candidate no-showed for a high-level interview, leaving over a matter of conscience, and more

by Alison Green on July 24, 2024

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

1. Can I work remotely across the country if I’ve been having health problems?

I am a primarily in-office knowledge worker who gets Fridays to WFH. Over the last couple of months, I’ve been having heart-related health issues that rest seems to help. I’ve asked for one, maybe two days to WFH on the days that it is intense and I can’t get the flare-ups to go away on my own. Nothing wild or egregious. WFH is an incredibly touchy subject at my office because so many people are resentful of having to come in when this “requirement” is not being consistently enforced.

I was granted a week to work from home while the rest of my team (including my boss and the entire leadership team) is out of town for a big event that I’m not supporting. Almost no one will be online, and if they are, they’ll be focused on other things and not checking for me. I thought it might be nice to get out of town during this week for a change of scenery and not just sit in my house all week. I booked a trip out of town with the intention of being online during my team’s usual working hours, since I don’t see a ton of difference between being online at my house and being online in a different city if it’s the same hours and level of responsiveness.

My coworker made a point that the optics of this trip aren’t great, because asking to WFH a couple of times because of heart issues is out of sync with flying across the country and exploring a different city. I didn’t think it was that big of a deal since I’ll just be in my hotel room during business hours and very gently exploring the town outside of those hours, but I see her point. I hadn’t considered that until she said something, and this is someone whose judgement I trust a lot, especially when it comes to how leadership perceives our actions.

What do you think — are the optics of going out of town with health issues odd, or can I safely do this if I’m not super outspoken about where I’ll be logging in from? I’ll need to tell my boss I’ll be offline for a bit on my travel days, but not sure how specific I need to be. Would love your perspective on this so I don’t throttle my reputation on this team. (I’ve been here three years and my boss thinks highly of me, so I’m feeling pretty good about my personal capital, if that helps.)

People with heart issues can travel. There’s nothing incongruous about taking a trip while also occasionally needing to work from home for health reasons.

That said, there are potentially some optics issues that have nothing to do with your health: some managers will wonder whether “I want to fly across the country and work from there while the rest of the office is gone” actually means “I think I’ll vacation that week and just do the bare minimum while everyone else is gone anyway.” If you have a good track record, they shouldn’t think that — but since your office is already weird about people working from home, adding in the trip might be pushing it. (If your office were more chill about WFH, I’d give different advice.)

There are also all the usual issues about security and tax compliance when you’re working from a different location (which your office may or may not care about, but you should be aware of them).

2. Candidate no-showed for a high-level interview

I’m on a panel interviewing for a director-level role at a major national nonprofit. By the time I talk to them, candidates have already gotten through a screening process which asks about relevant experience, completed a phone screen, and interviewed with the hiring manager. For this role, we received at least 80 applications and are holding five panel interviews, hoping to narrow down to one person for the head of the department to consider.

So today we’re on the Teams call for the 60-minute panel interview; it’s our fourth this week, getting pretty routine. The scheduled time comes and goes. We give it 15 more minutes. Nothing from the candidate; no contact in any way (phone or email) to anyone in our organization, including the hiring manager, HR, or our general switchboard. Eventually, we all sign off.

If the candidate had some crazy experience that prevented them from signing on, we will of course reschedule — we’re all parents/dog-owners/humans too, after all — but what if they just … forgot? This isn’t an entry-level position where the candidates are likely applying to everything within reason so maybe an interview here or there could fall through the cracks. This would be a major upgrade for a late-career professional, so I’d be surprised if they just ghosted.

We do have other candidates, including some with experience that’s a slightly better match — which we were going to give this person a chance to discuss! Does this incident (again, barring a legit excuse) automatically disqualify them? Should the hiring manager have reached out to them after 10 or so minutes to ask if they’re still planning to join, or take it as a sign that this wasn’t meant to be?

It the person wasn’t a strong candidate anyway, I’d just drop it and move on to other candidates. If they contact you with an explanation and ask to reschedule, you can decide at that point.

But if they’re a promising candidate, I’m a fan of emailing after 10 minutes or so: “You didn’t connect for our 3 pm call today; I hope everything is okay. Please reach out if you’re still interested in the position.” That way you’re acknowledging that something big may have gotten in the way, but leaving it in their court to contact you and explain if they want to. (That said, if you see other signs of disorganization during your dealing with them, take those very seriously.)

3. Should I say something about a coworker’s public LinkedIn job search?

I’m a manager on a classic “small but mighty” team, responsible for many of the company’s back office operations. We are exceedingly understaffed — each manager’s team (including my own) is down at least a headcount, if not more, with no word from upper management on go-forward plans, no acknowledgement that the situation is unsustainable, and currently no hope of backfilling open positions (because the lion’s share of the division’s budget went, very visibly, to other teams). Analysts are being asked to pick up way more work than they have before, and managers have taken up analyst tasks as well to fill gaps in addition to their own work – unsurprisingly, everyone is stressed, overworked, and demoralized.

I paint this picture to ask about how I should handle a situation that I came across on LinkedIn: an analyst on our team, who reports up to a different manager, has been commenting publicly on LinkedIn posts stating that they’re highly interested in an available position, that they applied for an open position and are enthusiastic about it, etc. I do not blame them in the slightest for looking elsewhere (though I personally wouldn’t go about it quite so publicly while still employed), but given the staffing challenges we’re already facing, is this something I should let their manager know about in some way, or is it none of my business? Normally I would have concerns about risking this analyst’s job by saying something, but given how short-staffed we are, I can’t envision anyone getting fired for anything short of an actual crime … and given how short-staffed we are, we really can’t afford to lose another good team member, at least not without a fight. How should I handle this, if at all?

Leave it alone. If your colleague’s manager doesn’t realize that people in the situation you described might be job-searching, I’m skeptical they have the ability to handle the info well if you did offer it.

At the very most you could say something like, “I’ve seen some indications some team members are job-searching because of the workload, so if there are people you definitely wouldn’t want to lose right now, it might be smart to talk with them about how we can retain them.” But don’t name the person you saw.

4. Should I tell my company I’m leaving over a matter of conscience?

I saw the recent letter “Should my resignation letter include 700 words on why I’m leaving?” and had a similar question. I’m considering resigning over a matter of conscience. I don’t know if I will, but if I do, do I tell them why? I’m not interested in causing problems or creating drama, and I certainly don’t expect anyone to share my convictions/conscience (they’re personal and they’re mine). But I’m torn. On the one hand, I feel that if I’m leaving over a matter of conscience, it would be cowardly or disingenuous to not tell the truth about why (and I ​will be asked). But on the other hand, the matter of conscience is personal, so is it even their business? I don’t want to burn bridges. I have a good relationship with everyone I work with, and I’ve been there for quite a few years. What would I say if not the truth?

This depends on so many things — what the matter of conscience is, how big the company is, how much you’re valued, how much of a loss they’ll see your departure as, how you’ve seen them respond to difficult feedback in the past, whether the feedback itself is in line with issues they’re already concerned about, whether your objection is to something fundamental in their business model or not (i.e., if you’re leaving big tobacco because you don’t like big tobacco, there’s not really useful info to offer there ) … it’s nearly impossible to offer broad principles when it’s so situation-dependent.

What I can say is that if (a) the matter of conscience is something they’d care about if they knew (like embezzlement or, I don’t know, behavior toward clients that’s out of sync with their values) or (b) you’re very valued, it’s a relatively small organization, and you have the ear of someone high up or with significant influence/power, it can be worth explaining why you’re leaving. Not by letter, like the person in the question you linked wanted to do, but in a real conversation.

You don’t have to do that. But if you want to and can check at least some of the boxes I listed above, you can.

5. Is something weird happening with my references?

My job hunt has lasted more than a year: I am currently employed and trying to be discerning. This week — for the second time in this lengthy search — I was asked for additional information after all my references were called. In this case, the employer requested writing samples and an explanation of how the job fits with my career goals. I provided the requested information, but it has left my mind reeling and my expectations low because of my previous experience.

Eleven months ago (different employer and position), I was asked for another interview after my references had been interviewed via Zoom, in addition to being asked follow-up questions in writing. Despite my apprehension at the non-standard procedure, I agreed because I really liked the employer. When I asked if they had concerns about my technical skills, the employer indicated they had additional questions about whether I would enjoy the work they do. Ultimately, the employer cancelled my interview with only two hours notice and a flimsy, one-line excuse that they “decided to go in a different direction.”

I have to wonder if it is me! I know that my references are not saying anything bad because they volunteer to divulge what they said and/or wrote. Also, I did not use all the same references both times.To me, calling references is the final step in the process, so this is honestly making me feel increasingly insecure. Is calling references no longer the last step in the interview process?

Checking references usually happens late in the process, but that doesn’t mean that employers only do it for a single finalist. Some employers check the references of everyone who’s still in the running at the finalist stage, or at least the final two candidates, and then use that info to make their final choice. And occasionally a reference check will spur an employer to go back to the candidate to clarify a particular point. However, that’s pretty rare — and I’m concerned that on two occasions now your references seemed to leave employers less certain about you.

In both those cases, the employer seemed to doubt your interest in the job: one wanted to know how the job fit with your career goals — at a much later stage than something so fundamental would normally be discussed — and the other wondered if you’d enjoy the work. That makes me think at least one of your references is introducing doubt about whether these positions are right for you. That wouldn’t have to be something a reference did deliberately; they might have no idea that they were even raising concerns for employers. (For example, is one of your references waxing on about how devoted you are to X and it’s your life calling, but the jobs you’re applying for have nothing to do with X?)

You said you used different references each time, but was there any overlap at all? Either way, I’m concerned that something is happening on those calls that you need to dig into.

You may also like:
{ 368 comments }

{ 368 comments… read them below }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    Letter-writer #1 asked me to pin links to two of her replies so that people see the additional info:

    https://www.askamanager.org/2024/07/candidate-no-showed-for-a-high-level-interview-leaving-over-a-matter-of-conscience-and-more.html#comment-4798502

    https://www.askamanager.org/2024/07/candidate-no-showed-for-a-high-level-interview-leaving-over-a-matter-of-conscience-and-more.html#comment-4798504

    (To summarize, she’s clarifying that she’s asked to WFH 1-2 days total since developing heart issues, not every week. She is not WFH for the week in question as a medical accommodation and in fact didn’t even ask to; her manager suggested it since no one else will be in the office.)

  2. T.*

    Don’t give 700 words but a brief sentence explaining why you are leaving (preferably something actionable spoken in an exit interview) is helpful to find patterns in why people leave. If enough people say something it can move the needle.

    1. Tinkerbell*

      It also depends on how big the fix is. If you’re leaving because the company president took a public stance on controversial issue X and you’re strongly opposed to X, they’re probably not going to change. If you’re leaving because Mary in HR is blatantly racist and is stopping anyone above her from learning what shenanigans she’s been pulling, sometimes having one or more employees quit AND saying “the optics of this are very very bad and you could fix it by firing Mary” can get the higher-ups to pay attention.

      1. Brain the Brian*

        I think it also depends on how much of an impact *not* fixing it might have. If — for example — the LW knows that multiple of their coworkers have similar feelings and are considering leaving over it, that’s useful and potentially actionable information for management. Another example might be if clients have expressed discontent with the company’s current stance on an issue (especially if management has not yet really heard about their discontent). Without knowing the specific issue and how closely it relates to the company’s work, this is hard to judge — but I fully understand why the LW has left those details out of their letter.

        1. NotBatman*

          Something my dad did: he quietly let all his coworkers know that he was resigning because Rutherford the HR head was a serial sexual harasser and the CEO (a close friend of Rutherford’s) had chosen to do nothing about it.

          It was just small individual conversations where he said “I’m sorry to be going because I value you as a colleague, but I also have to tell you I’m leaving because Rutherford isn’t safe to be around; he said XYZ things in my earshot.” He didn’t necessarily intend to have this effect, but 12 other employees — the entire HR team and 2 others — left within a month of his leaving to get away from Rutherford.

      2. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Alison’s point is *saying* it – a resignation letter is not the place.

        Tell your manager, tell HR, heck corner the senior person on site at the cafeteria and tell HER if something egregious has previously been ignored by your manager and HR.

        The letter is just for the logistics.

      3. Great Frogs of Literature*

        Yeah. I might at some point leave my job, in part because we’re getting increasingly enthusiastic about a particular vendor, and I have personal objections to that company. But that is a business decision my employer has made, and they’d be perfectly willing to lose ten of me, if that’s what it took to get the cost savings they’re expecting from using this service.

        1. Rainy*

          I’m sure this isn’t the situation, but I immediately had the thought that your employer does a lot of shipping and is currently in talks with OnTrac and you, like me, have had bad experiences with them. ;)

      4. Bunny Girl*

        I think I’ve shared this before but I will say that I left a job because of a boss. I was a long string of people to do so, but I was the first person who sat down with HR in an exit interview, brought receipts that proved how lazy, unpleasant, and utterly worthless she was, and made a day of it.

        Nothing happened for a while, until a new director was brought in. Then he started asking questions. He was like, what does this woman do all day? He then looked through her file, and saw all the proof I had laid out that this woman did quite literally nothing all day but convert oxygen to carbon dioxide and blink on occasion. He coupled that with the long stream of assistants she had that left after less than a year.

        She was booted pretty fast. That was a lovely text to get from a former coworker. So yeah – document. It will take a while, but it will take.

        1. Elsewise*

          I had a similar experience, except the “exit interview” came weeks after I had left and with a board member. She was new to the organization and concerned that multiple highly qualified women had quit within a matter of months. It was a small organization that had had about 40-50% turnover, all women, in a six-month span. The problem was the executive director, who was good friends with the board president, so there was really nothing to be done… until a year and a half later when the board ousted their president and promptly replaced the ED.

    2. Richard Hershberger*

      Not a job, but I recently left my church over what could be considered a matter of conscience. I wrote a letter explaining why, as I had been an active and prominent member for over twenty years. But I kept the letter down to one page.

      1. JSPA*

        Every organization and faith need occasional prodding from a Benjamin Lay. May your letter land on receptive retinas.

      2. DJ Abbott*

        I’m sorry to hear that Richard. I hope you find another church or activity to fill that need in your life.

        1. Slytherin Bookworm*

          I just wanted to commend you on a very thoughtful response. As more people are leaving church altogether, the standard response of “I hope you find a new church soon!” is often demoralizing and completely overlooks that people are often leaving church/religion as a whole, not just leaving a specific location. Kudos to you for acknowledging both options in such an understated way!

          1. DJ Abbott*

            Thank you! :) I’m the opposite. I was never much for religion until I recently began attending an exceptional church. We’ll see how it goes.

    3. Antilles*

      I agree with keeping it brief. If they actually care about your conscience or your rationale or what you’re reporting, they’ll show interest and/or ask for follow up details, then you can provide more details. If they don’t care, then there’s no benefit in writing 700 words rather than 27, they’re going to skim (or completely skip) the entire thing anyways.

      1. Guacamole Bob*

        Yes, brief and low-drama in tone. Alison has provided a lot of good language over the years for factually reporting issues to management, describing why you’re looking to leave a terrible employer, etc.

        It’s a lot more likely to land as you want it to if you write “I am unable to continue to work for company X due to the public donations the company has made to Y political candidate” or “due to gaps in management oversight that have repeatedly led to inadequate supervision of young children” or whatever the issue is and leave it at that. Almost inevitably, a long screed about whatever the issue is immediately undercuts your position and makes you look unreasonable if not unhinged.

      2. ferrina*

        Exactly this. If they are genuinely interested, they will ask further. If they are not interested, they will not be listening in the first place.

        I once had an exit interview that went like this:
        HR: Is there any feedback that you’d like to share with the company?
        Me: I’ve been pretty open with my feedback while at the company. Is there anything that you’d like to know more about?
        HR: (awkward silence)

        That company wasn’t interested in changing, no matter what I said. There was no way I could logic or orate them into changing. The only thing that might happen is that they’d blame the messenger (i.e., me).

        1. CommanderBanana*

          Same. I no longer participate in exit interviews. I don’t see the point in repeating what I’ve already said and probably spent months if not years saying.

    4. Meep*

      As someone, who admittedly, wrote a 12 page document of all the way her (now fired) boss broke employment law as the reason for leaving… Yeah. Unless it is really bad (and in my case, it was REALLY bad), short, sweet, and to the point. Otherwise it risks coming off as a vendetta.

  3. CraigT*

    OP2: I’m curious at to why you think this candidate is now going to contact you, and ask for another chance? When this person blew off the interview, they told you they weren’t interested in the job.

      1. Brain the Brian*

        Frankly, a candidate for a high-level position should be keeping their times straight, and missing the interview because they mixed up the time might be enough to disqualify someone seeking a director-level position at some companies. AAM’s script is good: it gives the candidate grace if they really did miss due to an emergency but makes it clear the onus is on the candidate to reach out and that the employer will be moving ahead with other options if they don’t hear from the candidate.

