should respond to the anonymous complaint. Managers shouldn’t respond to anonymous complaints of this nature, period. Allowing complaints of this type to drive work policies is wrong.

          5. JM60*

            Even if they were upfront about being a dog friendly workplace, an employer shouldn’t put someone in a position where they have to choose between being employed and being healthy (with very few exceptions). For some people with allergies, the presence of dogs can be a health issue.

            1. Elspeth*

              We don’t know how long the policy was in place prior to LW working there, though. And presumably, if there were allergies (none of the complaints were about allergies), the affected person should have contacted HR about an accomodation. It’s also not clear whether or not all dogs are now banned from the office, or just LW’s dog.

              1. JM60*

                “And presumably, if there were allergies (none of the complaints were about allergies), the affected person should have contacted HR about an accomodation.”

                It sounds like they may have request accommodation, but anonymously. Given how many people on this thread are basically saying that someone with dog allergies shouldn’t have taken a job there, I think it’s very understandable that they would want to request the accommodation through an anonymous complaint rather than identify themselves as the one needing the accommodation.

                Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if the OP’s employer is too small to have an HR department. In my experience, most dog-friendly businesses are small, which makes sense given that the larger the company is, the much greater odds that dogs in the workplace would cause problems for some. You’re usually not going to have a 100% acceptance rate for a pets at work and 0% of employees with allergy issues unless you don’t have many employees.

                2. JM60*

                  @Elspeth

                  In cases where you fear retaliation, it makes sense to at least give the anonymous complaint a try before trying a make an official, legally-protected, request for accommodation. That’s what I would do in a case like this where fear of retaliation is very reasonable.

          6. KellyK*

            I think it does, but it probably depends on a lot of factors that we can’t know. Did the person complaining know about the policy when they were hired, or were they there before the office became dog-friendly? Did they disclose their phobia and get some reassurances that it wouldn’t be an issue, that later turned out not to be the case? Or did they get attacked by a dog after being hired and the phobia is a new thing?

            (Being scared of large dogs isn’t “no apparent reason,” though.)

      2. Say what, now?*

        That’s also how I read it. I think the misunderstanding is coming from the fact that the Manager was mentioned to have specifically talked to the OP about their dog, but there’s nothing to suggest that the Manager didn’t have this one-on-one with multiple people. I would do it one-on-one myself because this would probably be heart-breaking to hear.

    4. I Love Thrawn*

      I like dogs, LOVE my cats, but I believe offices should be pet free. It solves so many problems before they even get started.

    5. hbc*

      So I agree that there’s a difference between enthusiastic welcoming and grudging allowance, but I think you’re taking it way too far. Being all “Oh, I miss your doggy” while dropping a complaint in the box is pretty messed up.

      I realize that people are worried about Crazy Pet Owners hyperventilating because not everyone loves their pets, but you are far, far better off being known as the person who’s a little standoffish than the person who says one thing but feels and does the opposite.

      1. Alice*

        I agree. Between “I hate dogs!” and “Fido’s so cute!” there is plenty of space. Or just change the subject. But don’t lie about it.
        A to B: “I’m going to eat lunch in our shared workspace. If the smell annoys you, let me know and I will move.”
        B to A: “That’s fine, it smells good.”
        B, anonymously, to manager: “Make A quit it with smelly food at her desk!”

        1. Lissa*

          Yeah, I don’t like kids or dogs and I don’t yell “I hate children and puppies!” but I don’t act more than indifferent, to be honest. I also probably wouldn’t apply in an office if I knew there were likely to be dogs there. Or kids. Me pretending to like them would be pretty ridiculous!

  10. stefanielaine*

    I’m not objective because I’m allergic to and terrified of dogs, but I have found that there’s often a difference between how “sweet, well-trained, and friendly” a dog’s owner thinks the dog is vs. reality. I have many dog-owning friends who describe their dogs as well-behaved, but when I go to their houses the dogs jump up on me, lick me, bark at me, and it makes me dread visiting these friends. The friends are so accustomed to what they consider to be normal dog behavior that don’t even notice. Just a thought, OP – maybe your dog is more disruptive than you think?

    I really, really empathize with the person who left an anonymous note. No one wants to be known as the reason Sally can’t bring her dog anymore. How many stories have we seen here where a person is singled out as the person who complained about something because people get mad that they can’t do that thing anymore? A lot! There’s a good chance the complainer’s work life would get worse. Please, I beg of you, do not try to find out who wrote the note. It’s real, and there’s a reason the person doesn’t want to be known.

      1. Hills to Die on*

        I don’t think it is the perfect comment, because of one key fact: the more writer works at an office with a culture of bringing dogs in. If there was a Behavior issue then that should be addressed and the op should have a chance to correct it. If dogs are a problem for someone, they should not work in an office where dogs are allowed.

        1. chocolate lover*

          It sounds like the office is friendly to small dogs, and the OP is bringing in a larger dog. Dog size can be a differentiating factor for someone’s fear and anxiety. Maybe the coworker was told only small dogs came in to the office.

          1. Fiennes*

            There’s nothing in the letter saying the policy only welcomes small dogs. LW says only that hers is larger than others in the office, but that may be pure coincidence, not an exception to policy.

      2. Jules the 3rd*

        Standard poodles (and greyhounds) are the dog breeds Least Likely to jump up. Standards are very smart, eager to please, and relatively easy to train.

        While your comment is absolutely true sometimes, and I totally understand why the note was anonymous and sympathize with the complainer, I am going to trust the letterwriter about her assessment of her dog’s behavior, because:
        1) the rules of the AAM site ask that we believe the letterwriters
        2) the temperament of her dog’s breed supports it and
        3) the anonymous notes themselves don’t claim the dog is behaving badly

    2. Don't Blame Me*

      I agree. I am wary of larger dogs, especially German Shepherds, because my grandparents owned one who tried to attack me twice and I would have been injured if it weren’t for the quick thinking of other people each time. Also, I just don’t like dogs that much. Sure they have lots of great qualities, but I hate slobber. I hate dog smell. I would really just rather not be around them. I can be adequately nice to a dog if a friend has one, even willingly petting and scratching it, because I’m not a monster, but if you asked me I would rather just not have to deal with a dog, ever.

      Maybe the OP can invest in a nice doggy day care or a dog walker so that the dog isn’t completely alone while they are at work.

      1. The Original Flavored K*

        Doggy day care costs as much or almost as much as human day care — I was paying four hundred a month when I sent my dog to daycare, and that was an outdoor, on-the-gravel, not-particularly-nice place. It priced me out of a great job that I actually really loved in the only part of the Southeastern US I didn’t want to set on fire.

        But sure, let’s just blithely suggest that a total stranger take on a serious new financial obligation! That’ll work PERFECTLY.

        1. Snark*

          Seconded. Let’s not forget that the anonymous complainer is making a huge ask here. Even a dog walker is not cheap.

          1. Penny Lane*

            Saying that a dogwalker is not cheap is irrelevant, though. I don’t get to bring my infant into the operating room or judge’s chambers because daycare is not cheap. It’s generally assumed that someone who brings a child into this world understands that there is a need to pay for care for that child while the parent(s) are at work. I don’t see why it’s any different for someone who decides to own a dog.

            1. Snark*

              As I and many others have pointed out, that expense was essentially made part of OP’s compensation. Those expenses were effectively covered by the employer. If OP were granted any given perk with monetary value, whether it be free childcare or dog-friendliness or a bus pass or a gym membership, and that was revoked and they were forced to spend actual money to access the same service, the argument would be the same .

            2. Lissa*

              Well but I think it would be reasonable to be upset if your work offered a perk that meant you didn’t have to pay for childcare, either by bringing in the child or having free on-site care and then it was removed, yes? It would be a sudden unexpected expense. Maybe unavoidable but I don’t think it’s realistic to think the LW should just say “well, them’s the breaks!” either.

            3. Natalie*

              But this office was explicitly dog friendly before the OP started working there. I’m not sure why you keep ignoring that.

            4. Alexandra Hamilton*

              ^^ amen. OP already had a dog when she took this job and presumably figured out a way to meet the dog’s needs before. It isn’t a big surprise.

            6. Pet sitter*

              Hi, I’m a dog walker. I imagine I would have many more customers if my price were irrelevant!

              If taking a baby to work were normal in your workplace, and that was part of why you decided to take the job, it would be very understandable for the loss of that perk to make you reconsider some things.

            7. LBK*

              For those objecting to Penny Lane’s comment, I feel like you’re missing this part at the top of the thread: “But sure, let’s just blithely suggest that a total stranger take on a serious new financial obligation! That’ll work PERFECTLY.”

              The point is that you already committed to caring for your dog – regardless of your job circumstances – when you decided to adopt them. If you aren’t prepared for that possibility, don’t adopt a dog. That doesn’t mean the OP isn’t entitled to be annoyed about losing this perk, but it’s not an absurd idea that she may have to spend money to care for the living creature she adopted.

              If the dog got sick and the vet said it needed surgery, would you say “Wow, how dare you blithely suggest that I take on a serious new financial obligation!” No, because that’s insane – you agreed to pay for those kinds of expenses when you got the dog, whether it’s what you were expecting at that moment in your life or not. Circumstances change and you don’t have to like it but you can’t be offended by it either.

              1. Miles*

                If OP were writing in about the on-site daycare for her kids being closed down it’d be rude and incorrect to say that the price of replacement daycare is irrelevant and shouldn’t be discussed because she is obliged to take care of her child. OP has several options here besides doggy day care and the price of doggy day care relative to other options is relevant to which one she chooses.

                1. JessaB*

                  Particularly since this job may have paid less than other jobs and she can’t afford an expense she was told when hired she would not have to take on. Same with elder care, child care, gym memberships, free food in the company canteen. Many times these jobs don’t pay as much as others because they count things like “you don’t have to pay for food to eat at work, so you buy less groceries, you don’t have to pay for childcare, so you spend less,” in their compensation plans.

                  Whilst OP may have been able to afford dog care in prior jobs, OP may have taken a small pay cut to get a job where they didn’t have to pay to care for the dog. Now they’re going to have to pay for the dog and I guarantee their salary will not go up for the lost perk. No matter what the perk is, that never happens when it’s gone.

                2. LBK*

                  If OP were writing in about the on-site daycare for her kids being closed down it’d be rude and incorrect to say that the price of replacement daycare is irrelevant and shouldn’t be discussed because she is obliged to take care of her child.

                  Frankly I disagree. But it’s not that the price is irrelevant, it’s that you should be really cautious about taking on the responsibility of caring for another living being if you aren’t financially secure enough to cover emergencies/sudden changes in circumstances. My whole point is that I understand that doggy daycare is expensive – so don’t get a dog if you’re too poor to pay for anything but basic daily necessities, because things happen and you’re financially responsible for taking care of that animal.

                  I think a lot of this is driven by my frustration with people who only consider everyday costs like food when adopting a pet and then panic when suddenly they get a huge hospital bill or something else like this happens. I think it’s unfair to the animal to commit to taking care of them when you don’t actually have the means to fully follow through on that commitment.

                  And I’ll say again that none of this is to say that the OP has no right to be frustrated about the rule changing when it’s part of the reason she took the job. I completely, 100% agree (see my own similar situation below where I got kicked out of an apartment for having a cat after being told pets were allowed). My sole point is that I don’t think you have a right as a pet owner to be aghast at the idea that you might have to spend a lot of money to take care of them. You should know that when you adopt.

              2. DMR*

                OP stated she took this job because it was dog friendly and otherwise the logistics wouldn’t have worked for her.

                I work about ten minutes from home – I go home at lunch and walk my dog. The OP could have been in a similar situation. She was assured she could bring her dog when she took this job and now being told otherwise may rightfully a significant issue for her.

        2. fposte*

          It works for a lot of people, though; it’s not like Don’t suggested buying the building next door or hiring a team of servants.

          1. K.*

            Yeah, I remember my best friend telling me that she was happy her child care costs went down to $1000 a month (and this was before they’d had their second child) when she moved to a city with a lower COL.

              1. Zombeyonce*

                Mine is more than my mortgage! And the discount we get when the kid hits milestone ages is eaten up by the yearly increases.

        4. Pet Friend*

          What about costs to the people at the office who are allergic or afraid? What if they need allergy shots or new meds and doctor’s appointments? What if someone who is afraid has to go to therapy? Why does this dog who is not employed trump the employees? I’m sorry if you have a dog then you need to be prepared for the extra costs that could come. OP could maybe ask for a little reimbursement to help with these costs but framing it as a “WHY DO I HAVE TO SPEND MONEY!!!!” as opposed to be considerate of allergies and fears is going to reflect poorly on OP. It’s very self absorbed. We are not saying OP has to go broke because of a bunch of cry babies. We are saying the manager has addressed this. It is reality. OP is going to have to accommodate somehow whether they find a new job that lets their dog come in or plans like many other pet owners to have care provided while the owner is a work.
          These comments kind of exist in a dream world. OP can push back but to back themselves into a corner over this will reflect poorly on them. It just will. If a manager tells you something – you do it. You respect your coworkers allergies and fears and don’t whine about money.
          If the dog is a make or break situation OP can tell manager that this was a big reason they took the job and now they have to reevaluate that decision. Management is more in their rights to say tough cookies – good luck on the job search. Just because OP is upset doesn’t mean they get to overrule everyone else.

          1. Snark*

            You’re not wrong, but you’re being overly hardass. Just because the complainer is afraid and has allergies doesn’t mean THEY get to overrule everyone else, by the very same logic you’re applying. The notional expenses of the d0g-phobic are just that – notional. And giving someone a perk, letting them make budget and career decisions based on that, and then yanking it because of an anonymous complaint – yeah, she’s entitled to be upset.

            1. Snark*

              And frankly, if you need therapy to deal with a dog at work, you should not be at a dog-friendly office.

            2. Hills to Die on*

              That’s the key point for me. One anonymous note and the company culture does a major change for just the OP? I think the manager made the wrong decision. It merits further investigation and looking for solutions.

              1. Alli525*

                This was exactly my concern as well. I understand the complainer not wanting to discuss this directly with OP, but it should have been brought to a manager so OP could have a discussion about alternatives before issuing the ban. For all we know the complainer could be lying and not afraid of dogs at all, but has a vendetta against OP and knows her weak spot.

              2. Rusty Shackelford*

                There were actually three complaints – two said the dog was “too big,” and then the one note from someone afraid of dogs. Now, for all we know they came from the same person, but it could be as many as three people complaining about the dog.

                1. Hills to Die on*

                  Good point – I missed that originally. I wonder if it’s the same person though. Dog is too big is an odd thing to say. Big dog related things like Dog tail knocks my stuff over, dogs rear end sticks out of OP’s cube, dog sounds like a horse walking down the hall—something more specific would make it seems like a real complaint but maybe I’m just biased because I have a 90-pound dog myself.

                2. bonkerballs*

                  @Hill to Die, it’s possible the note did include those things but either OP or the manger who spoke to OP is summing that up as “dog is too big.” We are hearing about the note…what is it, fourth hand? So it’s hard to know exactly what the issue is.

          2. The Original Flavored K*

            Or maybe they shouldn’t work in an office that is openly dog-friendly. If dogs are welcome as a perk that applies to everyone, then it’s unfair to say that one specific person needs to take on an extra cost. If “dogs are welcome in this office, except for YOUR dog because it’s too big even though I cleared this months ago,” then it’s reasonable to say, “okay, cool, can I get an increase or some assistance with daycare/dog-walking bills?”

            For that matter, way to read my comment in bad faith — I didn’t say that the LW should approach this as “WHY SHOULD I PAY MONEY?!?!” All I did was point out that dog daycare is expensive and using it priced me out of an area, forcing me to quit a great job. (Even better, I’m currently on hold with my vet to euthanize said dog. I might be a little touchy.)

            1. chocolate lover*

              It’s not at all unusual for even dog-friendly or other pet-friendly businesses to have restrictions on the size of the animals, or the behavior. Just like some housing complexes and communities limit the size of pets people can have. If the OPs larger dog is an exception, not the rule, the coworker may not have anticipated it. And I wonder if the manager checked in with any people on how they’d feel about providing that option for OPs larger dog? Maybe they didn’t anticipate that size would affect someone’s fear and anxiety.

              1. Pet sitter*

                FWIW, a standard poodle weighs 45-70 pounds. They’re smaller than golden retrievers and labrador retrievers (just picked those because most people are familiar with those breeds).

            3. LBK*

              Honestly, even with your follow up here I’m still of the opinion that this is the responsibility you take on when you get a pet and it’s no one’s problem but your own. Sometimes having a pet is going to create inconveniences in your life – I got evicted from an apartment because the realtor failed to mention that pets weren’t allowed and I didn’t find out until after I’d moved in and one of my neighbors told my landlord that I had a cat. That absolutely sucked, but it’s part of the deal I accepted when I adopted her. I’m the one who accepted that having a pet would factor in to my living situation or, in this case, the OP’s work situation.

              (That all being said, I am very, very sorry to hear about your dog.)

              1. JessaB*

                Yes but if you’d asked specifically of the rental agent personally and they said “cats okay, indoor only.” And you moved in and rented and two months later they said “sorry we changed our mind no cats,” and you have to spend again, and move and spend more in rent etc. That’s not reasonable to you. In your case you did your best to ask. Personally, I’d make a case against the realtor for the second moving costs and any additional deposit because they’re costing you money and you might actually win that one in small claims. You moved based on a specific claim. That’s vital. And since pet ownership vs apartment rules is a big deal it’s on the realtor to know this stuff FOR SURE.

                And I think you were badly done however it comes out. But when you decided to move, you were legit told the cat was okay, if they’d said no cats, you would have moved somewhere else. Same with taking a job.

                1. LBK*

                  I did go after the realtor and we ultimately came to an informal settlement (didn’t get to the point of going to court because they came up with an offer I found acceptable). My point is that it was on me as a cat owner to know that in choosing to adopt a pet, I was set myself up to potentially have to navigate difficult situations like that because the cat takes priority – in theory, I could have just gotten rid of the cat and all would’ve been well, but I obviously in reality I couldn’t do that.

                  When I adopted my cat, I was prepared for the consequences, knowing that pet policies for housing are a big deal and that having a cat could affect my living situation. Obviously it sucked being bait-and-switched and I did think the realtor owed me something for putting me in that situation, but ultimately it was my responsibility to come up with a solution to the problem that would allow me to fulfill my duty as a pet owner, ie find another place to live that did allow cats. I don’t see this as any different than having to pay for surgery when your pet is sick – sometimes things happen that are out of your control and you have to be prepared to do what’s necessary to get through them.

            4. I'd Rather not Say*

              All this negativity towards dogs is making me sad. I consider myself a reasonable and responsible owner, and am just as annoyed by the irresponsible ones who give the rest of us a bad name. Mine are always leashed in public (no flexi/extended leashes for us), we step well off to the side when walking to let others pass, and I only let them meet people if the people ask. They’re gated to another room or outside if there are workers, or people are visiting who don’t like dogs. For the record, they’re around 45 pounds each and I do send the younger one to day camp.

              I don’t get to bring them to work but if this was allowed, I’d keep them confined to my office, bring them in and out the side door, and generally no one would even know they’re there. If they were disruptive, I wouldn’t bring them.

              What would happen if a person with an eating disorder had problems with the free food? Would it be ok to take that perk away because of an anonymous complaint?

              What jumps out at me is the lack of trying to meet in the middle. In the circumstances of this letter, I’d probably be looking for a new job because I’d be resentful of the anonymous complainer (and management) who didn’t respect my professionalism and maturity enough to try to come up with a solution that wasn’t so one sided.

            5. Julia the Survivor*

              I’m so sorry Flavored K! My favorite cat died of old age last April. I know how it is.

          3. Plague of frogs*

            Well, but the office was advertised as dog-friendly. I hope that the complainer was notified of this before they started their job (although I know from past letters that it’s possible they weren’t notified at all, which would be terrible). They chose the job anyway, and now are complaining.

            OP should be upset–this change is taking a perk away from her. It would be like taking away her unlimited vacation. And it’s worse, because it sounds like the change is only being applied to her, which is extremely unfair.

              1. JessaB*

                Yeh, I really hate companies where they refuse or neglect to disclose things that are material to whether or not someone would self select out. This is true of pet policies, travel requirements, etc. How many letters does Alison get about “but they said minimal travel and I’m out two days a week, that’s not minimum.”

                1. KellyK*

                  YES. Being up front about what the job requires and what it’s like to work there is really, really basic. If things have to change, they have to change, but at least be honest from the start.

        5. Thursday Next*

          The real substance of the comment by Don’t is about a discomfort around dogs, including fear related to two near attacks in childhood. The suggestions about coping with dog care were secondary to this main point.

          TOFK, the fact that you jumped all over the suggestions for dog walkers or dog day care while ignoring the objections to dogs in the workplace might give us all some insight into why the complaint was made anonymously in the OP’s workplace.

          1. Pet Friend*

            I totally agree! The anonymous system is making sense. I feel like if I was in the OP’s coworker’s shoes I would utilize the anonymous complaint over potentially tanking a professional work relationship with the dog’s owner. They could be totally understanding but I feel like on the other end of the spectrum this could easily start an almost blood feud between the pro OP’s dog camp and the ones who asked for help dealing with medical conditions. The manager has handled it and now OP has to figure out what to do next.

            1. Luna*

              What medical conditions? There was nothing in the letter about allergies, and simply not liking or being afraid of something is not a medical condition. If the complainer had a serious phobia they likely would have complained right away and not waited several months. The complainer is being selfish and childish, by complaining anonymously they are ensuring there is no room for compromise, and now OP’s work life is worse (not just because she can’t bring her dog, but now she also has to constantly wonder which coworker is complaining about her behind her back).

              1. Pollygrammer*

                It also only takes a moment of irritation to file an anonymous complaint. And if it’s anonymous, it has to be a flat “dog shouldn’t be here at all” when if there’s a solution-oriented discussion it could turn into “could I be on a different floor from dog?”

              2. Zombeyonce*

                It’s also possible that the anonymous complainer was being adult and tried dealing with their phobia before making the complaint but found it was just too difficult and making their life too hard. We’re all just speculating here.

        6. biobottt*

          Well, what would the OP do if their work didn’t allow dogs? It’s a rare enough situation that even if they left this job, it might be very hard, if not impossible, to find another job that lets them bring their dog in. They have to have some kind of alternative solution.

          Did you really get a pet without thinking through how they would be cared for?

          1. Snark*

            “Well, what would the OP do if their work didn’t allow dogs?”

            As she specifically stated, she probably wouldn’t have taken this particular job, with its 45 minute commute.

            1. LBK*

              I get that, but she also could get laid off tomorrow, or the company could just cancel the policy outright unrelated to her situation, or any number of things could happen. It sucks to lose this perk, for sure, but I think it was partly her responsibility to have a contingency plan as a pet owner.

              1. Snark*

                I’m sure she does have a contingency plan. That doesn’t mean she’s obligated to like having to fall back on it.

                1. Hills to Die on*

                  Or that she should have to go to plan B at all. There are so many middle ground solutions that have been discussed here—I’m annoyed at the boss for not even trying to come up with one of them.

                2. KellyK*

                  Exactly. It’s totally reasonable to be upset by a bait and switch, even if it wasn’t a deliberate bait and switch.

                  People should have contingency things for all kinds of things. But if the job you were offered isn’t the job you end up working, you’re going to be a bit ticked off.

        7. LBK*

          The OP took on a serious new financial obligation when she adopted the dog. Dog-friendly offices are rare and, as we’ve seen in letters here, can come and go pretty easily; you shouldn’t rely on working at one when you decide to get a dog if you can’t afford and/or aren’t willing to change your plan for what to do with the dog while you’re at work if needed.

          1. Snark*

            But if she took this particular job and accepted the tradeoff of the long commute specifically because of the dog-friendly policy, and would have found a different job with less of a commute if that wasn’t in the cards, I still sympathize with feeling bait-and-switched even while acknowledging that your point is broadly true.

            1. LBK*

              I get that the bait-and-switch sucks, and it’s certainly worth exploring how the company is willing to meet her halfway on this with that in mind. I was specifically disagreeing with the idea that telling the OP she might have to suck it up and pay for a dog walker or doggy daycare is “blithely suggest[ing] that a total stranger take on a serious new financial obligation” – adopting a dog without making sure you can afford to pay for those expenses in the first place if needed would be “blithely taking on a serious new financial obligation.”

              I think my point is just that the OP shouldn’t have been relying on this perk as her permanent dog care plan (and to be clear, I don’t get the sense from the letter that she is, more just that she’s bummed out she might have to go that route). It’s not outrageous to suggest that she might have to take on an expense that she implicitly agreed to when she decided to take on the responsibility of caring for a living being.

              1. TootsNYC*

                I don’t think she was relying on this perk as a permanent plan.

                And she’s entitled to be bummed.

                But I think people who are objecting to the “just get a dogwalker/daycare” are objecting to the dismissive TONE of the advice.

                1. LBK*

                  And I’m objecting to the tone of the person who acted as though it was an insane idea to expect a dog owner to pay to have that dog taken care of. That’s it, I was only responding specifically to The Original Flavored K’s comment.

        8. Unsympathetic ToPetParents*

          And yet mothers who struggle with daycare are told to just suck it up because this was a life choice that they made. And somehow, ‘pet parents’ should get empathy for how darn expensive doggy day care is. That is probably true, but no one forced the OP to get a dog in the first place. Dogs are not a necessity of life, and as such, there will be extraneous financial obligations that come with ownership.

          2. TootsNYC*

            I worked at a place with an onsite daycare.

            That was a HUGE factor in my choice to take a job there.

            If they had announced one day that they were closing the daycare (at one point, during a sale of the company, that was an option), I would have been looking immediately.

            Actually, I DID take a job and get out of there because I was afraid it was going to happen. And if I’d still been working there when they closed it precipitously, I’d have been mad.

            1. Julia the Survivor*

              A good company would not precipitously close daycare. They would announce that it’s closing in, say, 6 months, to give people time to make arrangements.
              In a perfect world there would always be daycare…

          3. Goya de la Mancha*

            “Dogs are not a necessity of life, and as such, there will be extraneous financial obligations that come with ownership.” – one might also replace Dogs, with Kids….

            I think the empathy is being extended because the perk was available at decision time and not it’s not. Most parents dealing with childcare issues don’t have child care perks at work in the first place to be taken away from them.

          4. Lissa*

            You really think that if this were a place with free on-site childcare that was suddenly taken away because someone didn’t like kids, people wouldn’t be sympathetic to the LW? I think the comments would skew even more pro-LW if that were the case.

        1. JessaB*

          Not if you took a job specifically to not have to pay that and possibly took a pay hit, or an added expense in travel to get that perk. You may have had to pay that in the past when you were making x but if you are making x-whatever now, that’s not necessarily reasonable.

    3. WeevilWobble*

      The note didn’t suggest the dog was disruptive. Nor are poodles generally.

      And grown ups should act like grown ups and own their complaints. Yes, sometimes being an adult means difficult conversations. I have zero respect for doing this anonymously. I think it should be ignored unless they come forward.

      1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

        I don’t think the anonymity of the complaint matters in this situation. The OP’s boss is taking it seriously; that makes it something the OP needs to take seriously.

        1. Alli525*

          I think anonymity does matter, actually; they didn’t have to raise their concerns directly with OP, but with a supervisor instead, who could manage an anonymous negotiation about alternatives.

          1. Jules the 3rd*

            If you read the linked article and update, you might understand why so many of us are supportive of the anonymous note. Sure, face to face is better, but sometimes the risks of face to face are too high.

          2. bonkerballs*

            I think it doesn’t matter because according to OP, anonymous communication is a company sanctioned thing. The complaint came through the comany’s own official anonymous box. You can’t really fault someone for using the systems the company itself has set up.

        2. Julia the Survivor*

          To me it seems weird to have an anonymous complaint box. I’m not sure I would be comfortable with that.
          I’ve seen complaints handled by the person going to the manager, and the manager working it out…
          An anonymous complaint box seems to bring back the middle-school dynamic of “so-and-so said this about you”… and I would be very uncomfortable with that!

      3. 5 Leaf Clover*

        To understand why someone might do this anonymously, definitely read the “person who ruined dogs in the office” update linked to in Allison’s original post!

        1. Tuxedo Cat*

          One of my friends wanted to bring her dog to our small open office. Our boss, who is well-intentioned but clueless, okayed it. I told my friend she should probably ask because some people have allergies or are afraid; our boss had okayed things in the past that later turned out to be problematic.

          Some other woman butted in and look like I was devil for suggesting that a dog in the office might not be a great thing.

        2. BeautifulVoid*

          Heck, some of the comments in this thread alone make a very strong case for this person complaining anonymously, whether it was the posters’ intent or not. :-\

      4. Pet Friend*

        If you look again it says there were multiple complaints – not just one. Enough that the manager came to talk to her about this. I don’t think she should ignore this as it has already been brought up by her manager. I am siding with an anonymous system since many of these comments make me feel like the people who don’t want the dog there would be alienated or suffer because they decided to speak up. They followed the course of reporting they had and the manager raised it to her. If she pushes back and says she will not comply unless these specific people who complained come forward….I think management will be rethinking how good of a fit OP is for this office.
        There are many good perks she can enjoy but she is just focused on this one. I’m sorry but if someone is allergic or afraid then I think OP should look to dog sitting or a dog walker – this is what many many people already have to do.
        And poodles can be disruptive – all dogs can. Poor training or overstimulation or new environments etc….can all lend to it. I know this wasn’t a reason from reading the letter but I want to correct that generalization. No one should assume anything about a dog that isn’t theirs.

        1. Pet Friend*

          I don’t know if OP is a she and did use that pronoun – I can’t edit but I would change the “hers” and “shes” to neutral ones. My apologies OP.

          1. Rick*

            Ask a Manager editing guidelines are to refer to people using female pronouns if the gender is unknown.

        2. Lil Fidget*

          This is one other drawback of anonymous complaints. Without any other evidence to the contrary, I’d hold it at least 50/50 that the same person complained multiple times, versus many people complained. You can’t know.

          That’s why if many people really are unhappy with the situation, it’s must better to appear in a group and make your case openly.

      5. Turquoisecow*

        Breed specific behavior statements are useless. If a poodle is treated badly, it can absolutely be as vicious as any other dog. And if a pit bull is treated kindly, it can be as gentle as any other dog.

        Anonymous complaints are useful for many reasons, and should be addressed like any other complaint.

        1. TGIF*

          THIS. My aunt and uncle owned a poodle who was very jumpy. He wasn’t a biter, wasn’t trying to hurt you, but he jumped in excitement. I didn’t mind it since I love dogs but I know a ton of people who would hate it.

          Blame the deed, not the breed. And it works the opposite way too. Just because a breed is known for something does not mean every single dog is that way.

          1. Kittyfish 76*

            Someone in my neighborhood has 2 standard poodles, which are, surprisingly, NOT friendly dogs.

            1. Elizabeth West*

              And someone in mine has a pittie that was very excited to come across the street just to lick me and get pets.
              (I said “Hi puppy!” and was completely amenable to this; he had her under control. She was a very good girl.)

            2. KellyK*

              Someone in my neighborhood had a downright vicious golden retriever. He ran out into the road to bark and growl at us several times. When I got a pit bull, I stopped walking my dogs on that road at all, because I knew darn well that if there was a fight, no one would ever believe that the golden started it.

      6. Liz T*

        The office literally has a box for anonymous complaints. Currently that’s acceptable in this office.

      7. Observer*

        There is a reason for anonymous complaint boxes. And, while the OP clearly doesn’t mean it this way, their reaction helps explain why people use them. The OP want to try to come up with an “alternative solution” when it seems fairly obvious that there is not likely to be one, but as frustrating as that would be anyone who complained, that would be understandable. But, the OP is also failing to realize that the dog apparently is presenting a larger problem that they think – there have been several complaints, which indicates that more than one person is not happy about the matter. That should be a wake up moment, where the OP thinks about what’s really happening here. *AND* the OP essentially wants to pressure the coworker who is afraid of the dog into accepting its presence. I’m sure the OP doesn’t mean it that way, “I’ll make it a point to keep the dog away from Chris” as a solution is in this case almost certainly NOT a solution. But it will make Chris look bad and will open them to pressure and arguments that they should not need to deal with.

        1. Lil Fidget*

          As stated, if the complaints are truly anonymous we can’t know how many people complained, and it could be just one person complaining multiple times.

          2. Penny Lane*

            We are supposed to take LWs at their word, and that includes their description of the situation. It’s reasonable to assume the manager is correctly stating that there have been several different anonymous complaints. Presumably the manager knows how to tell whether notes have been written by different people.

      9. Starbuck*

        There are people who consider their dogs equivalent to children. Regardless I’d assume a big emotional investment. No way would I attach my name to a complaint like that.

      10. Julia the Survivor*

        Having the anonymous complaint box in the first place encourages anonymity.
        That seems weird to me. I’ve never worked in a place that had that, and I think it would make me a little uncomfortable. Sort of middle-school “Jane said this about you” dynamic.

    4. Naptime Enthusiast*

      I love my dog to death and I would love to bring him to work with me, but even if that were my culture, I recognize that he is just not well behaved enough for a workplace. He enjoys attention too much and would welcome every single person walking by, which is just not OK. Friendly and gentle =/= well-behaved.

      Agreed about the anonymous note, don’t discount it just because someone did not want to attach their name to it. It doesn’t make it any less valid, especially because it was submitted to what sounds like a recognized “complaint box”. It is frustrating because you can’t discuss the issue with the person face-to-face and figure out if there’s a solution that works for both of you, but that doesn’t mean that you should ignore the request.

      1. Sugarbaker*

        As frustrating as the inability to discuss the issue, I could easily see myself being the anonymous requester of ‘no dogs please’ – I’ve been attacked by large dogs ( scarred), have at a former position witnessed the office dog (which was a large poodle) snap unexpectedly at a coworker. I wouldn’t want to be identified as the person who ruined dogs for everyone, and most importantly, I wouldn’t want to have a discussion as to how to manage my fears so we could have dogs. That’s the thing with feelings – I would rather quit than have a discussion with my coworkers in which my fears must be addressed because they are seen as a problem.

    5. Oxford Coma*

      Agreed. There often seems to be a reverse correlation between the effusiveness of the owner’s praise and the dog’s good behavior. The people with immaculately trained dogs (such as retired K9s and the life) tend to be more modest in describing the dog, because they understand that behavior is a spectrum affected by a variety of factors.

      2. Eye of Sauron*

        I would expect the LW to add in background to the letter to try and describe the situation. I didn’t get the feeling that they are one of the people who are saying “Good Fluffy” as Fluffy is peeing on your left shoe while chewing on the right one.

        ~signed a person who knows that her dog can be a brat and while generally has good manners has been known to lose all sense and act like a defiant 2 year old human.

      3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

        Except here, OP has other people corroborating their observations. OP may well have a gorgeously behaved dog, and it still may not be enough for someone who is afraid of or allergic to dogs.

        1. fposte*

          Yes, I think this is just an unfortunate juxtaposition, not anybody, human or canine, being badly behaved.

        2. Engineer Girl*

          It could be other dog owners corroborating the position. That could mean that they are judging it through a biased lens. Maybe the dog is good in relation to other dogs, but “friendly” means the dog stands up and seeks attention from anyone that walks by.
          There just isn’t enough information to make a true value judgement on the dogs behavior.
          Many are not going to say something if they are intimidated.

          1. fposte*

            Though alternatively I’m now wondering if another dog owner could have a problem with the OP’s dog. Many possibilities here.

        3. TL -*

          I’ll often smile and say polite things about someone’s dog if they’re fishing, or I’ll tell a dog they’re a good puppy, when in reality I’m thinking the dog is an ill-trained, ill-behaved brat who shouldn’t be in public.

          There are times when I will genuinely compliment a dog’s behavior but I’ve found a lot of people tend to take polite agreements as strong corroboration rather the lukewarm avoidance of unnecessary rudeness.

      4. NonprofitWhiz*

        Except we should take LW at their word and not project our own assumptions about dog behavior here.

    6. KR*

      I think too that non dog people and dog lovers have different ideas of what well behaved is. When my dog jumps up and gives me kisses and borks a few times at me I think it’s adorable and I love it. I can easily see how a non dog person would not like that kind of behavior. That being said, my old man is very polite, smart, and docile and he knows that type of behavior is okay to do in some situations but sometimes mom will tell him to stop doing it in certain situations (and he does), but not all dogs know the difference.

      1. Yorick*

        Right, but you have to tell him to stop. That means he’s already jumping on someone who didn’t want him to.

        1. KR*

          Nope, he doesn’t actually. He is too old to actually jump on a person, he just sort of jumps in place. I pay attention to his mood though and if I notice he’s pumped up I will keep him on a short leash or tell him to chill out before he potentially makes someone uncomfortable.

        2. Lorange*

          Just gonna emphasize Yorick’s brilliant comment: That means he’s ALREADY JUMPING on someone who DIDN’T WANT HIM TO.

