my team has an all-male soccer betting pool, employer asks new hires to list all their prescriptions, and more

by Alison Green on August 12, 2024

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

1. My team has an all-male soccer betting pool

My team includes two women (including me) and five men, three of whom are huge soccer fans. A few months ago, the three of them decided to form a betting pool on a large soccer event. They invited the other two men on the team (who are not huge soccer fans) to join the pool, but did not invite the two women.

The first pool was a success, so the five of them did another betting pool for a subsequent soccer event, and then another one for the Olympics. It has become quite a public office event that is widely discussed throughout the day, and it often culminates in outings where the five of them go to watch the games they’ve bet on together after work.

It seems likely to me and the other woman on the team that the men did not intentionally mean to exclude the women from this pool, as they are all quite nice guys with whom we get along well with. However, we could not help but notice the optics of the decision not to ask us. It seems blatantly sexist and we feel like, principally, it is bad for the office to have so much of work chat centered around an activity that only the men were invited to join.

We have been going back and forth, however, about whether we should do something to address this. I imagine that if we spoke up and outright asked to join the betting pool, they would allow us in. The thing is that neither of us are particularly interested in soccer, so we don’t actually have a strong desire to participate in this betting pool. Is it worth bringing to the rest of our team’s attention that there’s a very visible gendered dynamic to this group they’ve formed, or should we let it go since, in this case, the organizers happen to have correctly guessed that the two women wouldn’t be interested?

I’d leave it alone. Could it have been handled better, by originally inviting everyone to participate even if you declined? Sure. Is it outrageous that they didn’t think to do that initially? Not really if they correctly knew you wouldn’t be interested, and especially because it sounds like originally it was just going to be for a single event. Now that it’s turned into something more long-running, you’re not wrong that it’s not great to have so much work socialization be single-gender … but from a practical perspective, I don’t think there’s a lot to gain by addressing it when you don’t actually want to participate (and when the Olympics just ended anyway, and perhaps this activity with it).

That said, I’m curious about the gender dynamics in your office. If you’re already dealing with sexist dynamics on your team, I can see why this would especially grate. If it’s not something that normally rears its head as a problem, I’d be extra inclined to leave this alone.

To be clear, the circumstances matter here. This is different from, for example, this company that sponsored annual golf trips that women never participated in (in that it’s not company-sponsored and is smaller, less formal, and likely shorter-running). It would also be different if any of the woman asked to participate and were rebuffed.

2. Employer asks new hires to list all their prescription medications

This is a question about an organization that I left, but still bothers me. After some turnover at my last job in a mid-sized nonprofit, new employees were being asked to list the prescriptions they used on their new hire paperwork. Some of the new employees refused to list this information, and our director of facilities — who did not process our new hire paperwork but did perform required background checks on new staff — would inform the new employee’s manager and the two would pressure the new hire to list what prescriptions they used.

I found this to be deeply upsetting since some prescriptions can identify key aspects of one’s identity, including some protected classes of individuals. Some prescriptions have stigmas attached to them, and some might be banned in the future (for example, birth control). Can employers require staff to declare any and all prescriptions they use? Can staff simply lie about these prescriptions if they do not want to out themselves?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions (including about medications) unless it’s job-related and consistent with business necessity. For an employer to legally ask about prescriptions, the employee must be in a safety-sensitive position (like if you were a bus driver using a medication that could cause drowsiness). For the vast majority of jobs, this inquiry would be illegal — but whether it was illegal in your organization depends on the nature of the jobs.

Related:
my office is requiring us to disclose all medications we take

3. Is my employer gaslighting me?

I’ve been working in the nonprofit sector for the last ten years. It’s a small organization, less than 20, and I’m on an even smaller team and we are fully distributed. My question is about feeling gaslighted (gaslit?) and what, if anything, can be done.