        1. Despachito*

          What if the candidate just forgot, or mixed up the dates?

          It definitely shouldn’t happen but it sometimes does, and in such a case they would not even be aware that they missed the interview.

          However would that be forgivable in a such high-stakes issue? (On the one hand, it can happen to anyone, and on the other, we have no way to establish whether this was an odd brain fart or a part of a pattern).

          I would personally discard that person unless they convinced me it was the former.

          1. Brain the Brian*

            I would, too. I would give them the chance to explain it, but I expect a candidate for a director-level role to *display* strong organizational skills throughout their interview process — not just *talk about* those skills during the interviews themselves.

          2. linger*

            The company is courting high-level candidates for a high-level position. That changes the calculus a little. It might be high stakes for the company, but probably less so for some individual candidates, who will already have other options. So, for once, there’s as much chance of candidates ghosting the company (after getting better offers) as of the company ghosting unsuccessful candidates. (E.g. what if any feedback was given to the 75 initial applicants dropped from consideration?)
            And note, if the company actually needs the position filled, it’s risky to narrow to just one candidate to put forward for consideration. It would be safer also to name at least one backup candidate.

            1. perfect beasts*

              This is a good point. It might have been an error, or it might just be the kind of behaviour that candidates see from companies all the time. It’s pretty typical as an applicant to be ghosted by a prospective employer, because they hold more power and can afford to just drop the interaction as soon as they decide they don’t need anything further from you. In situations where a candidate holds equivalent power, you might start to see that coming the other way. It’s not how I would behave, and as the prospective employer I’d definitely reach out to ask what happened – but it’s not totally surprising either.

        2. BellaStella*

          Agree on this comment. You are expected to not make these kind of minor mistakes when a director.

        3. kiki*

          The mix-up could have been on the scheduler’s end or originating in a misunderstanding. I once had a scheduling mistake for an interview because the candidate and company were located in countries that recorded dates differently. So the candidate thought the interview was on the seventh of June when the scheduler thought the interview was on the sixth of July.

          1. LCH*

            ha, i thought of this too. 6/7/24 or 7/6/24 are the same date depending on country. so if candidate thought it was later, then they don’t even know they missed anything yet.

        4. Cherub Cobbler*

          I don’t think I would reach out at all to the candidate. I’m not going to basically bail out a stranger whose behavior already looks questionable. There is also nothing stopping the candidate from reaching out to explain any emergency situation or other mitigating reason for blowing off an interview, damage control being something a high-level employee should have the skills to do — unprompted. If the candidate did reach out with a reasonable explanation, I would certainly consider that, though my BS meter would be on high alert. In the meantime, I’d just focus on the other (better) candidates and assume the no-show is off the list.

        5. Meep*

          Normally, I would agree, but if they put it in Google Calendars and they were in a different time zone, they might’ve not realized. Google Calendars is weird in that it doesn’t update with time zones unless you specify it. (We have ran into it before with clients since we are in Arizona, which doesn’t do DST.) In which case, they probably would’ve already reached out prior to LW asking and explained it, though.

        6. spcepickle*

          Once I had a meeting in AZ with the Navajo nation. AZ does not do daylight saving time, but the Navajo nation does. I was an hour late to the meeting. While this in an outlier example, there are cases where even top level smart people mess up. I think being open to hearing an explanation does not cost anything.

          1. Brain the Brian*

            I’m kind of torn on how I feel about this. I think it would be fine and a normal mixup for a regular vendor or client meeting — but if you’re interviewing for a job on Navajo nation land, I would expect you to do the minimum and figure out what time it is there, even if that’s different than in the surrounding state. Not doing that — especially for a director-level role — smacks of a lack of cultural sensitivity that I wouldn’t want at an org located on Native land. The stakes are just higher in an interview situation.

    2. ThatOtherClare*

      They didn’t necessarily blow off the interview. Peoples’ spouses get hit by buses, houses burn down, etc. That’s why the letter writer thinks there is a chance the candidate might contact them.

      1. Archi-detect*

        I ageee but 12 hours without even an email seems really unlikely to have a good reason. Even if your wife was in the hospital, you could have explauned that and, apologized for missing the meeting and let them know you’d be in touch, especially for a director level interview

        1. Brain the Brian*

          A business day is more reasonable, IMO. Twelve hours into an emergency hospital stay, a patient might finally be getting stabilized, and family (who have until now been working with doctors to figure out next steps) might finally be able to start contacting anyone other than immediate family (been there, done that, with my late father several years ago — I was finally able to email my own boss at around midnight after he’d been hospitalized at 10am). I agree that the onus is on the candidate, but I think 12 hours would be too quick if it really was an emergency that prompted them to miss the interview.

        2. Baunilha*

          I’d give the candidate a couple of days, just in case. We once had an entry-level candidate who got into a car crash just before the scheduled interview. He only suffered minor injuries, but I understand that, at the moment, the interview would be the last thing on his mind. (In that case, the candidate got in touch the next day and was very apologetic, so we rescheduled)

        3. Rainy*

          What if you’re the one in the hospital, though? I had emergency surgery a couple of years ago and my husband would have been able to use my phone to call my boss, but he wouldn’t have been able to cancel my meetings. And notifying your boss won’t cancel your interviews, which your boss presumably doesn’t know about!

      2. Despachito*

        If something like that happened to them, it would be on them to inform the interviewer as soon as they are able to (I get it is not always possible to do it on time).

        I am trying to look at it from the perspective of a responsible person in the position of that candidate – what would cause me to not show without an apology even later?

        I can only think of two causes – either lying in a hospital in a coma after being hit by a bus, or completely forgetting about the date (and therefore not apologizing because I would not know I have something to apologize for).

        The former is highly unlikely, and while the latter can definitely happen, it was a high-stakes interview and one would assume that would be high up on the person’s agenda.

        It sounds like a huge red flag worth of taking the person out of the consideration.

        (If it happened to me I would probably be mortified and fully understand why they selected another candidate).

    3. Kella*

      There is no way to know what the candidate does or does not want without also knowing whether missing the interview was involuntary or necessitated by circumstances outside their control. You’re assuming they made an informed decision to miss the interview and we have no way of knowing if that’s the case.

      1. GoGoGuardos*

        OP here– that’s what we were thinking. If it had been for a more mid- or entry level position where it might have just been the easy way out/they didn’t care about burning bridges to not show up rather than get in touch, I think we would have taken the hint. But in this case, you WOULD expect someone vying for this kind of position to be on top of their stuff, in which case just not showing up made us concerned for their wellbeing.

    4. WS*

      Lots of things can happen! I fell and broke my arm and then got stuck waiting for X-Ray in an area of the hospital with no phone reception, right before a specialist telehealth appointment was scheduled. I had to go out of the area, text my partner, and get her to contact the specialist’s office. She finally got through 5 minutes after the appointment should have started.

    5. jmc*

      Right? Like so many companies are doing. You apply for a job, they setup an interview then completely ghost you. You’re basically getting back what companies give out.

        1. Athena*

          Well it’s a bit different though. When a company doesn’t get back to me I don’t assume the hiring manager is in a ditch somewhere. OP’s thinking that most people at the director level would send a note to pull themselves from consideration makes sense.

    6. Drago Cucina*

      They didn’t necessarily “blow off the interview”.

      The interview for my current position I was sent the wrong Teams conference number to call into. The problem is it picked up and put me on hold. It was 5 minutes past my start time and I thought they were just running late.

      I received a call from an unknown number and fortunately took it. It turned out to be my boss asking if I was still interested in the interview. He could have assumed I had blown it off. Instead he reached out.

      1. LCH*

        i definitely wonder at what point i need to begin worrying when i’m in the waiting room of the Zoom call and it’s past start time. so we think 5 min isn’t too pushy? should we wait for 10?

      2. Susan*

        Yes, something similar has happened to me before too — the person arranging the interview gave the candidate the wrong zoom link. When the candidate didn’t seem to be showing up, I emailed her.

        It’s weird to me that the interviewers in the letter didn’t just try to contact the candidate immediately — unless I’m misreading it.

    7. fhqwhgads*

      Time zone confusion, car accident, medical emergency, blah blah blah. All the things the post says are possible.
      To assume they blew off the interview from the jump is a mistake.
      If they contact asking for another chance, they will probably provide an explanation. If it’s one a reasonable human reason, then they didn’t blow it off. If they can’t supply a reason or just say they forgot, then they blew it off. Or if you never hear from them again, they may have blown it off, or they may think they just screwed their chances.

      1. Ideas & Matched*

        I agree – there are lots of reasons for a candidate to miss an interview. I think a mixup on the interviewer end (especially if someone else, like HR or an admin support person) is setting it up) is a big enough possibility that you should always reach out to the candidate. I’ve had several mixups with interviews recently where the HR person was coordinating time with senior leaders but didn’t understand my time zone and would tell me one thing and book another. I also had meeting links to nowhere (luckily I had the hiring manager’s number to text). I also had one out-of-the-blue call from a hiring manager where I ‘missed’ an interview that had never been scheduled with me. I honestly thought they had ghosted *me* but their system for meeting sends out invites that got caught in my junk filters, even though I had their domain on a safe list.

        So many ways for miscommunication!

  4. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP3 (visible LinkedIn job search): consider that they could be doing this with the intent of it being seen (by their manager, or by ‘the company’ in general), perhaps as a way of indirectly saying “things need to change here or you are in danger of losing me” (I would have had that conversation with the manager directly, but not everyone would).

    I’m quite attuned to this at the moment as going through a similar thing (different issues, but same broad situation of things are unsustainable and won’t change). I’ve been doing some certifications (IT), a lot of which are in technologies that our company doesn’t use but are alternatives within the industry. A few colleagues have commented (irl, not on LinkedIn) “certification x? I didn’t know we even use that here?”, my response: “we don’t, but it is widely used in the industry generally, make of that what you will”.

    1. BellaStella*

      Interesting. I would be afraid of being fired in this case. I am job searching since October but nothing ever shows up on my linkedin. Also I have had to block a few folks I work with because of the over the top reading of my linkedin and commenting on it in odd ways. All I post are jobs in industry, news from our org or my projects, and our partners. I never comment on open jobs etc

      1. Chriama*

        Honestly I would assume that if they’re commenting and posting frequently on LinkedIn about wanting a new job then they know they might be seen by their current employer and either don’t care or actively want to be seen. If they were worried about retaliation I imagine they would be much more discreet.

      2. Great Frogs of Literature*

        It can feel really different on a specialized team that requires a lot of training and is already short-staffed. Are there other people who can do my job? Yes, absolutely. But even the best of them will take minimum six months to get up to speed in the role (not counting hiring time), and even then wouldn’t have the depth of background and experience in our particular context that I do — and that person will want a salary significantly higher than what I’m currently making. AND the rest of the team would be a higher flight risk for that whole hiring and training period, because they’re now getting more work pushed onto them / dealing with the fallout of the things I usually do not getting done.

        The person three levels above me probably doesn’t really care if I stay or leave, but my direct boss sure does, and if I told him that I was pissed enough about X that I was job searching, he would bend over backwards to try to fix X, if it was within his power. (If not, he’d be very sad, but has the wisdom to know what’s beyond his control.)

      3. Karo*

        Generally speaking, I’d also be concerned about the perception and being pre-emptively fired. But when they’re already short-staffed and struggling to make it work, I’d feel pretty confident that I’d have to do something EGREGIOUS to get fired.

        1. Observer*

          You are right. But people are not always reasonable. And there are other ways to “punish” someone for looking elsewhere. And while it would be a stupid way to react, again, it’s clear that there are some management issues which means that it’s a mistake to assume reasonable responses to something like this.

        2. LW3*

          LW3 here, and yup – that is where we find ourselves. It’s already difficult to get fired “for cause” where I work, as opposed to cutting underperformers via RIFs/layoffs, and my org in particular is absolutely desperate to retain people. This person is, as far as I can tell, a strong performer who has taken on a lot of extra work recently, and unless they were, I don’t know, selling company secrets or actively embezzling funds or deliberately sabotaging the company in some way, I could not see them getting fired for their job search.

      4. PotatoRock*

        I also think people underestimate LinkedIn’s extreme desire to show your contacts everything you’ve done – they might also be thinking “who reads all the comments on a post – and anyone who is reading this post, about an open role, is job-searching themselves anyway!”. Obviously they know someone at Current Job /could/ see the posts, but they might not think it’s as “in your face” as LinkedIn makes it look.

    2. SheLooksFamiliar*

      This is why I’m surprised Alison’s advice did not include, ‘Talk to your co-worker about their public posts instead of their manager.’ Employees are not indentured servants and can look for a job any time they want, but publicly posting their interest in other job sis a bad tactic.

      A lot of people don’t know their comments are visible on LinkedIn – or how to use the platform to their advantage during a job search, to be honest. The co-worker might be so focused on getting a new job they don’t realize their manager might see those comments. Or they are past caring about what their manager thinks and could benefit from a reminder to play their cards closer to the vest. Whatever the reason, I’d be more prone to bring this up with the person making the posts, and not tip off their manager.

    3. jmc*

      Frankly I think they need to mind their own business. If they want to job search on LinkedIn leave it alone. Not your problem.

  5. Not A Manager*

    LW1 – “asking to WFH a couple of times because of heart issues is out of sync with flying across the country and exploring a different city.”

    I agree with your co-worker. If your company were more relaxed about WFH in general, it might be different, but you asked for a medical accommodation so that you could rest. I think flying to a different city to explore it, even on your off hours, just isn’t consistent with people’s likely interpretation of “resting due to a heart issue.” They might be wrong, as Alison has suggested, but I think the optics are bad.

    1. R&D*

      I have to agree that it isn’t good optics. It might not be worth it to potentially hurt your reputation with your coworkers- even if you have good intentions.

      There may be some nuance – for example, it might be more justifiable if you were only traveling an hour away to visit family.

      It’s not an unreasonable idea on the surface; I’ve seen it done often in flexible offices – but that isn’t the case. If you decide to go, I would be honest with your supervisor, but discreet with your coworkers and I’d be especially diligent about being available and responsive.

      1. Thank someone I no longer work there*

        My thought was if you’re thinking you could go to the family cabin an hour a week and work that would likely be ok, even when the place isn’t into WFH in general but across country to explore another city screams vacation while doing the minimum acceptable work!

    2. Electric sheep*

      Yes, I think a lot of people will see the logistics of travel as being more intensive than the logistics of getting to and being in the office and would wonder how you were able to travel but not come to the office.

        1. Rex Libris*

          Yep. If one of my reports did this it would be the last WFH I’d approve, and I’m pretty laid back, manager-wise. It would also cause me to question that employee’s judgement, if not their honesty.

    3. Artemesia*

      I think most employers would read this as ‘taking a vacation cross country’ while we are away and be dubious about health reasons for WFH when you are healthy enough to fly cross country to a place you are going to also vacation in. It really reads as disingenuous at worst and ‘fooling yourself’ at best. This is about perceptions.

      1. Irish Teacher.*

        I agree. I am generally of the opinion that “so long as the work is done, it shouldn’t matter where it is done from and if it can be done equally well from anywhere, then the company should only care about things like working from somewhere that creates say a tax problem or something,” but in this case, where the LW is working remotely because of an accommodation and when it takes place at a time that the rest of the team are going on a trip and the person working remotely will have less oversight, well…it could look bad.

        I could see people wondering if the LW asked to work remotely that week specifically because their team were away and it would be easier to travel and do the bare minimum workwise. I am not suggesting in any way that this is the case and, as Alison said, if the LW has a good reputation, then hopefully most people would not assume this, but in a workplace where there is already resentment around working from home, I could see it becoming a thing.

        I also think that some people might assume the reason you want to work remotely is that it’s the commute that is the problem and yeah, I know that is overly-simplistic and there are all kinds of reasons people can work from home but not from the office that aren’t about actually getting there, but a lot of people without health problems don’t really think beyond “well, they can do the work, so the issue must be the travel” and would think, “if they can travel to another town and do all their work, why can’t they travel to the office and do all their work?”

        Maybe it would be fine and of course, the LW knows his workplace and coworkers best, but if there is already resentment about work from home being applied inconsistently, I can see this leading to issues.

      2. Paint N Drip*

        Totally agree. And I think the consequences of even the most generous interpretation are still pretty seriously impactful. The office culture described makes me think OP is going to face some judgment (or more) if they do go on this trip.

      3. A Significant Tree*

        I mean, they basically are combining a vacation (traveling and exploring a new city in their off hours) with work, which they’re only able to do because they requested a medical WFH accommodation on the basis of difficulty commuting to and being in the office… They might be technically capable of doing this without aggravating their health condition, but it would show extremely poor judgment to carry out this plan.