          I’m not a dog person, and it would never occur to me to consider a dog who jumps up on me as “well-behaved.”

          1. KR*

            He doesn’t actually, but don’t worry he won’t take it personally.

            I think the word jump is misleading. He’s nearly 12 years old. So jumping is kind of hopping in place for him.

            Anyway I know his moods pretty well so when I see him getting excited he goes on a short leash, is told to chill out.

            1. fposte*

              I also think for people who aren’t comfortable with dogs jumping is pretty alarming in its own right. It’s a “What is this overexcited animal going to do?” alert.

              It’s kind of like the conversation we had a few weeks ago about cats. Animal behaviors makes sense and follow a logical structure if you know them, but that’s not a language all humans know.

          2. Mr. Rogers*

            So is that a failure of the dog or a failure of your knowledge about dogs? I honestly don’t think someone who doesn’t have dogs, doesn’t like dogs, and has most importantly never trained a dog gets to have much of an opinion on what “well-trained” means. (Which isn’t just you, it’s 90% of the very judgey people I’ve seen leaving comments to this effect.) Just say you don’t want to be around them and be done with it. Don’t try and make it seem like the owner is delusional because you don’t like or understand normal dog behavior outside of incredibly professional service animals. A dog is not a person, it doesn’t speak a English, it can’t be expected to follow rules of consent in the same way for physical contact.

            1. Penny Lane*

              “So is that a failure of the dog or a failure of your knowledge about dogs? I honestly don’t think someone who doesn’t have dogs, doesn’t like dogs, and has most importantly never trained a dog gets to have much of an opinion on what “well-trained” means.”

              Really? So people who don’t like dogs jumping on them aren’t entitled to say “that’s not a well-trained dog, if it’s jumping on me”? They simply have to stand back and take it?

              Why do you think everyone has to have knowledge about dogs? It’s as silly as saying that everyone has to have knowledge about knitting, or curling, or Game of Thrones, or baroque French music. Dogs may be your interest and hobby and that’s great, but why does Care and Training of Dogs in General have to be a knowledge area for other people?

            2. fposte*

              It’s a failure of the terminology that’s been applied. I’m a dog person. A dog who jumps up on people isn’t well-behaved. He’s not evil or mean, but that’s a significant behavioral error. “Well-behaved” is about the pup’s interaction with humans and occasionally other critters; a behavior can be natural and still not be well-behaved. An owner can be expected to understand that and to either train the dog accordingly, or restrain him appropriately and present the dog fairly, as thousands to millions of dog owners manage.

            3. Engineer Girl*

              I do not have a dog. My standard for a “well behaved dog” is a K9 or service animal. These dogs are specifically trained to be out in public.
              Am I wrong to have this as my standard? After all, many dogs can meet it. I have also seen non service dogs meet that standard.
              To call this “judgey” is a logical fallacy. You’re basically lobbing insults as a defense.
              You don’t get to define dog standards for a public area. The public gets to do that.

              1. A grad student*

                Yes, you are wrong to have this as your standard. It takes months/years of full-time training to get a dog to that standard, and most people just don’t have that time- and there are a lot of dogs who go through those programs and fail out specifically because they can’t meet that standard of behavior in public. I do my best with my dog, and expect other dog owners to be actively monitoring their dogs’ behavior, and correcting when they misbehave. I think the majority of dog owners do this, but not all. For many people, their dogs need to be in public some of the time- I live in an apartment, and therefore need to take my dog into a public area to use the bathroom, get exercise, etc. I think she is reasonably well-behaved, and frequently get comments to that effect, but she’s nowhere near a service animal. It’s unreasonable for you to expect me not to take her into public places because she might get overexcited and jump when someone has a treat for her.

                1. Penny Lane*

                  I’ve had dogs and I’ve trained my dogs (though certainly not to the level of service/therapy dogs). They were *not* allowed to jump on visitors to our house because well, that’s not a well-trained dog. I fully get that if they had, it would have been out of excitement and not meanness, but the whole point is that dog owners have to actively monitor their dogs’ behaviors precisely because — well, they’re dogs, and hence not humans in terms of understanding what is appropriate behavior. It doesn’t make them bad dogs, it just makes them — dogs.

                2. Engineer Girl*

                  Taking your dog out to pee is a whole level of different than having them in an office space. I take it your dog is on a leash when they are outside. That means you’re supposed to keep them under control. And that means no jumping.
                  If you are bringing your dog into a work area then they need to be trained. “I’m trying” isn’t good enough.
                  It’s like letting the kids eat at McDonald’s until they know how to behave properly in a nicer restaurant. Some kids never graduate. And it is unfair to impact the experience of others just because you can’t meet the standard.

          3. Penny Lane*

            This is a PERFECT example of the disconnect! Some people consider their dogs well-behaved if they respond to “hey, down, girl” without recognizing that the person being jumped on is very uncomfortable with that behavior.

            1. Pollygrammer*

              It’s very annoying to hear a dog owner praise their good! boy! for getting down off you when it’s told, after it’s gotten mud on your pants and freaked you out sufficiently.

              1. KR*

                While grating, please understabd the reasoning. If we don’t praise them when they do something we tell them to do, we risk them not following our commands the next time.

          4. A grad student*

            That’s not necessarily true… When I’m at the dog park, some of the dogs there jump on people. A lot of those dogs do so gingerly, and in a vacuum I might not care- but I amd the owner always tell the dog to stop, and generally they do. If a dog is allowed to jump on people, they’ll think it’s always okay and then might jump on someone who really can’t be jumped on. There are a lot of otherwise well-meaning dog owners who let their dogs jump on them because they love their dogs and have a terrible time figuring out why they can’t stop their dog from jumping on Grandma.

            My dog is a year old, so well young enough to jump all over creation. She kind of meerkats on to people sometimes- no actual weight, but is up on her hind legs with her front legs touching the person. A lot of people don’t mind, because she’s only 20 pounds and they can barely tell she’s on them, but we still tell her to stop because, again, dogs can’t distinguish well between when a behavior is and isn’t okay.

        3. krysb*

          Yes. I have three dogs, two Great Danes and a Great Pyrenees mix. They all weigh over 100 pounds. It is unacceptable for my dogs to jump on me (who loves them), so it’s way more unacceptable for them to jump on another person.

      2. kb*

        I think this is a really great point. I’m not afraid of dogs, but I am sort of dog-wary based on some bad experiences. I can and have gotten used to being around dogs doing dog things, but I still get uncomfortable when dogs are up in my business, even if I can tell it’s friendly. It can be kind of awkward to tell someone their dog is making you uncomfortable when they’re not being “bad dogs.” It makes you feel like a killjoy.

      3. Hrovitnir*

        I am sure your dog is lovely, but I take exception to “non dog people and dog lovers have different ideas of what well behaved is”. Dogs that are allowed to jump on (some) people and jump up and down in place when they meet people do not meet my threshold for well behaved. And I love dogs; I had three bully breeds, now am sadly down to one.

        I genuinely would love to meet your dog and totally am down for licks and other behaviour not appreciated by non-dog lovers. That doesn’t mean that my standard for appropriate behaviour in public drops to include whatever I’m OK with.

    7. legalchef*

      Yes, all this!

      Plus, there is “well behaved” and then there is “well behaved for that breed.” Some breeds of dogs are naturally more jumpy and barky than others, so even a well behaved dog of that breed might be too intense for some people.

      1. NonprofitWhiz*

        However, OP has an exceptionally trainable and well-behaved breed. We should take them at their word that their dog behaves appropriately in the office.

    8. AllyDar*

      I agree with Stefanielaine, and I’m a dog owner and I wish I could bring my dog to work. I’ve found (in public and in the workplace) that what one person thinks is well behaved can be anything but – this goes for dogs and children. The issue is that this policy no longer works and is a disruption, unfortunately.

    9. Det. Charles Boyle*

      I’m not allergic or terrified of dogs, but I have also found this to be true. Most pet owners (like most parents!) think their beloveds are much more lovable than the rest of us do. I have a friend who likes to say, “But my dog isn’t doing it maliciously!” But really, the dog’s intent doesn’t matter. I don’t like being jumped on or bitten or having my food licked or any of a number of things — whether it’s friendly or malicious doesn’t matter one bit to me. The outcome is the same.

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        “But my dog isn’t doing it maliciously!”

        I remember the dog owner insisting that their dog only lunged and snapped at people showing fear, so their coworkers needed to quit showing fear already.

        Our puppy didn’t eat my husbands insoles maliciously, either. I mean, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t malicious. Doesn’t make it okay.

    10. Snark*

      Your first point is good. A lot of dog owners just don’t register it, but as an owner of a fairly hyper, jumpy, slurpy little hyperbeast, I’m very aware that she’s not everybody’s cup of tea and I try to be sensitive to that by not introducing her to situations and people where that’d be a problem. Ultimately, I think dogs at work are problematic and this should not be a perk that’s offered.

      That said, given that some companies make the decision to allow people do this, I disagree that the anonymous complainer is entitled to anonymity. It’s possible there’s an accomodation or reasonable compromise that could be reached if the person were willing to have a discussion about that. But you can’t discuss ways forward with an anonymous complaint, and with the effect of forcing everyone’s hand in a way that feels one-sided to me. The potential for social fallout is real, but I think the complainant has to own it if they’re going to make this a thing. And, justified or not, they ARE the reason OP can’t bring her dog anymore, and OP will most likely have to spend money on a dog walker or sitter or otherwise sacrifice on their behalf – it’s a big ask to demand someone give up a perk that influenced their decision to take a job, and an ask that big really shouldn’t be anonymous even if it might be uncomfortable.

      1. Aurion*

        I feel like your second paragraph is a little unfair though. It’s more fraught at work than for regular social situations because people depend on their paycheques. One can elect to avoid a particular outing or friend group if they have a fallout with someone, but most people need their jobs and have to show up every day even if they become a pariah for being “the dog hater”. It’s not like the complainant has any idea what was OP’s ultimate motivation in taking this job; for all they know OP took the job for the unlimited vacation policy.

        1. Snark*

          You’re not wrong. In a sane and reasonable office, a person would not be a pariah for requesting that, but, sure, it does happen. I think the likelihood of that is decreased by being reasonable, open, and flexible about the complaint. The thing is, though, the anonymous complaint leaves no opening to explore a mutually agreeable solution – the employer basically has no choice but to leave OP holding the short end of the stick, and that strikes me as not equitable. If you’re bringing allergies or fears to a workplace where dogs have historically been allowed, I think you’ve tacitly agreed to at least try to compromise with those who do.

          Obviously none of that applies to workplaces where dogs haven’t been part of the terrain until one person negotiated a new perk, but that’s not the case here.

          1. Aurion*

            Sane and reasonable is really the bar we strive for, but that’s not something we can know across the internet unfortunately.

            I feel like ultimately it comes down to whether management is banning all dogs or this dog (and my interpretation is this dog). If the office has historically been dog-friendly but banning hasn’t been an issue until now, then something about OP’s dog is setting off the multiple complainants (only one of which is “I’m afraid of dogs”; the others are specific to the dog)–whether that’s because the dog is bigger than average, because it’s less behaved than the OP believes, or any of a multitude of reasons.

            If it wasn’t specific to this dog but a more general ban, then not only would it affect a larger number of workers (all the people who brought their dogs), but also you can call into question “but you knew coming in that this is a dog friendly workplace, whut?” But if OP’s dog is the only one affected, then I’m more inclined to believe the OP’s dog is unfortunately the outlier in expected behaviour.

            1. Snark*

              Except there’s also a third possibility, where the complainant is specifically taking issue with this dog’s size, which is particular to this dog but not behavioral. I’m disinclined to entertain the allergy complaints because it’s a poodle.

              1. Coughing over here*

                It’s entirely possible to be allergic to poodles, so discounting seems unreasonable to me.

                1. Snark*

                  It’s possible but significantly less likely than with other dog breeds – and presumably, the complaining coworker is exposed to non-poodles also present in the office, which is probably where the allergies are coming from. Occam’s shaving implement.

              2. Brittasaurus Rex*

                That’s not fair, though. There are people who suffer allergic reactions even to poodles.

              3. Aurion*

                I swear I’m not picking on you in particular or following you around, I just don’t have time to go through the entire comment thread today.

                If the issue is simply a poodle is larger than average, what is the actual problem underlying that complaint? I ask in complete seriousness because I have no idea. I assumed the issue was a behavioural one because I can’t picture what problems a large dog would pose in an office that a smaller one would not, assuming all else was equal and behaviour of both were up to standard. Is it blocking the hallway and thus not obeying fire code? Is it people get twitchy about larger dogs and don’t about smaller ones?

                I’ve never been to a dog friendly office (I first heard of the concept on AAM), so I assumed a de-factor requirement is that the dog, whatever size it is, must be squirrelled away and out of sight/out of the way, so if the OP has been bringing her poodle around I thought she would’ve been tucking her dog under her desk or somewhere that isn’t affecting others.

                1. Snark*

                  Someone might be more nervous around big dogs than smaller ones, speculatively – perhaps feeling squeezed in a hallway, or something?

                2. TootsNYC*

                  big dogs take up more space (offices can be crowded)
                  and some people are more afraid of big dogs (their teeth are closer to your face, and they are harder to fight back against)

                3. Natalie*

                  @ Snark, I think it’s just the larger size comes across as more threatening overall. As a kid I had a bad interaction with a friend’s dogs – they jumped on me and knocked me over, and while they were playful they stayed in the vicinity of my face for a bit which freaked me out. For years after that I was afraid of dogs but only ones that were big enough to reach my head unassisted.

                  On the flip side, I’ve certainly known a lot of people with small dogs that seem to think the dog’s small size means they’re off the hook on training it. And I have a friend with a huge dog (125 pounds) that has that thing trained to an inch of its life because its size alone scares people, even other dog people.

                4. Hrovitnir*

                  People absolutely get twitchy about large dogs over smaller ones, which is logical enough. I just happen to agree that in a dog-friendly office it sucks that could override your ability to have your dog their if their behaviour is (genuinely) good and they are out of the way.

                  My partner had his dog in his office for a while, in a crate; he was so quiet people would often be shocked if they saw him because they hadn’t realised he was there (sometimes for multiple visits). He was disinterested in strangers to the point where it was mildly awkward, so no jumping or sniffing when been taken out for walks. Still, someone complained anonymously, so that was the end of that. I’m sure he did look scary to a lot of people (American Bulldog), but he was literally sleeping in a cage not paying any attention to anyone.

                5. Pet sitter*

                  Standard poodles aren’t huge. I feel like people in this thread are imagining a curly-haired Bernese Mountain Dog.

                  I don’t know what drove the person’s complaint, but I could imagine that someone with a phobia might be less uncomfortable with small dogs – 20-30 pounds or under – and more frightened with, well, dog-sized dogs.

              4. Perse's Mom*

                I don’t even know where the ‘allergy complaints’ are coming from all over these comments; the letter made no mention of allergies, just size and fear.

      2. KellyK*

        I think it’s reasonable that the asker be anonymous *from the OP,* but that doesn’t mean a completely anonymous complaint was the best way to handle it. It would’ve been better if they’d talked to their boss and tried to work something out, whether that involves them moving, the OP moving, or something else. A reasonable manager wouldn’t tell the OP who complained. *But* I don’t think we can completely fault the complainer, since there was an anonymous complaint box, so that’s kind of how things are done at that office.

        And since even the OP doesn’t know who they are, we don’t have any way to know that their manager is reasonable. If their boss is a “my dogs are my kids” type, they might have good reason to be anonymous from the boss too.

        TLDR, I agree with you that that wasn’t the ideal way to handle it; we just don’t have enough info about the overall office dynamics to know how feasible our ideal way would be.

    11. Thursday Next*

      I think stefanielaine makes a really good point about the potential difference between dog owners’ perception of their dogs’ behavior and a non-owner’s perspective. I love dogs, especially big dogs, especially big, gamboling, slobberdogs, but watching how my mom and daughter react when they encounter such dogs has made me realize that the same behavior that makes me go “awww” can be genuinely frightening to some people.

      Please don’t push to identify the complainant. It was probably uncomfortable for that person to make the complaint, and I don’t think it’s an issue that can be mediated successfully. People who are afraid of or uncomfortable around dogs should have those concerns taken seriously. It can be a very visceral, irrational feeling for them.

      1. Michael Carmichael*

        Yes! to not pushing to find out who complained and to taking their fears seriously. I can totally see any conversation with the complainant(s) ending up being a session basically asking for them to change (ignore/seek therapy/other potential unrealistic scenario) so that the dog can stay. I would not want to feel bullied into accepting something like this, especially since let’s face it, even if the complainants agree to some ‘terms,’ the co-working relationship is damaged. I agree also with everyone who has mentioned that allowing animals in the workplace is just such a fraught endeavor, it really shouldn’t be a thing in the first place so no one ever has to ‘lose’ it and endure this disappointment. I feel terrible for the OP but also for the fearful person/people.

        1. Snark*

          It’s not unreasonable to expect a complainant to explore potential compromises, and compromising does not necessarily mean that a relationship would be damaged.

          If this were something totally unrelated to dogs, would someone be “bullied” into finding a reasonable compromise around, say, teleconferences or music in the office or working remotely or something? No.

          1. Jules the 3rd*

            Actually, we have seen unreasonable behavior around kids, colognes, and bathrooms – I don’t think you can put this down to ‘dogs’.

    12. KitKat*

      Agreed! I once worked with someone who had a phobia of dogs. We shared our building with dog-friendly offices, and had requested, in my mind pretty reasonably, that the dogs be leashed and supervised when in common spaces. And yet people 1. did not abide by this and 2. made rude, snarky comments to my coworker when asked to leash their dogs. Or sometimes the dog owner would respectfully leash their dog when asked, but the dog owner’s coworker would jump in and say something rude!

      OP, I’m not saying that you would necessarily react this way, but whoever complained has no way of knowing if you or others in your office will react like this.

      1. Yorick*

        My friend always drops the leash and her dog wanders around the bar patio to all the other customers and she thinks it’s so delightful. ugh.

        And when I would keep my dog on a short leash to make sure he was with me and not bothering anybody, she acted like I had to do that because he’s not well behaved.

    13. Feline*

      This is worded more tactfully than I probably would have. Our perception of our own pets’ behavior is not objective because we are accustomed to that behavior. Jumping up on people to say hi, licking people, etc. are things that some people who love dogs think are within the boundaries of good dog behavior and those who aren’t into dogs are uncomfortable with. It’s kind of like the “little noises” that babies make. Parents don’t hear them when they’re contented noises, but nonparents just hear baby noise. That’s all hard stuff to deal with in a shared workspace.

      1. Lil Fidget*

        Hehehe as more of a “dog person” I was thinking this. Usually people’s “sweet, well behaved” children are also pretty startlingly loud to someone who is not used to children. It’s not a judgement on pets or kids, just that everybody gets desensitized what what they are used to.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        This is all tying back to this morning’s letter about how you can’t recommend your child for a job based on your objective assessment of their adorableness.

    14. sam*

      I had a friend growing up who was terrified of dogs. It did not matter what size they were, how “objectively” nice they were. If a dog came near her, she would have what I can only describe as an involuntary panic reaction.

      She had been attacked by a dog as a child.

      I don’t know if it’s fair to expect someone who has an anxiety or fear like that to have to suffer through it, even though I personally love dogs and the main reason I don’t have one is the fact that I work such long hours.

      1. Snark*

        It’s not fair to gratuitously expose someone to something that’s a major phobia, of course. But if, as in this letter, your workplace has a standing dog-friendly policy and other dogs around, I don’t think it’s fair to effectively force everyone’s hand with an anonymous complaint that cites your fear of dogs. If it’s a dog-friendly workplace, and you knew that going in, you were in my opinion tacitly agreeing to either tolerate that, or find mutually agreeable compromises with their owners.

        1. sam*

          sure, but if your fear is, say, specifically tied to larger dogs, and this is the first larger dog that’s been allowed in the office (which is the case, as per OP’s letter), then it’s the first time the issue has come up.

          1. Snark*

            That’s fair, but in that case, it’s still a little bit of an inadvertant bait-and-switch on the owner, and I think there’s still the obligation to at least discuss possible accomodations.

            1. Lil Fidget*

              I also struggle with this because panic triggers can be so weird and specific. There was a letter here about someone being afraid of birds, so and I know someone terribly afraid of insects. It’s a little hard that it’s on your coworkers to never bring something that would trigger someone, and I think if you’re asking for an accommodation it’s kind of on you to suggest something workable. It’s like allergens, I guess we now know that nobody can eat peanuts or peanut butter in schools, but there are so many potential allergens – strawberries, wheatgrass, bananas, rice – I’m just not sure what the solution is.

            2. fposte*

              That’s why I’m pushing for this as a policy issue rather than one between the OP and the dog-resistant co-worker. If the office is going to respond to such complaints by removing the perk, that’s important information for people bringing their dogs in and it should be something they know about in advance.

            3. Lissa*

              I agree with you, and I am a dog fearer/disliker. I think if I go to work in an office that allows dogs and one is there that sets me off, I do have some responsibility as well and don’t get to unilaterally state “phobia” and get what I want anonymously, especially when it’s possible there could be other solutions. I’d feel the same way if it were kids, bathrooms, cologne, birds, Princess Tiana costumes or whatever.

        2. Aurion*

          It is a dog friendly office but I can’t tell from the post whether the office is banning all dogs or this dog. The manager only asked OP to stop bringing their dog, but didn’t mention if the office is making a blanket ban. If only OP’s dog is affected, it may very well be that the dog isn’t quite as well-behaved and loved as OP believes.

          And given the possibility of becoming a pariah at work (where attendance is not optional), I can’t say I blame the complainants (multiple) for being anonymous.

      2. Plague of frogs*

        I am terribly afraid of clowns (and for a very good reason: they are all serial killers). I wouldn’t go work at a circus and then demand that it change for me.

        1. fposte*

          But the OP isn’t working at Petsmart. It’s not a dog-based business. This is more like if you went to work at Spamazon and found everybody brought in clowns, and you were baffled at why you had to deal with clowns when you just wanted to send out emails.

          1. Plague of frogs*

            OK, so I don’t understand why everyone at Spamazon has clowns; I wish they didn’t have clowns. They certainly had a duty to warn me about the clowns before I took the job. They should have a written policy forbidding the clowns from wearing squeaky shoes, and under no circumstance may they oppress me with balloon animals.

            But I don’t get to start the job and then complain about the clowns, thus taking away a perk that other people are enjoying.

            Say you work at place where there is unlimited free junk food (I don’t, thank God, but my husband does and some of his coworkers appear to literally live off of it). Now someone like me who has very little self-control start working there and asks that they get rid of the free food. Should this perk be taken away to serve the needs of one person?

            2. fposte*

              Well, let’s go back to your statement about Spamazon’s duty to warn people about clowns. We don’t know what the other people were told about the dogs. They might not have known they were there. They might have been told they’d never see them. They might have been told that it would be no problem for them to request a dog stop coming. So you’ve started at Spamazon, and it’s a surprise to you that some people have clowns. (It doesn’t seem to be most people.) Do you right away decide that it’s you who has to go and start your job search rather than crimp the style of the clown-keepers, just as it would be if you were opposed to junk food availability?

              I think if you didn’t know, or thought it was a smaller thing, it’s not unreasonable to say “This is a problem for me.” And we have no idea what the complaining people knew when they started, or what the office policy actually is.

              1. Plague of frogs*

                True, we don’t know what the company told the complainer. All we know was that OP was told by the company that she would have a certain perk. That perk is now being taken away from her (and apparently only her–she’s the person who doesn’t get her birthday off because it’s on Leap Day).

                The company has certain responsibilities here:
                -Notify prospective employees that the office is dog friendly.
                -Accommodate employees with allergies/phobias (note that they cannot do this for an anonymous complainer).
                -If they decide to take away a perk based on an anonymous complaint (which they should not), they should be really apologetic and offer a compensating perk, such as a dog-walking service.

                I do have some sympathy for the complainer, because maybe they weren’t told. But back to my junk food analogy–eating too much junk food makes me depressed and unwell. But I still don’t get to tell a company to stop providing it for others, if it was a pre-existing condition before I started at the company.

                1. fposte*

                  I can definitely see making that call; I can also see asking to move your desk so it’s not opposite the snack table. Maybe the complainers would have been open to a similar mitigation, but it clearly wasn’t something that management was prepared to explore.

        2. Lil Fidget*

          Yes, but I suppose the point is, clowns are essential to the job of the circus, whereas presumably dogs have nothing to do with running a newspaper (or whatever the company does). It’s just a perk to boost employee morale, and if it’s not doing that for some people, it might get taken away. I say this as someone who sympathizes with OP for losing a perk that they valued.

    15. MuseumChick*

      This was more first thought. (I really love dogs BTW), a lot of dog owner have blinders to the behavior of their dog and get personally offended and defensive when anyone says anything to them about their dogs behavior.

      OP, I understand being bummed about loosing a perk but please try and think of this from the POV of someone who is afraid of or allergic to dogs. By your own statement tons of people at your work love your dog so if this person had opening voiced their complaint they would likely face some subtle and not so subtle retaliation.

    16. Rusty Shackelford*

      I have found that there’s often a difference between how “sweet, well-trained, and friendly” a dog’s owner thinks the dog is vs. reality.

      Oh, I see you’ve met my mother.

    17. Turquoisecow*

      Yeah, I know we should take Letter Writers at their word, but I’ve known a number of dog owners (and parents, for that matter) who are completely in denial about their angel’s behavior. What OP considers acceptable behavior might be incredibly disruptive to coworkers, or just distracting.

    18. Say what, now?*

      I second, third, fourth… whatever we’re on at this point, this comment. Don’t try and find out who this person is. There was a letter a while back about a person with allergies (a medical condition for God’s sake) who had to request that the dogs not come to the office. The update on that was heartbreaking. She was ostracized and belittled by her coworkers to the point she had to look for another job. Don’t put this person in the position to go through that.

      1. Snark*

        I agree that at this point OP should not try to unmask the complainer, but the complainer should not have complained anonymously – asking someone to give up a perk and take on a major expense is not something you should do anonymously, at least in a sane and reasonable workplace.

        1. Michael Carmichael*

          But that’s precisely why the complainant is anonymous – because there are basically two possible outcomes: 1) OP/the org pressures the complainant to be OK with some arrangement so the dog can stay, which if successful will mean the complainant(s) will feel at least bullied or at worst forced out, or 2) the org decides complainant’s fears are valid and large dog must stay home, and OP is resentful of the perk loss/expense and the working relationship with complainant is damaged (it will be either way, really). I don’t know what a ‘sane and reasonable workplace’ has to do with it, since no matter how sane or reasonable everyone is here, this is an emotionally charged issue and resolving it will leave one or both parties feeling the loss of something they value.

          1. Snark*

            Or there’s actually a reasonable accomodation (OP teleworks, complainer moves to a different area, arrival times are agreed on and staggered so OP isn’t coming in with the dog at the same time complainer is) that could leave both sides feeling as if they got a fair shake. At this point, the loss of something valued is entirely one-sided, and the complainer is getting their way on their terms, with no possibility of discussion. If you’re going to strong-arm someone out of a perk to accomodate your idiosyncracies, I don’t think you get to demand that come without strings attached as well.

            1. Snark*

              And, as I said, this sort of situation is precisely why dog-friendly offices are a bad decision – either nobody wins, or winner takes all.

            2. Starbuck*

              You haven’t outlined any reason why it’s a better idea for the complainer to do so in person rather than anonymously, though. The potential risks so far outweigh the benefits that I’m not surprised they took the opportunity they were given.

              1. Perse's Mom*

                It doesn’t have to be complainer to OP, though. The complainer could go through an intermediary (their own manager, HR, etc) to explore options that could get both parties what they want.

                In this case, the anonymity… well, I don’t take the complaint particularly seriously. If you’re dog phobic in a dog friendly office, even if it’s specific to one dog, you ask for an accommodation. Maybe the only option IS that LW can’t bring her dog to work anymore, but the options can’t even be explored – there cannot be a conversation around the possibility of keeping both parties happy – with an anonymous note.

            3. Nonsenical*

              Being allergic to a dog or afraid of a dog is not idiosyncrasies, the way this is worded is belittling people who have a legit beef and demonstrating why people stay anonymous. I am terrified of dogs, this is not a little thing or something I choose. I have been bit by dogs and prefer to stay far away from them as possible. There are some dogs I am okay with but my own sister who was ‘training’ a guard dog let my niece play so roughly with the dog that the dog bit a neighbor kid and was taken away. Dogs aren’t always this cuddly and having a big dog is frightening. A standard size poodle may be too big for the office and more than one person complained.

          1. Snark*

            Because I think anonymous feedback is a bad policy, except in cases where you’re whistleblowing on unethical or illegal activity.

            1. JM60*

              Anonymous feedback is usually a good idea when someone is afraid of retaliation (either from the employer or coworkers), which I think is usually s reasonable fear in cases like this.

    19. paul*

      Agreed. My dogs have all been moderately well trained but not to the point where I think they *wouldn’t* be at least occasionally disruptive in an office setting for 8+ hours; I can easily imagine them having at least given someone a nudge in an effort to get a pet. In our house that’s one thing, but in an office? Nah, not really cool.

      Also, I don’t know when it became so out of favor to leave dogs alone for 8ish hours-but to be fair I’ve usually had 2 dogs or no dogs, with the only exception being when our last dog was very old (after the other one passed). And at that point he basically slept 20 hours a day.

    20. Roscoe*

      I don’t know. This isn’t to sound heartless, but if you take a job at a dog friendly place, its then a bit much to ask that it no longer be dog friendly because of you. Now its not clear if this is a new person or someone who has been there a while, but it seems that the place was already dog friendly when OP took it. Based on that, it seems like its fair to find out who it is that has a problem and whether there is a compromise that can be made.

    21. Snark*

      Nobody complained about behavior, they complained about allergies and fear of dogs. It strikes me as a distraction to speculate on facts not presented by OP.

      1. Rusty Shackelford*

        None of the complaints mentioned allergies. Two complaints were that the dog was too big to be in an office, and one was from a person who said they were afraid of dogs.

        1. Safetykats*

          The allergies were a different letter. This one was about size. Although I don’t know what “too big” means. We have a service dog in our office who is an English Mastiff; he’s big. He’s also staying, obviously, regardless of what anybody thinks about big dogs.

    23. bonkerballs*

      Also, behaviors that are considered well trained and friendly can still be unwelcome to people who don’t like dogs.

      Personally, as someone who doesn’t like dogs I would never take a job at a dog friendly organization, and I think whoever submitted the anonymous note should have made the same decision. But I also know sometimes perks and policies have to change due to what’s good for everyone now rather than what was good when the perks/policies were set.

    24. Argh!*

      A workplace could require a Canine Good Citizen certificate, which would prove basic training & temperament testing have been completed.

  11. Kramerica Industries*

    What are the reactions of the other people in the office? Is your dog accepted as a fixture, or do people come over to pet her/aww over her? As someone who just flat out doesn’t like dogs, I’d use allergies/fear as an excuse to not be isolated over my unenthusiasm for office pets.

    Does your office have any space away from the common areas? Like a doggy playpen kinda set up?

    1. RachelR*

      So you’d fake an allergy or phobia just because you don’t like dogs?

      You are the reason people who actually have those issues don’t get taken seriously.

      1. Kramerica Industries*

        Honestly, apologies for that – I definitely spoke out of line there. I’ve had bad experiences where people insist that their dog should lick me to show how friendly they are, BECAUSE I said that I don’t like dogs.

        So I agree that this is all very unhelpful to the discussion though. But I stand by my original suggestion of a separate area where people can go to dogs, rather than having them around in common areas.

        1. KellyK*

          In general, lying about phobias or allergies is a problem, and it does have the ability to impact people who really do have those issues. *But* people who refuse to respect your boundaries unless you make up an excuse they deem sufficient are *asking* to be lied to. If that’s the only way you can get someone to get their dog out of your face, then you do what you have to do to protect your own boundaries.

      2. bonkerballs*

        Based on a lifetime of nasty reactions from dog lovers when I mention I don’t like/am afraid of/was traumatized by an attacking dog as a child, I can see where someone would think they needed to exaggerate their own dog issues in order to be taken seriously. It’s not something I think anyone should do, but I 100% understand the impulse.

        1. Argh!*

          You’re not a child now, and dogs are far less likely to attack an adult.

          De-sensitization therapy might help you quite a bit. Children get attacked because they do the “wrong” things in dog body language. They’re on the same level and they will stare in the eyes, which dogs find threatening. (And some dogs are just mean to kids)

          Learning how to “read” dog body language would also help. Some breeds are harder to read than others, but at least you’d gain some control over the situation.

          1. Oilpress*

            But bonkerballs just plain doesn’t want to be around dogs. That’s a perfectly valid preference, and we shouldn’t push people with that preference to change it.

            1. KellyK*

              +1 bonkerballs is entitled to that preference and deserves to have dog owners respect it (and I say that as someone who loves dogs).

        1. Snark*

          You’d be pleased to work with someone who’d lie to screw you out of a perk? Ok. Suit yourself, but I wouldn’t be.

          1. Lissa*

            I read that as “would lie about allergies to be able to avoid the dog without being called heartless”, not “would lie about allergies to get the entire perk taken away from everyone.” The second is way worse.

            (though I’ll just straight up tell people I’m not a dog person and say “Yup sure am!” when I get called heartless so perhaps I’m not a good sample…)

      2. Kramerica Industries*

        100% agree. I’m not someone I’d want to work with either.

        Just want to clarify that I didn’t think this comment through when I wrote it (crappy day and a jaded attitude). So thank you to the commenters who pointed out that this kind of thinking is problematic.

      3. Mousie Housie*

        You’re not helping with the stigma against those who prefer to work with humans, not animals.

  12. Not a Real Giraffe*

    OP this really stinks.

    I’m curious if the bring-your-dog policy is new, because I wonder why someone who is afraid of dogs would accept a job where one of the perks is that the office is dog-friendly. (Though I can also understand that the colleague might not be afraid of smaller dogs, which are more typically found in dog-friendly offices.)

    Not that the above musings have any relevance as to what to do now; it’s just the first question that popped into my mind!

    1. AnotherAlison*

      “I wonder why someone who is afraid of dogs would accept a job where one of the perks is that the office is dog-friendly.”

      Because it’s a good job? I’ve never seen a dog-friendly office IRL. I’ve seen liquor store dogs, and hardware store dogs, warehouse dogs, and of course my vet brings his dog to work, but every time this comes up, it is a weird concept to me that office-type businesses have this perk. Whether an office is dog friendly or not would be way, way down the list of things I’m even thinking about if I was job hunting. I’m worried about what type of work I’m doing and how much I get paid, usually.

      1. Not a Real Giraffe*

        Oh for sure. I guess I’d imagine that the “hey you can bring your dog to work!” conversation would happen at some point during the interview process, but I can totally see this being something left out of the conversation if either party doesn’t talk pointedly about perks/office culture.

        1. AnotherAlison*

          Even if I’m talking about perks, as the person who is not going to bring her dog to work, I don’t think I would ask about it (unless I had previously been in a dog office and was trying to avoid that). I suppose it could be brought up by the interviewer, but unless I see the office looking like a dog park, I’d prioritize everything else before not taking a job I want because I don’t like dogs and dogs might show up occasionally. (hypothetically – I like dogs)

          1. Natalie*

            I think there’s a difference between not liking dogs and being afraid of them, though. I’m mildly phobic of fish, so I probably wouldn’t accept a job at an office with a big fish tank. And if I had to out of desperation I don’t know that handling it via anonymous note would be ideal.

      2. WeevilWobble*

        My sister had an office that accepted dogs. She was in marketing. You’d see the dogs everywhere when you went to interview.

        And people shouldn’t work there if they have an issue with it.

        1. Kramerica Industries*

          As someone in marketing, it bothers me that I can’t apply for amazing jobs just because it’s a “dog-friendly culture”.

          I think OP’s office is a great example of valuing and respecting the needs of all employees/potential candidates. Sure, having office dogs is great. Until it isn’t. Why would you want to deter potentially great workers because of your love of dogs? This is a business – attract top talent.

          1. Future Analyst*

            But I think the “dog-friendly culture” is as much a cultural thing as, say, Nerf-gun competitions. If you know that you wouldn’t be happy in such a culture, don’t work there… it’s unreasonable to take the job and then expect the company to change their whole culture to fit you. No-one is telling you that you can’t apply there, just that you should be aware of what to expect.

            1. Jadelyn*

              This. I’m in HR, which means I can move around to almost any industry because all companies above a certain size start needing what I do, regardless of their actual business. But you could not pay me enough to take a job with one of the hip/trendy tech-bro frathouses that call themselves offices, which we have quite a number of around the Bay Area, because I would hate that kind of environment. It doesn’t mean they’re objectively wrong for having the culture they do, and it doesn’t mean I should resent that I can’t apply for amazing jobs just because it’s a “bro-friendly culture”. It just means I need to filter that out of my job search and move on.