Over the years, many micro-instances of this have occurred; I’m only flagging the most consequential ones. I’ve watched new hires come (and go) at much higher pay or with less experience and immediately move up the ranks. Others have been given training opportunities to advance or been given a voice in their career trajectory. There is a long history of nepotism at this org too. Below are two instances that bother me the most and enforce the narrative in my head that I don’t deserve better.

My manager is retiring, and at one point, I was to inherit that role as the two of us have worked together closely the entire time. A few years ago, they decided I was not the one for that role, and a good friend of management was hired to inherit that position. I was talked at when they made this decision and asked if I was okay with it (as if I had a choice or a say) and told it’s because I’m so good at bringing in the money, they don’t want me doing anything else. (It’s true that the millions in revenue I’ve brought into the org have directly contributed to making it through the pandemic.) It still felt crummy. I took it like a champ, but it stung.

More recently, we hired another person who will be on the same team as me and who, once again, is being elevated and given the opportunity, agency, and voice. At least they are not related to anyone on staff, but they look and sound a lot like my soon-to-be-retired manager, so perhaps nepo-by-osmosis is happening.

Just last week, our executive director said in a team meeting that this new person would get to do X, Y, and Z and that I would feel left out, and they asked me if that was okay. I was flabbergasted but said, “I don’t have any say in this, so yes.” But I am crushed, burned out, and tired of feeling worthless. I am the lowest-paid teammate (and have the heavy/heaviest workload) and am soon to be the longest tenured on this team.

When you add these instances up over the course of many years, I feel like I’ve lost my compass, so I’m reaching out to an outside voice. Am I being gaslit, or is this normal for an organization? I would like to have more agency and opportunity and to be seen and treated like a valuable colleague. And of course, I want to be paid what I’m worth. But each time that opportunity presents itself, the gaslighting happens.

I don’t know if you’re being gaslit or not (that would involve a deliberate intent to mess with your head, so it’s unlikely but who knows), but it doesn’t really matter. What we know for sure is that you’re not getting the advancement or recognition that you want in this job, and that’s been the pattern over a number of years. That on its own is reason to look outside the organization for a different job.

You don’t need to sort out whether this is gaslighting or normal or anything else. You’re unhappy and burned out and there is a pattern of not getting what you want in this org, even as others do. Their reasons for that could be entirely understandable each time it’s happened, but it doesn’t matter because this job isn’t meeting your needs, and hasn’t been for a long time. You get to leave for that reason alone!

4. Company wants a verbal acceptance before sending an offer letter

My husband just received a verbal job offer for a higher-seniority position from a small company in the private sector. He requested a written offer with details of the compensation, and HR sent an email with only a salary, annual bonus percentage, and “total compensation” value, with an attached booklet on medical and retirement plans available.

The thing that really got me about this was the following line: “If this fits within your scope, we’ll draft up an offer letter. We can discuss the start date after a verbal offer acceptance.”

Am I misunderstanding this, or does it seem like they want him to verbally (or by email) accept their offer before giving him an actual offer letter? That sounds bananapants to me! The process up until now makes it seem like a very inexperienced HR person. The legal mind in me says this is not a great procedure, but a verbal agreement is not necessarily binding. What say you?

This isn’t uncommon. They’ve sent him the details of the offer and they’ll formalize it once he decided if he wants to accept (and presumably after any negotiation has occurred so the details are finalized). The only part that’s weird is that they don’t want to discuss start date yet, but he could just introduce that into whatever negotiation or discussion of the offer he’s going to have — for example, if it’s important to him to have a start date that’s between X and Y weeks out, he can say that now. If there’s any other info he needs before making a decision, he can ask for that now too. Basically, this company is opening negotiations and sees the offer letter as simply memorializing whatever details are hammered out by the end of that process.

I think you’re balking because it feels weird that they’re not making it formal now. But he has an offer. If it changes when the formal letter shows up, he’s not obligated to stick to an earlier yes.