        1. LW1*

          Hello, I am LW1. Responding to this comment because I’m seeing some inaccuracies I’d like to clear up.

          I may have phrased the ask for working from home inaccurately. When I said I asked to WFH 1-2 days, I meant total since developing these issues, not every single week. That’s my fault for not being clearer about that. Beyond those 1-2 days total in the last two months, I come in and do my required days in full with no hesitation and have been doing so for two months.

          I am not WFH for the week in question for a medical accommodation, nor did I ask to WFH on this particular week, it was simply granted to me by my leader since it is highly likely no one but me would be in the office anyway.

          I decided against the trip and I’ll just be WFH after all, a decision I made right after sending the letter (if you have to ask, you already know the answer) and reinforced by Alison’s take and the comments here. Thanks all for the inputs.

          1. Ask a Manager* Post author

            Thanks, LW! For what it’s worth, I thought your wording was very clear (“I’ve asked for one, maybe two days to WFH on the days that it is intense”) and I’m sorry people kept misstating it!

          2. Observer*

            (if you have to ask, you already know the answer

            That’s often true.

            I decided against the trip and I’ll just be WFH after all

            Given your company’s attitude and people’s resentment, I think that was a wise decision.

          3. Irish Teacher.*

            Thanks for the clarification. That does change my opinion quite a bit. I assumed you were granted an exemption from helping with the event for health reasons.

            I definitely don’t think the optics of travelling on a completely different week than the one you needed to work from home for health reasons are in any way problematic. But yeah, given your office’s attitude towards work from home, it’s probably better not to do anything that could be interpreted as “taking advantage” while doing so, not because of your health problems, since from your clarification, it really doesn’t sound they should be particularly relevant here, but just because a company that is reluctant to offer work from home might take any travel as “using it as a holiday.”

            People can be weird about remote working, probably because it’s new and some people seem to think that anything other than somebody sitting in front of their computer from 9am to 5pm is “taking advantage”. We had a letter or comment here where somebody expressed concern about somebody being out in the afternoon while working from home and they assumed the person therefore wasn’t working as they would in the office (when they might have simply been working different hours).

    4. takeachip*

      I agree, and the fact that OP is taking the trip when the rest of the team is going to be preoccupied makes the situation look even more questionable. If OP were using vacation time to get away during a slow period, that would be one thing. But this really can look like OP is taking advantage of the WFH exception to give herself a treat, and that probably won’t sit well with some people. This is an imperfect analogy, but it’s a little like asking a friend to loan you $ because you have some urgent bills to pay, and then going out for a fancy dinner because you can put that on your credit card now and pay for it with “your” money later on. On the one hand, what does it matter as long as you pay the loan back, especially if you really do use your friend’s money to pay those bills? On the other hand, your friend might not have loaned you the money if you’d said, “and of course I’m going to treat myself to a fancy dinner this weekend on my credit card.” On the one hand, it’s none of your friend’s business how you spend your time or money; on the other hand, you kind of made it your friend’s business by asking for a loan. When you are given exceptions, favors, etc. you do have to consider the intent and perceptions of the ones who are giving them, or risk being seen as dishonest, exploitative, or frivolous or otherwise damaging the relationship.

      OP you may want to look into requesting a formal ADA accommodation for WFH if this is something you need, because hopefully now you can see some of the problems with relying on this informal arrangement. Getting an accommodation in place would ensure your employer that your need is legitimate and would enable you to WFH as a right, not a special request/favor.

      2. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

        I agree that the emphasis on “people won’t be around and things will be slow” is going to look suspicious when combined with a trip. I know the LW intends to be as responsive as usual, but it can very easily be read as “I can be AFK without people noticing.” Just not a great look all around.

    5. Transitory Property*

      I agree. If I worked with LW1 I would be very suspicious that she was exaggerating her illness in order to be able to better take a vacation.

      Not being able to tolerate sitting at a desk in an empty office implies moderate to severe heart issues, and that does not feel consistent with traveling away from your doctors and exploring a new location every day after work away from your doctors.

    6. WS*

      You’ve only just managed to get this minor concession (to WFH while the rest of your team is away), why blow it by doing something that’s going to look bad to a suspicious eye? You already know they look down on WFH.

      1. curious mary*

        I can’t tell from the letter whether LW3 gets to work from home for the week as a medical accommodation, or whether it’s just because the team is away and isn’t related to the medical issue.

        1. Oryx*

          I think the week WFH is because of the team being away, but this is on top of being given medical accommodation 1-2 days a week. I can’t tell if the Friday WFH mentioned in the first sentence is just LW1 or the whole company. In which case, LW1 is potentially WFH 3x a week on a regular basis.

          1. LW1*

            Hi, LW1 here. I am most certainly not WFH 3x/week on a regular basis (that would be amazing!). When I say that I asked for 1-2 days to WFH when it’s bad, I meant 1-2 days total out of the months since this issue developed, not every single week. I hope this helps clarify the situation.

        2. MCMonkeyBean*

          It sounded to me like they are regularly asking for more WFH as a medical accommodation and the company has been reluctant to agree, but since most people will be gone this one particular week they figured there was no reason not to allow it.

          I am generally strongly on team #SickPeopleAlsoGoToTheStoreAndTravelEtc but I have to agree with the coworker than in this particular instance, if OP has specifically been saying they want to work from home more because going into the office to work is taxing, then the company says okay you can stay home this week, then OP is like actually I’m gonna go travel really far to work and spend less time resting and more time exploring instead–it really doesn’t look super great.

    7. Brain the Brian*

      Yep, this is a great way to get your WFH privileges revoked altogether — sorry to say. Penalties might be even more severe if you don’t tell your boss in advance that you’ll be traveling and they find out later that you worked from a different location without disclosing it (see, especially, AAM’s note about tax and legal considerations). Any chance you can just flat-out use PTO to take a real vacation on another week, LW?

    9. RIP Pillowfort*

      Not only are the optics horrible- there’s a real risk the employer could revoke the WFH accommodation since they’re not really WFH friendly. OP seems to really need this accommodation and it would be safer to take an actual vacation than risk losing the WFH privilege.

      The optics of going on a vacation would be much better.

    10. Carl*

      Ditto re “hard agree.”
      If this were my coworker or subordinate, my reaction would be “you can travel across country to work, but you can’t travel across town?” There might be a reason that this makes sense (e.g., your office is particularly uncomfortable to work in, or your daily commute is particularly stressful/long more so than just going to the airport), but, yeah. Tough optics.

    11. Hyaline*

      I have to agree. Sure, people with heart issues and plenty of health concerns can travel, but LW never seems to have pitched the request as anything but a medical accommodation. To use WFH to travel after asking and having granted WFH for health looks like you were trying to weasel something even if you didn’t intend to be weasely. If the approval to WFH during this event had anything at all to do with accommodating your health, no, you really can’t use it to fly across the country and explore a new city (even “gently”) without raising suspicion and potentially getting WFH shut down, at least for everyone else (even if you manage to get a medical accommodation formally and you get to keep doing it–which, whew, in that case, I hope you enjoy being the office outcast).

    12. English Teacher*

      If I were in this situation and reflecting on my own motivations here, I might ask myself, ‘Why does it feel LESS stressful/taxing to fly all the way across the country and stay in a hotel in a new city than it does to go into the office? Is my workplace maybe negatively impacting my health in ways I haven’t fully processed?’

      1. Dr. Doll*

        that’s an excellent question.

        but I agree with everyone else that it looks very iffy and will damage your standing.

      2. Hyaline*

        Good point—though LW’s condition sounds like it might be episodic, and I’m not sure it’s necessarily induced by stress. LW mentions flares and that lying low at home after a flare helps, so it could be that the work environment itself isn’t really playing a big role. (I’m reading similar to having a migraine—how you have a flare up day and taking it easy the day after might be necessary, too.)

        1. Daisy-dog*

          Yes, that is very accurate and I entirely believe it. But I am also a major WFH advocate. LW’s employer is very apprehensive about WFH, so if others find out that could be detrimental to LW’s arrangement. We can’t just apply logic to this question, it’s about optics.

      3. Irish Teacher.*

        To be fair, it is very likely that the LW knows why the office environment is difficult because of their health condition and why that would not apply to travelling. It could be something like there are days when they need to spend most of the day lying down and while they can work that way, they can’t really do that in the office (but could return from exploring a city to lie on their hotel room bed) or that they can only exert themself for two hours or so at a time before needing a few hours rest or a whole load of things I haven’t considered.

        1. English Teacher*

          I agree that’s likely, that’s why I framed it as what *I would* think about rather than what *they should* think about. Just wanted to include it in case it’s helpful for OP.

    13. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      Objectively there is no difference between WFH and Work From Across Country.
      Subjectively, yes this looks bad. It looks like you are leveraging your WFH to be able to travel and have a flexible schedule. In your particular office, its a no go.

      Aso OP have you considered the stress of travel these days? Even when everything goes right for flights its still a pain. The chances of everything going right are small. Flights are delayed, connections are missed, bags are lost, you have to figure out how to get around a new city, figure out where to eat, etc.

      Instead stay home and use your off time to gently explore your own area. Even if its to go to the park or library.

      1. Reebee*

        Actually, objectively, there can be major differences between WFH and WF Anywhere Else. See taxes and security, as Alison notes.

          1. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

            Workers comp killed the “you can work from most anywhere” policy at my workplace. You have to get individual outside places approved, and they will say no if it looks like it’s not suitable (including if the workspace you want is an ergonomic disaster). And that’s at a company with a very generous WFH policy.

        2. Cherub Cobbler*

          Maybe on the security side, but on the tax side a week of remote work from somewhere other than home probably won’t trigger an issue by itself.

          1. MCMonkeyBean*

            This varies *wildly* by state. Some states require income tax for only a single day’s work. Those laws are obviously meant to target big-money things like concert performers and NBA players, but while they may be unlikely to track you down and demand their income tax your company would probably still prefer not to break those tax laws.

    14. Person from the Resume*

      The optics are not good.

      The optics are terrible if you truly are “flying across the country.” Flying across the country is does not align with being concerned that exertion can exacerbate health issues and needing to rest.

      1. Tio*

        Yeah, this is where I’m landing. If you can travel, which is stressful, and then go wander around a new town in the evenings, how is that resting? And how are you able to do all that easier or more restful than just going to the office?

        I’m all for WFH if you need it medically but these two scenarios (travel vs. resting at home) seem at odds and I would definitely lose trust in OP.

      2. lunchtime caller*

        Even worse, “flying across the country” on a timeline that means you have to tell your supervisor that you’ll be unable to actually work during some of that “work from home” time because you’re in transit. I’m not saying I’ve never been in transit on a WFH day, but I would certainly expect my boss to be unable to discover it.

      3. CommanderBanana*

        Right? I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but flying across the country is probably the most stressful thing one can do right now. I can’t imagine any scenario where a cross-country flight, even one without a single hitch, is “restful.”

    15. Anne Elliot*

      Alison says “people with heart issues can travel,” which, sure they can, but people with heart issues can work, too. In an office. The OP self-reports their condition as one that rest seems to help but that can be experienced as flare ups. If I’m their employer, I’m definitely going to wonder why their condition is so serious that they cannot work in the office but is not so serious that they can travel by plane across the country to another city and tour around it after work hours. You’re willing to do without rest and/or manage your flareups for something you want to do, but not for something they expect you to do. That is a bad look. Moreover, you don’t actually have to “sit in your house all day” — you can go into the office, which is your employer’s general expectation. You actually ASKED to sit in your house all day. I also think you kind of already know the optics are bad, because you propose to downplay where you’re logging in from and to tell your boss that you’ll be offline when you’re traveling, but not tell them why (“not sure how specific I need to be”). Super bad optics, and not only are you endangering your reputation with your manager, you’re also almost certainly endangering your ability to WFH in the future, when you might really need to.

    16. CommanderBanana*

      Alison’s right that people with heart issues aren’t precluded from traveling, but getting a week of WFH specifically to rest because of a heart issue and then scheduling a trip that includes a cross-country flight would definitely give me pause if a coworker or a direct report did it. It doesn’t make much sense that coming into the office is too taxing, but flying across the country and exploring a new city, however gently, isn’t? The entire point of the week of WFH is to rest.

    17. Friday Hopeful*

      I’m thinking the same thing. If its too hard to commute to the office and sit at your desk, how is it not much harder to commute to the airport, wait in security line, wait for flight, sit on a cross country flight for 5 or 6 hours, commute to the hotel, then live in a hotel room for a week.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Yeah, it’s the flying that makes the situation dubious. Sure, take a week and go somewhere different to work. Sometimes being away from home and the pressures of dealing with housework is a lot more relaxing even if you’re just working, but getting on a plane and dealing with all the logistics that entails seems like a great way to stress yourself out and doesn’t seem conducive to resting and giving your heart a chance to calm down.

        I’ve had a few WFH jobs in the last 20 years and when I started my first one people were like, “Oh, you can travel and work from anywhere!” but my attitude was always, “I can travel and NOT work too and that is a lot more enjoyable.” My point being, if I’m going someplace new and different, why would I want to be working while I’m there, rather than just exploring the new place for a few days without work pressure? Plus working from an unfamiliar environment is very distracting for me and means I’m not going to get nearly as much done as I could at home. Given this knowledge about myself, I can understand why OP’s coworker would think the same about OP. OP, if you want to go to this faraway place, why not actually take a vacation there if you have the PTO?

    18. Ess Ess*

      I agree. The optics are that OP said they are too ill to do the commute to work, but somehow not too ill to lug a suitcase and do all the legwork of an airport/hotel/sightseeing. It looks very bad.

    19. Jenny*

      I tend to think almost everyone needs to be pretty careful about teleworking from different locations (other than home). It’s almost always bad optics–even if the person is working as normal. If you want to try it, you need to be aware that some people aren’t going to love it and be willing to use some up some capitol.

      1. londonedit*

        Maybe it’s because we don’t have the same tax implications in the UK (we just have one tax system here) but I really think it depends on the company you work for. We can pretty much work from wherever we like, with manager approval – it wouldn’t be ‘bad optics’ as long as you’re getting your work done and attending any meetings you need to be at. Of course it’d be ‘bad optics’ if you didn’t do those things, but then you’d quickly lose your manager’s trust and they’d be unlikely to give permission again. Most people are capable of being trusted to get their work done whether they’re at home or not.

        That said, in the OP’s case the company clearly doesn’t even like people WFH, let alone working from anywhere else, and that’s why what they’re proposing isn’t a good look. They’ve asked for specific permission to work from home in order to rest, and that’s why if they then flew off somewhere else and worked there while sightseeing it wouldn’t be a ‘good look’ and the company is unlikely to approve of it.

        1. Person from the Resume*

          It did occur for me “across the country” has different implications in different countries. In the US it’s a fairly long plane flight. Right now the logistics of flying commercial is a mess and actually more of a worry / stressor than the length of the flight itself.

          In some countries, “across the country” can be a relatively short drive.

          1. londonedit*

            Yes, I think here it would possibly have similar optics to ‘can I fly to Spain and work from there’ (roughly a three-hour flight) which would really not be a good look no matter how relaxing you’re expecting your time in Spain to be.

            1. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

              I was just thinking that: traveling out of state for a trip is, legally and in terms of distance/effort, a lot more like visiting a different country in Europe.

      2. Le Sigh*

        I think it depends on office culture. Remote work is pretty normal in my office. Added to that, a number of positions at my office require periodic to frequent travel, and people’s work hours can be a bit weird due to the nature of the work. As long as you’re on for core hours and the work gets done, usually most people don’t bat an eye if someone is in another location for a few days/week.

        I’m still careful to read the room before doing something like this, since optics are still a thing. And I do think a new person in my office would want to be cognizant of establishing a good reputation before doing it. But the norms in my office are such that it doesn’t automatically stand out.

    20. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      What if the OP wasn’t going to WFH and was just going on vacation. Wouldn’t that still “look bad”? People with heart conditions can still travel. Resting could be they work laying down or something. Or being able to take longer breaks or something.

      1. Tio*

        People with all kinds of illnesses can still travel. I am one. The problem is that they seem to have requested WFH to rest. Rest and travel/sightseeing, especially with plane flights involved, just don’t go together well. If it’s too hard for them to commute to their office, which is the rationale for WFH, then it should be too hard for them to do the whole airport rigamarole and spend their evenings walking around sightseeing after work. Both of those are generally equal or more effort than commuting into the office, and therefore make the WFH accommodation for “rest” look invalid at best and a deliberate underhanded move at worst.