              1. AnotherAlison*

                I think the thing to keep in mind, though, is not everyone has the flexibility that you do to work in “almost any industry.” On the surface, I have very transferable skills, but in reality, I can only “easily” find work my industry at my current pay grade. (It’s still not very easy. . .) When you’re already looking for something that is a unicorn job when you’re talking about the whole jobsphere, it would suck if a lot of the top companies moved towards a culture you weren’t into. There are already so many directly work related things to worry about when job seeking. For example, some companies in my industry execute most of their work in offshore offices, others are conglomerates of 50 different acquired companies without a coherent culture, still others are “hire and fire” companies that don’t offer a lot of stability. I don’t want to add nerf war companies or dog companies to that list of things I’m not looking for!

                1. Jadelyn*

                  Someone in marketing, like the person I was responding to, still has similar flexibility to what I’m talking about – perhaps not as universal, but most companies above a certain size will have a dedicated marketing/communications team of some kind.

                  And I mean, I get that it sucks to have to cross companies off your list – but that doesn’t necessarily mean those companies should be changing their culture or that it’s legit for people to complain about the culture of companies they don’t work for simply because they’re feeling left out that they’re not a right fit for those companies.

            2. Kramerica Industries*

              I agree to a certain extent. I think the frat-bro kind of culture represents the organization as a whole. But what if you like the overall culture, but don’t like Nerf gun competitions? That wouldn’t deter me from applying to an otherwise great company.

              Nerf gun fights are less prickly because you can choose not to join, but people get a lot more invested in dogs, which makes it more sensitive. I think there’s less of a stigma around people who don’t want to play ping pong vs. people who don’t like dogs.

            3. fposte*

              Yeah, I think there’s a lot of gray area in this one for me. I absolutely think a business owner has the prerogative of creating a dog-friendly, cat-friendly, Nerf-battle-friendly office, and when you’re talking a perk that involves genuine financial reliance, like this one, it can be a big draw.

              But I think the *office* needs to figure out how committed it is to this. Is this a dog-lover’s or tolerators only office, the way Amazon is? If so, let people know when they’re applying. Is it a “dogs on sufferance until it’s a problem” office? Let people know that too. But you have to decide which you are and be clear with people whose day to day life really depends on what you mean there.

            4. JM60*

              ” it’s unreasonable to take the job and then expect the company to change their whole culture to fit you.”

              Except if that work culture is causing you health issues. People shouldn’t have to be subject to health problems caused by an employer’s work culture in order to get a paycheck.

                1. Safetykats*

                  You absolutely get to ask for an accommodation for any protected condition/disability. And if it’s a protected condition/disability you should get an accommodation. That accommodation won’t necessarily be the one you want. For example, if you’re allergic to dogs, and the person in the next office has a service dog, you probably won’t find the service dog removed from the building. You’re more likely to find yourself moved to somewhere out of the way of the dog and it’s owner.

                2. JM60*

                  Given how many people in this thread are saying that someone with allergy problems shouldn’t be working there, it’s very understandable that

                  “And presumably, if there were allergies (none of the complaints were about allergies), the affected person should have contacted HR about an accomodation.”

                  “And presumably, if there were allergies (none of the complaints were about allergies), the affected person should have contacted HR about an accomodation.”

                  It sounds like they may have request accommodation, but anonymously. Given how many people on this thread are basically saying that someone with dog allergies shouldn’t have taken a job there, I think it’s very understandable that they would want to request the accommodation through an anonymous complaint rather than identify themselves as the one needing the accommodation. If you request accommodation by non-anonymously going to HR, you face a greater risk of retaliation, which seems like a justifiable fear in cases like this.

          2. Jadelyn*

            It’s not like every single office out there has dog-friendly culture. There are other amazing jobs out there. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that every potential employer you’d like to work for should conform to your preferred office culture standards, and then to be put out that some don’t.

            You also seem to be presuming that “top talent” isn’t bringing their dogs in – what happens if the business with the dog-friendly culture has a couple of really top-tier people who bring their dogs in? Would you think it was a reasonable exchange to get rid of the dogs, and probably lose those couple of high-performers, in exchange for hiring one new *potential* high-performer?

          3. Lindsay J*

            What about top talent that choose not to take a job because they can’t bring their dogs to the office? That argument works both ways.

          4. Jennifer Thneed*

            But there’s so many jobs you can’t apply for! I mean, this is a big country and most of the jobs available will be outside your city, and maybe even outside your state.

            > Why would you want to deter potentially great workers because of
            > your love of dogs? This is a business – attract top talent.

            Why can’t businesses be different from each other?

          5. Bagpuss*

            I don’t. They are respecting the needs of an anonymous complainer, but they are not valuing or respecting the LW’s needs or the perk which was a specific reason she took the job, and they are doing it without any discussion or attempt to find a middle ground or compromise.

            I’m not a dog person, but the one-sided nature of how the OPs company has handled this bothers me.

        2. Mousie Housie*

          I simply disagree. You cannot prioritize the rights of animals who contribute zero value to the workplace over actual and potential employees.

          1. Temperance*

            I don’t know that it’s fair to say that dogs contribute “zero value”. There are plenty of people who get benefit from being around animals.

              1. Jadelyn*

                It depends on how you define value. Is there not value in keeping morale high among employees? No, the dogs aren’t bringing in money themselves, but people who are happy perform better, which does bring in money for the company. (Not that necessarily everyone will be made happier by the presence of dogs, but I really dispute the idea that there’s “zero value” to any nonessential perk like having dogs around.)

              2. V*

                They have value to the company because it means they might get employees like the OP who otherwise might turn down the job accept it because they can bring their dog.

                1. Tina*

                  By the same token they might not get, or might later lose, good employees who don’t want to work around either dogs in general or OP’s dog in particular.

              3. lawyer*

                They do if people the company wants to hire elect to work there in part because of the dog-friendliness.

                Many workplace perks don’t add value to the company beyond making it more attractive to the type of person the company wants to hire.

                1. fposte*

                  Right. Coffee doesn’t add value to the company. Vending machines don’t add value to the company. Gyms don’t; day care doesn’t. They add value to the *employees* of the company who want these things, and the employees bring the value to the company. Like it or not, dog-friendliness is highly valued by a lot of people in some high-earning places, and if you take that perk away there’s a big risk of the company’s losing value.

              4. Lora*

                I can think of a lot of humans who don’t add value to their employers, yet mysteriously they are still employed. So I’m going to go with, this is not the best argument ever. Employers spend all kinds of money on things that appear frivolous to us mere mortals.

            2. Tina*

              Unless it’s a service animal situation I don’t think that the benefit an employee is getting from the animal being there is reasonable baseline expectation of an office job. I get a mental benefit from having a nice fuzzy blanket wrapped around me and a scented candle burning nearby but I can’t have those things in an office. Now, I understand in this situation that it was a dog-friendly office so a perk is potentially being taken away from OP and I sympathize with that, but if the dog is having a negative effect on someone in the office that should take precedence over OP’s desire to have their dog with them at work.

              1. Yorick*

                I agree. I love dogs but I don’t think having them around is going to improve morale in a way that increases productivity. Even if so, that value added to the owner and a few coworkers is probably not equal to the cost to other employees or to the business.

          2. Elizabeth H.*

            You’re not really prioritizing the rights of animals, you’re prioritizing following through on an advertised job perk for employees of being able to bring their jobs to work. It’s like the free food perk. It’s not a RIGHT to have free food at work, but if you chose this job because the free food at work was a huge benefit to you, and then because of anonymous complaints the perk was taken away, it would be disappointing, and it would be frustrating if the perk was simply removed without the opportunity to attempt an accommodation.

        3. Rusty Shackelford*

          And people shouldn’t work there if they have an issue with it.

          Interestingly, if you read the first linked post, you’ll see that sometimes you don’t know it’s a thing until you already work there.

          1. Natalie*

            Okay, but we don’t have any reason to think that’s what’s happening here. Some places give tons of vacation and then punish employees who use it. Does that make it relevant to every discussion of vacation?

          2. Health Insurance Nerd*

            But I don’t think that was the case in this scenario based on the letter writers assertion that the dog-friendly culture is one of the reasons she chose to work there. Which means she was told up front, before accepting an offer, that this was a perk.

            1. Rusty Shackelford*

              True. I was only responding to a comment that said people who can’t handle dog-friendly offices shouldn’t work in them.

            2. biobottt*

              But we don’t necessarily know if the person who is objecting to the OP’s dog knew that the office was one in which people bring their dogs in regularly. So the complainant may not have known that they would not find that aspect of the culture objectionable. Or they are OK with small dogs, but didn’t realize that the office would also allow large dogs.

            3. HappySnoopy*

              It’s not necessarily a zero sum option.

              OP during interview sees dogs or has it come up in interview answering the “what do you do in your free time” question from earlier poster and finds it’s the perk that tips the scales.

              Anonymous doesn’t realize the doggieness of the place until after he/she starts and thinks ok, scary but I like the job and I can try to suck it up for a shitzu or Mini schnauzer that I can pretend isn’t peeking out of Brenda’s purse so I’m not the allergy pariah I read about on AAM. The full size poodle is a different story. I’ve got to speak up.

        4. blackcat*

          I love dogs, but I’m super allergic to them and can get asthma attacks from too many dog licks (you have no idea how sad this makes me).

          It’s pretty uncool to say that I shouldn’t work for a company because of an easily accommodated medical condition.

          1. Safetykats*

            Asthma attacks are serious. And you definitely have the right not to be licked by random dogs at work. However, that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to ban dogs that aren’t trying to lick you against your will, just because you’re worried that they might. It might be a reason to give you a cubicle or office in a less dog-ridden corner of the building.

      3. KR*

        You’re right that this is generally why people take jobs, because they need a good job. I think we had a letter where the OP was interviewing and wasn’t told it was a dog friendly office before they got there. Some offices probably don’t do the best job forwarding people.

        Also, my office is dog friendly. We don’t have customers or frequent unplanned visitors, our office is all tile, and we don’t have anything that can be damaged by the prescence of a dog. My old man naps peacefully in his bed all day with a bork or two a day at the goings on outside the door, and a mid day potty break.

        1. HappySnoopy*

          I read your bork typo as book at first and thought you had an awesomely intellectual puppy. I picture him with glasses.

      4. Roscoe*

        I’ve never worked at one, but I definitely have friends who do. I feel like that would be something that you know going into a job. IF management wasn’t telling people, that is problematic definitely. But assuming they knew that, its kind of crappy to take the job, then expect people to change.

        1. Pollygrammer*

          And, due to the anonymity of the complaint, not even open the door to any kind of compromise.

      5. Penny Lane*

        In my personal experience, I worked in an office where there was a dog — it was the owner’s dog, she was really into training therapy dogs, and the office was dog-friendly in the sense that SHE could bring her dog (she lived within walking distance); he was indeed well-trained and pretty much napped the whole time. But that didn’t mean that the office was dog-friendly in the sense that the rest of us could have regularly brought our dogs in. It was a specific perk bc she was the owner and could run the show. I don’t have a single problem with that – it’s her show.

    2. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

      Well, we’ve had the letter where an OP had the dog-friendliness of the office sprung on her! It’s an unusual enough perk that it seems like something that should be mentioned proactively by hiring managers/recruiters during interviews.

    3. robot*

      I accepted a job at a dog friendly office and am afraid of dogs! It’s not surprising at all. It was an amazing professional opportunity and wouldn’t have been worth giving up over this. This also depends on how severe your fear of dogs is. I’m pretty nervous around dogs and dislike them, but I don’t have a phobia. As long as the dog is on the other end of the office from me, I’ll be fine.

      Also, even in dog friendly offices, it’s not like everyone’s bringing dogs in for a dog party daily. Different workplaces handle this differently, but there’s probably only a few dogs on any given day. I’m lucky that no one on my team brings in a dog, but if someone started bringing in a dog regularly, I would talk to my manager and ask that the dog be moved down the hall from me, etc so that I wouldn’t be stressed. My company takes the position that when it’s a question of dog vs person, person wins every time, because this is a valuable perk but it’s not worth losing people over.

    4. Blue Clear Sky*

      I was wondering the same thing! I’m assuming that this is not a new perk – why should OP have to lose out because someone else doesn’t like it? Especially if it was included in the list of “Look how awesome it is to work here!” Spiel when OP and the anonymous complainer were hired. It seems unfair to take a job in a dog friendly office and then complain about people bringing their dogs, no?

      I’d much rather have people bring their dogs to work than their kids – at least my dog has never punched anyone in the groin like this poor person: https://www.askamanager.org/2017/07/my-bosss-kid-punched-me-in-the-groin.html

      1. Allergic grinch*

        Neither kids nor dogs belong in an office. Why should someone with severe allergies lose out on the ability to make a living or an excellent career opportunity because people want to bring their pets to work? Pets offer no business value to an office environment, where as qualified employees do. My allergies to animals are severe and I will absolutely prioritize my career opportunities and options and health over anyone’s non-service animal pet and feel zero guilt about it. I would be the pet perk killer and I would own it. Some pet owners, just like some parents, have no idea how crazy their near militant zeal over their little beasts comes across. You have no inherent or implied right to have animals in an office just like I have no inherent or implied right to bring my kids to an office.

        Service animals are a completely different issue and I would go out of my way to accommodate that animal, but not for pets.

        1. fposte*

          There are plenty of offices that do find the dog presence to bring value, though, so I don’t think you can simply state that it doesn’t. I don’t think it’s about belonging or not belonging; it’s just about the norm and practice at a particular office.

          That being said, I agree with you that the comfort of people who can’t work with dogs is more important than having dogs there, but Amazon has gone a different way on that and seems to be doing all right anyway. (Interestingly, there was an article a few years ago by somebody who really didn’t like dogs and eventually had to leave Amazon because of it, but I can’t find it amid all the articles celebrating Amazon’s dog friendliness.)

          1. Allergic grinch*

            I have never actually come across a pet friendly office, but if I did and I was qualified and the opportunity was really good, I would lean on ADA to get myself accommodated. I’m not losing out because of a medical issue that is entirely out of my control.

            So, I see your point, but I still feel strongly about mine. The number of times people have told me to “just” take allergy medications is amazing. There are varying levels of allergies to dogs from a slightly runny nose to closed throat emergency and everything in between. I don’t “hate” animals, I just cannot medically be around them and I fail to see how that should exclude me from a job opportunity in the same way that an company can’t reject someone in a wheelchair because their office is on the second floor and they don’t want to put in an elevator.

            I wouldn’t apply for work at Amazon for other reasons, and I’m not suggesting the pet perk be outlawed in general, but rather companies are not always going to win the pet perk over allergy accommodation issue in court, not should they, and the idea that people with allergies should just go work somewhere else rankles me.

            1. fposte*

              I absolutely agree with you; an ADA-related condition is different from a distaste and should be treated accordingly.

              1. Allergic grinch*

                Now the question for the OPs situation is whether the fear of dogs is an actual phobia or a distaste. Maybe that’s where the confidential complaint is problematic, but on the other hand, based on some of the reactions here, you can see why they might want to be anonymous.

                I guess I’m biased because I get so tired of seeing animals everywhere and explaining why I don’t want them around and whenever this topic comes up here, there are always the people who say “just work somewhere else”. My answer to that is “no”.

                In any case, I think we mostly agree.

                1. fposte*

                  I think this is one of those situations where there doesn’t need to be a villain for it to be a problem. The OP was promised something that’s a huge benefit to her that’s now being taken away. The complainants find their work really disturbed by an unusual work situation. Both of those things are legitimate problems.

                3. JM60*

                  @fposte

                  I don’t think the OP was ‘promised’ it. I think it’s more like the OP was told they could do it. This isn’t really something you can promise, because it can be a health issue for other people. For this reason, I think this kind of perk is one that should always be viewed as volatile, rather than guaranteed.

                4. JM60*

                  To add to my previous post, I think it’s reasonable for people in the OP’s position to be disappointed that they’re losing a perk that they care about. However, I think that they should keep in mind when they start enjoying this perk that other people may have a reasonable need (and a right) for this perk to stop.

            2. Safetykats*

              Sure, but this is different. If you’re asking for a medical accommodation you can’t do that with an anonymous note in a suggestion box. You also don’t get just any accommodation you might want. Your employer has the right to require a medical exam to help determine the appropriate accommodation, which might work out not to be banning dogs at all, but something entirely different.

        2. Blue Clear Sky*

          I would not take a job at a family-friendly office because I don’t like kids – I would not accept the job because it’s an “excellent career opportunity” and then complain about kids being around and ask that they not be allowed. That would be unfair and incredibly selfish of me. It’s the same scenario here assuming the dog friendly culture was in place when both OP & the complainer were hired – it’s not fair to ruin it for everyone else.

          1. Allergic grinch*

            I mean, good for you.

            My career and health will take priority over someone’s pets though, every time.

            1. Mr. Rogers*

              That’s fine, but just be prepared for the possibility that a company values the pet loving employee more than you. And consider what you would do for your extremely important, sacrifice anyone in your way, career then. I think prioritizing your health is great! But I think you (and others here) are forgetting that you are not always the one the company cares most about keeping. Pet owners might actually be sometimes better at a job than you are, the two things are not related.

              1. Allergic grinch*

                I would love to see a company explain to a judge how someone’s pet take priority over someone’a ADA accommodation.

                Ya’ll should take a look at the civil discussion fposte and I had about this topic and calm down a bit.

            2. penty*

              No. You’re career and health will take priority over someone else’s wellbeing, career, and priorities.

              And that is the EPITOMY of selfish.

              Shame on you Grinch. Shame.

              1. Pollygrammer*

                And we’re not talking about “someone” here. We’re talking about demanding priority over everyone. And yeah, I think that’s selfish.

                1. Pollygrammer*

                  If you took a job at a dog-friendly office, it would be your prerogative to ask for ADA accommodation and ban all the dogs. It would be your new coworkers’ prerogative to hate you forever for it.

                2. Allergic grinch*

                  It must be hard, going through life with such anger and hatred. I can’t imagine hating someone for taking advantage of the legal protections that exist to make sure that people with medical disabilities have the same opportunities that everyone else has. Shame on me, indeed.

                3. fposte*

                  Yeah, I gotta say, this wouldn’t be a good look for the dog owners. I can understand the gulp of shock and the frustration at the loss of the perk, but hating the disabled for seeking accommodation seems unadmirable.

                4. Pollygrammer*

                  I’m allergic to shellfish, and even the smell can make me sick. But if a company has Lunchtime Lobster Club, and it’s everybody’s favorite part of the job? I’m not take the job and demand they get rid of it.

                  Would I be within my rights to? Sure. Would it be a kind thing to do? Absolutely not.

                  And, Allergic Grinch, maybe I’m reading your tone (and, um, your username) wrong, but it sounds like you’re kind of taking delight in the fact that your allergy would allow you to overrule peoples’ perks, and that’s really kind of shitty.

                5. Allergic grinch*

                  You are reading my tone wrong, I take no “delight” and I changed my name to allergic grinch because you have no idea how many dog manaiacs have told me my allergies are fake or that I should “just” take medication so I’m anonymous for this. My career and my health are more important than pets, I stand by that firmly, and frankly, the law is on my side. I know it hurts people’s feelings but animals can kill me, I need air to live, so you will just have to deal with my firm boundaries and my lack of willingness to pass up on career opportunities because of medical issues totally out of my control.

                  What YOU do re:your seafood allergy is up to you, no beef from me. If you were my co-worker I would gladly give up lobster club (and I love lobster) so that you won’t die. But then I always prioritize the needs over wants.

                6. Nonsenical*

                  The ADA does not disagree. You can be accommodated as long as it is not an undue hardship. If you choose to apply to a place that has dogs, they do not have to rid dogs just to accommodate you. If the office is dog friendly, they may tell you to work from home but I don’t think you’re going to win in court your ability to breathe if you knowingly apply to a place that touts dog as a perk. It’d be like knowingly applying to work at a vet, ADA isn’t going to cover banning dogs from your wish to work at a vet when you are allergic to dogs.

                  ADA is within reasonable boundaries without creating an undue hardship upon the company. If you’re asking them to take away a perk they’ve guaranteed just for you, the court is not going to back you up and you’re taking aDA to an extreme. Accommodations are worked out reasonably without impacting performance and that includes other people’s abilities. The fact that you’re calling yourself a grinch means you’re purposefully choosing to rile people up with this line of discourse. I’ve used ADA many times in my life, but the way you’re using it as a sword is not how it would play out or be intended.

                7. Allergic grinch*

                  Actually, you’re wrong on a few fronts.

                  1. we are not talking about a vet office, having dogs at work is a perk, and the ADA is not likely to consider it an undue hardship to ban dogs in an office that does work in no way related to animals. 2. The ADA exists so that people with medical disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else, I’m not “using” it as a sword. Point in fact, I’m not using it at all, as you can see from my posts with fposte.
                  3. My choice of screen name is not evidence that I’m trying “rile” people up, you made that up in your head because you don’t like my opinion.
                  4. If I apply to an amazing position that advances my career, I’m not going to decide not to apply because some people want to have their pets next to them all day. It’s great for you that you’ve never experienced the terrifying throat closing can’t breath allergic reaction that Happen to people with severe animal allergies have, but I have, and it’s not because I’m selfish, it’s just how I was born. It may not be “fair” that this means some hypothetical people might not be able to have their dogs at work but it’s just as “not fair” that my job opportunities are limited as a result. In fact, I think it’s less fair because on top of that additional limit, I also very frequently have crazy dog maniacs call me a liar or wellsplain how I can deal with it via medication and in this day and age, people seem to be taking their little dander and fur depositor monsters everywhere. Does it make me grumpy (or grinchy)? Well, yes, it does, sorry if that “riles” you up.

      2. Red Reader*

        Mine did, sigh. We had a plumber working on our house, and she – a 70 pound bloodhound/lab mix, who had already been introduced to him and was settled down on her pillow in my office – walked up to him when he came in to tell me something, politely sat down in front of him with her tail a-wagging, and went to fist-bump, totally unprompted and unexpected. Thwacked him right in the goodies. I was mortified. He laughed it off, after the initial uh surprise, and ended up spending his coffee breaks (it was an all-day project) in the backyard playing with her, thank bob.

    5. Observer*

      This whole thread perfectly explains one reason why the people (not singular- multiple people) who complained did so anonymously. Why would anyone in their right mind risk being told “well, if you don’t like it you should quite. You should never have taken this job anyway.”

      1. Murphy*

        I think the question of why someone who didn’t like dogs/was afraid of dogs would choose to work in a dog friendly office is a valid one though.

        1. Starbuck*

          Maybe because it was the highest-paying offer they had? Or the only offer? Or the one closest to where they lived? There are lots of possible reasons. I can imagine someone who’s only a little desperate (and once you’re unemployed, that’s most people) convincing themselves they could deal with it because they needed the job – especially if they only have issues with large dogs. Then later realizing that actually they couldn’t, or surprise, this large dog showed up. I don’t think that’s acting in bad faith.

      2. V*

        Why is it unreasonable to suggest that if someone is unhappy about their company culture that instead of complaining about the already existing culture and trying to change it they go look for work someplace they’d be happier?

        1. Mr. Rogers*

          I second this. No one is saying the complainer should be left destitute, never to work again. Just that maybe if this is such a problem for them, a dog-friendly office is a bad fit.

          1. Observer*

            Exactly. And you can be a perfectly reasonable person to decide that being forced out of a job is not something you want to “own”.

    6. Yorick*

      Maybe they mentioned the dog-friendliness in the interview. Maybe I’m scared of dogs but I think it’ll be ok – they said no one on my team has a dog, so there shouldn’t be any dogs around me, right? And the dogs that I might see in the hall or something will probably be small, well-behaved dogs.

      Now I’m working there and there is a huge dog two cubicles away, and her owner thinks she is so cute when she runs out to greet passerby and wanders around the floor to steal lunches off coworker’s desks. This is a friendly dog, but also a nuisance and maybe terrifying to some people.

      1. krysb*

        But on whose part was that bad decision made? Should the rules for the entire office be changed because you made a presumption about yourself that wasn’t true?

        1. Yorick*

          I just think we shouldn’t bash people who end up working in dog-friendly offices. You often don’t have much of an idea what the physical office environment will be like before you take a job.

      2. Pollygrammer*

        Maybe that’s when you address the dog’s behavior and location, and not the fact that it’s allowed in the office at all?

  13. Penny Lane*

    I might also note that plenty of people “leave their dogs alone every day” for hours — and manage that by getting a dog-walker to come let the dog out at lunch. (I agree with you it’s not fair to leave a dog alone all day long.)

    1. Brandy*

      My pups stay home all day. It might not be fair but they have a great home and there are 5 of them to keep each other company. And I make my off hours all about spending time with them. I have about an hour commute each way but theyre only alone between 7 and 4 daily. Its just part of life. They stay busy barking out the windaw and laying around. ….boy I wish I was doing just that right now (laying around on the couch, sleeping).

      1. Just Peachy*

        My dog is in a similar situation. She is generally alone at home from about 7:30-4, sometimes less depending on my husband’s schedule. We’ve set up cameras just to see what she does, and she lays on the couch and sleeps about 80% of the time. It’s not a bad life for her. She’s also a dog who has MAYBE has scratched at the door twice since we’ve gotten her (at 10 months old) to go potty, so she’s really fine with not being let out all day. Most of the time even when we do take her out when we get home, it takes her several minutes to do the deed (just because she’d rather walk around and enjoy the fresh air).

        We also spoil her when we are there, in the evenings and weekends (daily walks, multiple trips to the dog park a week, lots of cuddles and love.)

        1. Brandy*

          Oh yeah. I have recently fallen prey to the lets go out in the middle of the night gag, and its just because they wanna look around. Meanwhile….I am dying to pass back out. We did buy this house mainly because the back door opens to a fenced in yard but still, I cant sleep with them outside and no doggie doors, those things would be swinging from my pups and I have inside only cats. So. But Im onto them now. No going outside after 11. “youre cut off between 11 and 5:30”.

          1. Just Peachy*

            Haha, it is a good rule to instill. My parents had a dog that did this all the time. After a while, they stopped allowing him to go out after a certain time until the morning, and he eventually stopped begging to go out at nighttime.

          2. sam*

            heh. my old (retired) doorman was famous for giving out dog treats. All the dogs in the neighborhood would drag their owners to our front door. Once I was dogsitting my parents’ dog for a few weeks, and Ollie started begging to go out at the exact time when Al would come on duty in the evening (I live on the second floor above the entrance, so we could actually hear him out my window) – I finally figured it out when we got downstairs one night, made it to the lobby and then Ollie pointedly turned around and tried to get back on the elevator as soon as he got his cookie instead of actually going outside.

          3. Natalie*

            Our dog has a curfew because going out after a certain hour seems to rev him back up like crazy. Last time I let him out after his curfew, when he came back in he zoomed up and down the stairs so much he pulled a muscle.

            Dogs. They dumb.

              1. Natalie*

                Hurray! This is a cranky comments section so I’m glad my dingus has brought some humor. :)

                (His leg is fine now, btw. Apparently dogs can strain their muscles like people and they basically just need to rest like people.)

      2. Magenta Sky*

        There’s a really big difference between leaving one dog alone all day and leaving more than one dog alone all day. Dogs are very social creatures, and they don’t generally do well with isolation. The letter writer would do better by her pooch to get a second one if she has to stop bringing him into the office. (This, of course, may present problems of its own if she rents.)

        1. Just Peachy*

          I think that really depends on the breed. In some instances, yes, but MANY dogs are also fine (and even prefer) being home by themselves. A lot of dogs are just not social.

          1. LAI*

            Agreed that it depends. I had been trying to find another dog to keep my dachshund mix company and fostered several as a tryout, but he never took to any of them. I did end up with a second dog but they seem to tolerate each other more than play together…

          2. KellyK*

            This is also true. I remember the first day I worked from home after getting my dog (a shar-pei mix). “This will be great!” I thought “Puppy cuddles all day long.” She walked back to the bedroom to take a nap about 5 minutes after I started working. So much for that.

        2. Brandy*

          True. Ive always had pairs. Once I was down to one dog, but he was older, very calm and we have cats too. So he was ok being the only pup. He actually preferred it to the heathens I have now. But theyre good.

        3. A Non E. Mouse*

          We got a dog for our dog for this reason – he was lonely and a little anxious, calmed right down when he had a buddy.

          Second dog is no longer with us, and first dog is now old enough that if WE are home during the day, he gets huffy and sulky – he enjoys the quiet time.

          So it could really go either way, and even change over the lifetime of the same dog.

          1. Brandy*

            cute. Kinda like Dharma from Dharma and Greg. “This is my dog Spot and his dog Ollie” I don’t remember their names.

            1. fposte*

              “My dog Stinky and Stinky’s dog Nunzio.” (But do I remember anything about the Peloponnesian War? Of course not.)

      3. Middle School Teacher*

        My dog stays home all day too. If I have a really long day I’ll get my mom to let him out and feed him, but he can do 10 hours at home easily.

    2. AnotherAlison*

      I have two dogs who stay home alone all day in indoor kennels with very comfy memory foam beds. I have a kid who gets home from school earlier than I get home, so it’s not like they’re spending 12 hr days alone, but they spend a lot of time alone. One dog is an English Setter and very much a people dog, but she is fine with this routine. If we’re home, she sneaks off to a back bedroom and sleeps on a bed all day by herself. The other dog is 100 years old and doesn’t know if we are there or not.

      When I was a kid, my dog stayed outside during the day, even in winter, and when my mother was a kid no dogs were allowed indoors, ever. We may have humanized dogs a little too much at this point. : )

    3. Another person*

      Or also, like I leave my dog alone all day while I’m at work (8ish hours) and he is fine. He does exactly what he does if we are home during the day which is sleep (except he does it on the couch where he isn’t allowed to be if we are there to enforce rules). He gets plenty of attention/walks in the morning/evening/weekends and is pretty chill with it.

      1. ThatGirl*

        Yeah, our dog is alone 8-9 hours on workdays and he mostly snoozes in various spots, on the couch, on top of my husband’s discarded socks, on the bed, in the sun in the guestroom….

      2. Brandy*

        I have noticed that when I was home sick or on vacation, the dogs are ready for me to go back to work so they can rest all day as opposed to entertaining me.

      3. Kelly*

        My dad leaves his dog alone during the day and comes home at lunch to feed him. The dog spends his day with the cats. All of them end up on the couches they aren’t supposed to be on because he finds grey dog hair and orange, white, and peach cat hair on them.

    4. kible*

      yup, my roommate leaves her dog alone all day, 7am to 5:30pm usually. though pupper is >100lbs and darn good at “holding it in” without getting uncomfortable.

      1. Brandy*

        I one time, put down piddle pads, thinking they’d be needed. Nope. The cats played slip and slide all day ling on them and the pups slept.

          1. Brandy*

            I lined them down the hall that ended in a wall. I came home and all the pads were bunched up in front of the wall.

    5. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      There’s no need to admonish OP for taking advantage of a perk that also benefits their dog. Sure, many people leave their dog and make other arrangements. But speaking personally, I’d reject a job with a 25+ min commute if I also had to leave my dog alone all day.

      1. Anja*

        When I was house shopping I bought a house within a specific commute to work entirely because of dog timings. If I had to search for another job I’d rule out any where the work hours/commute combo was over a certain length of time. My dog (a lab cross from field lines) would likely not be suited to coming to work other than very specific situations (somewhere where we’re entirely left alone on our own – which is not particularly common in jobs where you can’t just work from home).

      2. EddieSherbert*

        +1 for me. If I was OP, I’d be considering job searching if I didn’t feel I could afford a dog walker or doggy daycare.

        I need to be close enough to let my pup out during the day. My dog does not do well staying home alone for a full day (which would 8-5pm + commute for me). And he’s very well-behaved (an opinion that is backed up by the AKC Canine Good Citizen and Community Canine awards). He’s just too high energy to sit and stare out the window all day.

    6. Eye of Sauron*

      My dog is spoiled… she is either in doggy day care or she is with our retired neighbors.

      That said, if we didn’t have the neighbors, she would be in doggy daycare during the day. Although, now that I say that, she usually needs a recovery day after daycare because of all the running and playing. I’m pretty sure she’d sleep through the alternate days just fine if she had spend them alone.

    7. Snark*

      Yep, absolutely – but dog-walkers don’t walk for free, and suddenly picking up an extra expense due to a complaint from someone who didn’t even face you personally about it can feel like a raw deal.

  14. Antilles*

    I did not realize “anonymous complaint” boxes were actually a thing outside of TV/movies. Commentariat, are these really a thing that companies do? If so, how does it work in practice?

    I’m just seeing it from the outside and it seems like a really bad way to handle issues. How do you follow up for more information when a complaint is unclear? What happens when someone puts in a complaint and management decides it’s not valid? What do you do if someone brings up a serious legal issue (e.g., sexual harassment, alleged discrimination, etc) that demands major action? How do you keep people from using it to grind an axe? Etc…

      1. Alice*

        I think an anonymous ethics and compliance helpline is different from a complaint box where people give anonymous feedback about their coworkers.

          1. Bagpuss*

            I think a helpline is different as you have a person on the other end who can ask questions to get more information, can suggest ways of moving forward, etc.

      2. Naptime Enthusiast*

        Same, it’s supposed to be used for whistle-blower type issues to prevent retaliation though, not personnel complaints.

      3. Magenta Sky*

        My employer contracts with a service for that purpose. As far as I know, it doesn’t get much use, because they also try hard to maintain an open door culture where people feel comfortable talking to whoever they need to talk to about problems. But the fact that they *can* contract a service tells me it’s fairly common.

      4. Lindsay J*

        My company’s complaint hotlines were always staffed by outside companies. So you were anonymous to your company, but they had a way of contacting you to gather more information if it was a serious issue that needed to be addressed.

        And yeah, it wouldn’t be used for petty stuff like whether people disliked a coworker bringing in dogs or complaining that someone microwaves fish or things like that.

      5. EddieSherbert*

        We also have an anonymous ethics hotline, but I believe it’s a phone call with a person where there’s some give and take in conversation (versus like… finding a vague anonymous note you don’t know how to address).

    2. Oxford Coma*

      My company has an anonymous box for issues, and the department VP addresses the entries publicly at semi-annual meetings.

    3. Anonyna*

      I worked at a bar that had one. The owners kept it right over the shredder in the office. Gave us a little chuckle anytime we had to go in there.

      1. Mrs. Fenris*

        Despair.com used to have stickers that said “Employee Suggestion Box.” Fenris got one and put it on the shredder.

    4. Just Peachy*

      My immediate thought was when Michael Scott reads the comments from the anonymous complaint box after years of not touching it. The first card he pulled out said “how do we prepare for Y2K?” This was probably in like, 2010 on the show. :)

      1. C.*

        Meanwhile my first thought was of the Newsradio office where all the comments are people insulting each other (minus the one legitimate complaint from the janitor (“refrigemator so messy; so, so messy.”)

    5. Meißner Porcelain Teapot*

      @Antilles:
      My office has anonymous complaint and thanks boxes, which are emptied once a week by HR. If it is a thank you note, HR will deliver it to the person being thanked. If it is a complaint, HR will triage to see what needs to be done:

      – Complaint that is easily fixable (e. g. “Policy on how to take vacation days didn’t mention that I need to file it with my manager and not HR – could you please update this?”) gets fixed immediately. If there were multiple complaints for the thing, HR might send a mail around to let people know it’s fixed.

      – Small/one-off complaint that is not easily fixable and/or ridiculous will be ignored (e. g. “My last job let me bring my dog to work. Why can’t you let me bring my dog?” – Note that my company works in an IT-related field with hundreds of pieces of very breakable equipment around at any time).

      – Bigger/multiple complaints that are not easily fixable/ridiculous (e. g. “We need AC on the top floor”, when there is no money in the budget for big remodelling) will prompt a company-wide mail (e. g. “We’ve recently received multiple complaints about the top floor of the office needing AC. We are aware of the issue, but do not have the money to get AC installed for the floor at the moment. We have moved the issue to the top of the maintenance list and will fix it as soon as funds are available. We apologize for the inconvenience.”)

      – Legal issues: these will prompt a company-wide email reminding people that this is NOT what the anonymous box is for and that all legal issues need to be reported in person, directly to HR (employees Jane Doe and John Smith) and will be handled with utmost respect and confidentiality.

    6. LCL*

      Yeah, we don’t use anonymous complaint boxes at big government (TM). If someone has a serious issue like you mentioned we know the places to call, and we can call anonymously. If OPs business is really managing by suggestion box, it will bite them some day. Anonymous suggestion boxes bring out peoples’ worst nature. We did have an anonymous ask a question feature for a brief period of time, it soon degenerated into people asking leading questions designed to trash other groups. I remember it vividly because my group was targeted re: being on premises after hours; we are a 24-7 group and that is our job.

    7. That Would Be a Good Band Name*

      We have one that is supposed to be for questions that can be answered in our weekly newsletter. It’s usually stuff like “when is the next wellness activity going to be planned” or “will flu shots be done on site this year”. You can always tell when someone has put something in it that they won’t/can’t answer because they instead put a reminder in the newsletter about what type of questions they can answer and who they should go to to report various issues (like sexual harassment).

    8. ExcelJedi*

      I’ve seen this in one of the more toxic companies I’ve worked for, but I think it leads to a more, not less, toxic culture. That one was a young, “hip” start-up with plenty of perks like what the letter writer describes.

      In that case, the managers seeking anonymous feedback weren’t interested in solving problems or collaboration, and they thought the anonymous complain box would be an easy way to address problems and improve the office culture. As it turns out, that’s a pretty hard task when no one talks honestly with each other.

    9. Mockingjay*

      We had a Suggestion Box at Ex Toxic Job. Items submitted were read publicly during monthly meetings with all employees, so people tended to limit contributions to only mundane items. Wasn’t useful at all.

      And no, we did not replace the standard water fountain with the suggested model that had a special spout to fit a custom bike water bottle. *insert eyeroll*

    10. Yorick*

      Maybe it’s not really meant to be a complaint box, per se. We have a box that is for “suggestions” or some such.

    11. Pollygrammer*

      My old office had an “anonymous” online form. And a very young, very indiscreet HR assistant who loved dishing on who complained about what.

        1. Pollygrammer*

          I still used it, in a Pollygrammer-we-get-it-you-don’t-like-flavored-coffee-creamer kind of way, but I would never have tried to address any kind of serious policy there.

    12. Triple Anon*

      Some companies have a digital anonymous feedback form where it masks the identity of the sender. I think it’s kind of flawed because usually it doesn’t seem to be 100% anonymous. I mean, if you have to be logged in to a company app or computer to access it (verifying that you work there), then it could be traced back to you. Or your identity might become obvious based on what you’re talking about. And, as people have mentioned, it makes it hard to have a conversation about the issue. There’s also a lot of room for dishonesty and inappropriate use (like complaining about someone because you don’t like them). Although I’m sure there is also some value to it.

  15. cheeky*

    To be honest, I’d be extremely unhappy to work in the same space as a dog- I’m not comfortable around dogs, especially large ones, and I’m also really allergic to pet dander. And if you complain about it, people think you’re a monster who hates dogs. I sympathize with the people who complained- I’m sure they were afraid to bring it up.

    1. Don't Blame Me*

      Yes, I’m so tired of how it seems acceptable to label anyone who dislikes dogs as a monster. There’s a lot to dislike about dogs, and it doesn’t make me a bad person to prefer not to be around one.

      1. stefanielaine*

        Totally. My whole family was extremely allergic to all living things growing up, so we just never had animals around, and (I assume) as a result, I’m dead inside where you’re supposed to love animals. I don’t wish them harm, obviously, but they give me no pleasant feelings either. I’m otherwise a good person, but the awful things people say to me when they find out I don’t like animals or want pets! It’s shocking.

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          Rhymes With Orange had a quiz for those wondering if they needed another cat, dog, or human infant. Question 1: Are you satisfied with the amount of barf in your life, or do you want more barf?

          (I have cats, dogs, and children, but this list resonates every time one of them barfs.)

    2. Katniss*

      Agreed. I’m also wondering how recently instituted this perk is. I totally empathize with how the OP feels like a major perk was pulled on her. But if I were in an office that instituted a “bring your dogs to work” policy, I’d feel the same way, but on the other end of things: I wouldn’t want to work an office with dogs. I like my friend’s dogs just fine, but I don’t want to be around dogs all day. So it’s likely the coworker also feels like something is being taken from them.

    3. Goya de la Mancha*

      The size issue makes me chuckle (not the fact that you’re uncomfortable!). I personally have always been more uncomfortable with small dogs as far as aggressive behavior. Any nips/bites I have taken that haven’t been by puppies/accidents – all small dogs :( and rabbits…weirdly enough…

      1. Oxford Coma*

        Maybe it’s more of a jumping thing? I’ve known people to be knocked over by untrained large dogs. If your guests are frail or elderly, it can be a serious danger.

        1. kb*

          I’m not afraid of dogs, but am wary of big dogs because when I was a pre-teen a big dog chased me and tackled me to the ground. It ended up not hurting me and just wanting to play, but the experience freaked me out. I have since made friends with some bigger dogs because they are very well-trained and I trust their owners, but I would be skittish around an unfamiliar big dog, esp if the owner wasn’t vigilant about keeping them in line.

        2. Jessi*

          So we have a small dog who isn’t great about jumping. However, she reaches knee level on most people. When she is bad I can pick her up and put her under my arm, away from people.
          One of the mums at school dog jumped up at me and its paws reached my freaking shoulder. You bet I yelped and pushed it off me.

      2. Nope*

        I’ve had the same experience. I love large dogs as long as they aren’t super lucky (spit is gross no matter the species), but small dogs make me very, very nervous until I get to know them.

      3. EddieSherbert*

        Yeah, the nastiest dogs I’ve dealt with in my life have been under 20 lbs. People let them get away with it because they see them as “eternal puppies that aren’t doing any real harm.” (yup, you’re right! If I ALWAYS wear my hiking boots and long pants in their presence, they won’t be able to actually hurt me. Thanks, friend.).

        But, if you’re not familiar/comfortable with dogs, I can totally see how a large dog would be more intimidating than the jerk chihuahua. I loveeee dogs and grew up with several dogs that were close to 150lbs, and I still approach unknown large dogs more cautiously (especially if I have my dog with me – he’s only 35 lbs).

    4. Anon.*

      OP stated that was a perk mentioned the hiring process, so if pet friendly workplaces are not your speed, hopefully during your interview, you would discover that, and decline to move forward. Same as if you discover the job is 75% travel and you don’t want to be away from home that much. It’s a deal breaker, but you don’t get to come in and change the workplace culture as a new hire. (Am I off base here?)

      2. krysb*

        This is exactly where I sit on the issue. If the company makes it known before hiring that it’s a dog-friendly workplace with dogs and you don’t like dogs, prefer not to have dogs at your workplace, or are allergic, why would you accept the job?

    5. Pollygrammer*

      I don’t actually like dogs much myself, and I wouldn’t leap for the opportunity to take a job at a dog-office. That’s not monstrous.

      I think I would feel monstrous if I managed to get a coworker’s really-treasured perk removed for my own personal comfort.

        1. Elspeth*

          LW stated that “They’ve received a couple of complaints that my dog is too large to be allowed in the office, and someone left a note last week saying that they’re afraid of dogs. My manager very kindly asked me to stop bringing her to work.” So the question is, are they allowing other people to continue to bring their smaller dogs to work and just penalizing LW?

          Nothing to do with allergies.

    6. Pineapple Incident*

      Honestly I’m with you on this even though I’m a dog lover. Plenty of people would see this, like lots of other potentially distracting things, as a lot less of a perk and more of something that eats into their day. I would spend forever playing on the floor with someone’s dog, probably annoying them and everyone else and getting nothing done.

      I have self-awareness here I guess. I have a lovely dog who I adore, who is bouncy and fun and loves people, but is loud and can be obnoxious. I would NEVER EVER EVER want her at work; on the limited days that I work from home she is on me about 1/3 of the day, but when I’m not there is perfectly content to sleep all day and does alright with just morning and evening walks.

  16. DCompliance*

    Funny story without advice:
    My husband saw I sign for a toy poodle for sale.
    He was confused and said it is a toy?
    I explained small poodles where called toy poodles. Larger poodles are called standard.
    His response: Is there a deluxe size?

            1. Perse's Mom*

              I dunno, an old coworker of mine had what I would consider a Sub-Par Pyrenees, but that was mostly her fault as she couldn’t be bothered to train him.

      2. Snark*

        Standard implies that there’s a Custom in there too. I’d like a Custom Poodle, purple, with flames.

  17. Snark*

    It’s really high time companies stopped offering this as a perk. It’s just….so fraught, and so easy to abuse, and there’s so many ways for it to go sour and create divisions and bad feeling. And I say that as someone who loves dogs, and loves his dog*. It’s just not a thing that works out, long term. Something always fouls it. If you want to offer cushy perks, offer telework a day or two a week and people can work at home with their dogs.

    *Though, because she’s a hyper little herd dog and has no chill, I would not love having her at work….

    1. MechanicalPencil*

      This is why my days working at home are spent very oddly. There’s the obligatory morning walk, followed by some staring contests in which my dogs are clearly displeased that my laptop is getting more attention than they are. This is settled by a variety of methods that include shifting to the couch and allowing snuggles, which both increases and decreases productivity.

      I feel like herd dogs never have chill. “Must. Herd. Why aren’t you moving THAT way?” I do have fun images now of a border collie trying to move people down a hallway.

      1. Snark*

        Ah yes, the herd dog stare, with the intensity of nine million suns. I swear to god I can feel her staring at me. And then I get the firm nudge with the cold nose. And then I let her out, and she goes and stares at the squirrels until I’m pretty sure they’re just going to zzzzzot-boomf like a fly hitting a mosquito light.

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          I was always impressed that our herding dog–who spent many hours unsuccessfully attempting to herd golden retrievers–immediately reasoned “Cats are not sheep” and left them politely alone.

          1. Snark*

            I could see “eh, it’s fluffy and kinda dumb, close enough to scratch the itch” with Golden Retrievers. And I can see the goldy going, wait what im so confused i cant even why are you doing that to my legs

            (Don’t hate, retriever owners, I’ve had four.)

      2. Pineapple Incident*

        Haha my dog stares at me while I work from home too! She is not a herd dog but is a yappy Pom mix who loves attention, and wants to know why I’m paying more attention to work than to her on a pretty constant basis.

    2. AnotherAlison*

      I’m surprised there haven’t been stories here yet of people wanting to bring their teacup pig or pet squirrel to the dog-friendly offices.

      1. Health Insurance Nerd*

        I work with a guy who once found a baby squirrel on his way to the office, brought it INTO THE BUILDING, and was then devastated when he was told that no, he could not keep it in his desk drawer and would have to take it outside.

        1. AnotherAlison*

          Lol. A college teammate of my son’s found a squirrel in the wall of his apartment (?!?!?), and took it in as a pet. . . until the coach found out and told him in no uncertain terms to get rid of it. (Which is what sparked my comment.)

      2. AnotherJill*

        I recently read about a person who wanted to take her “support peacock” on a flight and was denied. I wondered at the time if she worked and took it to work.

          1. K.*

            Me too. What got me is that she had been told three times prior to the flight that she could not bring said peacock, and still showed up with the bird anyway. “You know what

            Peacocks are territorial, aggressive, and they sound like a person screaming. If I walk onto a flight and I see a peacock strutting around, I am OUT.

            2. Perse's Mom*

              I’d read that she’s a ‘performance artist,’ so it may well have been an intentional stunt to drum up attention.

    3. Lora*

      Agree. I adore my giant slobber-and-fur factory, and I’ve had dogs that would have been perfect office dogs (speed bumps that occasionally enjoy pats and tummy rubs), but I have enough friends who tell me that while they are delighted to have me over to their home, or meet me somewhere for events, they will never set foot in my house because dog.

      One of my dear friends who is a wonderful person and a most excellent CAD wizard, is terrified of kittens and baby farm animals and of course dogs of all sizes. I love her to pieces, but she cannot deal with anything more substantial than a goldfish when it comes to critters. I have a great many colleagues who are city people born and raised, who went through their entire childhood and part of adulthood never interacting with a dog beyond the occasional seeing one on the street, and colleagues from countries where pet dogs are not a thing and feral dogs biting you ARE a thing, and they would all be deeply uncomfortable with a dog in the building.

      The other crummy thing here is, this perk didn’t cost the office any money – for that reason, I’m not sure you can ask them, “hey, if I have to check my dog into day care now, can you at least comp me for it?” It’s not as if they had a professional dog sitter coming by and now they no longer have to pay and they have money freed up in the budget.

      Cultural note for people outside the US: we are weird about dogs. They might as well be human children to us. We spend inordinate amounts of money on special food and toys and outfits for them and have entire stores dedicated to different kinds of foods and fencing and collars and leashes and treats and tuna-flavored toothpaste and vitamin supplements and special doggy backpacks so they can go hiking and camping with us and shampoo and flea treatments and holy smokes whenever I have friends or in-laws visiting they marvel at our giant Petsmart and Petco buildings full of stuff. We have all kinds of advanced training on rally obedience and working dog competitions and therapy dogs and whatnot, and most people give their dog some basic training. This isn’t *quite* as bad as being told, “you may no longer bring your child to our gratis on site day care,” but it’s pretty close.

      2. Kelly*

        That’s a great point about the US and pets. My dad’s dog is very dear to my dad, just as my late mother thoroughly indulged him.

        Both my sister and I call the dog my dad’s favorite child. We both think it’s telling that he’ll take time off work to take the dog to one of his allergists when he was very reluctant to take any time off when we were kids to take us to doctor appointment. That was mom’s job, and she also worked full time. The dog has a second allergist and a primary care vet, where he spends at least $100 on medication for the dog. He spends at least $200 a month on specialty dog food and treats because the dog is allergic to any food that has meat as an ingredient. Last Christmas, he bought the dog an orthopedic dog couch from LL Bean, that the dog shares with a couple of the cats. My dad’s from a family that loves animals, and some of them thought he was crazy for spending over $200 on a Xmas gift for the dog.

        The dog’s now a very senior dog whose breed expectancy is 12 to 14 years. He’s planning on getting a puppy after the big boy goes because he doesn’t know what he’ll do without a dog around. He likes the cats but is more of a dog person.

    4. JB (not in Houston)*

      I kind of agree. It would be nice, though, if in exchange companies that could afford it had a doggy daycare, like some places have on-site childcare. I realize that would probably never happen for all kinds of cost and logistical reasons, but if it could work it would give people a chance to see their dogs during the day and allow them to not leave them at home, while still keeping the work areas dog-free.

      1. Snark*

        I could maybe see it working with negotiating a discounted group rate with a local kennel or something.

        1. JB (not in Houston)*

          Oh, that’s a good idea. Not as ideal as something on-site, but still better than leaving the dogs at home (if that worries you) or employees paying for dog walkers out of pocket.

    5. bb-great*

      Yes, this. I just see so many pitfalls with this that it surprises me that companies do it. Who’s going to decide and enforce what constitutes good enough behavior? What happens if the company wants to hire someone who happens to be allergic or phobic? How are people going to react if this perk gets revoked? I just find it hard to believe that, on an organizational level, the benefit outweighs the potential cost.

      1. Snark*

        One might ask why they didn’t……..

        ( •_•)>⌐□-□

        (⌐□_□)

        Let that sleeping dog lie.

        YEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    6. Tuesday Next*

      I wouldn’t be excited to work in a dog friendly office, but I hardly think you can tell companies to stop doing it.

    7. Jesmlet*

      Eh, I don’t really have a problem with companies choosing to offer perks that they want to offer, as long as those “perks” are clearly disclosed in the hiring process. I’d avoid offices with a weekly Friday happy hour like the plague, but a dog friendly office would be great for me. To each their own.

      1. Snark*

        Like I said, though, emotions around dogs and other pets in the workplace run sufficiently deep that I think this issue is particularly fraught – it’s not just another variety of perk, it seems to cause unique levels of drama when it’s misused or there’s complaints.

        1. Kimberlee, Esq.*

          Eh, there’s always the potential for drama and complaints and misuse of various policies. That’s what management is for (specifically, managers managing problems on their teams). I don’t think something needs to work in every office or with every culture to be worthwhile for some offices or some cultures.

    8. Pathfinder Ryder*

      It can also stifle diversity – a company could be missing out on a great Muslim employee who doesn’t want to deal with having to change their clothes before prayers because Fido came into their office.

  18. Penny Lane*

    I think it would be insightful to think about the person(s) on the other end posting to AAM about this:

    Dear Alison,
    I have a great job blah blah blah, but there is a new employee who took it upon herself to ask management if she could bring in her standard poodle to work. They were so taken aback that they said yes, and now she brings the poodle in. Don’t get me wrong, the dog is generally reasonably well-behaved, but there’s still a dog smell and some occasional barking and commotion and the dog is more disruptive than the owner thinks it is. Several of us in the office have discussed this — we have complained anonymously. In fact, my one office mate is very afraid of dogs due to an incident in which blah blah blah and it’s a real issue for her to see this dog so up close and personal every day. No one wants to be the jerk who tells Ms. Poodle that she can’t bring her dog in, but frankly we thought it was kind of nervy for a relative newcomer to impose a dog in the workplace in the first place. Some of us who object to the dog being in the workplace love dogs and have dogs ourselves — at home, where they belong. How would you handle this?

    1. Murphy*

      It doesn’t sound like OP “took it upon herself” though. It sounds like the office was described as dog-friendly and the double-checked that her dog was ok.

      I checked to make sure it was okay to bring her — dog-friendly doesn’t necessarily mean large-dog-friendly — and management said as long as she was well behaved, it would be fine.

      1. Anonymouish*

        This! I don’t think anyone, no matter how much they love dogs, just decides they’ll make this a request — dog-friendly offices usually happen from the top down because someone in the C-suite wants to bring *their* dog.

        1. KayEss*

          And the C-suite’s dog is NEVER well-behaved.

          I worked in small business hell for a year at a place that did not in any way advertise itself as dog-friendly–but the owner brought her unwashed, ill-trained, large-and-small dog pair in whenever she felt like it. The small one would cry incessantly if the owner was in the (small) conference room with the door closed, so my (thankfully fairly mild) allergies and I got to have 90-minute meetings in an enclosed space with someone holding a wriggling dog in her arms. It also had a habit of peeing on the carpet in a particular employee’s office, and the owner would laugh when the employee got annoyed at having to clean it up. The large one was better behaved, but still unwashed and left a veritable wake of stench as it moseyed through the space.

          I grant that the owner in that case was demonstrably a narcissist nightmare outlier, as she was also the center of a whole host of other office dysfunctions, but that put me off “dog-friendly” workplaces pretty much for life.

    2. AvonLady Barksdale*

      I appreciate the exercise and agree with it as a method, but I don’t think this is fair. The “kind of nervy” and “took it upon herself” language sounds extra hostile. A request is not a demand, nor does every request have to be granted. From this perspective, it’s entirely management’s fault for not drawing a clear line for the OP and saying no, and this just sounds like the co-workers want to put the blame at the wrong feet.

      If someone is uncomfortable with the dog in the office, then they should do what they did (complain, even anonymously) and management should do what management did (tell the OP she can’t bring her dog in). The OP is allowed to push back, and the management is just as allowed to say no.

    3. Kc89*

      They were so taken aback that they said yes, and now she brings the poodle in.
      —
      That’s quite a leap from the information we have in the letter.

      1. Magenta Sky*

        The flip side is the claim that the dog is well behaved and people comment on how well behaved. Maybe that’s exactly the case, but maybe the dog owner is so used to the acting out behavior that it seems normal, and maybe the coworkers are worried that if they say anything to her face there will be an explosion. Possibly even for good reason.

        It is the nature of advice columns that you only get one side of the story, and generally not very much of that. Advice columns aren’t about objective analysis of who is right and who is wrong – that’s impossible – they’re about giving advice to one side of the conflict based on what they want.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        It’s the sort of reasoning used by people who conclude that “Mmm. Uh huh. Hmm” means “Preach it! You are absolutely right and everyone agrees with you!”

    4. Grad Student*

      I like the idea of looking at this from that point of view, but it doesn’t sound like OP pressed for this perk or that management was “taken aback” at any point–it sounded like the perk existed (whether it was used or not) before OP got the job, and OP double-checked that her specific dog would be okay before bringing her.

    6. Merula*

      Even if this was the situation (and it isn’t for several reasons others have noted), I would bet Allison’s advice would be to bring it up as a group in person and be specific about the issues that it’s causing. Without that, it’s a one-sided debate (because no one can go back to the anonymous note writer to say “would this alternative work for you?”) and there’s only one solution (ban the dog).

        1. Magenta Sky*

          The anonymous complaint writer doesn’t see that as a problem. They see it as an *easy* solution. “If I do this anonymously, I don’t have to be reasonable and compromise, I just get what I want.”

          It’s one of the most common ways that anonymous complaint boxes get abused.

          2. JB (not in Houston)*

            Wow, that’s reading a lot into someone we know nothing about. I definitely have worked places where, if there were legitimate issues to be raised, nobody wanted to raise them because of the shoot-the-messenger culture. And we’ve seen a letter here before that demonstrate how badly it can go for the person who complains about people bringing dogs to work. This may well be one of the common ways that anonymous complaint boxes get abused (I’m assuming you have experience handling these boxes, whereas I don’t, so I’ll take your word for it that your right about that). But we don’t have anything in this letter to know or suggest that this person who made the anonymous complaint did so *because* they don’t want to be reasonable and don’t want to compromise.

            1. JB (not in Houston)*

              Added note, when I’ve worked at the kinds of places with that kind of culture, I never bothered with anonymous notes because if they were that unreceptive to feedback when given face to face, they weren’t going to address issues brought up anonymously, either. But I can see for something like bringing dogs to work, when people can react very badly to having that taken away, why someone would want to do it anonymously. I’m not saying it’s a good idea, but I totally get why someone would do it, and not because they are someone who wants to get their own way without having to have a discussion about it or compromise.

        2. fposte*

          I’m generally not a fan, but this is like complaining about somebody’s kid, so I can certainly understand the impulse.

          More, though, it’s making me think that there need to be better structures around being dog-friendly; it should be clear to those interested that it’s not a guarantee, and it should be clear to everybody here who you talk to if you have a concern about a dog or the policy.

          1. Nope*

            Or maybe limit it to certain days of the week like Dog Day Fridays or something. Then do like someone suggested above, and get a group rate at the closest doggie daycare.

        3. Triple Anon*

          It also makes it hard to tell how seriously to take it. It could be anything from someone trying to get revenge on OP because she got the project they wanted to someone with PTSD from being attacked by a dog. You have no way of knowing. Of course the middle ground is the most likely – someone finds the dog mildly annoying. But still.

    7. AJ*

      Bringing your dog to work was an offered perk. She did not take it upon herself to ask/insist and be the only person to be allowed to bring her dog in. The person who complained should be taken seriously, but this version of “their side of the story” has a pretty negative tone.

    8. Lissa*

      Lots of people have given perspectives from employees who don’t like dogs, though, so I don’t think rewriting the letter really is any more insightful than the many people here who are allergic or afraid of dogs! I am pretty anti-dog myself tbh.

      Also if I remember correctly, Alison has always been very much against anonymous notes, so I don’t think she’d think people writing in saying they’d done it would get a lot of praise for it…

  19. Amber*

    This is one office perk that I hate. Even the most well behaved dogs occasionally bark and at best they are a distraction. At my last job I hated that there were so many dogs in the office (it was a policy that came after several years of working there). But I couldn’t complain because the CEO had a dog and it was his policy. If I was you I’d take a real look at your dog’s behavior. Some things you might have overlooked. Does it physically take up a lot of space or require people to walk about it? Does it bark…even once? Does it jump on anyone? Does it run up to anyone? Does it smell? Does it make annoying sounds like chewing on it’s self or lapping at it’s water bowl? Are people distracted when it’s around such as stopping to do their work to pet it or play with it? Do other people have to watch it when you’re in a meeting?
    Those are some things to consider that may not bother you but can really bother others.

    1. Health Insurance Nerd*

      I understand where you’re coming from, but according to the LW the note focused on the fact that the dog is large, and the note writer has a fear of large dogs. It would be a different story altogether if they note complained about the dogs behavior, but based on the letter that just isn’t what happened.

      1. Yorick*

        But there were multiple complaints, so we don’t know that none of these aren’t the issue. Also, some of these can be worse with larger dogs than small ones. A large dog may not do anything wrong, but it may still always be in the way.

      2. Annabelle*

        The fact that there are multiple complaints sort of negates it being just one lone coworker’s fear, though.

    2. Lindsay J*

      My dog absolutely does not bark. Ever. Okay, once, when she had an upset stomach and wanted to be let out immediately so she could defecate on the grass instead of in the house. But that’s once in 5 years of ownership.
      She doesn’t jump, at all. She doesn’t approach people unless she is called over. If she were brought to an office she would likely spend most of her time sleeping under the desk. There are really dogs that are really well behaved and don’t do any of those things.

      That being said, dogs are still dogs. They still shed. They still make noise when they groom themselves. They still have an odor. They still pant. (This is what mine does when she wants attention at home. She gets up and walks around and pants loudly until someone attends to her.) They still eat and drink and fart. If they have long tails their tails still thump against things. They’re still dogs.

      And if someone doesn’t like dogs, or is afraid of dogs, or is allergic to dogs, they’re still not going to be happy with a dog all up in their space all day every day even if it is well behaved.

      Plus, with animals you just never know. Is my dog really well behaved? Yes. Do I know what she is going to do in every situation? No. A couple times while walking her the neighborhood kids have all run up and surrounded her and began petting her and I was definitely a little tense when that happened because in the end she’s still a dog, she still has animal instincts and a mind of her own and I could see being surrounded being perceived as a threat. And anytime you’re outside your home or interacting with other people you can’t guarantee what is going to happen or what people are going to do.

    3. CmdrShepard4ever*

      To be fair I could make the same complaints about coworkers. Granted people are not stopping by Bob the human’s office and rubbing his belly while he rolls on the ground. But people do stop by and chat with Bob when they walk by him, or Bob does sneeze/cough pretty loudly, Bob is a loud chewer when he eats lunch. Bob can be very smelly after lunch, Bob makes a loud slurping noise when drinking from his water cup. The one difference I would hope for is that no one need to watch Bob when there is a meeting going on, but maybe Bob slacks with his work if no one is watching him.

    4. Ann Furthermore*

      I’m not a huge fan of it either. My company is very small, so sometimes people bring their dogs to the office. Most of the time it’s fine, but it’s disruptive. My boss brought her dog to the office one day. Due to some, uh, digestive issues with the dog, she was working in her office with the door closed. Then she asked me to come in there so we could discuss something, and when I did what I always do — knock and look through the window for her to wave me in and then open the door — it startled the dog, who then barked and growled at me. According to my boss, that was very unusual behavior for the dog. I’m not afraid of dogs at all, and thankfully I don’t have allergies that would make working in an office with dogs impossible, but it’s a pain and it does cause inconvenience for others.

  20. Woof*

    So far the comments feel a bit unfair. Just because some commenters don’t like dogs doesn’t mean that LW was wrong for using perk of their job, and that their dog is definitely poorly behaved.

    1. Justme, The OG*

      +1. We’re also told to take letter writers at their word. So if our LW says that their dog is well behaved and does well in the office, we should believe it.

      1. Emmie*

        The commenters here have taken OP at her word. She believes her dog is well behaved. It’s possible that the complainer believes something different, and that’s a valid perspective too. It could be part of the reason someone complained.

        1. DCompliance*

          I wished the anonymous complainers would have said that in their complaints if that were the case.

          1. Emmie*

            Me too. It’s possible that the complainer was specific, and that the manager didn’t tell OP. The specifics could’ve outed the complainer. A good complaint investigation should involve talking to OP’s impacted coworkers before making a decision. The complainer May have outed herself to the manager, but requested anonymity. To be fair, maybe none of this happened.

            1. Dankar*

              Even in that case, the manager should tell the OP that her dog is no longer permitted because of behavior issues/size/whatever, rather than telling her that they received an anonymous complaint. If there’s really an issue, THAT is the problem, not that someone complained.

              Anonymous complaints are ridiculous. Either you’re taking the path of least resistance and shirking responsibility for wanting to alter the current culture, or management has not created and enforced a culture that is sufficiently empathetic and mature enough to approach disagreements/medical needs in an adult way. (In the latter case, it’s then management taking the easy way out.)

              Having no complainant attached to the note means that there’s no way to mediate the situation, which ends with one of two extremes. Either the OP is out a perk that helped her decide to take the job or the complaint is ignored and everyone continues on as they were. How does that solve the issue?

        2. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          Agreed. Taking OPs at their word doesn’t mean refusing to acknowledge that others they’re interacting with may have a different perspective. It generally has more to do with taking a stance that the OP is telling us the truth as they are experiencing it.

        3. Snark*

          The complaints were about allergies, which I take with a grain of salt because poodle, and fear of dogs. Invoking behavior without any reason to do so strikes me as projecting.

          1. Rusty Shackelford*

            Sorry, I know I said this upthread, but none of the complaints were about allergies. And even if they were, there’s no reason to take them with a grain of salt. People are allergic to poodles too.

          2. Observer*

            Which again, helps explain why a complaint would be anonymous. If I have an allergy, I do NOT want to have to argue with someone who is telling “But poodle” (or whatever it is.) Just because an allergy is not common does not mean it’s non-existent and it’s just not fair to force someone to prove to your satisfaction that the allergy exists. Especially if someone has experienced the “No, it’s all in your head because >allergen of your choice<"

            1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

              Yep, and hypoallergenic doesn’t mean nonallergenic. (Or whatever the correct prefix would be, there are a few to choose from.)

        4. Jesmlet*

          Multiple comments have requested that OP take a second look at her dog’s behavior. I wouldn’t characterize that as “taking OP at her word”. Taking someone at their word is not saying “I believe you think that’s true but you should reevaluate your perspective.” The complaint as far as we know it was just about the size of the dog and a general phobia so either way, the behavior seems irrelevant.

          1. kb*

            I think good advice does take people at their word, but also tries to fill in potential gaps in their perception of events. How often has a LW written in to say they clearly conveyed information, then Alison asks for specifics annnnnd it wasn’t so clear after-all? Dozens at least

        5. Alice*

          So if an OP wrote in to ask how to respond to sexual harassment from a co-worker, we’d “take OP at her word” by accepting that she believes she’s being harassed, and inviting her to consider the perspective of her co-worker?

          1. Yorick*

            But this is the opposite…imagine OP wrote in that an anonymous complaint stated that they sexually harassed someone and says they’d never do that and they always behave appropriately. We’d give advice as though that were true, but also encourage them to think about whether they unintentionally did something that made a coworker uncomfortable.

          2. Observer*

            no. Because generally speaking the person complaining is describing specific things, and in those cases “perspective” is not really relevant. If someone writes in “Fergus regularly calls me sweetie pie, toots and similar names” I don’t need to hear about his perspective. It someone says “Fergus call us disrespectful names but no one else seems to think those names are disrespectful” I WOULD ask “What names is Fergus using?” In the first case, the person is describing specific facts and (absent reasons to believe otherwise) we should take them at their word. In the second case, the term “disrespectful” is a term that can be interpreted many ways, and therefore it’s legitimate to ask the facts.

            In this case “well behaved” is a term that is very open to interpretation. And unlike harassment, it’s one that is FREQUENTLY interpreted far more loosely by pet owners than others. Not always and probably no even most of the time, but often enough that it’s legitimate to ask about the facts supporting that description.

            Now, if the OP had written “My dog never barks and never jumps at people and doesn’t even go to lick them unless invited” I would NOT say “are you suuuuure?” But not everyone interprets “well behaved” that way.

            1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

              Beautiful response. This is a great breakdown of things.

              (Not to mention, it’s true in a lot of areas. “My employee is great generally, but [list of serious performance issues].” We’re quite confident in saying “Hey, maybe your employee is not actually as great as you think.”)

    2. AvonLady Barksdale*

      I think the OP joined a new office, noticed a perk, and asked if she could take advantage of it. Then an obstacle came up so everyone involved is addressing it. I agree, I think there’s a lot of ascribing ill intent (or something else negative, I can’t quite articulate it) to the OP that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

      1. 5 Leaf Clover*

        I would suggest that it’s because the OP doesn’t seem concerned that she is making a coworker uncomfortable, which to me seems like a big part of the equation.

        2. JB (not in Houston)*

          I agree with you that the OP doesn’t seem particularly concerned, but she doesn’t include language that affirmatively makes her seem unconcerned, either. She’s just focusing her letter on how this affects her. That doesn’t mean she thinks the anonymous complainers should just have to suck it up. It seems like she’d be willing to compromise if there were a way to make the complainers comfortable while still bringing her dog.

        3. DCompliance*

          I don’t agree with you. The letter writer states she specifically says they understand where management is coming from and even asked if would still be okay to bring her larger dog in.
          The company should have thought about that before the perk was offered and the should be held accountable for addressing it better.
          I have sympathy for the person who is afraid of the dog, but I also have sympathy for the letter writer.

      2. Elizabeth H.*

        I agree that there seems to be a lot of negative ascribing. It even seems to me that the OP was MORE conscientious than she could have been by explicitly asking permission. She was told that among other perks, employees can bring their dogs to work, so she could have just brought the dog in! I don’t get why it’s like she should have known better than to bring her dog in, despite being literally told it was fine. It reminds me a little of the letter where the employee who joined the committee a month before the event explicitly asked everyone if it was OK for her to go to the celebratory lunch, everyone said OK and then despised her for it.

        1. Marillenbaum*

          That seems like a similar story–it isn’t unreasonable that OP double-checked, and it wasn’t unreasonable for her to bring her dog to the dog-friendly office where she had also explicitly gotten permission to bring her dog.

      3. Rusty Shackelford*

        I think the OP joined a new office, noticed a perk, and asked if she could take advantage of it.

        No – according to the OP, the ability to bring her dog was a major factor in her taking the job.

      4. Observer*

        I agree. I don’t think that the OP is handling that well, but on the other hand, they are not being terrible either. And, they seem more clueless than unconcerned about causing problems. They certainly don’t sounds like they have ill intent or are acting in bad faith, at all.

    3. Murphy*

      Yes. Whether or not the perk should exist is really a separate conversation.

      Take the dog part out. OP accepted the job in part because of a perk that is now being taken away.

      1. Future Analyst*

        Totally agreed. I’m so not a dog person, but I completely empathize with having a perk taken away, and how crappy that feels. The comments telling OP to get over it, or how dogs in offices shouldn’t be a thing, are missing the point.

        1. Lil Fidget*

          Definitely agree, and TBH, letter writer, I’d suggest you start looking for jobs from home. Nobody’s at fault here, but if being with your dog is important to you – and it sounds like it is – you deserve to have that perk without always fearing it might be taken away.

      2. Lissa*

        Yup, I agree! I think my reaction to this is funny because I actually am not a dog lover at all, and dislike the idea of dogs in the office but something about a perk being taken away makes me so sad for the LW that I tend to be falling more on her side here. I’m not saying it may not be inevitable but I feel like a lot of people are just kind of saying “well, perks are never sure to continue!” and being kind of dismissive in a way they wouldn’t if it were another major perk, like say working from home, if that suddenly changed.

    5. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

      I don’t see anyone saying the OP was wrong to bring the dog in at all? Just pointing out that it’s reasonable for other people to not want dogs in the office.

    8. DCompliance*

      I do think that management handled this badly and not the letter writer. If you are going to offer a perk, then it should have been thought out the some people are afraid of dogs (large or small) and how to address it. If that means not offering it, then don’t offer it.

      1. MechanicalPencil*

        This was also my feeling. A perk should be able to apply across the board, not just to certain individuals. Conversely, if OP’s dog had bitten someone (which did NOT happen, just hypothetically), I would completely understand being asked not to bring your dog back. In this case…I’m perplexed.

        1. Augusta Sugarbean*

          The idea that a perk must appeal to every employee or it shouldn’t be offered is veering into sandwich territory though. Unless it’s like free money or something, there’s no way for a company to offer a perk that is going to be of value to all employees all the time. Different people are going to value different perks. Some people are going to want to work from home, some people would rather get more vacation, some people would want a dog friendly office.

            1. Thursday Next*

              “Not everybody likes sandwiches” is a reference to a post from a while back, and has come to be shorthand for rejecting a generally reasonable suggestion in the basis that it doesn’t accommodate absolutely everyone’s particular needs.

          2. JHunz*

            I don’t think that’s really what they were saying. A perk doesn’t have to appeal everyone, but perks should be well-thought-out enough that you don’t run into situations where a manager is telling an employee “that perk applies to everyone except you”

          3. Lindsay J*

            This. Some people might love free food in the cafeteria. Some people might prefer to make their own or not be able to take advantage due to religious or diet restrictions. Some people might like a free parking pass. Some people might take public transportation or carpool with a friend or spouse that works nearby or walk or bike to work. Some people would love Friday happy hours. Some people don’t drink or don’t want to drink at the office or socialize with their coworkers in that way.

            The thing is that most of those perks, while being something that the employee might not want/be able to partake in, don’t generally actively harm the other employee. (With possible exception of pressure to drink at happy hour from other coworkers). If you don’t take advantage of the free food, you bring your own and you’re no worse off than before even if other people are taking advantage of it.