      2. londonedit*

        Their holiday time is their holiday time, though, and they can choose how to use it. The thing here is that they’ve asked for specific permission to WFH because they need to rest and they can’t manage the trip to the office every day, and yet now they’re planning to fly somewhere else and ‘explore’ on top of working their usual hours. Of course, the OP may have a plan for how to manage that, but on the face of it, flying across the country and sightseeing after work doesn’t really square with ‘can’t manage to commute to the office’.

        1. Doreen*

          If it was PTO, they could absolutely do whatever they want. It would still be bad optics to tell people that you are traveling across the country to explore a new city – especially since you could just say you plan to spend the time relaxing without mentioning where or how. Because that’s really where the problem lies – the combination of needing to WFH for medical reasons that don’t affect travel. There are a limited number of reasons for WFH to be an accommodation and I can’t think of any that mix with long flights ( being unable to sit for long stretches is going to eliminate flights , possibly needing to lie down is going to be difficult when traveling etc)

      3. Person from the Resume*

        Not in the same way. If she’s taken PTO and on vacation then she’s not expected to be in the office. In this case it seems like she would be in the office except for medical accommodations which she is taking advantage of by working from “across the country.”

        However I would also warn to LW not to share too much about her vacation/PTO especially anything that makes it sound like like an active vacation if she’s getting medical accommodations to work from home more than policy allows for everyone. Those optics could be bad too. Rested and chilled out on a beach versus hiking / a Broadway show every night /seeing so many sites.

    21. Looper*

      I very strongly agree. I can’t fathom telling my manager that my daily commute was too much to bear because of a health condition but flying cross country and staying in a hotel for a week would be totally fine. And as a coworker, I would completely write LW off if this happened. I’m frankly not even understanding as a reader how taking a cross country vacation while on the clock, away from established medical providers, is “restful”?

      1. jmc*

        They are the ones with the condition they know how to handle it. They know if they can handle this kind of trip or not, don’t speculate on what’s restful.

        1. Jennifer Strange*

          Sure, but they still need to be aware of the optics, especially if they’d like to have WFH privileges going forward.

    22. Aeryn Sun*

      Yeah, I don’t think it’s necessarily bad optics to travel with a heart issue, lots of people travel with medical conditions, but using a WFH week to do it is not great optics. I think if you kept it separate that wouldn’t be an issue, but working from home and travelling at the same time when working from home isn’t the norm might raise a few eyebrows.

    23. jmc*

      OMG enough with the optics. Who cares? If the work is getting done that is the most important thing.

      1. Tio*

        Because the optics are going to affect how they treat OP from here on out, and is a major part of their question?

        If the company only cared about the work getting done there would be more WFH options. OP used a medical reason to get WFH and then wants to do an activity that pretty much always reads as directly in conflict with the reason they gave for needing wfh. It’s going to affect how people treat and respect her if/when they find out.

      2. Person from the Resume*

        Did you not read the letter? The question in the letter was:

        What do you think — are the optics of going out of town with health issues odd, or can I safely do this if I’m not super outspoken about where I’ll be logging in from?

        So that is why the people are commenting on the optics. They are answering the letter writers question whereas you are ignoring their actual question.

      3. CommanderBanana*

        The LW literally asked about the optics. That’s probably why people are commenting on the optics. The optics being, getting a WFH week specifically to rest because of a heart problem and using that week to instead travel cross country and “explore” a new city. The optics are bad, even if the work is getting done.

      4. Irish Teacher.*

        It sounds like the LW’s coworkers might. I’m not saying this is necessarily reasonable, but the LW said there is a lot of resentment about the restrictions not being consistently enforced and under those circumstances, I can well see somebody who was refused the opportunity to work from home getting resentful about “boss said the reason the LW was allowed it and I wasn’t was because they had a heart condition that prevented them from coming to the office, but now I hear they are travelling so clearly, it was just favouritism.”

        No, that wouldn’t be fair, but it could still happen and the LW would be the one dealing with the resentment, so I think they do need to take it into account here.

        In theory, I do agree with you, but it sounds like remote working is a pretty fraught issue in the LW’s office and that appearing to “take advantage of it” could lead to their being resented and perhaps facing work consequences. So I think they do need to consider it, even if in an ideal world, it shouldn’t be an issue.

        1. Person from the Resume*

          The originating problem is in the company and that it seems like WFH is not justified, but the company is enforcing 4 days in the office fore everyone.

          But the problem for the LW is (1) her boss/leadership thinks she’s taking advantage of or faking a medical condition to be allowed extra WFH days because she’s able to “fly across the country” and work from there (2) her coworkers think she’s taking advantage of or faking a medical condition to be allowed extra WFH days when they are stuck following the stupid company policy.

          I do somewhat understand that the LW only needs extra WFH when her condition flares-up and that she’ likely hoping to not have a flare up on the days she plans to travel because that would impact her ability to travel. And perhaps she purchased more expensive refundable ticket or travel insurance to help prevent financial losses if she’s having a flare up on a travel day and can’t travel.

          But looking like she’s taking advantage or lying about the condition to get exemption from a strict company policy risks repercussions at work from both her management and her coworkers.

          1. Person from the Resume*

            Just note: I am very much in agreement with Irish Teacher..

            In theory it shouldn’t matter.

            In reality, we live in the real world and the optics of being seen as lying to gain a perk coworkers want and management denies to others is not good at all.

            1. Bah bah bah*

              Exactly this.
              I think sometimes people forget that when we’re talking about the optics of something it’s not just “what does my boss think of this” or “how does this make the company look”

              It’s easy to say “it shouldn’t matter” until you’re the one with a coworker who seems to be favoured/get extra perks/be above the rules etc. (even if that’s not necessarily what’s happening)

              We’re only human after all.

          2. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

            I also am unclear whether the LW is not involved with the team travel by coincidence, or because of this accommodation. If they’ve been excused from work travel for medical reasons, then traveling for fun is going to look especially odd.

            1. Mireya*

              LW’s job may be one that’s not expected to participate in this trip. So no awkward optics as to that.

      5. Hyaline*

        Even if LW hadn’t asked, it’s pretty important to consider here–because we live in a real world where LW’s coworkers and manager/s WILL care about the optics. And may make decisions about LW’s requests to WFH or coworkers’ requests to WFH differently based on this experience (and the optics of it). And this may slide from optics as in “does not look great” to optics as in “did LW lie in their WFH request in order to take a paid vacation?” which layers in an extra set of potential problems.

      6. Anne Elliot*

        A _lot_ of people might care, including OP’s boss and coworkers. At least the OP is smart enough to know that. The work getting done may be the most important thing, but it is not the only thing.

      8. Jellybeans*

        Realistically there are very few jobs where that kind of mentality exists. In really fortunate that I kind of do have that (because I write books and TV shows for a living) but even as a freelancer, I have to be aware of, for example, how I conduct myself on social media to avoid looking unprofessional.

        There are precious few careers and precious few people who are so gifted and valuable that they can do whatever they want without caring about stuff like soft skills or optics. That’s just the reality of life.

        If people want a job where optics don’t matter then they need to quit office work and go be a Hebridean sheep farmer or something.

      9. We’re Six*

        Because the LW asked about the optics in their letter? Because none of us are an island unto ourselves, going through life as the main character in a movie where the rest of the world is just the backdrop to that movie? Because the LW knows enough about their workplace to already know that WFHis a touchy issue there, is not just handed out like candy, etc? And to paraphrase Captain Awkward (I think), does the LW want to be “right” (ie your “the optics don’t matter!!!” stance) or do they want to not totally alienate their coworkers and make themselves look bad to said coworkers or the boss???

    24. Cherub Cobbler*

      It would have looked different if OP had “scheduled an appointment with a specialist,” so health would seem like the main reason to travel. Too late for that now.

      Personally, I just wouldn’t have let anyone at work know my plans. My flights would have been during nonwork hours and I’d be back in plenty of time for my next in-office day.

    25. Meep*

      Yeah, I am on the fence about this one.

      My boss has a high sensitivity to mold that often times working elsewhere for a week IS the solution for him. I also suffer from something called barometric headaches (among other flavors of migraines and headaches) so being in an office with industrial ventilation during monsoon season literally sinks my productivity while working at a higher elevation does not. (Ironically, any other time of the year, I need a day to recover when moving up in elevation of 5,000 ft.) It could be very well that the change in environment could be good for LW1 and their heart.

      However, the optics aren’t great.

      1. Festively Dressed Earl*

        I was wondering the same thing, like if LW lives in an area with poor air quality that exacerbates cardiopulmonary issues and is thinking of vacationing in an area that’s a change of atmosphere as well as a change of scenery. Even so, I think doing that would be the end of LW’s accommodations if their employer finds out and would significantly erode trust with their coworkers.

        1. Meep*

          Yeah… It is something definitely I would figure out using PTO and then maybe address with my boss if a WFH situation in a different state (with frequent travel) would be possible based on level of work and just how valuable I would be.

          My boss is pretty flexible with WFH/work while traveling and taking care of your (mental) health, but LW seems to already being getting special treatment so it is going to tweak some people.

    26. Beth*

      Agreed. Of course it’s possible to travel with a heart condition, and to work full days while traveling–in theory, there’s nothing wrong with your plan. But because your company is strict about WFH and weird about making exceptions even for health reasons, it probably won’t go over well for you to take this trip. For me, the litmus test would be “If you had asked your manager up-front for permission to work remotely for the week so you could travel to [city] and explore in your off hours, would they have said yes?”–and it sounds like the answer in your case is probably no.

    27. WanderingBy*

      Yes, I agree, it looks bad. Travel is almost always exhausting, even if you are just getting yourself to a resort for a week, going back and forth can be a lot of physical strain. To ask for accommodation associated with having higher rest needs and then taking off to travel and work from a different city does leave a bad impression.

  6. AJ Rose*

    OP#1
    Something that happened to me I thought was worth sharing. I was on FMLA and out of my home state. I’d gotten a call that I needed to approve an employees timesheet which required me to log into our VPN. Upon my return to the office I received an email from our IT department notifying me they had record of me logging in from random city, other state, and asked me to verify if it was really me and why was I accessing the work VPN out of state. I’m sure every organization’s rules are different, but it’s something to consider. It caught me by surprise. I hope you’re feeling better.

    1. Emmy Noether*

      This was almost certainly about information security. I know that my company has it set up so that there’s an alert for “unusual” activity on the VPN (different place/time than usual, logging in from two places at the same time,…), because it can be a sign of a hacking attempt. A human then has to check up on the alert.

      This doesn’t mean that you’re forbidden from doing it. IT will probably have no objection if you inform them beforehand, and log in from a secure network.

      1. Allonge*

        Yes, this is most likely the business version of the emails you get from e.g. social media that they noticed you logged in from a new device, but if it was you, you don’t need to do anything further.

        Independently from this aspect though, working from a different state or country could be a tax issue, so indeed worth discussing. Because the IT department still can tell.

      2. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

        Right. It doesn’t mean that IT cares; so long as it’s you and not a cyberattack, IT generally does not. But it *does* go to show that it may be more difficult than people think to keep it a secret that you’re working from elsewhere.

    2. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

      It could also be that if you were out of office on continuous FMLA, I believe you legally aren’t allowed to be working? So I know in my org, people who are on FMLA have their access limited or tracked to make sure that expectation is being followed.

      1. CoffeeIsMyFriend*

        it’s a bit of a murky area but you are allowed to do small amounts of one off work. in general it should be minimal and something that only you can really help with. for example while I was on FML recently I was contacted to help with a quick purchase order that I’m an expert on.

      2. fhqwhgads*

        Sure but that’s not why IT would be asking. IT is making sure the login came from the person it purported to.

    3. Pizza Rat*

      When my office went hybrid, we all had to report what address we would be working from and accessing the VPN. Judging from other comments, Information Security keeping an eye on this is commonn.

      It’s also how someone I know got fired because they claimed to be sick, but emailed from the Bahamas.

      1. jez chickena*

        I had a remote coworker take her honeymoon when she was supposed to be WFH. We didn’t use a VPN. When I figured it out, I didn’t tell my boss. Coworker was still pretty responsive, so…

        A few weeks later, we had layoffs; I was laid off, but she was not.

  7. Stoli*

    Many WFH positions have contracts that limit where you can work. There are legal and tax implications. It’s not as simple as just taking your laptop. And many employers can see where you are logging in.

  8. Tiger Eyes*

    I feel like the answer to “I saw my colleague posting something on LinkedIn” is always “No, you didn’t. Leave it alone.”

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      I don’t really check my coworker’s profiles on LinkedIn ever. Why would I do that? What would I gain from that? I always wonder why people do this, and then are concerned enough to write in. I sincerely would like to know what they are looking for.

      1. EngineerMom*

        If you’re on LinkedIn regularly, there’s a feed of what the people you’re “linked” to are doing in the public sphere – this may be less a case of “watching a coworker’s LinkedIn profile” and more in line with the equivalent of “saw a post on FB”.

        I accidentally saw a former classmate’s job search that way (I personally don’t link with current coworkers – I’ll link after I’ve moved on from a position.)

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          Yeah, but I don’t link to my coworkers. Why would I? I talk to them every day anyway.

          1. MCMonkeyBean*

            It’s not required or anything but in theory connecting to your coworkers is a pretty key part of why LinkedIn exists. Their intention is for you to connect to everyone you know professionally and then they connect you with the people *they* know professionally, to offer up a larger pool of professional contacts.

        2. Tiger Eyes*

          Well, I should clarify. I don’t think that seeing what they’re posting is bad, but the questions Alison often fields can usually be answered with “Just go about your business.” Like, if I see someone’s got a new job or they’re announcing something cool, I’ll give them a “Congrats,” but I’m not going to obsess over whether they once listed the wrong job title…and I would never say something if they were job-searching. I just figure it’s not my business.

      2. Seashell*

        It sounds like this was something the person was just seeing randomly (I barely use LinkedIn, but it regularly emails me about posts from people I’m connected with), but I would think there are reasons to check a co-worker’s profile that aren’t nefarious. What if a friend was interviewing at Llamas R Us and you vaguely remembered that co-worker Jane might have worked there previously? Is it bad to check Jane’s profile to refresh your memory before you ask Jane if she had any info about the company she could share with your friend?

        1. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

          I admit, I think it’s odd to be concerned that someone is looking at things you posted on social media (obviously, unless they could only see it through hacking or deception, but there’s no sign that’s the case here). It’s called social media for a reason. There are plenty of *actions* someone could take based on what they read that would be concerning or inappropriate, but you can’t really post things on a site designed for sharing and expect them not to read. Especially if there’s the possibility of coming across it accidentally via a feed or a “new from your contacts!” email.

  9. RCB*

    OP #5, I’m with Alison here, something really seems off with your references. I’ve done tons of hiring and to go back to a candidate to clarify something after a reference check is very rare (in my experience), to have it done twice to the same person for similar reasons can’t be a coincidence.

    1. duinath*

      I agree. Since they are volunteering to give LW info on what they said, I would take them up on that. There may be something in there that reads differently than they intended.

      1. Thank someone I no longer work there*

        Same here. Even if there’s no overlap in the people is there an overlap in the relationship (same former employer maybe) where they both made the same comment that is being interpreted differently than intended?

      2. Tina Belcher's Less Cool Sister*

        I actually think the fact that they are offering to show her the reference is itself a flag that something is amiss. The company doesn’t want to say “we aren’t hiring you because of what Person X said” but they’re giving you access to the resources to be able to make that determination yourself.

        I’ve only had one experience where an interviewer came back with a question after something my reference had said, and it turned out my former manager was trying to sabotage me by claiming I had left a project in the lurch (I hadn’t). I was able to explain it well enough that I still got the job, but you better believe I never used that reference again!

    2. M2*

      I agree. I had a reference once who said they gave me a glowing reference (I believed them as we had done excellent work and I always got stellar reviews) and then I found out through the grapevine they gave false information about my work product. It was really upsetting. I had used this person multiple times and never got the position but I was always told they went with a different candidate and didn’t realize it had to do with this reference.

      I ended up using a different reference later and all was fine. Change your references. Did you leave soon after working with someone? Did you ever have issues with rushing through work?

      Also when you are a reference if you don’t feel comfortable then tell the person you can’t give them a reference. I have told people
      I can’t be their reference when I know what I would say would hurt their chances. We are adults so be honest and communicate.

    3. MCMonkeyBean*

      Yeah, and the fact that *both* of the followups seem to be questions about what *OP* wants is definitely notable. It seems like maybe someone is hyping you up in a way that is meant to be positive but maybe makes it sound like you’re more interested in doing something else?

  10. Observer*

    #3 – Job search on Linked In

    What exactly do you think that you will accomplish by telling the manager about the job search? You say that you can’t afford to lose any more staff, and I sympathize with the pressure. But Alison is correct that your colleague (and upper management) should already realize that good people are probably looking to jump ship. If they don’t they are problematic enough that I doubt that they will handle things well. And even if they do handle the information well, what can they even do?

    The bottom line here is that saying anything doesn’t really have any chance of having a good outcome. Leave it alone. And maybe start looking for a new job for yourself.

    1. Cat Tree*

      Yeah, I think that’s an important way to grant it. What good outcome would happen by telling their manager? Is LW expecting that the manager will give the person a huge raise to entice them to stay? Or that this will finally be the one thing to convince upper management to hire the correct amount of staff? Or just warning the other manager that things might get even worse soon so they should step up their own job search and get out faster?

      It just doesn’t seem likely to accomplish anything by telling the person’s manager.

    2. WellRed*

      Yes. OP, if you want to “fight” to keep employees, you need to be communicating that to upper management and quit embracing the “small but mighty” mindset. It likely isn’t doing you any favors.

      1. Stretchy McGillicuddy*

        “Small but mighty” made me want to jump out of my skin. That is up there with “we are like a family here” in phrases that make me want to scream “don’t go into the barn alone!”

      2. Jan Levinson Gould*

        Similar to the term ‘Small but Mighty’, I cringe when I hear management proudly proclaim a team is ‘Lean and Mean’. My interpretation is the team is anorexic and mean because they’re starving.

      3. LW3*

        LW3 here! For the sake of brevity I didn’t include the background details, but yes – I have been *extremely* vocal to upper management on how desperately understaffed we are, while also job searching myself. I’m currently borrowing resources from another team as I no longer have a headcount/manager within my discipline (they got reorg’d elsewhere with zero plan on how to backfill those gaps), so I’m borrowing from another team…which means that team is now understaffed, so they’re borrowing resources from the team this individual is on…it’s untenable, obviously, and is absolutely going to fall apart sooner rather than later. I don’t blame the person I wrote in about for job searching whatsoever – I’m trying to get out, myself – but to Cat Tree’s point above, my thought was mainly to give their manager a heads up to either fight to retain this person, or plan for another gap, since things are already pretty precarious.

        Trust, I am far from embracing the “small but mighty” mindset. This was foisted upon us via reorgs and RIFs, I’m unhappy with the way things have shaken out, and we’ve all just been trying to keep the lights on as best we can.

        1. Nudibranch*

          Turn it around. Would you want this person to report you to your manager for job searching? Why do you think this would help matters in any way? To retain good employees, your company needs to improve matters. They’re seemingly choosing not to. Yes, good employees will leave rather than go down with a sinking ship. Why would you want them to stay when you are already trying to leave yourself? I don’t get it.

        2. Stretchy McGillicuddy*

          “we’ve all just been trying to keep the lights on as best we can.”

          These aren’t your lights to keep on. Let your coworker find a new job. Go find yourself a new job. Let the owners/shareholders figure out how to keep their own lights on.

          This just isn’t your problem.

        3. Jan Levinson Gould*

          Yeah, “small but mighty” is thrust upon us middle managers and leads to severe burnout. My manager recently gave me credit for running my team lean (at least we’re not at the point of being anorexic yet), and I’m thinking “it shouldn’t be this way, but the powers that be won’t give me backfill headcount and I’ll be screwed if there’s attrition. There’s no pride in the team being lean!!!”

          I actually agree with your thinking about at least giving a very subtle warning to your colleague. Sounds like they won’t be surprised.

        4. Observer*

          but to Cat Tree’s point above, my thought was mainly to give their manager a heads up to either fight to retain this person, or plan for another gap, since things are already pretty precarious.

          I hear. But from what you say, their manager has no tools to fight with. And I don’t think there really is any way to plan for this, unless you mean “start planning what balls you are going to allow to drop.”

          That tack is reasonable, but that’s something you and your colleague should be doing anyway. You don’t need to know about *this* particular person to know with certainty that at least some of your best staff is looking to get out.

        5. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

          I think it would be important to ask yourself how exactly the company could fight to keep her. You know that hiring is not in the budget. Are raises? Extra PTO? More work flexibility, in the form of flex hours or more WFH? Substantial perks? Promises of shorter work hours?

          Because without substantial, material incentives to stay—which it doesn’t sound like they have—the only way to fight to keep someone is either to make vague promises about the future that cannot be guaranteed (like “we’ll give you a raise when we have the money, we swear!”) or trying to guilt trip them into staying. Neither of which are good.

          To be clear, I don’t think you should say anything regardless. But I’m curious how they’d choose to fight it.

        6. Chriama*

          I get why you thought to warn them, but I don’t think it gives them any new information. This person is actively job searching, but they haven’t accepted a new job. You don’t know how long it will take them to get any offer, much less one they find acceptable.The situation is bad enough that any reasonable person would assume that at least a few employees are already job searching. So giving the manager a heads up that they might need to plan for more attrition adds stress but isn’t actually helpful to them. They can’t do anything more than what they should already be doing.

  11. Myrin*

    #5, you say “I did not use all the same references both times.” – the use of “all” here indicates that you used some of the same references. Start there. Could there be anything about the position you had/work you did with these people which could be construed negatively? (And not necessarily as in, they’re actually talking badly about you, but just a situation like Alison suggests, where you were really involved with Z but that’s not something the two companies you interviewed with do at all, for example?)

    1. Sherm*

      If feasible, I would cut out the references that were used all the time, and see if that improves outcomes.

    2. what was my username??*

      I’d do a reference check for a pseudo job with a trusted associate. Basically make up a job similar to the one that you want and have the trusted associate phone the references asking about you, see what they say. Two different jobs ending the same way is really strange.

      1. Paint N Drip*

        I think this could be a great solution if done with discernment. OP, if you’re able to collect a trusted friend who is professional enough to pull off the heist, please be sure that YOU are together and professional enough to hear the results from your friend, process it without lashing out at friend/reference/self, change your references as needed and move forward with the satisfaction that your job search should be easier from here on out. If you’re going to be full of anger at your reference or get twisted up about your perception of yourself versus the reference… this is probably not a good plan without some support (and if that’s the case, seriously no judgment – know thyself)

    3. Rex Libris*

      It definitely sounds like something is up with the references. Maybe you just have one overly chatty person saying things like “Wow, I never would have imagined OP in that role…” or “OP excels at X and Y, but they never really struck me as a people person” when the job is mainly about Z, and it’s in sales.

  12. Dhaskoi*

    LW2 – I’m surprised no-one reached out to the candidate at the time to ask what was up. Presumably you had their number on file at that stage of the interview process?

    1. Brain the Brian*

      This surprised me, too — enough that I actually wondered if the LW had forgotten to mention it, actually.

      1. I should really pick a name*

        They indirectly mentioned that they didn’t.

        Should the hiring manager have reached out to them after 10 or so minutes to ask if they’re still planning to join

    2. londonedit*

      Also very surprised by this. It’s possible they got the wrong day/time/something happened – I think it’s odd that no one from the interviewing panel thought to check in after 10 minutes or so. Leaving it as ‘well they haven’t joined the meeting so they’re clearly not interested’ is a bit of a strange decision to me.

    3. Oryx*

      Agreed. I usually give it 10 minutes of a no-show before reaching out. It’s strange to me that nobody thought to do that.

    4. Andrew*

      right? I’ve been on zoom-type interviews where the interviewer was delayed and after a few minutes, I’d pop them an email asking ‘is now still a good time?’ :)

    5. GoGoGuardos*

      Yep, we (others on the panel) asked the hiring manager if they wanted to do that since we do have the candidate’s cell phone number, but HM said something along the lines of “They know how to get in touch with us, I’m not going to chase after candidates.” This person wasn’t our #1 choice, so maybe if they had been the HM would have reached out.

      1. Observer*

        I’m honestly very unimpressed with the hiring manager. Sure, he has your contact information, but you have his, too. And A quick check is not “chasing” people.

        1. Dhaskoi*

          Honestly, with the additional information I’m inclined to think that the HM saw an opportunity to weed out a non preferred candidate, regardless of whether their reason for not calling was legitimate or not.

  13. FunkyMunky*

    LW1 – I’d recommend keeping such things to yourself in future. or only sharing with non work related friends. Travel if you desire but be smart about it.

    1. LateRiser*

      Any half-decent IT security will flag someone working from a vastly different location. If it’s too risky to tell the company about the travel, it’s potentially riskier not to.

      1. JazzyHamster*

        #OP3: I would worry more about getting out yourself than about a coworker’s public job search. Doesn’t sound like management in your company is creating a thiving workplace.

      2. Peanut Hamper*

        Yes, this. I’m not sure that our IT department would notice if I logged in one day from the library, but I’m pretty sure that they would notice if I logged in from an IP address in California. It’s kind of like how your bank flags purchases made on your debit card in a different state or country.

      3. Observer*

        Any half-decent IT security will flag someone working from a vastly different location.

        Not necessarily, in my experience. But *definitely* a likely situation. Also, geofencing is a thing. We have our systems set to geofence pretty broadly, but if you do try to log in to our system from areas outside of “fence” you will not be able to get it. Period. Again, not every company does that. But it’s becoming increasingly common.

        In a company that’s this set against WFH, I would be surprised it at least one of these things is in play.

    2. Hyaline*

      This could make things worse IMO. For one, it seems from their question that they were considering keeping it to themselves outside of cagily telling the boss they’d be “offline a few hours” on the travel day. So they already know this might be frowned upon. But imagine the optics of asking for a health accommodation and then using it for a trip if it came out later that you’d travelled—not good. Now it looks less like “not entirely approved WFH situation but not banned either (assuming it’s not banned…)” and more like “straight up lying.”

      1. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

        Yes. If you are uncomfortable asking permission for this, it is not a situation where you should rely on asking forgiveness instead.

    3. CommanderBanana*

      Traveling while supposedly WFH without letting anyone know you are traveling is not “being smart about it.”

      People who do that usually get caught.

  14. Katy*

    OP#2: Yes, contact the candidate! I had an interview once where, due to a Zoom glitch, my interview team couldn’t see me in the waiting room, so they never started the meeting. They had previously sent me an email saying that interviews might be running late and I shouldn’t reach out to them if my session didn’t start on time; they had my contact info and would call me if there was an issue. So I sat there patiently waiting for my interview to start, and it was only after a half hour or so that I started to think something might have gone wrong. They never did call me. I eventually emailed their secretary, and after almost an hour of waiting someone opened the meeting and was shocked to see me there. I don’t think the interview team ever realized they had specifically given me directions that kept me sitting there waiting without reaching out to them. Just in case something like that has happened with your candidate, I would contact them and not wait for them to contact you.

    1. Resume please*

      Yes, follow up with the candidate! I had an virtual interview today which had a glitch (luckily, I was on 5 minutes before and knew how to fix it because I know Microsoft Teams well,) but reach out! Could also be because of extenuating circumstances, you never know!

    2. Just Thinkin' Here*

      Right? Like technical problems don’t happen, etc. Plus whether it’s Teams or Zoom, you have to invite the person to the meeting if they are from an external server. This panel shows they have poor communication and problem solving skills by their non-responsiveness to the problem.

  15. Kella*

    OP3- Serious question: What exactly is there in your power to do to try to convince this person to stay or to plan for their absence? Because by the situation you described, it sounds like the answer is, not much. If there were more you could do to retain people, it seems like you would already be doing it. And if there was a way to plan for a further reduction in staff, you’d probably already be using it to make up for the current lack of staff. So, I don’t really see what the point would be of telling anyone other than increasing stress.

    1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      My read on it: OP sees the situation as a developing risk (which it is) and wonders whether the management team should be made aware of that risk. This is a difficult situation to be in as a manager, as (imo) there’s a greater expectation of loyalty to the company rather than to your colleague, and the “correct” response is to make management aware of this risk (it might be different if they had told you in private, but public comments on LinkedIn make it more open information). In this case I think unless they are stupid, management must already be aware of this risk regardless so it wouldn’t really be new information to them.

      Often when giving someone information (or seeking information out myself) I try to give it a dose of critical thinking with “what do I expect the person to do with the information?”. If there isn’t a clear answer I might be less inclined to make it known.

      1. Observer*

        In this case I think unless they are stupid, management must already be aware of this risk regardless so it wouldn’t really be new information to them.

        Exactly. Management either knows about the risk or is too incompetent to do anything useful about it.

        Which means that the only thing that the LW would “accomplish” to make their colleague’s job more stressful with this specific information, and put the searcher at risk which would make them more likely to walk. So, no real upside, even from a POV of “duty of loyalty”

    2. Chriama*

      I wonder if OP3 feels powerless because of the actions of upper management and may be looking to exert power, even unconsciously, over their employees because they think it’s the only area they can maintain control. Not recognizing, of course, that they really don’t have any more control over the actions upper management than they do over the reactions of their employees.

      1. Learn ALL the things?*

        I think this is probably a big part of it.

        If you’re aware of a big problem at work and all the higher ups you bring it to tell you it’s fine, you can start to get a bit desperate to make them see that it’s really a problem. In a situation like that, when you’ve been trying and trying to fix a problem that management doesn’t feel the same level of urgency about, it can be really tempting to jump on any level of “evidence” you find to prove your point.

        But honestly, having been in a similar position at a previous job where understaffing wasn’t taken seriously, my stance is that if management knows they’re understaffed and they don’t feel the level of urgency about it that their staff do, let them be unprepared when people leave. Management let the situation get this bad, and they may not start to feel the appropriate level of urgency until they lose more people over it, because that’s how it goes sometimes.

    3. Claire*

      I think it’s common for a company to be more likely to offer something (a raise, more time off, more flexibility, more professional development) to an employee they are sure is on the verge of leaving than to offer it proactively. Similar to giving a counteroffer when an employee has received an offer from somewhere else.

  16. Introvert girl*

    OP 2: a company’s system once chose an interview date when the company was closed. Please check if the correct date and time were sent to the candidate. Maybe someone in HR made a typo and the candidate received the 24th of July instead of the 23th as the interview date?

    1. Quoth the Raven*

      I’ve also gotten things like “Thursday, July 24th” which I might not immediately notice, and I might just go with the day of the week rather than the actual date.

      1. EvilQueenRegina*

        I’ve had that one myself before now and called HR to query it, but I can see how someone could not realise.

        I also remember a former coworker going for an interview where they’d put one time in her letter, but had a different time in their calendars – when she arrived, they did the interview but were really frosty, and when she was leaving said “By the way, why were you so late? We were expecting you at X time.” She had the letter with her so she could prove that was their error – she didn’t get the job but said afterwards she dodged a bullet. It could have been something like that.

        1. Mireya*

          I found out long afterward that I likely lost an internal transfer this way. One of my bosses harped on the candidate’s “lateness”, to the point that they declined the offer when it was made.

          It was extra maddening because my potential supervisor had to really walk a tightrope negotiating my move.

    2. GoGoGuardos*

      Sure, but we did confirm with the candidate and were all on the same Outlook invitation. Again, this was a high-level position we’re hiring for, so there was a great deal of care put into the screenings and interviews for just a handful of folks. If it were more automated or more likely that someone just fell through the cracks due to sheer volume, then our first assumption probably would have been “system glitch” rather than “ghosted” or “got hit by a bus.”

  17. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    #1 “I don’t see a ton of difference between being online at my house and being online in a different city if it’s the same hours and level of responsiveness”

    That’s a very good justification to ask if your job can become mostly wfh in future, but a really poor one when you have been granted occasional wfh as an accommodation specifically to give you more rest.

    It looks very suspect to say you’re too ill to travel to/from the office and work, but not too ill to fly somewhere nice and work there.
    Most of us consider flying to be far more of a hassle with security, luggage for the week, multiple queueing, extra exposure to viruses etc.

    This trip will likely make your manager and those above her more reluctant to allow you wfh in future when you are not feeling well.
    You may need to go the route of a doctor’s letter for a formal accommodation, don’t be surprised if your employer specifies that the work must be done from your home and nowhere else.

    1. Tio*

      Yeah, this is the kind of thing that could easily wipe out all the trust I had built in this person if I were their manager. I was expecting the letter to be about how they HAD to go to a specific city for treatment and would it be ok to explore after hours; that would be different. But you’re taking on extra stress of airport travel and then instead of resting you’re going to be out exploring in the evening. I know sick people also have lives – I am one of them! – But this scenario feels incredibly dishonest to me.

    2. Stretchy McGillicuddy*

      It’s the implication that LW is too ill to go into the office but not too ill to sightsee that gives me pause. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but it’s not a good look.

      1. I strive to Excel (formerly WPX)*

        In fairness, I have had times where this is the case! But I agree that the implications aren’t good.

    3. WanderingBy*

      Travel these days is a real slog, I think most people would find it inconsistent with an accommodation request for “more rest”.

  18. Allonge*

    OP2: one of the best things our HR did when we switched to online interviewing in 2020 was to develop scripts for all the stuff that comes up.