            But if you’re allergic/phobic of dogs, then someone taking advantage of the dog-friendly perk and bringing theirs in hurts you. So you’re not only not getting a perk you can take advantage of because you don’t have a dog you can bring in, but your coworkers using that perk also negatively affects you.

            The only similar thing I can think of would be if it were a perk to be able to smoke inside. Okay, if you don’t smoke, that’s not really a perk. Plus, breathing in the second-hand smoke from your coworkers is both not enjoyable and is actively harming your well-being. (Not saying dogs are equivalent to cigarettes in any way. But for someone who is allergic to animals, the end result of not being able to breath is similar.)

            Or to be less contentious, maybe a perk where people get to have essential oil diffusers at their desks. If you don’t like essential oils or they negatively affect you by giving you headaches or making it hard to breath or whatever, you’re both not getting to take advantage of the perk and you’re actively being negatively affected by others who are taking advantage of it.

      2. Emmie*

        I wonder if this was a benefit for one person, or a work perk for everyone. I could see this playing out differently depending on which one it was.

        2. Snark*

          I don’t wonder that, because the OP makes it pretty clear that the office was dog-friendly when she was hired.

      3. Feline*

        The majority of the time, “pet friendly” is originally something intended for purse dogs. I’m saying that as someone who takes my cat shopping with me on weekends and to outdoor pet friendly cafes and has been looking extensively at hotel policies. OP’s dog, like my cat, falls outside of what the policy was originally imagined for, it sounds like.

        This was probably never intended to be a situation where the policy was not handled evenly across the board. It was probably that no one ever thought about big dogs and how they might be perceived differently by some of the coworkers. That doesn’t make it any easier for OP to deal with. It does sound like OP’s organization may need to get their dog-friendly policy in writing to avoid misunderstandings and disappointment in the future.

        1. Oxford Coma*

          You are right that “pet” friendly places and events almost always mean small dogs, but tell us more about shopping with a cat.

          1. Feline*

            Shopping with a cat in pet friendly places that are OK with it (a surprising number of national chains are) is probably similar to shopping with a small dog. My cat used to like to ride in the shopping basket on top of her carrier. Now she prefers to be carried. She wears a harness and leash and enjoys saying hello to other shoppers who stop and ask about her. We go to the pet store, hardware store, and craft store fairly regularly. Sometimes the sporting goods store or home decor store, if I need to go there. She also hangs out with me on the coffee shop patio when it’s warm and knows the regulars there. I keep her close and try to be a good ambassador for cat-kind, making sure she doesn’t make messes and that we leave things cleaner than we found them. I am keeping her socialized to potentially become a therapy animal when she is old enough.

            1. Oxford Coma*

              So cool! Thank you for your ambassadorship. I took my (since deceased) super chill cat to a few events touted as being for pets, and got major attitude for taking an animal other than a dog.

              1. Feline*

                Rock on for representing with your cat when you did! I don’t want to sidetrack this thread with my frustration with the industry for using the word “pet” to mean “dog only.” It’s a problem from events to housing to treats. It does give me some empathy for the big dog people who run into the same thing in a small dog world, though.

            2. Shocked*

              Is this why my daughter had a mysterious asthma attack at the grocery store the other day?! People are putting CATS in the shopping cart?!

              WHY?! This is so inappropriate. Like smearing peanut butter on the door handle at a gas station and walking away.

        2. Elizabeth H.*

          I disagree that “pet friendly” is commonly understood by everyone to mean “only purse dogs.” I think that most people understand that “pet friendly” means “non-disruptive pet friendly” but I certainly wouldn’t assume that it exclusively meant mini dogs only.

        3. Snark*

          “The majority of the time, “pet friendly” is originally something intended for purse dogs.”

          Hard disagree. I’ve worked in dog-friendly offices, and this was not implicit or explicit in the policy – there were plenty of large dogs around. And dogs are dogs. Purse dogs are more likely, in my experience, to be aggressive and incessantly bark than smaller ones. Large dogs are not more likely to be disruptive or problematic.

          Which is precisely why I think pet-friendly offices invite WAY too much drama, hair-splitting, complaints, and hassle.

        4. Lindsay J*

          Yup. One of my pets is a snake.

          I don’t think he would be welcome at most pet-friendly offices. (Which is a shame as he is much more office friendly than even well behaved dogs, lol. He would just lay on my shoulders and chill out the whole time. He’s silent. Hypoallergenic. Won’t jump on people. Doesn’t smell.) And even apartment buildings and rental and homeowners insurance are weird about even harmless snakes. I was pleasantly surprised that our current apartment complex had an option for “caged reptile” on the application.

          And even with dogs, and even with all dogs of the same general size, there are so many different personalities and levels of training and behavior that it’s difficult for there to be a one-size fits all policy unless that policy is “no dogs, ever.” (Or maybe requiring the OKC Canine Good Citizen certification, but then people are going to complain that they have to pay money for the test and even that doesn’t guarantee that the dog will be well behaved all the time and won’t help is someone is afraid or allergic.)

      4. Lil Fidget*

        I think it’s very odd that only OP’s large dog is banned now, without any incident of bad behavior. Every dog office I’ve worked in there’s been dozy old labs and goldens (which are about the same size) sleeping under desks. They would at least need to set a rule: “no dogs over 25 pounds” or whatever, which to me feels arbitrary based on some anonymous person’s likely fear threshold (?). Also, poor OP has to keep working in a dog friendly office full of dogs, just not … her dog … because of a complaint she can’t even try to address. It seems a little unfair to me.

    9. socrescentfresh*

      +1. The issue here is not whether Ophelia is actually well behaved, or whether the anonymous complainer is overreacting, but whether it’s worth pushing back against the scrapping of a workplace perk that OP considers a major asset to her job.

    10. Emmie*

      I don’t think all the commenters here don’t like dogs. Some people have allergies, or are fearful of dogs, or are concerned about one dog’s behavior. It’s not fair to dismiss these concerns by stating people don’t like dogs. (If you need to know: I like most dogs. I don’t like cats, snakes, or alligators for different reasons.)

    11. all aboard the anon train*

      Yeah. I generally hate reading comments about dog friendly offices because it often evolves into people staying how much they hate dogs and this perk and how awful offices are for having this perk.

    12. Magenta Sky*

      It’s easy to get distracted by the fact that it’s about a dog, and people have passionate opinions about dogs (good and bad). The issue here isn’t the dog, the issue is a perk that was offered with the job, and was a big factor in accepting the offer, that is now being withdrawn.

      This is exactly the same issue as being offered a job where one can work from home most days, then being told, “No, you have to come into the office every day because one of your coworkers anonymously compalined they don’t like talking on the phone.”

      The nature of the perk isn’t the issue. The issue is taking it away without being able to really give a reason why.

      1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

        No, I think the nature of the perk in this case is an issue, because it colors the potential options that management has and the options that the OP has. Not all perks are created equal.

      2. Detective Amy Santiago*

        Except in your example, business needs can change. We’ve had LWs in the past who have dealt with that exact same scenario, of having to curtail their WFH days for a variety of reasons. And, yes, it’s unfortunate, but no perk is guaranteed to last forever.

        1. Lil Fidget*

          On the other hand, if LW wrote in that they took a job because it was flexible with WFH, and now that perk was being taken away, I would absolutely encourage that LW to look for a new job that offered the perk they want. I would say the same thing to this LW – maybe look for options that allow more WFH since dog-friendly is kind of niche. A company understands that some employees will leave when they take away desirable perks.

      3. AnotherAlison*

        Hmmm. I think it’s difficult because the business presented it as a complaint from another employee rather than a business decision affecting perks.

        If the business wanted to the OP to leave her dog at home, then I think you have to cancel the pet-friendly policy and you present that as a business decision from management.

        We have had people on WFH arrangements that were canceled, and these decisions were presented as management decisions. Even if the real reason was that mgmt was tired of dealing with your coworkers who “didn’t think it was fair”, the decision was presented that we are locating this position in the XYZ office now. You’re welcome to it, if you want to come into the office 5 days a week, and otherwise we will part ways on X date. Some people were only WFH because the office in their region closed, but ultimately few of them decided to move to keep the job.

    13. Esme*

      I’m not getting the impression commenters are coming down too hard on OP; I think it’s more the policy that they’re responding too.

  21. k.k*

    That sucks. I have dogs and I know how much this matters (a major factor in me taking a job is whether the commute would allow me to feed them on time, drop off at daycare, etc).

    If you’re not able to work something out at work, I’d highly suggest looking into dog walkers or doggie daycare. The price does add up, but even doing it once or twice a week makes a difference. I like the schedule daycare on Wednesdays, it breaks up the week nicely so they’re only cooped up two days in a row, and they get so tired from running around that they spend the next day basically passed out.

  22. MCL*

    If you can’t bring your dog in any longer and you still want to stay at the job for a while, is there a way you could hire a dog walker to visit your home at least once or twice a day so that your dog can still go outside? That system at least will not leave your dog in the lurch while you’re looking for something else. Bummer, though.

    1. Lindsay J*

      I’ll plug the Wag app for this. We use it when we are out of town for our dog and it has been great.

      With recurring scheduled walks you can be set up with the same walker all the time.

      It is a little expensive though. If you haven’t been paying anything at all for dog care, paying $15 per walk x 20 work days a month adds $300 to your budget.

      Care.com, Rover, etc, also have dog walking and pet sitting that can be set up on short notice. They get to set their own prices though I believe so it could be more or it could be less than Wag.

  23. Wannabe Disney Princess*

    LW, I get it. It SUCKS. When a perk that made you lean towards the job is taken away, it stings. Especially if it’s something you looked forward to. There’s a few perks I had when I started here that are long gone. And, hoo boy, it BLOWS. But if I take those out of it….I’m still happy. I like my coworkers. My bosses are nice. The pros still outweigh the cons.

    If there’s a few of you who brought dogs in, I think it’s worth it to discuss it with your manager again. However, if you’re the only one……I think you need to accept this perk is gone. Bring in pictures of Ophelia. Sigh, heavily. Then give her extra snuggles when you get home.

    1. Reba*

      Maybe you don’t want to go into specifics, but can you share if you talked to management about the loss of perks, and how it went?

      1. Wannabe Disney Princess*

        It was basically, “Yeah, it sucks. We can do x, y, or z instead.” It didn’t replace it. And I still have a little pang of sadness because some of them were fun. But, ultimately, I had to decide what was more important.

        So I came up with two lists. I have a list that if management touches? I am gone. Those are my needs. They are, presumably, different than anyone else’s. Then there’s another list. Things that make my experience better, but are not necessary. My “nice to have”s. The perks taken away were in the latter category. Again, these are different (I’m guessing) than my coworkers. Doesn’t mean I’m right and they’re wrong or vice versa. But this is what’s right for me.

  24. xkd*

    This could be a great time to open up the conversation on accommodations, though. How would they handle these issues if the dog was a service animal? I don’t think it would help in your case, and I wouldn’t use it as a negotiation point – but it could get that process started for future reference. In your case, if it was me, I would start looking for new work, where the benefits and perks are (as a whole) better suited to your lifestyle, unless they can trade you out other perks instead. Best of luck to you!

    1. legalchef*

      I was just thinking about how I worked somewhere where there was a summer intern who had a (fairly large) service dog. I am both allergic to and fearful of dogs, and if the intern sat anywhere near me I am not sure what I would have done (more from an allergy standpoint than one of fear, since service dogs are, or should be, well-trained enough that I wouldn’t have to worry about it running around and jumping).

    2. MuseumChick*

      For two conflicting accommodations (Service animal and extreme allergies for example) the company would have to enter into an interactive process to accommodate both people. Service animals can go anywhere their human goes with extremely few exceptions so, my guess is they would make accommodations for the person with allergies like, telecommuting full or part-time, working is a separate part of the building, providing an air purifier, etc

    3. Detective Amy Santiago*

      Why borrow trouble? The company doesn’t need to worry about that issue until/unless it comes up. It has no bearing on the matter at hand.

      1. xkd*

        I don’t think it’s borrowing trouble to be prepared, and the HR staff should be alerted to this potential conflict. If I came in needing an accommodation, I’d feel far more secure if it was matter of fact, as opposed to “sure, we’ll figure something out..” Even my small org has tentative plans to be prepared for various matters that we have not covered before.

        1. Detective Amy Santiago*

          It’s impossible for any HR department to be prepared for every possible accommodation that might be necessary. And the LW will likely burn any possible political capital she has at this company if she starts throwing out hypothetical scenarios.

          1. bonkerballs*

            Sure, but it’s not a bad idea to be somewhat prepared for things that are likely and possible. I’ve never been in a tsunami, and neither had the company I worked for in California, but we still had a plan in our safety manual for in the event that we might be in one. And when you have a pet policy, being prepared for allergies is a pretty reasonable thing to be. It’s the same reason why my office in

    4. Thursday Next*

      Since you pose the question, service animals go through rigorous training. They are far less likely to engage in the kind of behaviors that would bother other people. That doesn’t address the issue of allergies, of course, but service animals don’t disturb workplaces by jumping on people or barking excessively.

  25. AnonDogOwner*

    From the letter, I got the impression that the workplace has always been dog-friendly and OP just sought clarification on whether that included large dogs as well. If this were a stated perk at hire and you have seen other coworkers participating, I completely understand why you feel singled out. I might talk with other dog-bringers and see if they were asked to leave theirs at home also or if it’s just you. I might also propose to your management that you keep Ophelia in your office/cube area and only take her out with a leash to go on potty walks.

    One of my creatures is a poodle mix. She gets bathed regularly because dog smell is a pet peeve. Personality wise, she’s a honey badger. She cares infinitely more about me leaving her than anything else. Don’t disrupt the napping opportunities. Visitors are to be greeted with tag wags. Doorbells are just nap interruptions, not things to bark at. She’s an old lady in a puppy body.

    1. Rusty Shackelford*

      It seems like the LW is definitely being singled out, unless others are also being asked to stop bringing their dogs and we just haven’t heard about it. The question is, is it for reasons that she probably can’t overcome (her dog isn’t as well-behaved as she thinks), or for more fuzzy reasons that she might be able to work around if she could talk to the complainer (keep Ophelia on a leash, keep her well away from the person who can handle little dogs but not bigger ones). I agree that talking to other dog-bringers might be a good idea, as long as you don’t look like, you know, a bunch of interns trying to change the dress code. Gather information, not dissent. ;-)

  26. Run By Fruiting*

    Lots of really interesting comments from all directions on this one; I’ve gained some good perspective. OP, this sucks for you. I don’t really see a way of resolving this in the office, but I do like the suggestion others made about parlaying this into a potential work from home day or days, and I’ve gotta say, other than this issue, your workplace sounds kinda awesome.

  27. Struck by Lightning*

    Wow…I would never consider a standard poodle a large dog (and I worked in the pet industry for many years)…more a medium breed. I can just imagine these people’s reactions to my German shepherds or my 140lb rott/mastiff! I did competitive obedience with my dogs so they truly are well mannered. My experience has always been that the teacups are the most obnoxious because no one bothers to train them.

    I would agree with the suggestion about seeing if a getting a crate for your office would be acceptable. If you can teach your dog to go into an automatic down every time someone approaches, that can gelp too. I’ve trained all my dogs (except one my husband brought home that is sweet but dumb as a post) to do this in a week max. Standards are incredibly intelligent & it’s a pretty easy behavior to teach.

    1. MechanicalPencil*

      Sometimes poodles are *too* intelligent….

      I feel like I should start an instagram with “Poodle in Predicament” about all the things that were attempted intelligently but went mildly awry because physics is a jerk.

      1. Lora*

        I feel very strongly that dog shows do not appropriately test breed traits, and complex puzzle-solving and tool use should be one for poodles.

        Newfs should be tested for snot-flinging and finding their way through a maze. Pyrs should have to figure out how to open various kinds of gate latches and tested for bark volume. Huskies should be considered for their fleece quality when they blow their coats…

        1. Ashloo*

          Oh man, what is it with Pyrs? I had one as a kid and she was a magnificent family dog from a temperament perspective, but she jumped the fence every chance she got. She opened a window without breaking it to jump out once, and a crate could not contain her. I would happily get another, especially since I’d now be the one responsible for training.

          1. Lora*

            Ha! Mine also escaped his crate even in the rescue and would run around very proud of himself, smirking at the other dogs in their crates. His current trick is to open the (deadbolted) kitchen door and run out into the woods, where he can hear the police sirens from the highway and howl back at them.

            My previous one locked me out of the house while I was skinny-dipping in the backyard, and I had to use my neighbor’s phone to call my ex to let me back in the house. Fantastic, loving dogs with just the right amount of aloof for cat people, but they’re brilliant problem solvers too.

          2. Triple Anon*

            I had a pit / Shepherd mix who could turn doorknobs, climb six foot fences, and ring a doorbell. But she was also smart about staying close to home and out of trouble. She came when called and knew “left”, “right”, etc. And she was good with people and other animals. So we gave up on containing her. This was in a rural area where it was not that much of an issue for a dog to roam free. (And she was spayed, vaccinated, etc).

      2. Struck by Lightning*

        Hahahaha…True! I actually think the average dog owner is better off with breeds that aren’t super intelligent and driven. My first German Shepherd taught herself to open gate latches, turn door handles, and untie knots! I shudder to think what kind of trouble she would have belonged to someone who didn’t have the time or ability to direct that brain!

        I’m at a different point in my life now & won’t take on a dog with that much time again until I retire!

        1. Lindsay J*

          I think Shelties are gorgeous but I will never own one because I can’t provide enough distraction and entertainment to keep that brain busy.

          Similarly, I don’t have the energy for a husky.

  28. OlympiasEpiriot*

    Only advice I can offer is that perhaps you are in a position to ask if you may work from home a day or two a week.

    I get that “perks” (in quotes because, really, it is like “benefits” — it is part of the *compensation* whether or not everyone uses it), can be taken away; however, I think it is silly of the firm to have a part of their package that might need to be taken away if (for instance) someone allergic joins. I’m also wondering about all the other dogs which I assume are there as dogs are allowed.

    Not the current situation, but, on the general topic of dogs at work, I also wonder what is the situation when someone has a service dog? Years ago, I worked someplace where one of the employees had a seeing eye dog. The person wasn’t completely blind, they could read with special equipment, but they needed assistance when moving around. It wasn’t a “dog-friendly office” — no one else brought a dog in — but, somehow they dealt with allergic people.

    1. CatCat*

      If someone has a disability needs changes in the office in order to perform job functions, the employer is obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation and discuss accommodations that may work with the employee. It sounds like your former workplace found a way to make it work with the seeing eye dog.

      Whether the office is “dog-friendly” is not really relevant to a reasonable accommodation to allow a service dog.

  29. Good Morning!*

    Anonymous not s are nice because then the writer of them doesn’t have to deal with the emotional impact of their reasonable thoughts.

    Saying you don’t want to interact with a dog or a kid can get some pretty visceral reactions that might not happen if there’s just a little bit of distance or time.

    My guess is the note writer wants a change but doesn’t want to deal with the potential emotional baggage. They just want it professionally handled and it’s very much not a personal issue with the OP.

    1. LCL*

      The coworker here who made the greatest use of anonymous notes has now retired. Thank Dog. He was the most pot stirring, inflammatory, personally aggressive, lying and backstabbing coworker of us all. No doubt he left notes because he didn’t want to deal in person with the anger he stirred up. You are correct in saying he wanted things professionally handled. Professional meaning he wanted management to do his bidding and control all the actions of all of his coworkers to his liking. I’m not bitter at all about the lecture I received when I put a signed note stating that anonymous notes are cowardly and he should just talk to his coworkers, next to his anonymous one about how to store things in a group locker. I was told, yeah, he’s reactive, don’t antagonize him.

      1. Pollygrammer*

        Reactivity is a big problem with anonymous notes. LW did something to annoy me? Well, I’ll get her dog banned, and it can never be connected to me.

  30. Jerry Vandesic*

    Ask them, in writing, for some combination of: a) moving to a new office/cube, b) the company paying for doggie day care, 3) working from home.

    1. AJ*

      +1 I totally agree with this. The OP took the job because she was excited about this perk. If the company is going to take it away because of an anonymous note, it’s reasonable for them to work with her on this. They are accepting of the note-writer’s request, they should be accepting of the OP’s request – because they were the ones who offered the dog perk in the first place. In my opinion, if the dog-perk was discussed at every interview anyone who accepts a position there should be prepared that there might be a dog at the office in the future. I’m curious to know if there have been other dogs in the office, how long the OP was bringing her dog before there was a complaint, and has the company completely taken away the dog perk, or are they still offering it for small dogs/any dog until there is a complaint? How will the OP feel if someone is allowed to bring a small dog in on a regular basis?

    2. Detective Amy Santiago*

      I would recommend strongly against #2. Perks are ever changing in business and the LW is going to look seriously out of touch if she asks for that.

      #1 and #3 are more reasonable.

      1. Jerry Vandesic*

        I would agree, but only if the reversal on the dog friendly policy were company-wide. If it only applies to the LW, or the LW’s group, then the company should pay to make things equitable.

  31. Caryatis*

    Even if the dog stays in LW’s office, it’s going to be intimidating for the person/people who are afraid of dogs, if they ever have to go into LW’s office or even walk past it. I bet that having to do so is having a real impact on their happiness at work too. Sorry LW, i get that you like dogs, but many people are just never going to be comfortable with one around. That’s why dogs should be confined to your home or to public spaces specifically designated for them.

  32. Pets belong at home*

    Quite frankly, I think the idea of ‘dog friendly’ offices is absurd. Why are dogs given more leeway than other animals when, in my experience, they tend to be the least clean/well behaved? If someone brought in their cat, you’d look at them sideways. What if they had a pet boa constrictor, or a really friendly and well behaved tarantula?

    Dear dog owners, not everyone likes your dog as much as you do. Be considerate about others and leave your dog at home. I’ve worked in 2 offices where dogs were allowed and I totally agree with the previous poster who mentioned that they are almost never as well behaved as their owners think.

    Also, most of the time I find it’s senior people who bring them in, which makes it harder for someone lower on the ladder to voice their concerns. That’s probably why they made the anonymous complaint.

    1. Natalie*

      I don’t see how this is relevant? I happen to think employer provided health insurance is a ridiculous concept, but I don’t mention that when letter writers ask about it.

      1. Lil Fidget*

        Yeah people are being unnecessary with the comments on dogs in the office. OP has lost a perk they valued and is upset about it. I don’t see how it’s helpful to say “that perk was stupid and nobody should have it.”

      2. Madame X*

        Health insurance and the option of bringing in a pet are not remotely in the same league. Health insurance is a basic necessity; bringing in a dog is not.

        1. Natalie*

          Not remotely the point. The letter writer didn’t ask for our opinions on the existence of dog-friendly offices, they asked how to handle a benefit that they valued (a major factor in taking the job) being taken away.

          If the letter writer had asked about their health insurance being taken away, it would utterly irrelevant and shitty of me to post my rant about employer provided health insurance and its effect on society. The letter writer doesn’t care. They value employer provided healthcare, and my opinion of it doesn’t change that.

          Replace “dog-friendly office” or “health insurance” with literally anything under the sun and my comment stands.

    2. Snark*

      I happen to agree, though I’m not coming from a place of disdain for dogs and their owners….but I’m not sure why you think this attitude is helpful to OP.

    3. xkd*

      Not pertinent to the discussion at hand, I once knew someone who had a pet snake in their office, and I’m aware of someone else that had a turtle. The tank took up little room, everyone was happy!

      1. K.*

        I wouldn’t be happy – I would quit on the spot because I wouldn’t be able to go into that person’s office without having a shaking, sobbing panic attack. I have a phobia of snakes. I can’t even see them on screen. I would be constantly paranoid that it would get out somehow, and I could never be comfortable.

        1. Lil Fidget*

          This is so hard though! People can be afraid of fish, allergic to tree nuts, repulsed by the color red, and driven to intense rage by the sound of someone biting into an apple (true story in our office). I’m not sure what to do about this except everybody tries to bargain in good faith.

          1. Jesmlet*

            If I took my misophonia to the extreme, we’d have to bar all liquids (because holy cow that slurping noise sets me on edge), crunchy food, and allergic reactions and mild illnesses (please keep your sniffling at home)

          2. K.*

            I am allergic to peanuts and tree nuts but I can function in areas where they are around. If I ingest them, it’s “Epi-pen and ER immediately lest I die” serious, but I can be in the same space as someone eating a PB&J. (Don’t get me started on people who don’t think food allergies are real.) But I really cannot function in the same space as a snake. My heart is beating faster right now just thinking about it. I don’t think I would position it as “the snake goes or I go,” but I would be fully prepared to walk over it. I can picture myself sitting in HR shaking with fear. At best I could work remotely. If during the course of the interview process, it came out that someone in the office had a pet snake at work, it would be a very hard, immediate no.

          3. KayEss*

            A coworker at my last job had an intense phobia of gelatin. We literally were not allowed to bring in jello or even pudding cups.

            Except no one told us that, she just pitched a huge fit when a new employee brought a jello cup in for lunch. Then we all got the “don’t bring in jello or pudding because it bothers Jane” talk, with a weird dose of shame as if we should somehow have known.

      2. Alice*

        I knew someone who kept hissing cockroaches. There was one tank of healthy ones and one of cockroaches who had lost antennae or legs.

            1. Alice*

              No, it was at someone’s desk/cubicle in a public area of a university. Public in this case meaning open to students, not the general public.

  33. Marcy Marketer*

    I’m sorry, OP! This sucks. I also worked at a company that allowed dogs when I was hired (leading me to get a puppy) and then suddenly didn’t (two years later). Overall, this didn’t affect me because I stopped bringing my dog in after he became large because he didn’t seem happy at work. He’d mostly pace around and want to leave the office to play. So I started sending him to doggy daycare :) where he got all his energy out. A lot of other people were upset though.

    Maybe you could negotiate a pay raise to make up for the loss of the perk? I doubt it, but doggie daycare is like $20 a day. You could also bring the dog to a daycare close to your job so you don’t have to worry about working late/leaving early. The Rover app has people who work from home or run home doggie daycares that might be cheaper.

    I know it sucks, but Alison is right that perks can leave at any time. I once worked somewhere that paid for lunch for years and then stopped doing it. It sucked, but was understandable.

  34. I am not a dog person.*

    I am afraid of dogs, especially larger ones (anything more than a terrier is a bit big for my preferences), and I’ve been unhappy to see more dogs in public spaces: at work, in airplanes, etc. People understandably want to have their dogs and companions close by, but flip the tables; those of us who are nervous around dogs also understandably want a space where we don’t have to worry about being slobbered on or shoved or bitten by a dog. An owner having their dog does not beat out other people’s right to feel comfortable in public, and especially at work.

    1. I am not a dog person.*

      Note that I *really* wanted to write that “your having a dog does not trump my right to feel comfortable in public,” which is clearer than “beat out”, but I’m pretty sure that the word “trump” now sets off moderation?

      2. Thursday Next*

        Ha! Ya know, I now go through sometimes ridiculous contortions to avoid using this word, though I do recall using it in the open thread this weekend!

      3. Goya de la Mancha*

        I agree having my* dog in the office does not “trump” your being comfortable. However, if accept a job offer KNOWING that it is a dog friendly office, how does you being comfortable “trump” the perk for everyone else? You have just as much choice to turn down a job due to perks (or lack of) as someone has to accept a job due to the perks (or lack of).

        *My dog is a 70lb attention wh*re. While I love him to pieces, he would be way to distracting to any and all patrons of our office to get anything done – constant ball drops in your lap, arm nudges for petting, paw on your arm when you stop petting…oiy!

        1. Lil Fidget*

          To be fair (and I actually dream of working in a dog friendly office and bringing in my dog) – the argument is that phobia / allergies is a more powerful aversion than just “don’t prefer dogs ” and that somebody’s fear or allergies should be accommodated to allow them to do the best work they can. That’s what they were hired for, presumably, and the dog thing is just an office culture perk.

          Having said that, I did think it was weird that the anonymous complaint sounded like they just weren’t fond of the dog – and it was taken so seriously that the dog was immediately banned, no questions asked – but I assume the office manager is prioritizing business purposes over pleasure.

      4. Murphy*

        Offtopic, but there was an episode of The Allusionist podcast recently about the word tr*mp and some people being reluctant to use it. It was interesting.

        1. I am not a dog person.*

          *I’ve* been more reluctant to use it! It’s sad, because the word itself is so good; but it’s naturally dwindling because of its current political associations.

    2. Oxford Coma*

      As an aside regarding your “terrier or smaller” classification: I had no idea pit bulls were a type of terrier, until a shady person I knew talked about bilking his homeowner’s insurance by telling them he owned terriers when pit bulls were on the prohibited list of breeds.

    3. Snark*

      This isn’t just out in public. It’s a workplace that was specifically advertised to OP as dog-friendly, and they made decisions based on that representation. Both the OP and the complainant accepted dogs as part of the terms of working at this office. Revoking them unilaterally and anonymously strikes me as a very different ethical situation than a truly public place where nobody tacitly agreed to anything.

      1. fposte*

        Well, we know the OP knew, but neither we nor the OP know what the complainants knew or accepted upon hiring.

        1. Snark*

          Mmmmm….no, we were not explicitly told that, but I think it’s most reasonable to assume that a standing dog-friendly policy offered to a new employee is known to everyone else at an office and that if they’ve continued to work there, they’ve accepted that or at least tolerate it.

          1. fposte*

            I think it’s plausible if not certain that they encountered the information in hiring, but I can’t get on board the notion that continuing to work there is accepting the terms if they didn’t, especially since they’re actively registering their discomfort with the situation. It’s too shrinkwrap-license-y for me, and it suggests that walking away from a job immediately is a costless endeavor.

            I mean, I’m not ruling out that the OP has a single evil co-worker who’s known the policy all along and is a PITA, but I also think it’s possible that there are at least three people, and that they either weren’t told or they managed to hack it with a couple of practically invisible chihuahuas until the OP brought Ophelia in. (And a few thousand other possibilities in between.) So my sympathy shifts a little depending on how this actually played out on the other side, and since I don’t know how I can’t completely commit.

  35. Amelia*

    I declined a 2nd job interview recently due to the presence of dogs in the office. I’m not anti-dog but it was a wet day and getting muddy paws on my nicest suit really left a bad taste in my mouth.
    I also had trouble concentrating on questions like “Describe a time when you had to meet a tight timeline” with the dogs running about.
    I didn’t mention the reasons for declining the next round of interviews but I wonder if I should have.

    1. K.*

      I declined an interview up front when I was told the CEO brought his chihuahuas to work. I hate chihuahuas. To be fair though, the HR person said point blank, “The owner brings his chihuahuas to work, will that be a problem for you?” and I said yes. My guess is that it had been a problem for other candidates, hence her asking.

      1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

        Which is too bad, honestly, because it shouldn’t take it being a problem to have it be raised. “Hey, we do [a thing that is very nonstandard] in this office, is that something you’re okay with?” should be basic common sense for interviewing.

    3. Manager Mary*

      I would have. They should know that their most important qualification is now “loves dogs” and not “has required experience/education.” I would much rather have my first pick candidate than my second or third choice plus a dog.

  36. jk*

    I don’t understand why there’s a complaint about your dog. Do you allow it to walk around unsupervised? The people at my work that bring dogs keep them around their desk and have baby gates to keep them there. They also use the leash inside when taking the dog in and out of the building for walks.

    Personally I’d be pretty upset about this if it were the main reason I took the job. You can’t just offer benefits to people and then take them away and expect people to be fine with it.

    Anonymous complaints shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Maybe it’s someone who had a disagreement with OP and wants to make OP unhappy? We’ll never know the legitimacy of the complaint.

  37. LouiseM*

    People are majorly projecting here. We get it, some of you hate dogs and assume OP is a selfish monster trying to foist her dogs on all her innocent coworkers, who of course also hate dogs and are just too afraid of the thought police to say so. Nothing in her letter indicates that she is the only dog lover in the office, or even that hers is the only dog in the office. Hers is simply the BIGGEST dog in the office. I’m also disappointed that people seem not to be taking the OP at their word that the dog is well behaved. Commenters on this site have been willing to believe much more implausible and outlandish situations than somebody having a well-behaved standard poodle.

    1. LouiseM*

      Also, I think the idea of a dog-friendly office is crazy and don’t believe they’re as prevalent in the real world as it would seem from reading this site. I’m just saying that if you buy into the premise of a dog-friendly office, the OP has obviously done nothing wrong.

      1. Lil Fidget*

        What? You … don’t believe there are dog friendly offices? How odd. I’ve worked at one. My cousin works at one now (you might have heard of it, it’s called Amazon). It’s nothing to be surprised about, I don’t think they’re that uncommon.

        1. Augusta Sugarbean*

          I think you misunderstood the comment. I don’t think LouiseM doesn’t believe they exist, just that they aren’t as common as some people here might believe. And she doesn’t think dogs should be in the office. I’m 50 and have had a *lot* of jobs over the years and none of them have been dog-friendly offices. Just because you’ve been in dog-friendly offices doesn’t mean they are common in the same way me never having worked in one means they are uncommon.

          And if you are reacting to the last line about “buying into the premise”, I think she means if you accept that this is a company that is dog-friendly and not that the LW made up this perk for herself, then she’s not doing anything wrong.

          1. Lil Fidget*

            This interests me, I did some research. It appears that in 2015, they found that 8% of offices allow pets. Which is certainly a minority of officers, although since the OP works in one, it’s still relevant to this question.

            1. FoxyDog*

              I think it varies somewhat with the industry and location. I’ve worked/interviewed for multiple companies with dog friendly offices. These were mostly in creative and tech industries, and all located in California.

    2. MechanicalPencil*

      And frankly, poodles are all fluff and no mass; “big” is relative. It’s entirely plausible that one of the little basset hounds or whatever wandering around weighs more but is less physically imposing.

      1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

        The bassets can’t reach as high, though. Body mass isn’t the only way to count size. A big poodle would be more of a concern when it comes to a cupcake on my desk than a basset would be!

        1. BF*

          Don’t let the short legs fool you. My basset is very good at filching stuff off the kitchen counter. The long body compensates quite a bit.

          1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

            Hah! I’ll admit to having no firsthand experiences with bassets. My major dog experience is with my ex-father’s badly trained Airedale. (Nightmare dog, absolute nightmare. I’m burnt out on dogs for life because of that one.)

      2. fposte*

        Wow, I just checked and you’re right. Admittedly, bassets are pretty dense in a lot of ways :-).

    3. LCL*

      Yeah, the bigger issue is management is going back on their word and letting their policies be driven by anonymous complaint. There is a place for anonymous reporting, day to day office management isn’t that place.

    4. MuseumChick*

      I love, love, love dogs! And in my experience, most dog owners overstate how well behaved their dog is (same applies for parents with children). Literally anytime someone says “My dog is so well behaved!” I’m suspicious and most of the time time, upon meeting the dog, my suspicion is confirmed.

      The Letter Writer stats clearly that many people in the office love her dog. Well, that makes me think whoever the complainer was had a reason to worry that they would be retaliated against (in subtle and non-subtle ways) if their complaint had been public. We saw things in a letter on this site where someone with extreme allergies was bullied out of an office by dog lovers.

    6. Gypo Nolan*

      Dog owners’ definitions of “well-behaved” often differ wildly from those of people who don’t own that particular dog (same as with parents of often spectacularly poorly behaved children)!

  38. Gerry*

    I’m with Penny Lane on this one.

    Many dog owners are actually pretty militant about their rights (privileges?), and will say or do anything to stamp out any meaningful discussion about where pets do and don’t belong. I kind of like most dogs, depending on the dog and other factors, but I do think there has been an incremental increase in the number of places people are allowed to bring pets that has the potential to hamper other people’s right to enjoy public spaces. For instance, I remember about 20 years ago the dog owners in my city saying that if only they had one or two parks where they could let their dogs run free, then they would take them there and not bother anyone. Well, there have got to be at least 20 off-leash dog parks in my burg now, that nobody else can use at the risk of being slobbered on, whacked by a thrown tennis ball, bitten, etc., and dogs are constantly seen off-leash in numerous other public places where they are explicitly forbidden from running free.

    So this kind of thing kind of makes it hard for me to sympathize. After all, your right to have a dog at work infringes on my right not to have to watch my step so I don’t trip over Princess.

    It doesn’t sound like the OP is one of these dog militants, but I have no idea how she is in the office when/if some expresses anything other than sheer bliss about her “baby’s” presence. So I can completely sympathize with the anonymous person who doesn’t want the dog around and also doesn’t want to attache his or her name to that wish.

    1. Elizabeth H.*

      Interesting because I feel like those who are anti-dog are also extremely militant about their rights to not interact with dogs ever and especially to stamp out meaningful discussion (like a ton of the other comments on this post). Maybe with more dogs in public space more people will get used to dogs and be more comfortable with working or enjoying themselves in a space that also has dogs there.

      1. JHunz*

        I’ve seen dogs pretty much everywhere anyway? It’s not like people who don’t like dogs have never interacted with them. Most of them have interacted with them and decided it’s not their thing. Exposure therapy may be a recognized technique for dealing with phobias but I don’t think it works that way with a dislike.