    So if someone is expected at [time] but does not show up five minutes later, HR will reach out to them based on this mini-process. If we cannot hear the person who joined our Zoom call, they have a script for that too, both spoken and in writing. And so on.

    Maybe worth considering?

  19. Wendy Darling*

    LW5, this happened to me during my job search when I quit my PhD program, and it turned out that my former academic advisor, who had also supervised most of my jobs as a graduate student employee, was giving me a glowing reference that somehow left people with the impression that I was VERY passionate about my academic field and would be catastrophically bored doing anything else.

    I’ll never know if my advisor was doing it on purpose. I only found out it was happening because my third time or so having the “Do you REALLY want this job? Are you SURE you won’t be bored? Don’t you want to finish your PhD?” I got real cheeky and said “I don’t plan to ever finish my PhD, who told you I did?” and they told me.

    I did not get that job but I did find out which of my references was causing me problems.

    1. bamcheeks*

      was giving me a glowing reference that somehow left people with the impression that I was VERY passionate about my academic field and would be catastrophically bored doing anything else

      I wondered about something like this, especially after TWO employers have asked you to explain how this fits in with your career goals or expressed concerns about “whether you’d enjoy the work you do”. Strongly suggests that one of your references is enthusing about your amazing affinity with llamas and how they’ve never met anyone as brilliant at calming nervous llamas when you’re applying for back-office LlamaBaseTM admin role.

      LW,is there a change in your career direction which might lend itself to this kind of misinterpretation? It might be something that feels very logical and obvious to you, but which needs to be more explicitly explained in your application materials and interviews. If you can make it clear that you loved your llama-facing roles but after 15 years in the field (literally, heh) you’re read for a more sedentary / strategic / technical / whatever role, you might be able to head this off. And it’s worth making sure you’ve shared application materials with all your references and making sure you’ve explicitly highlighted to them that this is a back-office role not a field role.

    2. londonedit*

      Ooh, this is a good point. I did it to myself once in an interview – didn’t get the job, and the feedback was that it sounded like I really loved my current job and they weren’t convinced that I really wanted to move on, or that I’d be happy doing something new. Could have kicked myself because what I’d been trying to do was express my enthusiasm for the role in general – but it seems I did too good a job! Could definitely be something like that, someone gushing about how great OP is in their current role and making it sound like they’re really happy in what they’re doing and not really up for moving on.

    3. Andy Dufresne TBH*

      Yeah, as someone who hopped from academia to industry I suspect this is a common scenario. People who thrive in academic careers tend to overestimate how appealing that path is to others, and many get real invested in Keeping People in the Pipeline. (The latter might be a particularly STEM thing, idk)

  20. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    #2 A brief Email asking what happens takes 2 minutes of your time and it might avoid unnecessarily losing a great candidate by penalising them for a personal catastrophe or a mistake in the link or date on your side.
    Of course you can then drop them if they don’t reply, just forget, or ghosted you.

    #3 MYOB. She’s not your report.

    #4 If the reason is something that is against their stated values, then tell them so (if you feel able).
    Having a conversation with a friendly higher up would probably be more effective and appropriate than adding it to a resignation letter which should be very brief.

  21. Green great dragon*

    OP1 you need to have a solid reason why going to the office is a problem for you but vacationing is not, and make sure you’re conveying that to the people who need to know, because it’s true that ‘I need to rest more’ and ‘voluntarily flying across country to explore another city’ don’t sit that comfortably together. I don’t doubt you that there is a reason, but it doesn’t really come through in your letter. Like if the answer is you can’t walk far but you’re planning on sightseeing entirely by bus and the airline is great at supporting people with mobility issues that hits a bit different to just saying you can’t make it to the office but you can vacation.

    1. londonedit*

      I agree…it might all make perfect sense to the OP, but to my mind there’s a big difference between ‘I have a heart condition and I need to WFH so that I can rest’ and ‘I’m planning to fly to a different city and spend time exploring while also working my usual hours’. That just doesn’t sound like rest at all – it sounds very busy.

      1. Antilles*

        Especially given the office’s pre-existing skepticism towards WFH. If this was a place where WFH was completely common and accepted, they’d probably view it as a natural extension, but not in an office where WFH is already a touchy subject.

      2. CrowsFeet*

        It seems like a lot more work! Getting themselves across the country, set up, working all day, and then sightseeing in the evenings? It does come off as if is she is not counting on having to work very much that week. Op#1 – could you just take it as vacation time?

    2. Daisy-dog*

      I fully believe there is a reason that LW1 can travel and also needs additional WFH days. But I am not their manager! And your manager will likely have a higher barrier of required information needed in the explanation. Just saying, “Oh, it’s only with flare-ups” might not surpass that because they may be needing to explain it to the entire team, their leadership, etc.

  22. Small mind*

    why are so many people obsessed with what others are doing on LinkedIn? so many questions sent out about ‘how can I be a busybody?’

    1. Allonge*

      You could equally ask why so many people are obsessed about sharing what they do on LinkedIn. It’s not obsession, it’s public information that people voluntarily share so other people will see it.

      Well, sometimes they do and think it may be something they need to do about. Asking here if that is the case is no more obsessive than posting every day about your life.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        This is an excellent point. Your whole life doesn’t need to be online. Don’t want to be questioned about everything you put on Linked In, don’t put everything on Linked In.

        Discretion is a thing, even if using Linked In is common in your field.

      2. Seashell*

        I agree with Allonge’s reply. If people are sharing the information, there’s always a chance that others will act on it.

        I thought the letter in question was going to be about telling the coworker that these comments could be seen by others, which I think could be helpful in some situations rather than being a “busybody”.

  23. JazzyHamster*

    #OP3: I would worry more about getting out yourself than about a coworker’s public job search. Doesn’t sound like management in your company is creating a thiving workplace.

    1. Observer*

      Agreed.

      Your company is not well managed and you seem to be at a point where a lot of dysfunction is getting normalized.

  24. ChurchOfDietCoke*

    I have this very morning received TWO emails, one external inviting me to a webinar and one internal about a ‘lunch and learn’ session which BOTH had mistakes with the date and day (think for example Monday 30th July, when Monday is actually the 29th July).

    Is it possible your interview details were sent similarly incorrectly? Or could the interviewee have been in a different time zone and you didn’t clarify whether that ‘2pm’ slot meant 2pm in New York or 2pm in Frankfurt?

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      My apartment complex sent out an email about some parking lot repairs that are going to be made. It had three dates on it and two of them were wrong.

      Two hours later, they sent out another email saying to disregard the previous email because of the incorrect dates, and here’s a new one with the correct dates. Two of those dates are still wrong. One date is in the past (June), and the other date does not match the day of the week: the 31st is on Wednesday, not Thursday.

      These things happen. If only we had some kind of chart that listed all the days of the weeks and the corresponding dates. We could even add some pretty pictures and hang it on the wall. If I can come up with a catchy name, I can patent it and make a fortune!

      1. Lady_Lessa*

        LOL. I’m that person in the lab. Desk-Scottish wild cats, lab-one with nature pictures.

        I do use electronic also. But I like pretty things.

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          I actually tried going without a wall calendar this year and it was not a good experience. By the time I realized I really needed one, it was too late to buy a cheap one at the dollar-and-a-quarter store, so I found a place online to print one out. Order restored.

          But lesson learned: buy calendars! And get the pretty ones! Tropical scenes are my favorite.

          1. AngryOctopus*

            I have one printed by a local artist which is food based, focusing on national holidays. So July is a block print of Kraft Mac and Cheese, because National Mac and Cheese day is July 14th. I’m constantly referring to it!

    2. Nightengale*

      time zones, oh time zones

      I’m in a professional group that had initial leadership on the east coast and then we elected a president in Chicago. She would schedule meetings. The east coasters would show up an hour early and then start e-mailing the group “weren’t we meeting today?” “is the link broken for anyone else?”

      This was MDs, PhDs, JDs, people with doctorates in nursing. “High level” education is not as protective against this stuff as one might hope.

      (Also yes my medical school would send out invites with non-existent dates, although the best was the “MANDITORY” in huge letters three times training that did not mention a date or time at all.”)

      1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

        High level education is 100% not protective against this kind of glitch, particularly if most of the people are advanced, later-career workers who usually have an assistant or colleague handle this stuff. I’ve totally seen the wheels fall off when they have to do it themselves for their membership organization (and offered to help although not actually my job).

        1. Nightengale*

          Oh I agree

          I used this example because “high level interview” seemed to imply education or being higher on a career ladder should be protective against this – but in fact often really isn’t.

    3. GoGoGuardos*

      Nah, this person is local so no time zone issue. I mentioned in reply to a comment above, but because this was for a high-level position where we were considering just a handful of people, there was a lot of care put into the screenings, interviews and scheduling of the panels. I had holds on my calendar for weeks that were then replaced by an Outlook invitation on which everyone (panel AND candidate) was included once the candidate confirmed. If this were a more automated process or for a huge group of folks where it was likely someone fell through the cracks somehow, we probably would have thought hmm, maybe we messed up.

      1. Just Thinkin' Here*

        If this person is local, why not interview them in person? Why use online format at all?

        1. Allonge*

          Because if all the other interviews are online, it’s a pain to have someone to the office for one? Online is also more convenient for the interviewee in a lot of cases. And it does nothing to solve the timing issue.

          Not to mention that ‘local’ could still be quite a long trip.

          1. Bumblebee*

            We are not allowed (higher ed) to interview some people in person and some online- even if they are just across campus! We would not want to disadvantage or advantage any particular candidate.

  25. mbs001*

    OP1 – it’s concerning that you don’t see how bad this could look to your bosses and coworkers. No way if you have heart issues, should you be flying across the country and “gently” exploring another city.

    2. kiki*

      I do understand that the optics of LW doing this are likely going to be confusing to some folks, but heart issues aren’t all the same in terms of severity, treatment, and lifestyle needs. Needing to take a couple days over the course of several months to stay at home while you’re having symptoms of a condition shouldn’t mean LW can no longer travel just to maintain optics if LW and their doctor think it’s okay. I’ve needed to take a couple days to stay at home to work due to colds and minor illnesses that would in no way preclude me from travelling later.

      That all being said, different organizations are going to react differently to folks intentionally travelling during a work week so they can explore the city in their off time. Some orgs will definitely see that as “quiet vacationing.” But if you work somewhere with good work-life balance, there’s no reason working in a different city and exploring in your off-hours should impact you more than a week where you’re socially busy at home.

      1. Tio*

        This would be fine if it were a regular WFH situation (assuming the tax situation is sorted.) But requesting WFH because you’re too sick to come into the office, aka travel, and then traveling is bad. It just looks bad. Of course sick people travel and have lives. But saying “I can’t do this light travel because of my health condition. But I will be doing a heavy cross country travel now that you’ve approved me not traveling to work to rest” is very much diametrically opposed.

        1. dude, who moved my cheese?*

          I didn’t see anywhere that LW1 said their issue was traveling to the office, rather than working in the office. There are tons of ways that WFH is easier and more restful than working in an office that have little to do with the commute. Maybe they need short breaks to lie down frequently during the day, or to be able to set the thermostat at a comfortable temp, or they work in an open office that is noisy and chaotic on busy days.

          I agree the optics aren’t good but people are getting hung up on the short travel vs long travel when it might not be about commuting at all.

          1. Ask a Manager* Post author

            Yes, that was my assumption — that it’s not the travel that’s the issue, but that they need to be able to frequently rest, lie down, etc. Which is why I don’t think it’s outrageous, but clearly I am in the very small minority on that, which is good info for the LW.

            1. Observer*

              but clearly I am in the very small minority on that, which is good info for the LW.

              I agree and think that this is *extremely* important information for the LW. Because even if their doctor is enthusiastically on board with this, if they get found out, they are going to wind up burning a LOT of capital.

              If they really, really want to do this, I would say get a note from your doctor and then talk to your manager and explain why your doctor thinks this is a good idea. Then do what your manager says.

              Yes, it’s technically not necessary, but in this kind of situation, I think it’s the only way to avoid real reputational damage, as well as the risk of causing management to be less willing to accommodate them in the future.

            2. Irish Teacher.*

              That was my assumption too, but I would be concerned that it might not be the assumption of coworkers who already feel that work from home privileges are not being applied consistently and who are resentful about this or of managers who don’t seem too fond of the whole idea of remote working in the first place.

            3. CrowsFeet*

              “but clearly I am in the very small minority on that”

              Yes, I think it is a very big ask on the part of the LW and seems very incongruent with working from home because of high rest needs – the optics are not good at all.

          2. Observer*

            . There are tons of ways that WFH is easier and more restful than working in an office that have little to do with the commute.

            That’s true. But the minute you start talking about “exploring” it’s going to be *really* hard to explain that. Because even “gentle” exploring generally means more physical activity and less ability to take rests as needed, etc.

            I’m not saying that it never makes sense. But it’s always going to have the potential to look a little odd. And with a heart condition at play? It’s absolutely going to be an issue. Especially in this particular situation.

      2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

        The issue is that she’s doing this extra travel and exploration during her wfh week – which her employer allowed only because the OP said she wanted to cut out her commute travel and rest more!

        It wouldn’t be an issue if she took a vacation the next month

        1. AngryOctopus*

          This exactly. If she did WFH to rest from having to commute/work in office that week, fine. Then she goes on vacation the next month, nobody will think anything of it. They’ll assume she structures her vacation the way she needs to in order to enjoy herself. But the “I was granted WFH so I’m going to travel a long way and work my regular hours and then go be on vacation after that” sends messed up optics to a company that is pretty anti WFH already.

    3. Dahlia*

      “No way if you have heart issues, should you be flying across the country and “gently” exploring another city.”

      What? Says who?

      Do you know what their issues are? Are you their doctor and breaking some serious HIPAA laws?

  26. Irish Teacher.*

    LW5, some possibilities that occurred to me were whether you were applying to something that was a step down from previous positions, like if they talked about what a great manager you were and these jobs are fairly entry level or if this job is a huge change from your previous positions and all your references are…say, talking about what a great team player you are and the jobs you are applying for largely involve working independently. Or similar to the first one, are the jobs you are applying for ones you are overqualified for? Again, say you are applying to entry level jobs or jobs that only require high school and your references are talking about how they were so lucky to get somebody with such high grades at post-graduate level (though I would assume your resume would have clued them in to that).

  27. Archangelsgirl*

    LW5 – I just found out that someone who has been my manager the last two years, but who I have been work friends with for about 20 years, has been giving me negative references. Or I guess I would say, they’re positive but they sew seeds of doubt about my suitability for any given job. Example, “They’re trained for X and Y and they’re wonderful at doing Y. I’m sure they can do X, but they haven’t done it in a long time. I have a job for them to do Y, which they’re just amazing and perfect at, so I’m not sure why they want to make this move with the learning curve involved… but I’m sure they’ll do great! (fake laugh)” I have been trying to get jobs that do not involve working for this person because I’m trying to preserve the friendship and working for them is making me not like them very much, and… I’ve come to the conclusion they want me to keep working for them. Because I know what I’m doing and it’s easy for them. I kind of can’t believe it, it sort of all came to a head this week (like being a top contender for three jobs and not getting them clued me in). So I’ll be working for them AGAIN this year, and then I guess I’m going to have to remove them as a reference (duh) to move forward in next year’s hiring cycle. I feel really betrayed and stupid. We’re in a new era where you can’t take people’s promises to be a good reference or their actions or what you think you know about them at face value, I guess. Root out the reference that is common to all your scenarios is my advice!

    1. Reebee*

      “they’re positive but they sew seeds of doubt”
      —-

      Such a great point! Relatedly, a few years ago, I called a reference about a candidate, and she gave a great work task review, but then “sewed seeds of doubt” by launching into what great friends! they were outside of work, and gave numerous examples. I mean, that’s nice and all, but of course begs the question of bias where quality of work is concerned.

  28. Chriama*

    OP 3 – you say “we really can’t afford to lose another good team member, at least not without a fight”. What kind of “fight” will you or the other managers be willing or able to put up now that you’re not already doing? You describe a tough situation with no clear end in sight, which seems to have been created through the actions of senior leadership and is not something you can improve at your level of management. Will news of one single employee planning to leave really influence any of those senior decision-makers?

    I ask this because I’m concerned that your idea of “putting up a fight” to keep this employee is actually to just guilt or cajole or threaten or otherwise put pressure on them not to leave. Or to offer vague reassurances about things getting better in the future, or make empty promises to bring up the issues with senior leadership again even though you know they won’t listen. Basically, given that you acknowledge there doesn’t seem to be much room for your level of middle management to improve things, it kind of feels like the only reason to tell this person’s manager would be so the manager can convince the employee to act against their own self-interest.