      2. Penny Lane*

        This doesn’t make any sense. There are plenty of dogs in public spaces, parks, etc. Some people just don’t like them, that’s all. They are under no obligation to force themselves to like dogs just because you do.

      3. EmilyAnn*

        I’m firmly anti-dog. Last week I went to the Cheesecake Factory. The table next to mine had a non-service animal at the table. I requested a different table away from the dog. I go to Target and people are shopping with a non-service animal. A lot of dog owners want to bring their dogs everywhere. They’re domestic animals. They don’t belong everywhere.

    2. Natalie*

      This is about as related to the question as my ranting about freegans would be related to a question about free food as an office perk. And the office was already dog-friendly, the letter writer did not force it to be so.

    3. Clifford*

      Anonymous people, actually–more than one person complained. And if this is the way management wants employees to make their opinions known, how is what they did so terrible?

  39. Anon For This*

    I like dogs. I’m not 100% sure I want dogs in my work place. I worked with someone who had a big dog who she always brought to work. He barked. He smelled of dog. More than once (but not often) he did some doggy business on a rug. I don’t hold it against the dog – he’s a dog and he barks and smells and sometimes yaks up whatever disgusting thing he ate on the roadway. But I didn’t love that the office felt like a petting zoo. Or that everyone had to tiptoe around the fact the dog was there. (and on occasion this caused a serious favoritism issue that ultimately led to another co-worker quitting, but that’s a different story) And although this dog was a very even-tempered beast (he was lovely, really; I liked him very much), I was always a little worried this dog might bite or knock someone over or do other dog things that could cause injury.

    That said, this does feel a little like the company is flipping the script on OP and that doesn’t feel fair. Cross out “bring your dog to work” as a benefit and put in something else like “free parking” or “flexible schedule” or “health insurance” or whatever else might entice someone to take a particular job, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable that OP would be upset about this.

  40. I'm A Little TeaPot*

    If OP needs to not take their dog to work anymore, then there needs to be NO dogs at work. Period. If you’re going to ban one dog because someone’s afraid, then you have to ban all of them. (I am 100% ok with selective banning in the case of poor behavior though, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.)

    1. Lil Fidget*

      I was puzzled by that too. I suppose if OP’s dog is much larger and all the rest are tiny, maybe that accounts for it. But they need to make a clear rule, not just give an anonymous complainer the right to target only OP to lose a perk she valued. For all you know, this is someone gunning for OP’s job, or something! (Note that I’m not saying this person’s discomfort doesn’t rightly need to be accommodated, just that I feel like this is a little weird).

    2. grace*

      +1. I’d hope they would enforce it evenly — if someone is afraid of dogs, then no dogs. If they just don’t like this particular dog, then that needs to be handled outside of an anonymous note.

    3. Lala*

      Yeah, it seems like a weird way to address an complaint that included mention of a fear of dogs. Are all the dogs being banned, or just OP’s somewhat larger dog?

  41. Delphine*

    I think it’s important to consider, when discussing perks and whether or not it’s fair to take them away, that not all perks are created equal. Take away free food or free beer and most people might grumble a bit, but get used to it. Taking away a dog-friendly office perk means that pet owners might have to suddenly deal costs they weren’t prepared or get their dog used to a new routine. Sure, any perk can be taken away, but to take away a specific person’s perk based on anonymous complaints seems unfair. If I had a dog, and had accepted a job based on dog-friendliness, I am certain I would feel as frustrated as the OP.

    If a company bills itself as dog-friendly and allows dogs, then people should be free to use that perk.

    1. AnotherJill*

      In fact, if they start to selectively apply the perk (only some dogs are allowed) it can become demoralizing. If I were the OP, I would be tempted to start putting notes into the suggestion box about the selective definition of dog friendly.

      1. EddieSherbert*

        +1

        Yeah it’d be kind of petty to do, but I would. I TOTALLY would be upset if my dog was banned and no others (…without my dog misbehaving in a way that got him kicked out).

    2. Tuesday Next*

      I agree that this can have a major impact, but a change to any aspect of a workplace can have a significant impact on people (whether it’s defined as a perk or not).

      The office moved. My commute became much longer and more expensive, and nobody could pop across the road to get groceries because we were in the middle of the suburbs.

      The company needed to fit more people into the same open plan space, bought smaller desks and removed partitions. We had less personal space and more noise, with increased stress and lower productivity.

      The company decided to put private offices for managers around the edge of the open plan office space. Suddenly nobody had access to natural light or fresh air.

      These are all things that have happened at companies I’ve worked at. None of them were terrible, but they affected our quality of work life. You can’t really say how changes will affect other people.

      1. Delphine*

        Your examples aren’t perks/not perks, I think, but they still support my point here that “not all perks are created equal”. I wanted to push back against the comments that specifically suggested that perks change and so the OP should just accept it and move on.

  42. Noah*

    Unlimited vacation is rarely a perk. As a practical matter, you’re not going to use more than the say 4 weeks of vacation a place with unlimited vacation would otherwise have given you, unless your job isn’t very busy, in which case you probably eventually won’t have the job. On the other hand, in states where you have to paid out accrued vacation time when a person leaves, having “unlimited” (i.e., “no official”) vacation time is very good for employers.

    So let’s not focus on that one as a perk.

    1. Tuesday Next*

      You’re generalising a bit.

      I get 20 days of leave as standard with the option to “buy” up to 20 more. That’s one of the reasons I took this job – so that I can take 30 days of leave if I need to.

      I also have a job that I find intense and demanding. It’s one of the reasons (there are several) that I need more than 20 days of leave. With proper planning my leave doesn’t impact my team.

      1. Noah*

        I’m definitely generalizing. I even note that there may be exceptions. I’ve never had a job where I could take more than four weeks of vacation and not be doing a terrible job. I know few people who could reasonably take 30 days off of work per year. You seem to fit within the exception that I described: your job is really not busy.

    2. Murphy*

      What? Are you kidding? I would love it if we had unlimited vacation. I would love it if we had 4 weeks of vacation.

      1. Noah*

        Right, you’d love 4 weeks of vacation. But your job isn’t going to give you 4 weeks of vacation… just like it’s not going to give you unlimited vacation. A job that will give you unlimited vacation is likely one that would have given you 4 (or more) weeks of vacation if they didn’t go unlimited.

  43. Ask a Manager* Post author

    If anyone’s up for it, I’d love to see discussion that isn’t so dog-specific and is more about “what do you do when you’re told you’re going to lose a perk that was part of the reason you took the job?” Because ultimately that’s what this letter is about — and it’s genuinely upsetting to anyone who experiences it.

    1. DrPeteLoomis*

      On that note, I’m wondering if it’s reasonable for the OP to negotiate around the other perks. Like, ok, so you can’t have your dog in the office, which raises a significant issues around pet care. So, maybe you trade off some of your “unlimited” vacation time for a pet care stipend? Or you negotiate a couple work from home days a week?

    2. Veronica*

      I’m a dog lover, but this is really the crux of the letter for me: the letter writer took the job with the understanding that she’d be able to bring her dog to the office. It’s possible she had other offers she turned down that might’ve been a better fit or more pay because she prioritized a dog-friendly office. Most of us would be encouraging the OP to job search if the office had relocated and she found the new commute untenable. Likewise if the OP took a job because it had a flexible schedule that allowed her to pick the kids up from daycare/take care of an elderly parent/make it to yoga on time, we’d feel for the OP if her employer suddenly changed her schedule so that wasn’t possible. I’m not saying that dogs are necessarily equal to caregiving commitments, just that people don’t make the decision to take a job in a vacuum and it’s OK to grieve the loss of a perk that made you take the job in the first place.

      1. LBK*

        I think the difference is that plenty of companies have flexible scheduling, so it wouldn’t be as hard to find another job that puts you back in the original situation you signed up for at your current company. With a rare perk like this, you’re probably not going to get back to the original situation you signed up for even if you get a new job – so you have to consider whether the other ways a new job might improve the situation (eg shorter commute) are worth quitting your current job, because either way you’re probably not getting the dog perk back.

        Quitting solely because you felt bait-and-switched but without it actually materially changing your job happiness (in your current job ex-perk vs getting a new job) feels a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face – it feels like you’re trying to punish the company for changing the rules, but you’re probably the one that will suffer the most, and you’ll suffer the loss of the perk whether you stay or leave.

        1. Veronica*

          You make good points, though I will say in my experience perks can be very industry-dependent. In my industry, WFH is really, really rare. No one who does what I do works from home more often than very occasionally, i.e., “My basement is flooded, and I’m waiting for the plumber.” So yes, you’d be losing a real and substantial perk if you couldn’t work from home anymore.

          But in other industries, WFH arrangments are pretty standard. I have three friends who are health economists. They all work from home for different companies. They could easily gain this benefit back by switching jobs if for some reason one of their employers took this perk away. I don’t think being able to bring your dog to work is a common perk, but I could also see it being more common in tech or startups.

          And while OP might not be able to find another office that allows her to bring her dog, she might be able to find a job that pays more, which would allow her to hire a dog walker to come by twice a day, or she might be able to find a job that’s five minutes away instead of 40 so she could go home and let the dog out at lunch.

    3. SoCloseButYetSoFar*

      When I interviewed for my current job, I was told that the entire agency I would be working for was moving in two months to a new location half a mile from my house, which got me ridiculously excited and was definitely part of the reason I took the job. I had visions of biking and walking to work when the weather was nice, and not being stuck in traffic, etc. Sadly, when I came on board, I found out that the entire agency *except* for my section was moving, and I’d be working at the old building… which turned a sort-of-promised 7 minute walk into a 25 minute drive through terrible downtown traffic. I was pretty bummed out, but realized I probably would have taken the job anyway without the “you’ll be so close” idea. Going forward though, I’ll try to process what any given job would look like without the perks I’m excited about, and evaluate if I still want it.

      1. Detective Amy Santiago*

        I’m dealing with the opposite of that right now – I took my job because it’s less than 10 minutes from my house and now my boss is looking to move the office about 25 minutes away.

        And I am definitely stepping up my job search in part because of this.

        1. Pollygrammer*

          I’ve had the same experience, with an office moving to a much less convenient location. And I think a lot of people would say, that shouldn’t matter, my commute is an hour and I just deal with it, which totally misses the point, and is a lot of what the comments on this post are amounting to.

          1. Future Analyst*

            Yes! So many people have this idea of “xyz works for me, why can’t you suck it up?” But that misses the fact that we’re all different and have very different definitions of the “ideal” workplace/culture/job.

        2. Future Analyst*

          Yep. Happened to me (5 mins to 45 mins), and I was searching within a matter of hours after finding that out.

        3. Arya Parya*

          This happened to me too. My previous job was a few minutes away by foot. It was a big perk and I accepted a slightly lower pay because of that. Last year they moved to a different office. By car (which I didn’t own then, I do now) it would take about 35 minutes if traffic was good, which it often isn’t. By public transportation it would take me at least an hour. So yeah, I switched jobs because of that. And I wasn’t the only one, but the higher-ups didn’t care.
          If they hadn’t moved, I’d definitely still be working there, because the job itself was great and I had wonderful colleagues.

      2. Natalie*

        Going forward though, I’ll try to process what any given job would look like without the perks I’m excited about, and evaluate if I still want it.

        This is an excellent bit of advice that I am going to remember for future job searching! It can be very easy to get blinded by perks (especially less common ones) and let that color one’s opinion of an overall job.

    4. K.*

      For me, I’d weigh it around the rest of the job. Is the lost perk going to cost me significantly more in money, time, or happiness? If so, odds are good that I’d try to negotiate to make up the cost and leave if I couldn’t. There are some perks that are deal-breakers though. I have a rule about how much time I’m willing to spend commuting, so if my company moved and 20 minutes turned into an hour, I’d probably leave. (This happened with my previous employer before I worked there, and a lot of people quit. The new office was in a location that really wasn’t close to much – I was at the top of my commuting limit there. I’d actually planned to move but stayed put because any of the neighborhoods I was considering would have added at least 20 minutes to the commute.) I’ve also known people who quit when remote privileges were yanked, usually for similar reasons.

      I have a friend who took a job because she was excited about her boss, and then her boss quit within two weeks of her starting – he had a side business that was picking up and he wanted to devote all his time to it. She waited for her new boss to start, and she said he’s fine but she vastly prefers the old boss. Everything else is palatable and she hasn’t been there long, so she stays.

      1. Ann O'Nemity*

        I agree with your statement about weighing the loss of the perk against the rest of the job. I find it helpful to occasionally compare the positives of my job versus the negatives. If any of the negatives are dealbreakers, I have to look for a new opportunity. If the negatives outweigh the positives and I can’t accept it, I have to look for a new opportunity. What’s not an option (for me, at least) is staying on, resenting my employer, and growing bitter about it.

    5. CityMouse*

      I think it depends on how common the perk is and how essential it is to your functioning. Say you have the ability to work at home and that perk gets yanked. For a lot of people, that is pretty essential. However, say work at home is rare in your field and you aren’t likely to find another job with that perk. That changes the calculus. Something like casual Fridays or free coffee? Someone is less likely to find another job over that.

    6. LBK*

      I think with such an uncommon and situational perk, you have to go into it knowing it can easily go away; I suppose it’s hindsight and that it doesn’t necessarily help the OP now, but I wouldn’t hang my job decision on something like that. So I guess my question is: perk aside, how is the rest of the job? She notes the commute that’s longer than she would’ve preferred, but if she generally likes the job (including the commute as a factor) and she can afford whatever new expenses she might have to take on if she can’t have her dog at work anymore, I don’t think this is worth quitting over. If she would have otherwise been job searching anyway and was only staying because of the dog perk, then I think it’s reasonable to find a new job.

      She’s unlikely to find that same perk elsewhere, so if she likes the job, she’s already essentially moving from a job with dogs to a job without dogs – the same thing she’d probably be doing if she quit and went to work somewhere else, so she’d basically be gambling that her new job is as good as her current job for no reason, because she’s not getting back the dog perk anyway.

    7. That Would Be a Good Band Name*

      I’m really surprised at how very few people are looking at this like a perk that was lost and just talking about whether the dog should be in the office. It’s no different than if your employer suddenly announced there would no longer be offering paid vacation days (in the US this would be allowed in many, many states). Sure, you might not have taken the job for the vacation, but you probably wouldn’t have taken the job if it hadn’t have been offered. The OP may not have taken a job with a 40 minute commute otherwise (which means she can’t run home and let her dog out in the middle of the day). I see this as a big loss.

      I really don’t know what I’d do if I lost a perk that is important to me as this one is to the OP, but ultimately I’d most likely be looking for a new job. It’s not that I would definitely find this perk elsewhere, but I might be able to find a different combination of perks that would make up for the loss of this one. In this case, a short commute that would allow for a mid-day trip home might make all the difference to the OP.

      1. LBK*

        As I said above, the difference is that it would be much easier to quit a job that suddenly stopped offering vacation time because there’s a million companies out there that do. It’s not as easy to quit a job that stops offering a unique perk like this because you’re probably not going to get it at another company anyway, so quitting doesn’t necessarily fix anything. And FWIW, I think there is a difference between a benefit (vacation, insurance, etc) that most companies offer as a fairly standard part of the package and a perk (being dog-friendly, catered lunches, on-site gym, etc) that’s not standard and is a special bonus of working there vs other places.

        If it’s untenable for her to stay at this job and take care of her dog without this perk (eg if she can’t afford doggy daycare, so she either needs a job that pays more or one that’s close enough to home that she can let the dog out during the day) then that’s certainly a factor, but I don’t think just the loss of this perk is enough to quit over.

    8. Nita*

      Hmmm, to me the question would be, is this perk THE reason I’m employed here? If this perk is something that I’ve passed up better opportunities for, I would take a second look at those opportunities, and they would look a whole lot more appealing.

      Sometimes you can put a money value on the perk. Let’s say you could get hired elsewhere for $2,000 more a year, but your commute time would jump, and you’d be spending $500 more on transit and $1,500 more on child care per year. Maybe that extra $2,000 is not really worth it. And sometimes you can’t put a monetary value on it, but you know it’s a big deal to you, and no opportunity or extra salary in another workplace would make up for losing it.

      1. Ann O'Nemity*

        The dog-friendly perk may be a big factor in why the OP took the job. I agree with other posters that it’s unlikely they’ll find a lot of other employers who offer this particular perk, but the OP may have turned down better pay or better location or better fill-in-the-blank because the dog-friendly perk made this job sound the best.

        1. EddieSherbert*

          +1 this is my thought, too. I might leave a job over this if I could get an-eq ally-important-benefit elsewhere (eve if it isn’t bringing the dog to work).

          For example, I currently get paid less than the industry standard for my work… but I have flex time, I can work from home half the time, and I have unlimited sick leave and generous PTO.

          Losing one (or multiple) of those would probably drive me to look for another job, not because I expect to find all those perks again, but because without them, I want to get paid more!

    9. Lora*

      For me it’s all about why are they offering this perk? The places I’ve worked that had amazing perks: free catered meals, free gym memberships, on site personal trainers, etc. all had uniformly awful management and felt they had to offer this stuff in order to get anyone to work for them at all. And even so, they had ridiculously high turnover compared to their peers who didn’t offer this stuff. I am deeply suspicious of anywhere that offers a lot of unusual perks. The reason is never “because we love our employees so much and want them to be happy,” it’s always been “we employ a lot of douchebags in senior management roles and you’re gonna have to deal with their a-hole behaviors.” So for that reason I feel like, OP, it’s never going to get better at this place, only worse.

      Recently parted ways with a company that had amazing perks, even relative to their peers, but was run by the most unprofessional a-holes you’ve ever seen (and is getting whacked by their competitors as a result). Back to working for reliable, staid, boring employer, where I have to brown-bag my lunch because there’s nothing but fast food nearby; I prefer working with mature, respectful adults.

      1. Lil Fidget*

        All the perks I’ve ever seen are to incentivize employees to stay at their desks longer (or identify more with their workplace so they will work more). Including this one, presumably; no reason to hurry home and let the dog out if your dog is here! Stay and work a little longer.

        1. Dankar*

          Exactly this! Someone above said that dogs in the workplace bring no value to the business. To that I say, “You’ve obviously never needed to go home to let your pup out rather than agree to stay for the 3-hour meeting that could only happen after regular business hours.”

          There is a very real benefit to these sorts of perks, from on-site daycare to dog-friendly offices to nap pods in the common areas.

      2. Lora*

        The more I think about this, the more I’m thinking there should be some kind of mandatory disclosure. Like when you go to buy a house and the real estate agent has to tell you if there was a murder or a meth lab in the basement or something. And if you ignore the mandatory disclosure, well, that’s on you.

        The problem is, I can imagine a LOT of things that I’d want to be mandatory disclosures, and there’s no way on earth employers would agree to admit to those things to new applicants. Pet friendliness they’d likely be happy to admit to, but EEOC complaints relative to the industry average, having an a-hole CEO, annual turnover in the department or the average employee tenure, probably not. So, hmm, I’ll work on it.

      3. An office, not a dog park!*

        I agree–mature, respectful adults who can accept that their need to have a (non-emotional support) canine companion by their side 24/7 does not take preference over the needs of humans who wish to do their jobs free of distractions, drool, dander, and unpleasant odors.

    10. Marcy Marketer*

      I think it’s just one of those things you either put up with or decide it’s worth leaving over.

      I personally have had many job conditions change over time, from having a great CEO whose vision lured me to the company leave to losing bring in dog privileges (when I got a dog based on that perk). In the first case, I decided to give the new CEO a year to see if I liked his leadership; I couldn’t, so I left. In the second case, I understood and accepted it because of the reasons they presented (religious issues and people with phobias).

      I currently work from home and while it would be hard if that perk was revoked, I would simply have to re-evaluate the job in light of the change.

    11. Ria*

      I’d taken a job because it was 100% remote, with the nearest office 45 minutes away. When the project managers said they wanted everyone in the office every Wednesday, I went along with that unless there was a good reason not to. Then the email threatening to get rid of remote work entirely because people weren’t showing up on Wednesday came around (no, I still don’t understand the logic there).

      I crunched a couple numbers and explained to my manager that it would effectively be a 35% cut in my hourly pay – going from 40 to 50 hours a week, plus mileage costs at 55 cents a mile. I told him I probably wouldn’t quit instantly, but that change would encourage me to start job hunting.

    12. Bookworm*

      It’d depend on the perk/how important it was to me. Some things would probably be a dealbreaker, (as I wrote in my reply), such as a move to the open office set up. I’ve worked in a couple of open office formats now (these particular work situations were not changes and were in place when I started) and it has never ever gone well.

      Another might be if I changed from a telecommute position to require all employees to report to an office. I haven’t experienced this (the opposite, actually, I was a virtual employee brought on as a firm was preparing to transition to a telecommute only with the occasional rented co-working space) but depending on the commute and the reason why for the change I might leave over that, too. If there was a good reason why (long-term project needs in-person hands-on work for example) then I’d be more amendable rather than the Yahoo scenario where the perk was just taken away due to some not being productive.

      For me not allowing dogs into the office wouldn’t affect me and I wouldn’t care. At most I’d be sympathetic if a co-worker was really upset over this but unless it’s a service animal it wouldn’t be something I’d get worked up over either. Once worked at a job where we used to get paid dinners and snacks due to the enormous overtime on a particular special day event (arriving before dawn and leaving well into the night). That perk disappeared and while I was sad (food only available in the area within certain hours) it wasn’t a reason why I’d quit.

    13. Madame X*

      I wonder if it would be reasonable for a company to state that all of the perks they offer are subject to change at any time (or perhaps they already do this and I’m not aware). I’ve always interpreted perks to be something a company offers to generally improve the work culture but that it could go away at anytime, for reasons such as it causes too much disruption or significantly reduces work productivity or quality. It sounds like the reason that the letter writer is losing this perk is because her dog is now being seen as more of a nuisance than a perk. That said, I agree with some of the suggestions that others have posted here to make your transition easier. Maybe you could negotiate with the option to telework or getting a pet stipend.

    14. Anon for this*

      A former job allowed – nay, mandated – that a particular team work from home. (It moved from permission to full-time mandate a few weeks after I left.) That workplace is about to come under entirely new leadership, and working from home is most likely going to become a no-go. Those affected are looking for different jobs, but more in the overall scheme of complete change of leadership.

      I would have hated the setup of working from home all the time. (I did a couple of times a week when I needed intense, interruption-free time. That was fine. But not full-time for me.) My job there require a certain amount of facetime and personal interaction with other teams, but that wasn’t being taken into account as they planned the switch to full time WFH. A perk for one person may be an obstacle for another.

    15. Anon because this might be too identifying*

      It’s hard to separate the dogness out of the situation, though. What other perks that could be lost simply because they affected someone else, even though they didn’t impact the work being done? I can’t, off the top of my head, think of another perk that has this kind of “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” aspect.

      Anyway. We lost a casual Friday perk that wasn’t a reason I took the job, but it was a big part of job satisfaction. Literally, my employer said “We can’t give you more money, so we want to give you more intangible things; what do you want? Jeans? Okay. Jeans on Fridays.” And then they took it away, without giving any reason other than “new CEO doesn’t like it.” It was specifically in lieu of more compensation, it was taken away, and they don’t understand why we’re not happy about it. And if I were in a position to look for a new job, that would come up at my exit interview. Not “waah, I can’t wear jeans,” but “you took away a coveted perk, not for business reasons, not because it cost money or impacted the work we do, but simply because your personal opinion is that you don’t like your employees wearing jeans.”

      The sad fact is, unless the loss of the perk is a big financial hit, a lot of people are going to have to say “well, that sucks” and carry on.

      1. Galatea*

        +1!!!! this is happening to me right now and on top of some other stuff going on — it feels ridiculous for this to be the thing that makes me decide to leave, but it’s also deeply frustrating

    16. Anon in case this is too specific*

      I was excited to take my previous job for many reasons, but a big one was that it was a salaried exempt position with a TON of flexibility. I could work from home, I could make a doctor’s appointment in the middle of the day, I could work around the schedule of a side gig, I wouldn’t have to track my hours extensively as long as I was getting everything done. And then about a year in, my company switched me to hourly non-exempt with a strict schedule because of the DOL-rule-change-that-wasn’t, and they wouldn’t switch me back. It was really frustrating. No more WFH, needing to track all time worked in a really finicky system, being expected to work EXACTLY 40.0 hours every week, take unpaid lunch breaks, and ask my supervisor if I wanted to flex my hours… it was a huge shift. If I hadn’t gotten a promotion soon after to a position with more flexibility, it might have been a big enough change to get me thinking of leaving.

    17. Ann Furthermore*

      I’ve been in my current position for just over a year. My only hesitation was the commute, which is about 30 miles each way. I did not want to take a job where I would have to make that drive every day, especially where I live (Denver), as the weather can be very unpredictable at any time of the year, which wreaks havoc on the highways all over town. During the interview, I asked about working from home if I had a sick kid, or if there was a snow day or late start at school, or a teacher work day, and my then-future boss told me that work schedules were very flexible and that everyone worked from home at least 2-3 days a week. Perfect. After I started, my boss told me she only required people to be in the office on Mondays and Wednesdays, unless there was a specific reason to come in on other days too — which does happen once every few months.

      It was awesome. We saved a bunch of money on before-care for school, I could flex my hours to go to appointments during the day, or over to my daughter’s school to volunteer for an hour here and there. On office days, I could (and still do) leave by 2:30 or 3 to miss the worst of the traffic and be there when my daughter gets home from school, make dinner, and then work another couple hours in the evening. Friday became laundry day, which freed up more time on the weekends.

      Then last summer, my daughter went to this outdoor discovery camp. It was awesome, and she loved it, but I had to drive to the middle of nowhere to drop her off by 9:00 each day. I asked my boss if, for the summer, she would mind if I was unavailable between 8:30 and 9:30 each morning to do the drop off, and then on office days get there around 9:45. No problem. I was usually up and working at home by 6:30 so I could put in a couple hours before having to head out. Then one day, I got to the office at about 9:45 and as I came in, the CEO was right behind me. All of a sudden it was a big uproar. Why isn’t Ann rolling in until almost 10:00? Is she working all her hours? And so on. And then suddenly the CEO decided that people were working too much from home and so we had to start coming in on Fridays.

      I was *pissed* and my coworkers were too. I told my boss (we have a very open, frank relationship) that I am 50 G-D years old and I don’t need someone micromanaging me. If the CEO had an issue with my work ethic or productivity, then I wanted to have that conversation and clear things up. If someone else was abusing their work from home privileges, then that should be taken up and addressed with that person, rather than everyoone getting penalized. I also said that this 1983 mindset of people not really working unless they’re in the office, butts in seats, between 8 and 5, was antiquated and a f-ing ridiculous discussion to be having in the year 2017, especially at an IT company where more than half the workforce is located in India. Added to all this was the fact that the CEO lives out of state, so he was only in the office a few days a month anyway, so I failed to see why he cared where or when people were working, and also pointed out that he was creating a separate set of rules for everyone else that he wasn’t willing to apply to himself. Also included in this was some BS about how on office days you had to be in the office for at least 6 consecutive hours.

      The big change for me in how I dealt with this versus how I dealt with things in the past is that I was very candid about how I felt that this was a stupid thing that would add absolutely zero value to anyone’s work, day, or time. The older I get, the less shy I am about speaking my mind. Life is too short to put up with BS.

      I started coming in super early on Mondays and Wednesdays so I could get my “required” hours in and still take off around 2:30 or 3; otherwise, my commute home would have doubled. And I started coming in on Fridays, but was still able to have Friday as a WFH day here and there. It sucked, and I was toying with the idea of looking around for another job (not just because of this, but due to some other things too), but was kind of passively looking.

      Luckily the issue resolved itself when the CEO left the company in December. Pretty much the first order of business was to give everyone their Friday WFH day back.

      1. Dankar*

        Good lord. What if you had just been coming in from a doctor’s appointment? Why was his immediate jump to “people aren’t working their required hours!” Either you’re happy with current productivity or you’re not. And if you are, leave well enough alone.

        Glad you were brave enough to speak your mind and find a workaround. I don’t know if I would have been!

        1. Ann Furthermore*

          For me, it’s a function of age. The older I get, the lower my threshold for BS gets. I would never have been so blunt when I was 30. When I turned 40, it was like a switch flipped and I just didn’t have the patience for a lot of stuff that I would have tolerated before. I told my friends who turned 40 after I did about this phenomenon, and that I found it to be liberating.

    18. oranges & lemons*

      I don’t think the LW’s employer handled this situation particularly well–if they are advertising themselves as a dog-friendly office, they should be clear with new hires that this is dependent on the full acceptance of everyone else in the office. And if they weren’t clear about this policy with the employees who complained, they should have been. It sounds like their dog-friendly perk wasn’t particularly well thought out.

      In general, I do think the dog-friendly office works a bit differently from other perks, since it’s relatively uncommon and seems likely to be fraught in offices of any significant size. The LW is less likely to find another office with this benefit than, say, an office that allows working from home. On the other hand, I think it’s probably wise to consider that issues like allergies or phobias or dog misbehaviour are fairly likely to come up in any dog-friendly office situation, and so it’s always a possibility that it’s a perk that might not always be available.

    19. Sal*

      I had this happen but with paid parental leave. I had turned down a job offer, remaining unemployed, because it didn’t offer paid maternity leave. When I got this offer, I specifically asked HR (as referred by huring manager) about paid leave (because I also had a third offer that included some amount of paid leave) and they represented that I could get x weeks of paid leave. When I actually got pregnant and spoke to my now-boss, I learned that the actual written policy, which s/he planned to go by, offered only x/2 weeks of unpaid leave. (For , this job isn’t covered by FMLA.) I am curious as to what others would do in my situation.
      I ended up taking it to email (paper trail) and circling back to HR. HR and my boss had several private discussions. Each time I spoke to my boss, I gently reminded my boss that I had done my due diligence, been told something specific, relied on that, and turned down another offer. In the end, my boss modified the leave offer to x weeks of leave, first half paid and second half unpaid. I was not even close to happy with this (for the above reasons!) but felt I couldn’t push back any more than I had.
      The baby is very cute, but the whole thing damaged my relationship with my boss, which had been good. I also worry that it has made my boss more reluctant to hire people in my demographic profile.

      1. Sal*

        That would be “hiring manager” and “For {reasons}, not covered by FMLA.” Also, hiring manager = now-boss.

  44. HRM*

    I don’t disagree with AAMs response or everyone’s else’s comments but as an aside, I find it strange that people who are afraid of, allergic to, or just generally annoyed by dogs take jobs at dog friendly offices. It just seems like such a huge cultural thing to me that I don’t understand the appeal. Why join a culture you don’t like, and then turn around and complain about said culture? I realize there’s nuances to this (maybe when someone was hired the office wasn’t dog friendly and now it is, for example) but in general it just seems like an odd choice. If I had a fear or pet peeve around something that was a significant piece of a company culture, I would look elsewhere.

    1. Oxford Coma*

      Well, that assumes that the person accepting the job has their pick of job offers or a nice fat cushion in their bank account.

      1. HRM*

        Sure, that’s another example of a potential nuance that could effect the situation. I’m not convinced that every single person who has ever entered a dog friendly work place even though they weren’t crazy about it was unemployed and willing to take any offer.

        1. Veronica*

          I feel like this happens a lot on AAM threads. If someone makes a point that supposes the OP had their choice of job offers, it’s not long before someone else comments that not everyone is that lucky. I don’t dispute that some people have to take whatever work comes there way, but it’s also perfectly valid for someone to write in that they’re frustrated or annoyed by something happening in their workplace that yes, is pretty inconsequential — I believe this OP said “silly” — compared to being able to pay the bills.

          1. Observer*

            The reality is that it’s more common than not that people need to take jobs with serious drawbacks. And sometimes people don’t realize how bad it would be for them. In this case, for instance, the OP makes it clear that their dog is the first one of that size, so it could be that the people who complained – especially the ones who explicitly mentioned the size – may have thought “OK, I don’t love it but I can deal with a few little dogs” and then realized that “Oh no, there’s the BIG dog, and it’s giving me palpitations.”

            That’s not the OP’s fault, of course, but real life is that these things are not necessarily the result of people being stupid about their decisions when they take a job.

          2. Wendy*

            Why are you surprised by this? Given this is a website that specialises in employment-related issues, where a lot of people were drawn to because they have trouble in finding paid work?

      2. Kathleen_A*

        It also assumes that everyone not only knows it’s a dog-friendly office when they come to work there, but also that they knew exactly what “dog-friendly” means. Until the last couple of years, I’d never even heard of this, and when I did hear about it, I was *not* clear that “dog-friendly” means “People can bring their dogs, including large dogs, to work as often as they want.”

        Obviously someone with severe phobias or allergies should ask questions, but it’s also quite possible that they just didn’t have a real idea what they were getting in to. It’s also possible that they can, for whatever reason, tolerate small dogs better than large dogs. So it’s not necessarily as simple as “Surely they knew what they were getting in to.”

      3. Madame X*

        YES TO THIS.
        I am utterly flummoxed at the idea that some people can not imagine that everyone does not have an endless job opportunities available to them when job searching. I can totally see how someone might accept a position at a dog friendly office if it is the offer they have (and it’s an otherwise really good fit as a job opportunity). Also, “dog-friendly” can look very different from office to office. One office may have one or two people who bring well-behaved dogs and another may have a dozen or more people bring in their pets with varying levels of “good behavior”.

    2. suspectclass*

      Personally, my firm didn’t tell me or my former coworker who has a dog phobia that this is a dog-friendly office. She’s gone, the dogs are still here. In my case, this situation, along with the various dog-related shenanigans, are part of a larger culture of dysfunction. Based on several of the dog-office stories I’ve read here, that’s not unusual (or unique to dog-friendly offices, of course).

      1. HRM*

        To me that’s a MAJOR issue in the hiring process. Again, something that is such a big part of your culture, and really – relatively unusual, should be mentioned up front.

        1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          Agreed. I think that’s been a major takeaway for me in discussing dog-friendly offices, in both this and other posts. It is rare. It should be discussed at the interview. And given that it’s, what, 8% someone said above? 8% of offices that allow dogs, then the onus is generally on the interviewer to say ‘hey, we allow dogs here, is that an issue?’ rather than on the interviewee to ask.

          And that’s probably true of other unusual perks as well, or in the converse, if an office doesn’t do something that is extremely common for offices to do, that should be mentioned as well.

            1. suspectclass*

              Oh yes, 100% agree. I also love the comparison to nude Fridays. That’s…not inaccurate to how I feel about it–I am allergic, and also averse to poorly-for-the-office behaved dogs (another issue!).

            2. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

              Exactly, or (what I wish OldJob had disclosed) “We do a spirit week every fall to put your old high school to shame, hope you’re okay with loud thumping bass in the cafeteria and constant parades around the building!”

    3. paul*

      Sometimes you’re desperate, sometimes companies don’t mention stuff like that till later, sometimes you don’t think it’ll be a dealbreaker until you have to live with it.

      1. Goya de la Mancha*

        I agree with the desperate and companies not mentioning part, but others shouldn’t have a perk removed because you changed your mind/didn’t think something through enough.

        1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          I’m not sure that “changed your mind/didn’t think something through” is a particularly accurate way to rephrase the notion that someone might find that a particular situation is less livable than they thought. After all, a description can’t encompass all of reality.

          When my folks threw me out, I moved in with a friend-of-a-friend who called herself a “night person.” I figured I could live with that; I’m an early riser but a sound sleeper, right? Well, ‘night person’ turned out to mean her pounding on my door at 1am to ask me if I wanted to do jaegerbombs with all the people she’d invited over. Less livable than anticipated.

  45. Afraid of beasts*

    I’m sorry for you, OP, but I’m also afraid of dogs and I don’t like them at all and going to an office with a big dog every day would be torture to me. Also, I welcome the anonymous box – people think less of you the minute you don’t show enough enthusiasm towards their furry friend. Pets don’t belong in an office.

    1. Elspeth*

      The LW states that the office was already dog-friendly – that’s the major reason she took the job.

      1. Afraid of beasts*

        Well, too bad for her. Her fun is at someone else’s expense. It would be ridiculous to only hire people who like dogs – sounds like a terrible business practice.

        1. Dankar*

          It’s not about “fun,” it’s about the financial expense she’ll need to take on to replace a perk that she factored into her decision about taking the job in the first place. Honestly, being reductive and nasty helps no one.

          Besides that, OP isn’t even asking whether she can push back to get her perk reinstated. She’s asking whether she has other options, and she does! Negotiate a pay raise, request work from home days, request that she be placed somewhere where her dog won’t impact the anonymous complainer…

        2. Pollygrammer*

          Would you knowingly take a job at this office intending to try to anonymously tank the established dog-friendly policies?