    Quite frankly, given the public nature of this employee’s job-hunting activities, I would assume that it’s at least somewhat deliberate and they feel like they have nothing to lose. It’s possible they’re fed up with the company and confident that you guys can’t afford to retaliate by firing them or icing them out. If that’s the case, any attempt to convince them to stay with no credible promise of timely, tangible improvements is more likely to make them feel manipulated or disrespected than anything else, and may even provoke them to quit out of anger or disgust.

    Anyways this employee is being public about their intention to leave but you should assume that at least a few of your other employees are conducting their own, more discreet, job searches. Treat their behaviour like the canary in the coal mine and let it inform your employee retention strategy across your whole team rather than panicked scrambling to keep this one employee.

    1. ecnaseener*

      Usually the “fight” would be a counteroffer, but yeah if the budget is that tight, it seems unlikely they could make a good enough offer to keep the person from leaving such a miserable environment.

      1. Chriama*

        I would assume that in general circumstances,, but given the budget issues that OP mentioned earlier it didn’t seem to me like they or their level of management are empowered to offer anything that actually costs money.

        Unless senior management are the kind of people who will spend more money on a counteroffer than pay employees fairly to keep them from looking in the first place, the only non-monetary perk I could think of OP being able to offer would be an under-the-table promise to let this employee flex their hours or take PTO without recording it in the system. But in an environment, where morale is already low, that would probably require the other coworkers to pick up even more of the slack and retain the employee who is looking to leave at the risk of alienating the rest of the team,. That’s why I said OP should consider their talent retention strategy as a whole, and not panic about one single employee.

    2. JS*

      Exactly, are your managers actually going to fight? Are you assuming that the person wants to leave for something that is “fight-able”? They may be sick of the BS, too, and not think that any band-aid scramble to keep them is actually going to help long term.

      Let them decide that not you.

    3. CommanderBanana*

      “I ask this because I’m concerned that your idea of “putting up a fight” to keep this employee is actually to just guilt or cajole or threaten or otherwise put pressure on them not to leave.”

      ^^ THIS. The staffing and workload issues that you’re dealing with are systemic, entrenched issues, not one-offs like someone finding out they’ve been underpaid and being able to fix that with a raise. If someone tenders their resignation, you should not “fight” to try to keep them. If you want to try to keep someone who is resigning, you can do something tangible like a counteroffer (which I personally would not accept, as most people who accept a counteroffer end up leaving soon anyway). There’s no immediate fix for something like staffing and workload.

      I think you should focus your energy on continuing to advocate for your organization to increase staffing and reduce workload and less energy on monitoring your coworkers’ LinkedIns.

  29. Turingtested*

    LW 1, I mean this with all kindness, if you really thought this wasn’t problematic you’d be discussing it with your manager and team not writing Allison.

    I don’t doubt you know what’s best for your health and work performance but this is going to look off to most people.

    I really hope your health improves and you get a vacation.

  30. Zarniwoop*

    #3 “everyone is stressed, overworked, and demoralized” and you just saw that someone’s job searching on LinkedIn.
    I’d say your best reaction is to say ”that’s a good idea” and start looking too.

  31. Peanut Hamper*

    #3 — FWIW, my LinkedIn always says I am looking for a new job, because I am. Sometimes that search is super serious and focused, and other times it’s very casual: I’ll just look at open positions but don’t get excited about anything.

    My point is that I’m always on the hunt for something better, no matter how much I like my job. If my company wants to keep me, then they need to keep me happy. I’m fine with my current job, and I love my colleagues, but the pay and benefits here are a joke. My immediate supervisor knows this, and our upper management is finally starting to become maybe a little bit aware that maybe, just maybe, we have a retention problem that is tied to compensation.

    TL;DR: This is me flipping the script. It’s not that I’m lucky to have a job, it’s that my employer is lucky to have me, and if they want to keep me, they need to keep me happy.

    1. Neurospicy*

      I’m always keeping an eye on the listings as well. These days the best way to get a considerable bump in salary is to change workplaces. Also, there are always unknowns that could come out of nowhere like serious budget cuts. I think it’s smart to have an eye on the market regularly.

  32. Nancy*

    LW1: yes, that looks bad and is a great way to get your company to stop allowing any work from home. Even the way you wrote like toy are truing to get away with something. If you want to take a vacation, take a vacation. If you want to get out of the house, take a walk during lunch or go out in the evening after work.

    LW3: another LinkedIn question? Stop focusing so much in a coworker’s LinkedIn activity.

  33. Big Bird*

    Re #5–I was on the other side of that question–one of our finalists for a mid-level management position got a poor reference from one of the former managers she had listed in her application. (Her reference’s employer has a reputation for being very cut-throat and unsupportive and employing people who fit that mold, so I took the info with a shaker of salt but it did kill her candidacy.) The entire hiring process was a fiasco–the eventual hire flamed out very publicly and didn’t last three months–but I felt badly for that applicant. I have always wondered when I should have given her a heads-up that one of her references was so negative.

    1. WellRed*

      You should have given her a heads up at the time so she could respond to the bad reference or supply another one.

        1. WellRed*

          No? But even if that were the case, they could have named the so called issue without explicitly identifying the reference and ask the candidate about it.

        2. CommanderBanana*

          No. There’s nothing that says you have to let a candidate know that they got a bad reference, and there may be good reasons not to – obviously you want references to be honest – but there’s no rule that you can’t share the results of your reference calls with your candidates.

          There may be very good reasons not to and in my experience most employers won’t.

          I would never put someone down as a reference if I wasn’t sure that it would be positive and I always give them a heads-up that they might be called.

          I have been in the very awkward position of getting a reference call for someone that I didn’t really work with (had never had an overlapping shift) and didn’t know very well and had no idea they were using me as a reference.

    2. I should really pick a name*

      so I took the info with a shaker of salt but it did kill her candidacy

      Could you clarify? This seems contradictory.

      1. bamcheeks*

        I took it to mean, “I personally didn’t put a lot of weight on this but other people did and I wasn’t the final / only decision-maker”.

    3. CommanderBanana*

      I don’t understand how you “took that with a shaker of salt” yet it killed her candidacy, unless other people didn’t.

      And also, yes, you should have.

      1. Silver Robin*

        I imagine it something like:

        “Hey, I have to tell you what the reference said but I really do not think we should put much weight on it. Those guys are cutthroat jerks.”

        “Yeah, but none of the other candidates got anything negative from their references so we are going to go with the ones that have no reason for doubt”

    4. Mireya*

      I heard of someone whose manager eventually told them a reference had bad-mouthed them during the hiring process. To alert the employee they might not want to give that person as a reference again.

  34. AG*

    LW4- I send a page-long resignation email to my employer when I left over a matter of conscience– namely, I tasked with supervising children, families, and employees in a truly unsafe environment. Mold, asbestos, electrical issues, boiler out of compliance, etc. My boss knew all about these issues and refused to address them.

    In my resignation letter, I spelled all of this out. I also kept copies of every piece of documentation: violations, fines, and emails in which my requests for necessary repairs were denied.

    After I submitted my letter of resignation, I went ahead and filed for unemployment. Guess who didn’t contest it!

  35. yikes*

    for the wfh while having heart issues–
    yeah, i’d say the optics are bad. “i’m too sick to make it into the office, but i can fly across the country to go on vacation” is going to look bad, and at a minimum call into question your judgment. especially in a touchy office – your managers do not want to have to hear from your peers “but jimmy gets to work from disneyland and i can’t wfh????” not a good idea.

  36. Blue Pen*

    #3 — I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason not to. If this candidate has been punctual, responsive, and reliable up to this point, I’d say it’s just as likely something out of their control (e.g., a health emergency, car accident, etc.) happened as it is they just ghosted you. If they reach out to you to apologize and explain, I’d doubly believe the former happened (assuming there are no other red flags).

  37. Aye Nonny Nonny*

    #4 is timely because the company I’m being rebadged (forcibly transferred due to outsourcing) to next month has just been called out by the FTC for unfair pricing practices. This gives me yet another reason to move on.

    1. Aye Nonny Nonny*

      It’s Accenture, and they’re giving me a year (supposedly) to train offshore employees to do my job. So yeah it sucks all around.

  38. WellRed*

    OP 1. “I want to WFH for health reasons” doesn’t really jibe with”but I don’t want to just sit around at home.” Take a vacation or WFH. Those are your options in this case.

  39. JLC*

    OP3: Personally, I’d let the analyst know I can see the posts in case they aren’t aware and want to be more discrete. I’d also be explicit that I haven’t and won’t discuss this with anyone else. This limits the riskiest outcome to “nothing has changed” and opens the door to any benefits two people talking openly can produce. True nothing may come of it as your description is worrying, but at least two humans will have made a connection in a tough time.

  40. MsM*

    LW5, I agree it wouldn’t hurt to double-check that what your references are saying lines up with the impression you want to be giving, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility this is more about these organizations than you. My worst job insisted I have a call with one of their consultants after the reference stage that consisted of “are you sure you can handle X?”, and in retrospect, that should’ve been a red flag.

  41. ecnaseener*

    In #3, can anyone explain what it means that each team is “down at least a headcount” ? Does it just mean down at least one person (one head) or is it some other unit? I’ve only heard headcount used as meaning the total number of people, but that wouldn’t make sense for each team to be down the entire team.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      I took it to mean down one person.

      Doing the math, if you had five people on a team, and were down one, it would mean that each of the remaining four people would have to pick up ten extra hours of work and cram it into a 40-hour week. No wonder the coworker is looking!

  42. EA*

    OP1, your plan sort of confirms all the fears that some companies have about allowing WFH, like that people will put in low effort without direct supervision in the office or secretly be flexing (or just skipping, as it sounds like in your question?) working hours to travel. There are flexible and pro-WFH companies, but yours isn’t one of them. You should just take vacation if you want to travel and not risk WFH permissions in the future – for you, and possibly for your coworkers.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      As someone who is WFH, I 100% agree. I am much more productive and happy working from home (those two things go hand in hand) and I would never do anything to even remotely risk losing this. OP is not just risking their own opportunity to work from home, but also risking the chance for anyone else at their company to work from home.

    2. CommanderBanana*

      ^^ This. Doing stuff like this runs the very real risk of having your company’s WFH policy re-examined. I would really not want to be the employee whose choices made my company pull or tighten WFH for my coworkers. I can’t imagine you’d have much goodwill left after that.

  43. Hyaline*

    LW4– I would separate your resignation letter (which should literally just be the notice of resignation) from what *else* you believe would be right to do. It depends a great deal on what the matter of conscience is, and if it has to do with direct choices or practices of your company or those in power or if it’s personal. I would seriously consider sending a letter to the board, the upper management, the president, all of the above, whoever makes sense, if your “matter of conscience” involves unsafe working conditions, ethical breaches, illegal actions, harassment. Much like the above poster sending a letter about kids being in an unsafe environment, alerting those in power that you left over the issue seems an ethical thing to do. However , if it’s that you have recently become vegan and no longer want to work for McDonald’s, or are Catholic and can’t continue per your conscience to distribute birth control at your pharmacy job, that’s a “you” issue and no one needs to hear about it.

  44. Terrible at Making Usernames*

    Question on Alison’s comment to LW1 about the tax issues – I had thought that was only if you moved to another state because of income tax issues, not if you were visiting temporarily? This summer I had planned vacation to travel to another state and an urgent (virtual) planning meeting for an event we run was scheduled that I really needed to be on, so I logged on for the meeting and only put in for a half day of vacation that day. Would something that short cause tax issues? My boss didn’t mention anything when they approved it?

    1. Ginger Cat Lady*

      Depends on the localities. Professional athletes sometimes pay taxes in all the states they play in, even if it’s just one game per season. It’s a complicated thing and not as simple as you might think.

    2. Doreen*

      It’s complicated but the income taxes often depends on how much money is earned within the state being visited – which is why it affects highly paid actors and athletes who work a few hours but often not the actor who earns $500 for working one day in the state. The effects on the business are another story, which your boss may not have considered. ( for example, suppose you somehow got injured during that meeting – does their workers comp insurance cover you out of state?)

    3. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

      It depends on the state, the job, the jurisdiction, a lot of things. A lot of states have a pretty short duration before they tax specifically because Taylor Swift or Patrick Mahomes will only be there a few days, but a few days of their income is A TON of money and they want their cut of it (especially given how disruptive to the city those visits can be).

    4. Daisy-dog*

      In the words of our payroll specialist: “Just don’t tell payroll.” For half a day, it probably did not exceed the limit. But a week, it might.

    5. fhqwhgads*

      The taxes are due based on where the work is done, not where you live. So if you WFH and move, yeah, the work location moved too, so tax implications. “Visiting temporarily” is defined differently by different states, which is why it’s also important for the OP to know what the tax implications are before they decided to just do the thing.
      Generally speaking the requirements kick in at “days” not “minutes”, so your one meeting is probably fine. Your boss also may or may not know the actual rules (or care about them) unless you’re in finance or hr. So “boss didn’t object” isn’t a great measuring stick in general.

  45. CommanderBanana*

    Repeat after me:

    “If my coworker is looking for a new job, or I think they are, that is none of my business.”

    There’s a special circle in hell for people who rat out coworkers they think may be looking for new positions.

    1. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

      The LW was clearly not trying to “rat out” the employee. She said she’d normally be concerned about getting them fired but there is no way anyone is getting fired right now. She seemed more concerned about the additional stress this would put on already very-stressed employees.

        1. CommanderBanana*

          ^^ This. It’s not her business. The potential negative consequences far, far outweigh any good sharing this information would do. It’s not like a company that has been running so lean for so long will magically leap into action to hire new people if they think one person is going to leave.

          And, if her coworkers find out that she shared this information, I wouldn’t blame them for giving her a wide, wide berth.

  46. Hyaline*

    LW1–the more I think on this, the more I think that this might be beyond even just “bad optics” into “your manager might believe you actively lied, and actually not be too far off.” There’s some missing pieces in the story–was WFH granted during the team’s travel week independent of the health accommodation, or in light of it? Because if you requested work from home as an option *due to health* and it was granted *due to health* but you use the flexibility to travel, including, as you suggest you might do, *not telling your boss you’re traveling*–that moves from “bad look” to actively deceptive. Your boss granted working from home for, it seems, one reason–health–and if you use it for other reasons, especially without clearing them, it goes from “bad look” to “feels underhanded.” Now, if the week of WFH while the team is gone has nothing to do with your health request–maybe others have made the same request and gotten it, or it’s been a standing arrangement without the health accommodation–I think you may have more leeway. I still wouldn’t do it, personally, given how anti-WFH your workplace is, and I absolutely would run it past my boss first if I did (and be very, very willing to take “no” for an answer), but it feels less deceptive than “got clearance to WFH solely for health issues, used the flexibility to do whatever the hell I wanted.”

  47. Pretty as a Princess*

    OP1, in addition to security and tax compliance issues, depending on what kind of business you are in, this could create issues during certain kinds of audits. (I am specifically thinking of certain kinds of defense contracts and Defense Contract Management Agency floor audits, but those are definitely not the only kind.) In these cases, one of the things that they can look at is “what are your policies and procedures for knowing and approving where your remote workforce is, do your staff know them, and are they being followed”? These rulesets stem from all sorts of issues like physical security, cybersecurity, workplace safety, etc.

    And… your IT organization, if your company is of any size, also has monitoring and logging of where assets are when trying to access their networks. This again is for security reasons but can also be for compliance reasons. You’d risk being exposed by that.

    In other words – there can be very real consequences for not disclosing where you intend to be, if it is not where you are expected to be. And it would in fact be extremely easy for your company to find out – in fact, depending on the location and patterns of your org, it might even STAND OUT just as part of routine logging that someone in IT then has to investigate.

    I am a huge supporter of flexibility in remote work, ensuring that presence has purpose, etc. But with enough experience under my belt in navigating compliance and security issues, I am not an advocate of misleading your management about where you are.

  48. RebPar*

    For LW1, just a reminder that you do not, and should not, share all your business with your colleagues. Why would you tell your colleague you’re traveling for a week and working remotely from a different city? Repeat after me: Your colleagues are not your family and they often can’t be your friends. Be more discerning about what you share and continue doing exceptional work.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Ooh, boy, there are all sorts of reasons why LW#1 should not do what they proposed to do. This has nothing to do with sharing with colleagues. They are logging in remotely, their IT department will notice that, and this could lead to all sorts of other issues. You need to read the links that A added in her response and the vast majority of comments here describing all the different reasons why this is a bad idea.

    2. CommanderBanana*

      ^^ This is not good advice. Stuff like not telling anyone you’re going to work from a different city are choices that can get WFH yanked for everyone in your organization. Do you want to be that person? I hope not.

      1. Rex Libris*

        It can also cause legal, tax, compliance or policy issues depending on your location, industry, position, workplace, etc. In other words, it can get you fired.