          1. Afraid of beasts*

            If it’s the only job that I can get, yes. I hate dogs but I hate being unemployed or underemployed more. It’s a ridiculous policy anyway. WFH is the answer if you want to be with your dog all day. I’m not changing my ambitions and turning down otherwise good job offers because some people want certain luxuries that cause other people severe discomfort. I don’t want to be singled out as the person who doesn’t want dogs but I would do what I can to not have to work with the terrifying, annoying creatures.
            I love cats and it would be awesome to have cats at work so that I can enjoy them without having to take care of them. But I think cats at work are an equally bad idea because guess what – not everyone likes them.
            And the part about expenses – having a dog is 100% optional and it’s usually 100% for fun. It’s not like having children when you’re doing the most natural thing people do and taking care of the future of the planet. You’re just using the pet a furry toy. So yes, it’s 100% for fun.

            1. Dankar*

              The pets vs kids issue? You are making this about the dog, when it’s actually about the benefit the OP is losing. On-site daycare is also a perk with pros and cons and a real financial impact. My advice to OP would be the same if that’s the benefit being taken away.

              And in the wider picture, it doesn’t matter WHY she has the dog. I use my PTO for fun–should I not complain if I lose it because other people “hate” that they have to cover for me when I’m gone?

              You’re not trying to help the OP find a solution. You just want to use this as a forum to air your greivances about dog-friendly workplaces.

            2. Mikasa Ackerman*

              You would knowingly take a job where the office is dog-friendly and then attempt to destroy the dog friendly culture?

            3. Nonsenical*

              It is your choice to work at an office that welcomes dogs and it is not your place to tank it if you are terrified of dogs. The world doesn’t revolve around you if bringing dogs is a perk there. You’re aware of it and it is your choice. You can’t expect your opinion that it is a ridiculous policy to be more important than a perk that offices are choosing to offer. Work somewhere else if you don’t want that perk or learn to suck it up. I am terrified of dogs but I wouldn’t pick to work at a place where dogs are a perk because of that.

        3. krysb*

          So your preferences should be taken over her preferences, considering it’s a known dog-friendly office?

  46. CityMouse*

    As both a dog lover and someone who has been attacked by a dog, I understand both viewpoints, but I think it is easy that the person who is afraid has priority here. Dogs other than service dogs are rare in most workplaces and the person should feel free to have a safe work environment for them. I understand the need to anonymity because people can be ridiculed for this dear. I am not afraid of dogs but shortly after I was attacked a big dog jumped on me while I was waiting for the bus and I got laughed at when I froze and got angry at the off-leash walker.

    1. sometimeswhy*

      I love dogs but was jumpy around certain breeds after I was attacked and actually had a guy, chase me down, get in my face and yell at me for giving his a wide berth because “She has no teeth and she’s tiny . What’s she going to do, drool on you?” Well sir, she’s the same size as the dog who took a chunk out of the back of my leg and I wouldn’t know that until she clamps her elderly jaws on me would I? FFS.

      My dog is gentle and mellow and and GIANT and love love loves children, most of whom he is MUCH larger than. Even the ones who are interested in him and excited to interact with him can get overwhelmed by his love (and slobber). I can only imagine the longterm fear he could instill in someone already anxious and could not ever take offense at someone’s trepidation.

    2. Lala*

      You are a kindred spirit.

      I love other people’s dogs, grew up with dogs, so I totally get the “I love my dog and want to do stuff with them” because dogs are usually pretty social creatures. I know that just because a dog is large and looks scary or is a breed that people associate with “scary” doesn’t mean it is (and just because a dog is small and seems timid doesn’t mean it is).

      I also had a dog bite me in a way that required two surgeries when I was a child, and I still have scars. It was a well-behaved dog, but there was another dog (also well-behaved) present it wasn’t familiar with and I got caught between them and what happened, happened. My family had dogs before and after that. I’ve even dog sat for friends. I have every reason to be scared of dogs, and I’m not unless it’s obvious the dog has been mistreated or poorly raised.

      That being said, I fundamentally do not understand why offices think people bringing dogs in to work is a good thing. Even two well-behaved dogs can end up in a fight, and injuries can happen in the blink of an eye, both to people and to the dogs in question. That’s before you bring in the issue of allergies, etc. Obviously, service dogs are a completely different thing, but they’re different because they are extensively trained and because they’re an accommodation, not a perk.

      I do wonder if perhaps there could be a compromise between the “no dogs please” people and the “yes dogs please” people at OP’s workplace, though–what if there was a designated day(s) that people could EITHER bring in their dogs or work from home? That would be a perk that *everyone* could use even if they don’t have a dog, and people who want to come in with their dogs would be able to do so, while people who want to avoid the dogs could work from home.

  47. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

    This is such a tough one.

    On the one hand, nobody should have to spend their work days in fear of a coworker’s dog. The size and behavior of the dog are irrelevant; fear is fear, and it’s not ok to subject employees to that.

    But on the other hand, the employee is being denied a perk that is available to all other employees — and a perk that factored into her decision about choosing this job. I can imagine myself leaving my job over this — even if I couldn’t replicate the unusual dogs-in-the-office perk elsewhere — because it would be so deeply frustrating to have the rug pulled out from under me. Imagine if your employer decided that you, alone among your colleagues, only got two weeks of vacation instead of the standard six?

    I think Alison’s advice is right on. Ask for a more thorough process before the perk gets removed, but resign yourself to the likelihood that it will be. It would be classy for the employer to pay for a monthly membership to a nearby dog daycare (if that is available in her area and feasible for her dog); I think the OP is due some form of compensation to both make up for the hard cost of the perk she’s losing and to make up for the personal value she places on it.

    1. Kathleen_A*

      We don’t actually know that it’s available to “all other employees.” It sounds as though the problem is that her dog is fairly large, but it’s possible that all large-dog-bringers or even all dog-bringers are getting similar warnings. That part isn’t clear from the letter, presumably because the OP doesn’t know.

      1. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

        Sure, but I don’t think that matters. The perk was available for all dogs — the OP made sure to confirm that — and now the OP is excluded from it. The impact on her is the same.

        1. Kathleen_A*

          I agree that the impact is (mostly) the same. All I was disagreeing with was the part where you said “the employee is being denied a perk that is available to all other employees.” Maybe…but maybe not.

          And the reason I said “(mostly) the same” is that there is a difference between losing a perk and losing a perk that other employees still have. Both are upsetting, but one is both upsetting and unjust.

    2. Veronica*

      Well said, Victoria (I always appreciate your perspective, though I rarely jump in to comment). Especially if this is a situation where only OP’s dog has been singled out because of its size, I think the classy thing for the employer to do would be to replace it with another perk, such as the doggie daycare membership you suggested. If it were me, I’d always be reconsidering my use of the unlimited vacation time policy … I might be taking off more days to hike with my furry friend!

      2. Kathleen_A*

        I like the idea of a doggie daycare perk. Even if the employer could only offer this for a limited period, that would be a help, and it would be a gracious gesture.

  48. cheeky*

    If a work perk you really love and that lured you into your job was taken away (for whatever reason), I think your only choices are to accept the change or leave. I don’t really know what you can do beyond that. This happens all the time, and like other things in life, doesn’t always feel fair. But unless you work for yourself, these things will happen. Think of Yahoo rescinding employees’ option to work from home- it surely made a lot of people upset, but the company wasn’t going to back down.

  49. HRM*

    Regarding AAMs new comment re: perks in general…

    I’ve worked full time throughout both my undergrad and graduate programs so tuition assistance has always been a major perk for me, and something I consider heavily when I make moves.

    I worked for 3 years at a nonprofit that gave me $2500 a year for reimbursement. My grad program is $30k a year so it wasn’t super significant. When I left to go to a for profit company I was told the reimbursement would be about$8k a year and I definitely factored that into my decision. Unfortunately, on the Thursday of my 4th week they announced they were no longer offering tuition reimbursement. I felt like $8k a year was taken off my compensation package even though I know those kinds of things can change. I ended up leaving after a year and a half (started my new job 3 weeks ago!) but tuition reimbursement was ultimately only one of several disappointments about the job. Overall I regret leaving the nonprofit, but hindsight is 20/20.

    1. Kathleen_A*

      You just have to weigh the value (monetary and otherwise) of the perk, I guess. When I first came to work at the organization I work at now, I qualified for a company car. At that time, almost everybody who worked here did so long as they did some travel for the company. It was a huge perk.

      But the IRS started to tighten the regulations concerning company cars, and the fleet vehicle program became harder for the organization to administer – and the perk gradually cost employees more and more. In the end, most of the employees lost that perk, and these days only department heads and people who travel LOTS of company miles (and there aren’t many of those) have a company car.

      It was kind of a wrench giving it up, but for one thing, it had become a less valuable perk over the years once it was considered part of one’s taxable income. And for another, the organization did increase my salary to make up for it. And in addition, the organization increased the number of pool cars, so it’s usually pretty easy to get one when you need to travel.

      So it worked out OK. But the reason it worked out OK is that my job satisfaction and my income weren’t dependent on this perk. And it probably didn’t hurt that thanks to the IRS, it was considerably less valuable by the time I lost it anyway. :-)

      1. Kathleen_A*

        Oh, and the other thing that helped was understanding the reasons why the perk went away. It was done fairly, and with a reasonable amount of notice (I think I had more than three months), so…it was OK.

        1. JessaB*

          Yes but there’s a key in there “increased salary to make up for it.” Most places that take away perks that have monetary value do not do this.

          1. Kathleen_A*

            That was important, but the fairness angle was nearly as important. The increase in pay did come pretty much equal the value of the perk as it was then…but it didn’t come close to the value of the perk as it was when I first went to work there. That value had eroded considerably, thanks to the IRS.

  50. Lady Phoenix*

    You can talk to your manager about options. My favorite is a crate under the desk, because they tend to be very secure. Put a dog bed in and their favorite toy, and they’ll be right as rain.

    However, depending on the conplainer’s phobia, not even a crate will calm their condition.

    You just have to bite the bullet and either leave Fido home (there are apps to monitor your dog) or at a dogcare. Maybe have a trusted neighbor or nearby family member keep an eye on them?

    I dunno. It doesn’t hurt to ask management.

  51. AllForDogs*

    I think there are some perks which would cause me to leave my company if taken away, which is what LW may have to decide on. Personally, I have a <1 mile commute, and I took a lower salary because as a result we no longer need 2 cars in our household. If my office moved and I had to drive more than 30 minutes to work, I'd be looking for a new job (though I'd probably be very picky about it). Same if I was no longer allowed to WFH when it snows.

    In LW's case, the combination of a long commute and no longer being able to take my dog to work would probably start a job search for me, unless there was some kind of trade-off, like the company paying for doggy day care.

    1. Plague of frogs*

      I believe I could make 20% more by accepting a commute that’s 1.5hrs longer. I have no interest. If my job moved so that my commute was long, I would probably start looking.

  52. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

    As I said in an earlier comment, nobody should have to be fearful at their work.

    That being said, this is an explicitly dog-friendly office. Bringing dogs to work is, apparently, an advertised employee perk.

    So I’m not convinced that it’s reasonable for employees to choose to work somewhere where dogs are present and then object that they don’t want dogs to be present. I wouldn’t demand that my office get rid of its cubicles in favor of an open plan because I hate working in a cube farm.

    3. fposte*

      I’m wondering how clear the office has been on this in hiring. Judging by the results, I’d say “Not enough.”

      1. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

        Yes, good point. It’s unusual enough that they should be really clear with employees about it.

        That being said, the only piece of data we have about their communication with new hires — what the OP was told when she was considering the job — is that they ARE being really clear.

        1. fposte*

          I’d love to hear from the OP how that information was transmitted. Did it get announced when describing office culture, or did the OP happen on a dog or a chew toy and ask?

          1. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

            Right — or is it on their website, mentioned in job ads, discussed as a part of the benefits package, etc.

            2. Natalie*

              Oh, interesting point – I remember looking at the staff page for a job once, and two dogs were “listed” on their own page. I assume they belonged to some of the owners or executives. I didn’t advance to a full interview at that company but if I had, the dogs on the staff listing certainly might have prompted a question from me. And if I was allergic or phobic of dogs, it would have been a valuable clue of some questions I should ask.

  53. paul*

    re: Perks. It’s A-OK to be miffed when a perk goes away, of course.

    The question of how much push back is wise/possible is a bit more complicated though. I mentioned it briefly upthread, but my brother left a job partly due to the insurance premiums increasing; fairly substantially, but the package *had* been amazingly good, now it was just average or so. He wasn’t particularly attached to the company so he left…and wound up with a slightly worse insurance package and no real changed for other benefits (PTO, 401k, etc). It was instructive to hear him complain about that during our weekend phone calls…

    I’d say it’s worth asking for a compromise but there may not be one. If it’s really the only reason you took the job, of course you can job search…but be aware that the perk you’re leaving over isn’t universal or rare, and evaluate how your perks, compensation, and work environment stack up to jobs you apply for.

  54. EmilyAnn*

    I have a dog phobia. It causes me anxiety and fear when I walk down the hallway to my apartment and a dog barks. I understand this person wants this perk, but phobias and allergies are no joke. I am so glad I work in an environment where dogs would never fly. The brief time I worked in a place where people were allowed to bring their dogs and I was too junior to protest was awful.

  55. Argh!*

    My question: do employers have to accommodate irrational fears?

    I have known coworkers who are afraid of all kinds of weird things, and they expect the people around them to make accommodations. Having gotten over many fears myself, I have little sympathy for ordinary fears. (PTSD is another thing)

    If the policy is rewritten to disallow all big dogs, then that’s fair. If only one dog is being singled out, that’s not fair in my opinion.

    Also, anonymous complaints shouldn’t be taken seriously. If someone specific has a fear and management decides to accommodate it, then putting the dog in someone’s office while LW & the fearful person have a meeting would be appropriate.

    Re: removal of perks — I view them as something that can be taken away at any moment. I haven’t taken or left a job because of a perk.

    1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

      I think you’re begging the question a bit there. “Do employers have to accommodate irrational fears” presumes that the employer has the right to determine what fears are or are not rational.

      And in answer to that — well, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of an ADA accommodation, then it’s all going to depend on how difficult it is to accommodate. If it’s no skin off the employer’s nose, then why not do it and earn or retain the employee goodwill?

      1. fposte*

        This is probably getting a bit too granular, but I’m thinking about what accommodations are skin off the employer’s nose and which aren’t. The problem is that if something is consistently present enough to be a problem it may be tough to accommodate in a way that doesn’t involve a loss elsewhere.

        Ending the dog perk, for instance, is skin. It has a cost for the office in giving good employees a morale hit and losing an candidate-attractive policy. The cost may be worth it because of the morale of the previously unhappy employees, but it’s not a no-bother situation.

        1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          Well, right, but Argh! was speaking more generally and so was I. “Should an employer have to accommodate an irrational fear” presumes that a) it’s the employer’s job to make a judgment call on rationality and b) that accommodation would present an outsize burden on the company by sheer dint of being based on an “irrational” fear.

          If you have an employee who’s afraid of heights, there doesn’t have to be a realistic chance of them falling out the 57th floor window for an employer to give them a desk that doesn’t look out said window.

        2. Argh!*

          If we go into ADA territory, a “reasonable” accommodation is all that the employer is required to do, and they are only required to make it possible for the person to do their job. It’s an unreasonable request to ban a friendly dog from the whole company or to ban all dogs. A reasonable request would be to keep the dog behind a gate or in a specific part of the office. If the person is just afraid of dogs, that probably isn’t ADA territory anyway. They would have to be so terrified that they couldn’t work.

          I’ve worked with a few people who expected the rest of us to worry about their feelings too much. It felt like a control thing and got on everybody’s nerves. If someone with a treatable condition chooses not to have it treated and demands instead that the world make room for it, it’s hard to have patience.

          1. fposte*

            A few different things are getting mixed together there, I think. As Green points out, just because somebody is allergic doesn’t mean they’re covered by the ADA, and just because they’re covered by the ADA doesn’t mean the upshot would be banning dogs.

            However, if there is no other way to accommodate an employee whose allergy constitutes a disability, then banning dogs *is* quite likely to be considered a reasonable accommodation because it doesn’t confer an undue hardship on the company; dogs are not integral to the running of the business and their absence from the workplace is not going to cost the business an insuperable amount of money.

            1. Argh!*

              Also, if the employer decides to continue the policy, the allergy sufferer has to decide whether to seek treatment or not, bring a hepa filter to work, etc. It’s not like requiring someone with no legs to ride a bike. The person would still be able to do the job. An ADA case might rule in favor of filtration or dust masks, which would not be costly.

              In this case, it’s an irrational fear, since there’s no evidence the dog will do anything harmful to anybody.

      2. LCL*

        Well, let me channel my mother for a moment, because I agree with her on this one. Never thought I’d say that! To quote mom, all of us have fears, it’s natural. That doesn’t give us the right to expect the world to change how it functions (still quoting) having a fear is normal, demanding others make changes because of our fears is melodramatic and attention seeking.

        1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          Well, again, I think it’s not that easy to paint a broad brush. If someone is afraid of spiders, is it being melodramatic and attention-seeking of them to ask not to be the person tasked with removing a wolf spider that wandered in?

          1. fposte*

            I also think it’s reasonable to consider a request excessive for the situation without its being melodramatic and attention-seeking. Some people might ask not to have to deal with a spider because they’re squicked and squeaky but not ADA-level phobic, and they may be in a workplace where the response is “Sorry, occupational hazard here, you’re welcome to use a paper towel.”

          2. LCL*

            No. It would be totally reasonable for spider fearing person to say can’t do it, spiderthing, ask someone else. Melodramatic and attention seeking would be walking into the common area and loudly saying ohmygodspider! Someone do something right now, I can’t work in the same building with it!

          3. Argh!*

            I got over my fear of spiders by being the person who had to get rid of them. I did not die. The spiders did. And I never feared them again. More people should face their fears. It’s character-building.

            1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

              Cool, but you’re not everyone, and “I got over it, why don’t you” isn’t a good workplace policy.

              1. LCL*

                Yes, but sometimes, for minor annoyances ‘why don’t you get over it’ is the correct action to take. Not the flippant language, but the general attitude toward office aggravations where nobody is trying to hurt you, just being annoying. Or as I put it in a promotion interview, when asked by my prospective boss how I would handle a specific minor annoyance that had nothing to do with the work, not all problems have to be solved. I got the job.

              2. Argh!*

                There are proven remedies for dealing with fears and phobias. Most employers cover psychotherapy and anti-anxiety medication. It behooves the employee to try these things first before demanding a change in the workplace just for them.

        2. Detective Amy Santiago*

          Hmm, I have a pretty intense snake phobia and I don’t think it would be melodramatic and attention seeking of me to request that my office mates refrain from decorating with rubber snakes at Halloween. On the other hand, I have several FB friends who are reptile enthusiasts and there are times when I have to quickly scroll/hide photos when I’m looking through my feed and I would never ask everyone to stop posting those photos.

    2. Natalie*

      An actual phobia could be severe enough to legally be a disability and thus potentially requiring accommodation. There’s no guarantee that an accommodation could be made since businesses do not have to make accommodations that place an undue burden – to use an example upthread, a clown factory trying to accommodate someone with a clown phobia is almost certainly going to be an undue burden.

      My understanding is that a condition has to severely limit major life activities to be a disability, though. I have a bit of a fish phobia, but it’s not limiting so in my case I wouldn’t have legal protection for accommodations. I could certainly ask about one that wasn’t burdensome, of course, in the same way you might ask about skipping the softball game because you have a bum knee or whatever.

      1. fposte*

        I also think that phobias are the kind of thing that could go either way and are rarely going to get tested in court; employers may accommodate phobias that a court wouldn’t find sufficient or take their chance at denying accommodation to something that would be a slam dunk but never gets judged.

      2. Argh!*

        I don’t think it even has to limit the activities of daily life, just interfere with the ability to do the job.

        The law was enacted to help people with severe disabilities continue to stay employed. It was meant for things such as wheelchair access, large computer screens, flextime, special lighting, etc.

        Someone who has a fear (as opposed to anxiety disorder) just doesn’t rise to that level, in my opinion.

    3. Kathleen_A*

      “Irrational fear” is very difficult to quantify. I have a fear of moths – this is totally irrational, and I concede that (though they are just so icky, the way they flutter right in your face, aaaugh!), so I won’t be going to work at any moth-friendly workplaces.

      But is it irrational to fear dogs when you’ve been bitten by a dog or seen someone else get severely bitten? I’m not sure it is.

      1. Argh!*

        Yes, it’s irrational. Unless you have to face the dog that bit you every day and it bares its teeth at you and snarls, you should be able to move on in life. If you can’t, you are responsible for yourself and your fears, and you need to seek treatment.

        I’ve been the victim of street crime committed by black men. Would it be reasonable for me to insist on working only with white people & black women? Or should I “man up” and go to therapy, take pills, or whatever I need to do to take responsibility for my psychological well-being? Well, I went to work the next day with black men all around me and didn’t blame them for what someone else did.

        The same thing applies here. A friendly dog shouldn’t be banned because of what some random dog did elsewhere to one random person in a group.

        2. Thursday Next*

          Please don’t equate animals to race. Just don’t. The analogy breaks down in so many ways.

          1. Argh!*

            If you’re talking about a fear that lingers after a bad experience, I think my experience of being a crime victim is relevant.

            I have also been bit by a dog. I’m not afraid of dogs, either.

            1. Thursday Next*

              You have basically said that if you, Argh, are capable of not fearing black men, then of course someone should get over a fear of dogs, who are nowhere near as scary as black men. That is flat-out racist.

          2. Argh!*

            p.s. how about this: “I was robbed by two men wearing cowboy hats and now I can’t be in a room with someone wearing a cowboy hat.”

            Better?

        3. Kyrielle*

          It depends on whether they are “afraid” or have a “phobia”. Yes, a phobia needs treatment. But just trying to “tough it out” in the meanwhile can backfire and make it worse (yet, being exposed to the thing you are phobic of, in appropriate ways and doses, is a treatment method – and generally works). And before that treatment is achieved, the person still needs to work.

          I don’t think I’m phobic enough of dogs any longer for the ADA to apply.

          I do think I was, a decade or so ago. And saying “just tough it out” then would not have worked, would in fact have been bad for my health – a dog-friendly office with a phobia of dogs is not only distressing and hard to work in, it will keep you in a chronic state of fight-or-flight, which is *really not good* for your body.

          Asking a coworker to leave the office isn’t a reasonable accommodation – they are as much an employee as you are. The dog is not an employee. I understand that not having the dog there is disappointing and frustrating. But the dog is not a coworker, and does not have the same rights as a coworker.

          Now, if I took a job at a clinic I know of that has a therapy dog, removal of *that* dog would *not* be a reasonable accommodation – that dog is part of the work being done there.

          1. Argh!*

            If you’ve been the victim of an auto accident, how long should you be afraid to be in a car? Should you tell your employer you refuse to drive the company car?

            If you’ve slipped on ice and hurt something, how long should you be afraid to be out in winter? Can you call in every time the sidewalk might be slippery?

            If a bullet flew through your window, how long before you can be near a window again?

            If someone has coddled themself rather than do what the rest of us do to get over normal fears, why should anybody put themselves out for their sake?

            I don’t think the coworker should quit, but I don’t think that coworker should have veto power over a company tradition because of a treatable condition they haven’t treated.

        4. Kathleen_A*

          You “should be able to move on”? Really? That’s quite an assumption, Argh! You make it sound awfully easy.

          And I don’t agree with your the analogy between race and dogs, either, because the consequences of fearing dogs are far less serious than the consequences of fearing people of Race X. If I have a phobia about dogs (which I don’t, BTW – I don’t own a dog, but I have in the past), I might be a PITA to my dog-owning neighbor and I might cross the street when I see a dog coming and I might even turn in an anonymous complaint about the well-behaved standardbred poodle that my coworker brings into work, thus putting that coworker in an awkward position. But having a fear of Race X could have a very direct bearing on my fellow humans and their ability to live their lives, and that’s a lot more significant. So your analogy doesn’t work, IMO.

    4. FD*

      I think, honestly, that this isn’t a very helpful way to think about it.

      Here’s the thing about anxiety disorders in general. Anxiety disorders, by definition, are characterized by anxiety/fear/stress that is not appropriate to the current situation. If you are hanging from a cliff and about to slip, and you’re terrified and having trouble breathing, that’s neurotypical (e.g. most people would feel that way). If you’re sitting in your office, with no immediate danger, and you’re terrified and having trouble breathing, that’s an anxiety disorder.

      Note that anxiety disorders can be caused or triggered by a real event–e.g. a person in a bad car accident might start to have panic attacks about crossing the street. However, the anxiety disorder is still characterized by experiencing intense feelings of fear out of proportion to the current danger (i.e. crossing the street).

      Now, anxiety goes along a spectrum. For instance, it ranges from “ugh, I don’t like spiders very much” to full blown “I constantly obsess over spiders, am unable to go anywhere there might possibly be a spider, compulsively scrub my house to avoid the risk of any possible exposure to a spider.” Generally speaking, to be considered a disability, something needs to negatively impact your ability to perform basic activities (e.g. going to work, bathing, etc.) to at least a moderate degree.

      Now, let’s say you have an anxiety disorder that rises to the level of a disability. Again, this means that you do experience irrational anxiety and stress (basically by definition). The employer is required to enter into an interactive process to try and find something that works for the employee and for the employer. The accommodation cannot cause ‘undue hardship’ on the employer.

      Switching for a moment to a more easy-to-see example, and one I’ve actually seen used in discussions about the ADA. Let’s say you hire an employee who becomes paralyzed from the waist down in an accident. Reasonable accommodations might include getting a different desk that they can use with their wheelchair, moving them to an office nearer the front door, and designating parking for them. However, it would not be reasonable to ask the employer to install an elevator, for instance.

      Returning to anxiety disorders, it’s necessary for the employer to work with the employee to see what accommodation can be reached. If the employee works in a dog-training company and has or develops an animal phobia, it’s not reasonable to ask that there no longer be dogs at the workplace. However, in this case, it’s hard to argue that banning dogs is an undue hardship on the employer.

      (That said, however, it would be ideal if they could set up some parts of the office as dog-free, or let employees who are afraid of dogs work in another area.)

        1. fposte*

          This is getting discussed elsewhere in the thread, but basically an employer works with the two needs to explore what accommodations can be offered.

            1. Kathleen_A*

              I disagree. A service dog is a necessity. A pet is not. I agree that the company should try to find some accommodation for the OP – someone else suggested paying for doggie daycare, at least for a transitional period – but they are not the same thing and the company should not be expected to act as though they are.

            2. FD*

              It would be ideal for the company to try and still provide the perk. However, the law requires that the employer take reasonable efforts to accommodate a disability and anxiety disorders can qualify. In the law’s eyes it is not an undue hardship on the business to prohibit pets (i.e. dogs are not a material requirement of the business and it doesn’t cost the business a substantial expense to keep them out of the office). However, the law also requires that a person with a service animal be accommodated too.

              You can disagree with whether the law should say that, I suppose, but it doesn’t change the current status.

  56. tj bag dog*

    Oof, that really sucks OP. I work at a company that has a pretty thorough dog policy: dogs must be well-behaved, aren’t allowed in meeting rooms, must have been vaccinated against rabies and kennel cough, and most importantly, you need explicit permission from your manager and seat mates before bringing the dog in. As well, dogs must either be contained to your cube, in a kennel, or leashed, so no free-roaming doggies.

    IMO, it’s really maintained the “balance of power”; you have to jump through a lot of hoops to bring the dog in the first place, and you’re vigilant about keeping your dog in good office standing. I’ve definitely seen dogs lose their office privileges, and every time it’s been fair.

    I bring my dog in 4 out of 5 workdays right now, but I’m thinking of investing in a dog walker for every day and just leaving him home. Yesterday I learned a coworker of mine is actually afraid of dogs, and I felt so bad since she (privately, in a one-on-one email) confirmed that bringing my dog in was alright.

    1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

      That is a great way to work the policy! I particularly like that you do have to consult with people who sit next to you as well as with your manager.

  57. Menacia*

    Unfortunately, this type of unique perk, like all perks is only contingent other factors. What surprises me about this situation is that there was no discussion prior to the perk being offered if anyone had a problem with it (allergies, fear of dogs, etc.). As well, anything could happen and you could lose your job and go to one that does not offer this type of option (as many companies don’t). Perhaps you could ask if working from home a few days a week would be an option so you could still keep your dog company.

  58. Owlette*

    Some of these comments feel like “not everyone can eat sandwiches”-y to me. If you’re afraid of dogs, you don’t take a job at an office with a long-standing culture of bringing dogs in, and then anonymously complain without any way to discuss a way around it. I’m saying this as someone who’s absolutely TERRIFIED of all dogs, both big and small. Yeah, maybe I’ll miss out on some great job by self-selecting out of a job that allows dogs, but so what? Honestly, I think management should ignore the anonymous complaint because there’s no way to constructively deal with it. And it’s entirely unfair to take away an already-established perk for just one person.

    1. Tuesday Next*

      I agree… If you’re afraid of heights, don’t go and work in a skyscraper. Etc.

      But sometimes people do make assumptions, like “I can see that all the dogs are small so I’ll be fine”. Then a huge dog arrives and they’re not fine.

      1. fposte*

        Or they don’t even see the dogs because they’re in offices or purses or laps and it’s not mentioned to them during the hiring process.

        1. Tuesday Next*

          But that’s negligence on the part of the employer. Everything about the environment that the employee couldn’t reasonably assume should be disclosed up front. Also, pigs might fly :-/

          1. Owlette*

            Agreed. It’s a bait-and-switch if management doesn’t disclose to a new hire with a dog phobia that there are dogs in the office, but this isn’t what happened here. The OP had her dog for months with no problem.

          2. fposte*

            That’s where I’ve been going–that it’s a mistake to see this as dog-owner vs. dog-disliker when it’s really the business that’s, ahem, screwing the pooch.

            1. Owlette*

              Frankly, I also think the anonymous complainer has to take some of the blame here because their complaint contained no ways to work through this situation. They targeted one dog instead of all dogs.

              Anyway, it’s not really about blame or bad management because that won’t help OP. I really hope OP can convince their management to let this complaint go, or give her a discount to doggy daycare. Otherwise, I’d encourage the OP to look for jobs with a shorter commute.

              1. fposte*

                I would blame the anonymous complainer if there were another official structure in place to report problem and they failed to use it. This office has, for better or worse, put an anonymous complaint box in and apparently provided no other guidelines for what to do if you have a problem with the dogs.

    3. EddieSherbert*

      +1 this is a perk that really divides people, but… people make decisions to take or not take jobs everyday based on perks/culture/lifestyle-accommodations. I don’t want a long commute or to work in a busy city with a lot of traffic, so I self-select out of those jobs. I think this is just another one of those factors.

    4. Argh!*

      I wouldn’t take a job at a cat-friendly place because of allergies.

      I’m not fond of heights, but if I really wanted a job in an office that happened to be on the 100th floor and I found that I felt anxious, I would take the job, and then take responsibility for myself and get treatment for the fear of heights.

      My emotional well-being is my responsibility, not the world’s.

    5. True Story*

      One thing that interests me with this letter: Is it possible that the LW’s dog did something to cause the complaint?

      We take the LW at her word that the dog is well-behaved, but is there a possibility that she stepped away from her desk and the dog did something dogs do (jumped on a person, growled to protect territory, etc.) without the LW’s knowledge?

      People tend to be oblivious to behavior problems with their children and pets (esp. when the child/pet is obedient in their presence), so it makes me wonder if there might have been a precipitating incident the LW doesn’t know about.

      Thus, we come back to the problem with anonymous complaints. There is no way for the manager to follow up with the complainer to find out if there was an incident or if the complainer is going off a general feeling.

      1. Argh!*

        We don’t know what this anonymous person’s motives or experiences are. This anonymous person shouldn’t be able to reorder the workplace based on a vague and anonymous message. That’s destructive to the workplace no matter whether there was a legitimate issue or not. Coworkers should be focused on work, not wondering who ruined everybody’s fun or what the heck is going on.

        Management totally messed up here. They should have ignored the anonymous stuff and worked with dog owners to figure out how to minimize anxiety for the people who spoke up using their names.

  59. Todd Chrisley Knows Best*

    This might be too off topic, but how would the office handle this if this was a service animal? Obviously in office accommodation would have to be made for that circumstance, right? So while in this instance it is a perk, how would the office handle it if they had a blind employee with a guide dog (which are often larger). I know this is certainly apples and oranges but I think how they handle one could possibly translate to the other and come up with a solution that is more workable for OP.

      1. Veronica*

        Alison, out of curiosity, does the law say anything about whether you can consider an employee’s contributions or productivity when balancing dueling accommodations? I know this is a conundrum that fascinates me (and probably a lot of other AAM readers!), and I’ve always wondered if it would be appropriate to weigh your top salesman’s service dog against, say, a temp’s pet allergy if both employees were expected to occupy the same cramped quarters.

        1. Ask a Manager* Post author

          This is delving deeper into the law than I’m qualified to answer with any confidence, but from what I’ve seen, typically that isn’t going to come into play unless it’s wrapped into a larger argument about undue hardship to the employer. I can’t think of a time I’ve ever seen that though (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen).

  60. Jenny*

    It would have to be a pretty big perk for me to want to leave a job. I’ve had perks before that were very nice (half day Fridays, casual dress) but they weren’t make or break. And the half day Fridays got taken away at one point in the job and it wasn’t a big deal.

    Where I work now (higher ed) can get free tuition for myself or my children and spouse. I got a free masters degree and eventually I hope that my kids can go here for free. I don’t make a ton of money so having that free tuition is a huge benefit for me and for my kids. If they took that way, I would consider leaving because I could very likely get a better paying job elsewhere that would help me pay for their college education. That perk is the equivalent of $20,000/year. It would have to be that big for me to leave over it.

    1. ExcelJedi*

      This! I work in higher ed, too, in a non-profit school. If either tuition remission went away (which would interfere with my ability to earn my MA), or it became for-profit (which would interfere with my ability to get my undergrad student loans forgiven), the factors that went into my agreeing to a lower salary would have changed, and I would have to reassess whether or not I could stay there.

      If it added up to less than $5k/year (such as the cost of doggie day care), I’d probably try to negotiate a bit more to cover it, but it might not be worth leaving either way.

      1. shewhosnarks*

        Doggy day care rates vary by location; for example, in Seattle they range from 30-40 dollars on average (with the monthly discount factored in); for 20 days a month, that’s 7k-9.5k a year, which is a huge (30%+) percentage of my take-home pay.

        1. ExcelJedi*

          Truth. It’s about $16-20/day here (with the monthly discount), but we’re a couple of hours from a major city. I’d have a much different calculation if I was still living in a city.

    2. Pollygrammer*

      If I had to move from an office to an open floor plan hot-desk situation, it would definitely cause me to consider leaving. That’s a relatively small issue in the grand scheme of work problems, but I feel like anything that makes every day even a little bit worse is ultimately pretty major.

  61. Sometimes yes, sometimes no*

    I would treat this as a change in compensation and act accordingly. As a promised benefit, this was clearly important to you, LW, and I completely empathize! I personally would never bring my dog into an office because he’s a neurotic barkly Pomeranian, and for the exact same reasons I have him in a doggie daycare when I’m at work… and that’s just the thing. Because of your good faith assumption (and their assurance!) that your dog would be accepted in the office, you took a job. That was taken away which will now, for equivalency, incur additional costs for you.

    To generalize, I’d probably sit and have a detailed conversation about the change, what precipitated it, if there are any accommodations that can be made on your part to maintain the perk, and, if not, how you and the company can work together to fix this.

    1) Can you get at the nature of the complaint, or is it concealed for privacy? Either way, ask what you might be able to do to alleviate the concerns. In this case specifically, can you confine your dog to a certain space, have your office/cube moved to keep you and your dog away from high traffic areas, bring her in on certain days and not others, etc.?

    1b) If that’s not possible, ask how else the company is managing this complaint. Is the perk being removed entirely, or being modified in a way that excludes your participation? (I think framing it this way can take the pet-centered emotion out of the equation and focus on how this is affecting not only you, LW, but the company and all its other employees.) And:

    2) Something is wrong with the policy if it allows this to happen but needs to step it back based on an anonymous complaint, especially one that seems to be limited in scope and has plenty of room for abuse (see: commenter up-thread who said they’d claim fear or allergy because they just don’t like dogs). Can they address the policy and make it clear so it’s evenly applied, meets the company’s needs, and will address future concerns?

    3) Since you took this job for this perk, you asked specifically if your case was allowed within this perk, and the removal of this perk will incur additional costs, are they willing to work with you on exchange of less valuable perks for those additional costs? Unlimited vacation is, by nature, an untouchable category, but maybe they have an education fund you’re entitled to that you just don’t see yourself using. Could some of those funds go toward care?