    3. Observer*

      just a reminder that you do not, and should not, share all your business with your colleagues

      While that’s generally a reasonable piece of advice, it’s also utterly irrelevant to this particular situation. And their coworker did them a real favor by pointing out the potential problem.

      Because there is a very significant chance that this will be found out even if the LW never says another word about it. And when that happens, the LW will have a real problem on their hands.

    4. fhqwhgads*

      Your advice here is basically “don’t tell anyone when you intend to potentially break the law, but go ahead and do it”, which is an interesting take that also assumes getting caught only happens due to saying it outloud.

      If LW1’s plans were say, work from Hyannis when they live and usually work in Boston. Sure, do it, nbd, no need to tell anyone. If the plan were work from San Francisco when they live and work in Boston, they’ve got a tax problem, and probably a workers’ comp problem, and potentially other issues too.

  49. Hyaline*

    Re: LW3, I’m seeing a lot of “your coworker looking for work is none of your business.” But indirectly, it is the LW’s business, as they are on a team that seems to be on a streak of not replacing members who leave. They are overworked and are concerned that if one more team member leaves, they’re going to be even further up a creek. The right answer isn’t to rat out the coworker, but if there’s any room to talk to the manager, reiterate the workload issue and ask about plans to fill vacant positions. You could even ask “if another team member left, would we hire at that point?/What’s the long-term plan?” kinds of questions. If it looks like “this is our new reality, we won’t be hiring anyone in the near future, buckle up for being overworked forever” well, the part that becomes yours to play is whether YOU are going to stick around for that shitshow or not.

    1. JS*

      That’s different. You say you are noticing turnover and would imagine there are more people leaving. What’s the plan to address it?

      Not “Jane is looking—we need to stop her!”

      1. Observer*

        Exactly. I don’t think that there is anything that can be done specifically about this person. But the over-arching question of “What’s the plan when the next person quits?” is one that should be addressed.

  50. Manic Pixie HR Girl*

    #4 – I am starting to wonder if you’re my (now former) colleague! I just had this happen, and the individual resigning told me (HR) when she informed me of her notice.

    In our case it was absolutely not a surprise given what the issue was and her area of expertise. It was a recent policy decision that was not easily reversible at this juncture, and she went to a competing entity that is in favor of her views on the policy vs. where we are. She was a great employee and no one (that I know of – I certainly did not!) took her resignation for those reasons poorly, but it definitely made sense for her to move on given the circumstances.

  51. Raisin Walking to the Moon*

    OP4 LW4 #4 I’m a huge fan of telling the truth when your conscience inspires you to act. Just remember the impact afforded by brevity.

  52. Cat Tree*

    LW1, you don’t mention anything in your letter about seeking medical care. And maybe you’re already doing it but didn’t mention it because it’s none of our business.

    But if you have a doctor advise you to WFH who also clears you for travel, that gives it a level of legitimacy. And who knows, maybe a doctor would advise other things to help you, separate from WFH.

  53. Blarg*

    LW1: I think I’ve shared this before on a different letter. But I’d encourage you to consider if the worst comes to pass regarding your concern, and how you’d feel if you didn’t say something. I left a job that had some inherent security risks and I felt they were no longer taking safety seriously enough. I specifically stated that in my resignation letter. And when, about a year later, the terrible thing I feared may happen did, I was devastated for my old colleagues (this involved violence & death). But I was also glad that I had put it in writing. I was but a tiny cog in their giant wheel, but I am glad that I at least tried to raise alarms in several ways and to many higher ups, before ultimately resigning over the issue and being clear that’s why.

  54. Don't Call Me That*

    LW1, some companies do feel differently about WFH vs remote work, maybe that’s part of your coworker’s perspective?
    My organization is super flexible with working from home, but the expectation is that if needed, we can be in the office within 30-45 minutes if something comes up. If we want/need to work remotely from a place that isn’t home, it’s approved more on a case-by-case basis.

  55. BikeWalkBarb*

    LW 5, a suggestion–

    Don’t just ask people if they’ll serve as a reference, if that’s what you’ve been doing.

    Ask if they’ll serve as a reference for a specific job, tell them why you’re interested and think it would be a good fit, mention things you did while working with them that make you a good candidate, and tell them what you’ve been doing more recently that added to the parts of your experience they’re familiar with. Put what you want them to say top of mind and don’t rely on them fishing up a few random things. Stay in touch with them over time. Nurture the relationship and their awareness of your growing skills so their version of you doesn’t get stuck in time.

    I was a reference for one person for possibly two decades. This person was a star and I could say general glowing things, but after a while any specifics of “especially super-duper at XYZ” were gone and I didn’t know why they were going after the next position or how the experience of working for me prepared them. I needed to be reminded, and putting the reminder in the context of the position they were applying for would be doing me a favor as well as doing one for themselves.

    Reference checks often have canned questions. If your references are willing to share the specific wording of the questions they were asked that would help you prepare them for those too. They can add helpful color commentary to just about any question.

    I just had the weird question in a reference check for a very senior-level candidate of whether they were generally punctual. I laughed and asked the reference checker, who was filling a position they’d held until recently, whether they had made a habit of being late to meetings. Such a weird question for an executive position!

    But knowing that might get asked in future, I can now be prepared to note other elements of timeliness and time management beyond “generally seems to log into Teams on time”, such as doing good prep in advance or something like that. (I should add that this is in my own agency, I’ve done reference checks for positions, and that hasn’t been a question on the forms I’ve been given. Still seems weird.)

  56. Khatul Madame*

    LW2, if you are at a “major national non-profit”, I am guessing there is at least one recruiter, internal or external, involved in the hiring process. This recruiter should reach out to the candidate and find out why they no-showed.
    If you are not a recruiter, do not contact the candidate. Let the recruiter do their job.

  57. Ginger Cat Lady*

    There’s something very amusing to me about companies getting very upset when they get ghosted, but ghosting candidates is routine and expected. And we shouldn’t take it personally because hiring is SO hard and they just don’t have time to notify candidates who don’t get picked. Never mind that those candidates have done two rounds of interviews and a project, they should never expect companies to spend 30 seconds sending an email to let us know they’ve “gone another direction” or whatever euphemism is the trendy one in HR these days.

  58. Ginger Cat Lady*

    I can absolutely see where “my heart issues are so bad I need extra rest and cannot commute to the office” and “I’m healthy enough to fly across the country for funsies” can create bad optics, because they seem to be at odds.

  59. Throwaway Account*

    for the last one about references, it could also be someone future employers are contacting who is not one of your references (someone else may have said that, I did not read all the comments).

    My current job contacted someone I did not list as my reference, the head of my last organization, and I did not love what she said about me, but happily, my new job took it in the best light. So it might not even be one of your references!

  60. grumblecore*

    My workplace just hired a senior management-level position, and everyone’s favorite candidate–who did a great presentation and generally was a star in all the meetings and interviews–turned out to have references that made the boss so wary they went with someone else. (They even did two rounds of reference checks with additional people to make sure.) It was shocking–and also very interesting to see how someone who interviewed REALLY well ended up having serious red flags.

    1. Mireya*

      I once heard job interviews described as, “ All they’re doing is hiring the better actor.“

  61. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

    LW1: I’m the director of an all-remote team that liberally allows domestic travel. here are a few things to consider re: the optics. These are things I’d be thinking about in any “asked for an exception to strict WFH policies/want to travel” context regardless of the reason for the WFH request, not specific to your health situation:
    – Are you hesitant to tell your boss about your travel plans? If so, that instinct may be coming from a place where you know they would be less-than-thrilled if they found out. (And if you’re prepared to cancel the trip anyway, why not just ask and be transparent about it?)
    – What happens if your travel logistics melt down? Like, your flight gets delayed, you get stuck somewhere for three days, and now you’re trying to work from the airport when you were supposed to be back in-office? Or your hotel WiFi is inconsistent and you can’t find a good public place to work from? At least one disruptive issue of some kind is likely to occur in a weeklong trip, so what do you think the reactions of your colleagues will be if/when that happens?
    – Is whoever approves WFH requests monitoring output closely when folks WFH, such that a change in output is likely to be noticed? (This isn’t a question of whether you’ll be less productive – you sound confident that you won’t be – it’s just a question of whether any differences in productivity would impact impressions of your WFH reliability in general, and whether that’s worth the risk knowing travel can introduce unpredictable and uncontrollable productivity impacts.)
    – Beyond the general resistance to WFH, do other folks openly travel for personal reasons when they’re remote/off-site? If that culture doesn’t already exist, how do you feel about being the one to push it?

  62. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain*

    Off on a tangent about the ghosting interviewee… but is Director a high-level where you work? Because even an Executive Director is top-of-the-middle management at my org. Have to get up to Assistant or Associate VP to really be top-level. I was thinking about this because I can see giving a high-level candidate that benefit of the doubt and trying to reschedule, but a candidate ghosting for a middle-management position wouldn’t really be worth the effort.

    1. LJ*

      Are middle managers applying in droves where you work? I mean I hope *any* candidate deserves a 1min check in phone call from the recruiter at least, but assuming the worse of a management candidate seems shortsighted. Maybe they had technical difficulties, as others have alluded to. Maybe they had a crisis at their perfectly good existing job. All kinds of reasonable explanations that either of the parties should reach out to clarify.

      1. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain*

        “Are middle managers applying in droves where you work?” Yes. Everyone who wants to move up from a lower level like “coordinator” “associate” “assistant” or “[program] manager” — lower paying jobs— is applying for the lower management positions like Director.

    2. GoGoGuardos*

      OP here. It is high level at my org, but we have a pretty flat hierarchy as it is. This role would be about #2.5 in the entire department and about 4.5 in the org (I say “.5” because the Director would be the VP’s deputy)– it would go President Teapot Manufacturers Association>SVP, Communications >VP, Teapot Manufacturing Advocacy and Association Member Communications>Director, Manufacturing Advocacy and Association Member Communications.

    3. fhqwhgads*

      I know plenty of orgs where there’s no such level as Assistant VP or Associate VP or VP. It’s Director and then the head-honcho – whether that top person is “President” or “Managing Director” or ‘CEO’.
      The letter calls it a high-level position, so I’d take the highness of the level as a given over whatever example titles they mentioned.

      1. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain*

        I was intending to poll people here where Director lands in their org., not be explained-to that orgs are all different.

        The OP actually called it a high-level interview BTW. That could mean the interviewers were the important people, not necessarily the job. Interesting that the OP answered 3 hours before you jumped right in to help explain it all to me.

  63. Mia*

    LW1: This is definitely bad optics. Maybe it’s just me, but travel can be tiring. So you’re asking to rest but then traveling? As someone who also has health issues I guess I don’t fully understand how traveling to a new city is supposed to help you rest. If I was your manager and found this out I would feel like I was lied to. And as someone who also has health issues, it actually feels like you’re trying to use health as an excuse to travel.

    1. Rainy*

      I think it depends a lot on the health issue.

      If I were having a rough time due to wildfire smoke, for example, traveling to a city with good air quality for a week and being able to go outside and take a brisk walk without then ending up in the emergency room for a neb and a course of high-dose pred would be good for my health even if I found travel tiring, which I don’t. Travel is invigorating for lots of people, and staying in a hotel where you aren’t responsible for cooking or cleaning and the quotidian administrative tasks of home were left at home is always *very* restful for me.

    2. Chriama*

      I think especially in the context of how OP’s wfh was only begrudgingly granted for a week when everyone else is out of the office for business, it would seem sneaky or disingenuous. I could also see other coworkers being upset. No one else is allowed to work from home. OP got special permission for a medical condition, and is now using that to give themselves an extra travel perk.

      I tried to think of a comparable situation to illustrate the “unfairness” and this is what I came up with. Imagine OP worked at an office where people travelled to other sites but were expected to check in at the office at the end of the day, and she got special permission to go straight home because one of her visits ends at 4:45 and is 15 minutes away from the office. Then the schedule changes to end at 4:30. All other coworkers who have site visits ending at 4;30 are expected to come back to the office for the last 15 minutes of the work day, but OP continues to go straight home. It’s not an inherently unreasonable action but it’s at odds with the established company culture and is taking advantage of special flexibility that was given to you for a specific reason.

  64. I Have RBF*

    RE leaving over a matter of conscience: At one job the marketing department severely violated the ethics of our field. Embarrassingly so, publicly so. Several of us said, and meant it, that we would quit if it happened again, and that the marketing folks needed to understand that it was not an acceptable thing to do. They sheepishly apologized.

    Thing is, the damage was done, the bad rep was established. The company subsequently laid off over half of their workforce, including me, a few months later – in 2000. I was out of work for a year and a half.

    If I worked for CloudStrike right now I would be job hunting like mad. Cause an international outage? Company will not recover from that for years.

    1. Rainy*

      Given that Kurtz has now presided over two of the exact same IT disasters, if there’s any justice in the world he’ll end up answering phones somewhere, but I expect he’ll just continue to fail upward while the rank and file get riffed.

      1. CommanderBanana*

        I think a fitting punishment would be for everyone who got stranded to be able to give him a swift kick in the shins, but yes, he’s a white male techbro so he’ll likely just continue to fail upwards. Such talent, much genius.

      2. I Have RBF*

        Yeah, it is pretty obviously a major failure in leadership, where his MBA cost cutting layoffs severely impacted the quality of their flagship product. But you know the idiot will keep his job while even more of the company will get laid off as their sales numbers tank. Tech bros like him never pay the price for their idiocy. It’s always the front line folks. Now he’s 0 for 2.

        He apparently laid off most of the QA team, figuring that they were a waste of money. Lots and lots of software companies do this. They try to push QA and testing onto the developers, and it never really works, because unit tests aren’t integration tests, and you can’t automate testing for edge cases. But some stupid business school has taught them that this will save money without damage. This is part of the continued enshitification of tech – the rule of the MBA tech bro with the layoff list.

        The same thing is what has happened with Boeing – MBAs take over, start “cutting costs” and cutting people, and the people left get pressured to cut corners.

        1. Rainy*

          Laid off most of the QA team….oh gods, it is to laugh.

          Speaking of cutting the teams that do QA and safety…I watched a short doc on electric cars a while back where the doc team went into a couple of different electric car manufacturers’ design and production facilities and the engineers and assembly workers who made stuff like the Leaf were so excited and proud of their cars and eager to talk about it and how it was made and the advances the car represented and then the guys (ALL GUYS) in the Tesla facility were terrified–like, the body language of people in a horror movie before the jump scare you know is coming–and clearly reciting a memorized script given to them by someone else.

  65. Spaypets*

    Letter 2: we had almost the identical thing happen recently. The candidate didn’t show for a Zoom interview. I texted after 15 minutes because I was concerned that they had trouble connecting or we’d gotten our signals crossed. I got a reply that basically said, “Something came up, can we reschedule.” I replied that we’d get back to them.

    There was no follow up apology or explanation asking for another chance. Since the candidate had the weakest resume of all who applied with a work history consisting of a lot of jobs last only a year or so, we chalked it up to a bullet dodged.

  66. per my last email*

    for #5 – This last job search was my toughest and I seriously wondered in my own job search if my references were negatively affecting my applications! I had 2 would-be employers tell me I was their top pick and asked me for references. Then they ghosted me. I kept replaying things in my head wondering if my old manager who laid me off (and seemed unhappy to have to do so) would still want to sabotage my job search somehow – even though I was on unemployment so you’d think he’d want me to get off the unemployment he paid into ASAP.

    Later I did find a job and it was a much better fit than the companies that ghosted me anyway. My manager mentioned that when she was looking into hiring me my old manager actually had a glowing review of me! She said he even got choked up mentioning that he was disappointed that he had to let me go. It was a relief to confirm there was no sabotage and I guess those other companies were just flakey. Best of luck to you in your search!

  67. STEM Admin*

    Story time. Twice I’ve had to reach out to high level candidates who didn’t show up for the scheduled Zoom interview with the hiring panel. With the first candidate I texted or called (don’t remember), and they were in the middle of a snowstorm. Everyone understood and we scheduled a new time. The next time we waited for about 15 minutes. We all left and I sent an email wishing them luck in their job search. 10 or 15 minutes after that I received a notice that the candidate had logged into the meeting, followed promptly by an email apologizing and asking to reschedule. I did not respond.

    A couple of years later there was a similar problem. I reached out to the candidate by phone, and they immediately jumped on the interview. They’d been vacationing when the meeting request was sent. Outlook has a quirk in that it will convert appointments to the local time zone, but doesn’t reset it when you travel back to your permanent time zone. Every person on the interview panel had experienced that problem, so we all agreed it shouldn’t count against the candidate. FWIW, the candidate was dressed casually (obviously not ready for an interview that was on their schedule for the following day) and still nailed the interview.

    Context and resolution can make a big difference.

Comments are closed.