    I hope some solution becomes evident. I really hope that you took this job for other reasons, too, and this won’t be why you’re on the hunt for a new role, and that you can look to those benefits and gains as a way to keep you going as you grieve — rightly so! — over the loss of this particular benefit. Maybe you could use some of that unlimited vacation to hang out with the pup at home every once in a while, too. :)

    1. Sometimes yes, sometimes no*

      To devolve a little into the dog-specific conversation, here’s a line item for consideration: I spend $6,500 a year to have my dog in daycare FT. That is not a small amount of equivalent compensation.

      You can make arguments about how you can get it cheaper, have the dog go part time instead of full time, get a walker, just leave the dog at home, etc., but FT doggie daycare is the most similar to what LW is losing: full-time human attention.

      1. Dankar*

        Yes, I was thrilled when I moved to a lower cost area and found out that doggy daycare was <$20 per day. Where I had been before, it cost me around $55 per day to keep my girl in daycare. That was a… not insubstantial amount. Luckily, I worked 15 minutes from home and had a very flexible schedule, so she was only in daycare when I had night or weekend events to work.

        Even right now, with my cheaper daycare option, it takes up about 3% of my paycheck. OP might have a good shot at negotiating some financial benefit to replace what's being lost.

      2. EddieSherbert*

        +1
        my dog typically goes to daycare two days a week, and I live in an area where doggy daycare is fairly cheap, and it comes out to about 5% of my salary.

  62. Jessica*

    I think dogs-in-office is different from most perks because it affects coworkers, and is potentially a zero-sum game with your employees’ quality of life. Your tuition benefit or childcare allowance or fancy coffee or gym membership doesn’t make my life worse. But you can’t readily make your workplace good for people like OP without making it worse for me. You may say “humans always take priority over dogs,” but that’ll feel less black-and-white when the dog person is your rock-star employee whom you’ll lose over this, and the anti-dog person is a temp, or an easily replaced entry-level employee, or the annoying incompetent person who’s already on a PIP, or whatever. I just don’t see how to reconcile it. People have suggested giving OP some other perks, but even if the employer doubled her salary, it wouldn’t really make up for it in the same way. And there’s nothing an employer could do for me that would be as good as not having to be around dogs.

  63. Ann O'Nemity*

    Employers who offer these kinds of unusual perks really need to have their policies and definitions in order. Are large dogs allowed? How big is too big? All that needs to be well thought out and decided before advertising the perk, so it doesn’t end up changing capriciously. It sounds like the OP’s manager/employer was way too nonchalant and unconcerned about it.. “Oh sure, you can bring your large dog to work. We’re dog friendly here!” And then, “Oh wait, nevermind. We totally changed our mind after one anonymous complaint. Sorry, not sorry!”

    1. EddieSherbert*

      +1 I think dog-friendly offices can work… if you have REALLY good rules and guidelines for it.

      1. JessaB*

        And you are incredibly clear in the interview process what those rules and guidelines ARE. You cannot be cavalier about what you tell prospective employees, especially in a case like this where there are literally two opposing sides and in most cases they cannot be accommodated unless you have a company on more than one floor and an agreement that for instance the left lift is the ONLY pet friendly one, and the higher floor is NO PETS EVER. I say higher because that means nobody has to cross through the higher one with a pet. you want the restricted item to never ever cross into restricted space so you need to get to the open space before the restricted and need a path to the restricted that does not go through the open.

    2. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

      Definitely agreed that this is the kind of policy that needs a lot of thought put into it. I vaguely recall from a previous dog-office conversation that dog-friendly offices are more likely to be small startup-type places, and I imagine this is one of the “growing pains” they get into as they grow up into a real full-fledged company. When you’re four guys in a warehouse, there are less complex interpersonal problems than 50 people in an office park.

      1. Sometimes yes, sometimes no*

        I know you’re generalizing, but Amazon HQ is ridiculously dog friendly. I was on site for a developer conference and stayed away from the cubes and I still ran across dogs.

        1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          Right, that’s why I said ‘more likely’ rather than ‘definitely 100% of the time.’

  64. e271828*

    It’s never a good idea to assume that a privilege is a right. The office allowed the letter-writer the privilege of bringing the dog in. But the office is fundamentally a space for people to work, and work has to take precedence.

    I feel that the letter-writer was lucky to get to bring a large dog to work at all, and that if not bringing the dog to work is a deal-breaker, that’s on them and they should start looking for a job where they can bring the dog to work.

    1. Elspeth*

      Yes, however, the employer told her the office is dog-friendly – other people bring dogs. That was the major reason LW took the job – she didn’t ask for the perk, it was already in place when she was hired.

      1. Chi*

        But taking away that it is a dog and considering any perk, if it was a work from home day or a day off taken away:

        In this case boss has given an explanation. Whether you agree or not the decision has been made. I would be unhappy and probably look for a new job because I would be disappointed and that is important to me.

        I could not see myself trying to convince management this is a bad decision and to go back on it. They made their choice. You make yours.

        1. Delphine*

          She doesn’t need to tell management that it was a bad idea, but it’s not unreasonable for her to ask about options here since it seems she’s the only one being prevented from using this perk.

          1. Elspeth*

            Exactly, Delphine! Is LW the only one who’s being penalized for this, or is it a blanket ban on any dogs being in the office?

  65. ellis55*

    LW, I feel. We lost work-from-home privileges very abruptly one year into my job and it threw my life into total chaos. One thing to keep in mind is – how common is this perk in your industry?

    It turned out that work-from-home was pretty common in mine so the folks who it mattered a *lot* to left over it eventually. Those that it mattered less to stayed.

    If this is common in your industry – common enough that you can think of 3-4 equally good jobs where you’d have the same perk, you might start looking or push back strongly. You might also ask yourself what you’d do for this perk – would you be willing to relocate? Etc. The more you’re willing to do to get it back, same story.

    If it’s uncommon, though, or if you’re otherwise restricted (can’t relocate, few other comparable opportunities) you might consider staying put and pushing back with a little less force.

    I ultimately decided that I was senior enough with enough advancement potential that my pool of other jobs in the area that were comparable and offered that perk was small. I adjusted – somewhat painfully and with a little financial hardship – over time. I didn’t push back much because I knew ultimately I wanted to stay.

    Perhaps a list of pro’s and con’s and some research into what other similar jobs offer? A few informational interviews with folks at other companies? Could help you figure out your options. You don’t want to go to war over a perk you can’t easily get elsewhere, you know?

    1. Veronica*

      I tried to make this point in a reply up thread, and you made it better than I did. My guess is if OP works somewhere that is dog friendly, she might work in a dog-friendly industry. Which might make this perk easier to replicate if she went elsewhere.

      It also might be that the OP weighed the perk against other factors, like compensation and commute. There are people who think 40 minutes is a short commute, but as I have a 5-minute commute now, it seems very, very long to me. If I turned down a job with a short commute to take one with a long commute but an unusual perk, I’d be upset if I then lost that perk. I wouldn’t expect to get it back by switching jobs, but I would be trying to correct the situation on the whole.

      1. Argh!*

        “My guess is if OP works somewhere that is dog friendly, she might work in a dog-friendly industry”

        … or region.

  66. Penny*

    While I personally don’t really like dogs & wouldn’t work in an office with them, I can understand how you feel about losing this perk. Unfortunately, I think the only answer- to you and people in general- is not to let one benefit or perk weigh so heavily on your decision to accept an offer. Heck, even something as basic as being offered Health insurance & how much is covered out of pocket – which I’d guess most people in the US do factor into their job acceptance- can disappear or change drastically in terms of what’s offered and the cost. So ultimately, no benefit or perk is ever a guarantee. Things change be-it based on finances, culture, growth, individual preferences, or a million other business reasons.

    My guess is that this anonymous person isn’t going to relish the idea of coming forward for the reasons Alison stated and probably wanting to avoid any awkwardness or tension in their professional relationship with you (and other dog lovers).

  67. Bookworm*

    Personally I’d be flipping this around: why the heck would the office hire someone who is afraid of dogs (was it made clear that this was a policy when that person was hired?)?

    That said, that sucks. I know for me one dealbreaker would be moving into an open office (it’d be a genuine matter of productivity and work quality for me). I am personally “anti-dog in the office” but I respect people who do like that perk. I’d be devastated if something like this (perk that was originally okayed was pulled off the table) happened to me. But at the same time, agree with people who say that you may need to start looking for another if this really that important to you. If it were just one complaint you’d probably have some wriggle room but if it’s multiple complaints there may be a reason why people aren’t happy with such a large dog in the office. And if there is someone who has an allergy or fear of dogs that has been medically diagnosed (like, the person needs anxiety medication or something) it may be just a matter of time before you will have to choose between the job or your dog.

    I did work in an office where something like this happened (it was before I began): the HR person started bringing her dogs to work, saying there was nothing in the manual that said she couldn’t. People weren’t happy but she was right. Until the dog pooped somewhere very inconvenient and the “no dogs” policy was placed into the manual. I don’t know if HR Person left specifically because of that but this is just to show that something like this may be in the future for you. Good luck in whatever you decide.

    1. Mike C.*

      You can’t not hire someone because of a medical condition that doesn’t pose an undue burden on the running of the business.

  68. Tuesday Next*

    I’m not sure that it’s so apples and oranges because a workable solution would need to be found for a service dog. I think there’s less motivation for the company to look for a workable solution for a per, but the solution would probably be the same.

    1. Detective Amy Santiago*

      You can’t compare someone wanting to bring their pet to work with someone who needs a service animal. A company is legally required to accommodate the latter.

      1. Argh!*

        The person wanting accommodation in this dog situation is the one who has a problem with dogs, not the person who brings a dog.

  69. DCLawyer*

    I understand where you’re coming from. I have a male Irish Wolfhound who I brought to work every day for about 4 years. For those who aren’t familiar with breed, it’s the one of the largest dogs (by length and height, not necessarily by weight); on average they are slightly larger than Great Danes. They are also one of the sweetest dogs. But anyway, after 4 years of bringing him to work and having most of the office know me as the lady with the horse-dog, and people fawning over him, the policy changed. I wasn’t specifically called out but the office hired a new managing director who did not favor the policy. I had several discussions with management because, like you, being able to bring him wth me was THE primary reason I accepted that job (basically, due to his size there are very few doggy day cares that can take his size, so finding a dog-friendly office was REALLY important to me). Ultimately, management did actually allow me to continue bringing him in BUT it was contingent on moving me to an unfavorable office immediately next to the service elevator and not really close to my team, keeping him in the office at all times, switching my hours from M-F to 15 hrs Saturday-Monday, and only entering/exiting through the service elevator. This was a trade off that I was willing to accept, though I’m not sure it was the best choice for me professionally. Other coworkers became jealous and since I was so far away from the rest of my team and in the office for wonky hours, I ended up being isolated from their discussions, etc. I know this has been a long response, but my advice is to consider what you’re willing to trade if management does open up to a more extensive discussion. I hope it works out for you!!

  70. Madame X*

    I think this is one of the problems you run into when you allow a perk (which can change at anytime) to so heavily factor into your decision for accepting a job.
    My question for the LW is, how much do you like this job? Can you think of other reasons for why this job is such a good fit for you? Was the dog-friendliness the only thing or even just the main thing you like about your current position? If management is not willing to compromise (telework, pet-care, etc)? How easily would it be for you to find a similar position in your field with a pet-friendly workplace? I think if you can answer these questions you might have a clearer a way for how to proceed forward.

    1. Madame X*

      Now I wish I could edit my comment. I can think of a *few* perks that would be worthy to leave a job over, but they would have to be pretty big. Tuition reimbursement or remuneration is a pretty big perk that is commonly offered in some job fields. Those are perks that can add save an employee tens of thousands of dollars and it would make more economic sense to leave said position for a higher paying one if that perk went away.

      1. Alice*

        Does “colleagues who communicate about solving problems without anonymous notes” count as a perk or a culture?

        1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          I think that’s called “offices that don’t solicit anonymous feedback from employees.”

        2. bonkerballs*

          Considering the anonymous note came through official company anonymous note box, the colleague who doesn’t like dogs shouldn’t really be called for that. They used correct, company sanctioned methods of communicating a problem.

          1. Argh!*

            I wouldn’t say that’s appropriate for this kind of comment. Suggestion boxes are for things like “let’s have casual Fridays” or “the handicap ramp needs more rock salt on icy days.”

  71. NaoNao*

    I worked for a company that was acquired by a huge multi national. We lost a *very* significant perk: discounted (by like 75%) public transportation passes. I was furious. As someone who didn’t own a car (and still don’t) the ability to buy significantly discounted passes was a huge perk and said a lot about the company’s commitment to environmental and eco friendly policies.
    There really wasn’t much I could do, but honestly…that was the last straw that got me job searching, at least passively. A few other changes in the next year or so got my actively searching.

    Companies really need to:

    Understand which perks are key and for whom
    Communicate clearly which perks will be changing *and why*
    Give people options or an “off ramp” time to adjust if possible and/or provide services and alternative so it doesn’t seem like they’re just callously yanking a coveted benefit from workers

      1. Jessica*

        Yeah, this is great. People’s preferences, values, and life situations are so diverse that it’s really better not to make blanket assumptions about what’s important and what’s a frill. If compensation is about retention, an employer should be trying to understand what matters to their actual employees. There are perks I don’t ever use or remember that we even have, and there are ones I consider integral to my quality of life.

  72. Ellen N.*

    I believe that the ability to bring your dog to work is different from other job perks. Some people choose where to live (apartment vs. house, distance of commute) based on this job perk. Some people get a dog based on their ability to bring it to work. The rescinding of other job perks usually doesn’t have the same degree of impact.

    As the original poster’s dog is a standard poodle and they are low dander, he/she would probably still be able to bring the dog to work if a coworker suffered from a dog allergy.

    The dog being large as a reason to not include it in the dog friendly workplace policy is illogical. Large dogs tend to be calmer than small dogs.

    Although I suffer from a phobia so I understand; I don’t think that the workplace should be tailored around phobias. I had a coworker who had a phobia of small people. She had panic attacks for weeks when a small person joined the company as a partner. I don’t think that anybody would argue that the company couldn’t hire small people as an accommodation for her phobia.

    1. Madame X*

      “Low-dander” does not mean that no one is going to not be allergic to the dog.
      Not hiring small people would be discrimination based on disability.
      You are comparing apples to shoes here.

          1. Eliza*

            In fact, there was one commenter further up on this very letter who mentioned being specifically allergic to hypoallergenic breeds and not other breeds. Sometimes the traits that make something less allergenic for most people make them more allergenic for a few.

    2. Jules the 3rd*

      Any workplace has to find the balance between human needs. In the US, phobias can be covered under the ADA, but discriminating against someone for their identity would suck. It’s complicated, and the best thing companies can do is as Alison recommends: get transparent, look for compromises and root causes, treat everyone with respect.

      I would add they might throw some money at the issue – if dogs at work are really valuable, then the company could start an on-site doggie day care. Your company might look at whether a satellite office would make sense and still give everyone equal access.

      1. EddieSherbert*

        oh my gosh, I’ve seen companies that had onsite/nextdoor included (or discounted) childcare, but never would think of doing that for petcare. But it’d be awesome. Someone do this. Haha.

    4. Observer*

      A couple of factual issues here.

      Firstly, as others have noted “low dander” does not mean that no one is going to have a significant allergy problem.

      Secondly, there are many other perks that could seriously impact people. Everything like on-site child care, to transit passes, to WFH or flex scheduling, to take a few examples.

  73. Former DotCommer*

    I just left a job where I was given a dedicated work from home day as a perk that wasn’t extended to others in the office. One day for some reason I no longer was allowed to wfh weekly and I had to start requesting days in advance if there was a “legitimate” reason for me to work from home. (Fwiw my job function was unique at that company and I was seated with people with very different, much more outward facing positions and that often posed a problem for me.) Legitimate was never defined and basically I never worked from home again. Once it became clear that this perk was gone I started looking for another job. Not necessarily because I lost the perk but because the way in which this was handled demonstrated a shift in values, a shift in how I was valued, at the company. I found – and accepted – another job fully intending never to work from home again but then on Day 2 my new supervisor said “You can choose a dedicated wfh day if you want.”

    I know that’s not the same as the dog situation, but we get to choose what we value. (And I’m sort of confused as to why OP is being judged for valuing bringing her dog to work more than other perks or more than you would. You do you but some of us would just rather chill with our dog.) It’s also totally possible that the OP will just accept the situation (she sounds like she’s well on her way there) or maybe look for another job even knowing she won’t be able to bring her dog in for whatever reason – it’s closer to home, shorter hours, whatever.

    Usually places with unlimited vacation (and an anonymous complaint box) aren’t the best for life-work balance, so I’d get leaving over any perk really.

  74. Jules the 3rd*

    1) I am really disappointed with the meanness in this comment section. Take a breath, folks. Be respectful and discuss to solve and learn, not to win.
    2) Losing a perk does suck, and often has financial impacts. The question of who absorbs that impact can be discussed.

    OP – – I like Alison’s scripts, but for an employer, human requirements have to be balanced, and phobias (or allergies) are probably going to win over convenience. I think you should go back to your employer / manager with the goal of mitigating the impact of this decision on you, not the goal of getting them to change their mind. Options to consider are:
    – as suggested above, WFH days / ‘dog friendly’ days, with at least 1 day / week where everyone works in the office with no dogs.
    – See if your employer will help with the cost in a daycare that’s near your work, where you could visit / walk the dog at lunch

    1. Wendy*

      No one’s being mean, some people are simply saying they don’t like some things and other people say they do like them.

  75. Chi*

    Taking the dog out of it…the manager has taken this perk away so if it is that important to you, you should look for another job.

      1. Chi*

        If the manager was open to that s/he probably would have said so. They have already asked her to stop bringing the dog (perk taken away).

        1. Elspeth*

          Yes, but is LW the only one being penalized here? Are other workers still allowed to bring their dogs to work?

          1. Chi*

            LW would need to say. She is not asking about everyone else. She is asking about her. I can only go on what is here. If she comes to update we can go from there.

            1. Elspeth*

              Yes, LW would have to come back and say for sure. If she’s the only one being affected by the loss of the perk, that is a pretty shitty thing to do to her.

  76. nnn*

    If there are multiple employees in this office who have lost bring-your-dog-to-work privileges, and if economics permit, an option might be to see if you can find a group discount at a nearby doggie daycare, or perhaps for the employer to let employees claim dog walking/dog care services as a business expense.

    1. Political staffer*

      I’m not opposed to the employer negotiating a group discount at doggy day care. But being able to claim pet expenses as a business expense (unless it is specifically related to work such as food for a K9. MAYBE pet sitting for overnight employee travel) is absurd. I think the IRS would agree with me. Ultimately when you adopt a pet, you agree to take on the expenses related to the pet (food, vet care, etc).

      I don’t mind dogs, but did work in a dog friendly workplace once (other tenants in our building brought dogs, so it followed). It ended up being more of a hassle than it was worth because my two staffers dogs did not get along (neither did their humans) and there was way too much barking and growling. No work could get done.

      I’m a cat person and would never think of bringing a cat to the workplace. Nor would I consider kitty daycare. I just leave Kitty at home and everything’s fine.

  77. I'm a Professional Bleeding Heart, thank you.*

    While it sucks to have what has been a very appreciated perk taken away, it unfortunately does happen from time to time. Business/office realities change and managers need to make changes that may not always be the most palatable (she says, as a manager that just needed to make a couple awfully disruptive and unwelcome decisions).

    So the options from here seem to be talking to the boss to see if there is some sort of compromise. Can you work from home, will they subsidize doggy care, can you be moved to a remote corner where the likelihood of someone being affected is negligible. If none of that is an option, and given the nature of the anonymous complaint I’m figuring that is going to be the case, then you have a choice to make.

    Even without the doggy, from all that you’ve said, this job still seems to be a pretty good one overall. If that is the case, is it worth the cost of a dog sitter or doggy daycare to leave the pup with? Is it worth the separation all day? Or is it important enough that you no longer want to stay and will choose to look for a job elsewhere?

    Only you can answer those questions, but keep in mind that most other offices likely wouldn’t be offering doggy perks either, so you may find that you’re no better off somewhere else, even if the economy in your corner of the world is not suck-tacular and new jobs are fairly gettable.

    It’s disappointing. But if I got this complaint as a manager, even anonymously, I think I’d end up making the same decision.

  78. Ellen N.*

    What I haven’t seen addressed in Alison’s response to the original post or in the comment section is that the original poster appears to be the only employee who lost the bring your dog to work perk.

    I think that unless there is a sound reason to remove a perk for one person (for example the receptionist not having flex hours) that perks shouldn’t be rescinded only for specific employees.

    1. LCL*

      I think a few of us have noticed this…
      I’m kinda obsessing on this post because I was always the one singled out to behave. It’s what happens when you’re the biggest kid in class. My combativeness is the effect of this treatment, not the cause. I used to be such a sweet sweet thing, etc. I’m closing my browser now.

    2. Wendy*

      Well apparently her one is the only one that got complained about, why should anyone else be punished for it? That’d be like one of those situations where those in charge sets out company-wide policies because one person broke a rule.

      1. Marillenbaum*

        But OP also didn’t break a rule: the workplace is explicitly dog-friendly, and she also made extra sure that that policy applied to her dog. Just because the complaints were directed at her dog does not mean that she was in violation of the policy.

    3. a1*

      I thought it’s because she’s the only one with a larger dog. If she had noticed other large dogs she probably wouldn’t have felt the need to ask if she could bring hers in. Now, that said, if there are others with large dogs and they are still allowed to bring them in, that’s just wrong (more wrong?).

    5. Database Developer Dude*

      Tell that to the commenters here who were perfectly okay with me being the only employee asked to change my ringtone on my phone. Having the ringtone of my choice is a perk I lost, and no one else did……

  79. WillyNilly*

    Is it possible that it might be a situation where it was perceived your were abusing the perk, and so you are loosing it?

    I can’t help but wonder if the complaints about the size of your dog were euphemisms (or perhaps were spelled out but your boss paraphrased them into “too big”). I looked up standard poodles and repeatedly came across words like “high energy”, “active”, “need lots of outdoor time”, “needs mental stimulation”, not to mention several mentions that they make excellent guard dogs because they tend to bark at strangers.

    Your coworkers might be frustrated in the same way folks often (moreso I think in the past) get frustrated with smokers. If your dog requires longer, or more frequent, walks than the smaller dogs, that’s a legitmate gripe of co-workers, because its unfair, but also because its hard to plan a productive day around if they need to collaborate. And much like the slacker might loose a WFH perk, you are looking at loosing the dog perk because your dog was needier. This wouldn’t be a case of your fog being poorly trained, but simply a fact that your bigger dog has different exercise needs than a smaller dog.

    1. Elizabeth H.*

      I think this is a ton of extrapolation – if you have to look up standard poodles to see what they are like, you’re probably not familiar with them in person and they can be very calm and well behaved in public. I don’t think it’s fair to read a ton of things into the situation with no basis for evidence, like that OP spends a long time walking her dog so she’s MIA when coworkers need her.

      Also size can be pretty irrelevant for how much activity and attention certain breeds need.

      1. WillyNilly*

        I have encountered standard poodles, I just am no expert on them. I googled and read the quick description on about half a dozen sites: all were consistent that poodles need a lot of exercise and stimulation.

        Of course though my post is just a theory, most responses are. I just think, since it seems that its only OP’s dog that is an issue, its possible the dog itself is not fitting within the perimeters of the perk.

    2. Quickbeam*

      My therapist (talk therapy) has 2 geriatric standard poodles who are in her office at all times. They are sweet but take up a lot of time and focus. I like dogs and they are very affectionate. I told my therapist that I’m fine as long as we reset the clock when they pull her attention from our session. It averages 10-15 minutes a session. Even at 11 years old they are quite manic.

  80. kmb*

    On the non-dog-reated perks, I actually had the manager thing happen. I took a job that was a stretch for me, with an organization I had volunteered for and LOVED (and when I started volunteering there, I was in a job that was awful, and I was like “I can’t believe this is a job these guys have”). One of the staff whose team I volunteered on was going to be my direct manager and was in my interview, and she thinking I could do the job was a huge reason I felt like it would be OK to take it.

    She left about 5 months after I started (and it was one of those days where they tell people in two meetings and everyone just cries for the rest of the day) and her boss, who now had way too many people to manage and would much rather have been delivering than managing people delivering became our manager, and it was awful for a year. Finally I scheduled a skype call with her … on what turned out to be the day it was announced she was coming back! She was even my manager again for a little while, which was … magic. Then someone got hired in between us, because she came back to a VP role, but still, she was there.

    She has since left again, and just … things are happening that I know would never have happened with her there. One of the other perks I got after lobbying for it when I started, was our team got moved to a different office space. Our work is creative, and we have to talk things through, which doesn’t work super well in a cube farm with people who need to focus on things (and also our jobs involve a lot of weird materials), so there was a lot of tension around us being too loud and our desks having stuff at them, and we got moved into the office with the main other arm of content-creation, and it really felt like validation that our creativity was valued as much as theirs.

    Today we found out that we are getting moved back to the cube farm part of the office. I’m right by the primary person who really needs quiet and focus to do her job, and I feel bad because I need a chatty environment to do mine, and it’s going to be difficult (and I remember being there before). And our managers who made the decision didn’t do any consultation with us, and do not seem to understand what it meant to be in the other space – it was like they decided they knew we weren’t going to be happy about it, so they just told us and gave us 2 days to move our stuff back into cubeland. And I feel like this would not have been done this way if she had been here. We would have at least been consulted, even if the decision wouldn’t change. And there are people on the team who took the job because they wouldn’t be in bland cubes. And the culture is just different; there are please be quiet signs. My job is figuring out weird ideas, I have to talk them through with people. I ask people about emails I send, partners I talk to, weird programs I’m thinking about, all day.

  81. Lauren*

    What did you do with the dog in your previous job? Or have you only ever worked in dog-friendly places?

  82. Manager Mary*

    OP, I would see if dog-free and dog-friendly spaces can be arranged, e.g. offices 1-20 are Dog City and the other offices, break room, etc. are dog-free. OR I would negotiate for working from home or perhaps arranging your schedule so you’re working fewer days for longer hours and you get a dog walker those days… maybe with a small raise to cover the cost/loss of this perk?

    Personally, I’m terrified of dogs. Like, full-blown panic attack terrified. If you walked in with a standard poodle and my boss told me it was there to stay, I would walk off the job right then and there, even if it meant my career was over. BUT because of that, I would never, ever work anywhere that had a dog-friendly office. I wonder when this perk was implemented and where that date falls on the timeline of the complainer being hired vs. you. Perhaps this person deserves a little compassion, since they were possibly hired before this policy was put in place.

  83. cactus lady*

    This might not be the most popular opinion out there – but I largely pick my workplaces based on their culture and perks, and if there were a negative cultural shift or if a perk that had tipped me in the favor of this job were taken away, I would strongly consider leaving, depending on the situation. I am also fortunate to have a pretty transferable skill set and there is a market for what I do in my area. I’m not saying that LW should definitely start job hunting, but I would certainly be considering that as one option at this point if I were in their shoes.

  84. Joel Davis*

    One thing I learned about perks is that they really should be viewed as temporary. When I started at my current job there was a ton of free food, a constant supply of seltzer and unlimited (and untracked) PTO. We landed a huge client and subsequently got sued over how we landed that client and that’s when the snacks & seltzer ended. People started to abuse PTO and now we have a tracking system. We won the suit & got the client back but the snacks never came back.

    1. Argh!*

      One of my former workplaces lost its honor system snacks due to abuse. We were in a rather remote area and not a big enough office to justify a vending machine. It was nice while it lasted.

    2. Quickbeam*

      +1. My employer had unlimited sick time for over 100 years. After a monitoring system identified abuse by fewer than 10 people out of 2000, we lost all sick time and were given a couple days PTO. Huge changes can and do happen over very small levels of infraction.

  85. Stellaaaaa*

    This strikes me as a management issue, but not in the way you might think (that it’s the manager’s job to find acceptable compromises for everyone). I’ve seen this kind of thing happen before, where managers at a small or new company introduce perks that make sense for the specific people who make up the first batch of hires. There’s no thought given to how those perks translate across a more varied group of people or an expanded business mission. Dogs are one of these perks. It only takes one person with allergies or the purchase of some very expensive tech to make office pets feel like liabilities, and any smart CEO would know that. There’s just too much risk for conflict and disruption.

    It’s in the same vein as when startups employing mostly youngish men have things like nerf fights and beer lunches because they only have one type of employee in mind. After a certain point it becomes untenable for a company to cater to a really specific category of human being if they intend to grow.

  86. Annie*

    What would be the cost for sending your dog to doggy day care each month or having a person come in the middle of the day to walk your dog? I would calculate that out and see if there is an option to get a raise in that amount (not sure if that’s possible or not, but throwing that out there if they said when they hired you that you could bring your dog with you). That would be to compensate for the perk you just lost if they refuse to accomodate you in some other way (changing your office space where the dog won’t interact with other coworkers, etc…)

  87. Safetykats*

    Every benefit provided with a job is technically compensation. Some compensation has monetary value – even being allowed to bring a pet to work might have monetary value if you otherwise need to find a doggie day care. Some compensation has significant nonmonetary value. My employer is big into community support, and while that doesn’t put money in my pocket it’s important to me.

    When the conditions of your employment change, you always have to decide whether the change makes it worth leaving, and also whether you’re likely to get a better deal elsewhere. I’ve never actually left a job over money alone – it’s always been about the intangibles. Usually I also got more money, but that wasn’t the main reason I went looking, or the main reason I made a change. I think that’s true for a lot of people.

    I guess for me, I would be asking myself how badly I wanted to continue working at a place that would penalize one employee based on an anonymous and complaint from another. Because it sounds like that’s what’s happening here. For me, the rest of the job would need to be pretty fabulous for me to want to stay.

  88. Chocolate Teapot*

    As an example of losing a benefit, at a previous job, I had paid overtime when working over a certain number of hours. (NB. this was in Europe so I know legal obligations are different in America) At the time, I was busy and glad of the extra cash.

    Then, it was decided to stop the payments and replace them with time off in lieu. The problem was that I needed to get work done, so there were few chances to take the extra days, and also, the money would have been more use (what’s the use of extra holiday when you can’t afford to go anywhere?). It wasn’t the only reason I left that job, but I felt that the new situation was not as good as the old one.

  89. Faintlymacabre*

    There are a lot of comments here, but I don’t think this has been addressed- is there any way to get management to put out a survey or something to get more information on the dog phobia issue? Something along the lines of “we’ve had some complaints about the dog friendly policy and would like to readdress this” and then put out a survey to the whole company, with the understanding that unless people get specific about their concerns, they won’t be addressed? I can understand the anonymous complainer’s desire for anonymity, but it seems so unfair that your dog would be summarily dismissed without being able to try to accommodate the complainer. And maybe the dog perk would be suspended across the office if it revealed more people had more problems with the policy than previously known, or perhaps the complainer just wants to mess with the OP and saw the dog as an easy target. But in any case, it seems unfair to take away your perk without any sort of follow through.

  90. ZucchiniBikini*

    Waaaaay upthread, Alison asked if anyone would be willing to discuss a (non-dog-related) perk that got taken away and how it affected you. As it happens, I have not one but three such examples!

    At my most recent salaried job, the organisation used to supply tea, coffee, milk, sugar, bottled water, and fruit, free of charge, to employees. As part of one round of endless cost-cutting, they removed this perk. No one left their job over it (including me) but it did serve to sour people a little on the organisation, especially as the CEO’s payrise was announced the same month.

    At a previous job, employees were encouraged and supported to get vehicle leases through the company. This meant you actually paid much less for the car for a range of complicated tax reasons I don’t fully understand. In an industry that wasn’t super well paid, a lot of people relied on this to be able to afford a car at all. When this perk was removed, there was an uproar. I don’t think anyone quit on the spot, but I know it was a factor in a couple of people who moved on soon after.

    And finally – after I had my children, I negotiated a mostly work at home part time gig with my employer ( I was expected to attend the office once a fortnight for meetings, and worked the rest of my part time hours at home). This worked well for me, and my employer, for almost 5 years. I was consistently exceeding my targets and getting performance bonuses and even a promotion. Then a new manager started who decided that she did not like WAH arrangements and so revoked mine – which would have meant that I would have had to be in the office the 3 full days a week I was employed for. Nothing about my role, or the business needs, had changed – she just “didn’t trust people working at home”. In that case, I actually tendered my resignation as it made no sense for me at that time in my life to do that, but my new boss’s grandboss called me to find out what was going on and when I told him, the decision was instantly reversed. (I still left about 9 months later, but for entirely other reasons!)

    I guess what I would say from these three experiences is:
    – Taking away any perk is going to lead to grumbling. It just is.
    – The greater the financial or lifestyle impact of the perk, the more intense people’s reaction will be to losing it. No work-sponsored tea and bananas annoyed me, but at the end of the day, it wasn’t a huge deal. Having to incur a lot of extra costs and totally rearrange my life and my kids’ life to accommodate an unneeded return to the office was a dealbreaker for me.

  91. Brent*

    I think this person is being ridiculous. Her job was reasonable enough to let her dog come to work with her with what I’m assuming isn’t for a medical condition since it wasn’t mentioned (emotional support dog, etc). She just doesn’t want to leave her dog at home. Granted, if I brought my dog to work (I am a dog owner btw and my dog is home from 8am-6pm each day) and I was used to it, I would also probably be frustrated by the change. But taking a step back and not just thinking about myself, I’d realize that everyone has a job to do and the office environment isn’t just about *me*.

    Her job is to work. Her coworkers job is to work. If an unnecessary animal that she is bringing into the office is causing stress, allergies or fear to another coworker, her dog should stay at home. Simple as that. Other than her *wanting* the dog to be there, there is no justifiable reason she should be.

    Leave your dog at home. Leave her with a fresh bowl of water. Leave her with her toys, leave her with a blanket. Train your dog to not have anxiety while you’re gone if that’s an issue. But what the issue sounds like is that it’s with the owner of the dog, not the dog itself.

    1. Elspeth*

      You didn’t read the letter – this is an office wide perk available to everyone, not just the LW, and the major reason she accepted the job.

      1. Brent*

        My comment still stands. I did read the article. The office is generous by allowing this “perk”. If this is the only reason she “took the job” then whoo boy. An office perk of being able to bring you pet to work willy nilly is not he norm. Would she have just kept searching for a job until she found one that allowed her to bring her pet? This is not a common thing. Was it a factor that contributed to her making her choice? I’m sure. But it cannot be the main reason – it was a perk along with other benefits that helped with her decision.

        It sucks that a benefit she used is being taken away, but how can you turn around and be dramatic when it’s based on someone being afraid, intimidated, allergic ect to the pet you brought to work? I do however think that at this point the manager should probably come to the decision that pets are no longer allowed office-wide. This can’t be the first and can’t be the last time a pet issue will arise.

        1. Elspeth*

          There are other workarounds, like allowing the LW to keep her dog in her office, or setting aside a suitable closed off area for dogs only.

    2. Nonsenical*

      It is a perk offered by her office. It is not something she just wanted, it is something their office culture supported.

  92. Quickbeam*

    I once took a nursing job with the understanding in writing that I was willing to work all the weekends and holidays as long as I was not forced to rotate shifts (I was a night shift nurse). 3 weeks into my job I was on the schedule for all 3 shifts. I was told, sorry, we need you on all 3 shifts. I quit.

    Since then I have come to see all promises employer related as just suggestions. I count on nothing. I feel badly for the employee and her dog but I can see it as a “here today, gone tomorrow” perk.

  93. Ed*

    Aw man that sucks. I have two adorable kittens and if I found a place to work where I could bring them in it would totally be a big deal for me.

    That said, company policies change unfortunately and it doesn’t sound like you can do much other than what Alison suggested.

  94. Steve*

    We have a pet friendly operation. All of our cats- Thor, Loki, Batman and Cleo- have employee numbers and are collectively referred to our ‘purr-sonnel’. We also have volunteers with dogs trained to assist in the sort of work we do.

    It’s pretty clear from our social media that we love animals and there’s a good chance you’ll be encountering a “big” dog (most likely a German Shepherd) working with us. I can’t see someone who has an allergy or dislike for animals would apply.

    “If someone started working there who’s allergic to dogs, your company would have to tell you to stop bringing your dog in anyway. (The sometimes-exception to this is if you’re working somewhere large enough that they can easily move one of you to a different building without it impacting anyone’s work.)”

    Guess who’s getting the perk of mostly working from home? I mean….that’s a bonus to most people and a lot of our non-field work is done remotely anyhow by volunteers. As long as it doesn’t negatively impact the person (and the nature of the work permits it), there’s no reason you can’t tell them that they will be working remotely to protect them from their allergy and also protect a perk that a lot of people enjoy.

    Oddly enough, one of the “purr-sonnel” is allergic to dogs so we have to be careful that she’s not around when one of the volunteers brings their dog around.

Comments are closed.