5. I announced a new job — how do I now share that I’m taking a different one instead?

In May, I accepted a job offer that I was reasonably excited about, so I announced the new job on both LinkedIn and my personal social media. I am taking the bar exam this summer, so I was not scheduled to start this new job until September.

However, a few weeks after I accepted the job, I was offered another position that was better for me in pretty much every way — better salary, much more in line with my career goals, easier commute, the works. I accepted that position and gracefully extricated myself from the first job and am on good terms with them (and I even referred someone to them that they ended up hiring in my place).

However, how do I handle publicizing that change to my personal and professional network? At the time, I quietly took down the posts announcing my acceptance of the first position and did not say anything about the second position, particularly since I won’t start there until September either. Do I acknowledge that I had previously announced that I would be working one place but have since accepted another position — and if so, how do I explain that change without denigrating the first job or making it seem like they let me go? Do I just quietly update my LinkedIn status with my new job when I start it in September and just explain what happened if anyone asks? To what extent do I need to explain the change?

Nah, just go ahead and announce the new job when you start it or just before, if that’s something you want to do. You don’t need to acknowledge that this is a change. Lots of people won’t even remember, so there’s no need to draw attention to it. If anyone asks, you can simply say, “I ended up being offered a different role that was an even better fit.” But you don’t need to get into the details; most people won’t care that much (unless they’re close to you, in which case they’re likely to already know anyway).

You may also like:
{ 429 comments }

{ 429 comments… read them below }

  1. NurseThis*

    Re #1, I may be in the minority but I find gambling and betting pools at work very alienating. Especially in an open office they can take over the work place. It is one of the irritants that I don’t miss in retirement. I did find it very gendered and that the time allotted to conducting the brackets etc far in excess of anything anyone else was allowed to pursue.

    1. Nodramalama*

      I think this can be very culture dependent. In Australia it’s quite common to have organisation wide footy tipping that definitely goes across all genders

      1. anon for this*

        I’m a woman and I organized our pools at work! World Cup, Euros, NHL playoffs, and even the Oscars. I tried my best to make it inclusive as we could: literally everyone in the company was invited to participate, and I think we generally ended up with gender parity.

        I was always a bit leery about the gambling aspect, so that part was optional. If you wanted to pay the entry fee, you were eligible to win the pot of money at the end, but if you didn’t want to gamble but still wanted to participate, that was fine too (you just didn’t get the money if you won). This worked pretty well over the years.

      2. TM*

        It’s even more alienating to be surrounded by people into footy pools and so on, especially in Oz, and especially when you fimd gambling to be pretty abhorrent. But yes, “at least” it’s not so gendered in Oz.
        I get people find that kind of stuff a bonding thing to do*, and it’s honestly fine if it’s like “stepping goals” and similar stuff at work – invite people, do a morning tea for participants at the end of the season, briefly chat about it with those into the same thing. But if I have to hear than 5 mins a day about it in my work area, my patience runs very thin.
        *The “bonding” thing is why I tolerate at all, rather than consigning it to the “sht I don’t want to hear about at work category” , e.g. diet talk, conspiracy theories, religion (pro AND anti)
        **my tolerance for gambling is low because of a childhood affected by it, and I honestly think advertising of it should be banned, along with the workplace as a recruitment ground for engaging in it

      3. Freya*

        My all-female-presenting office had a joint entry in the male-dominated tipping competition that a big client provides to all employees and contracted workers who want to participate (free entry, winners get gift cards under the FBT limit). We bowed out after we won the second year in a row…

          1. sarahB*

            I don’t know where Freya works, but I work in mental health— the counseling office where I work is all female. Prior to that, I worked in a small elementary school, which was all female.

            1. UKDancer*

              I’ve worked in small retail outlets (all staffed by women) and in a small charity (all staffed by women). Bigger companies absolutely are more diverse but if your employer is a small company / charity it’s a lot less likely to have a diverse workforce, especially in some sectors.

            2. Smurfette*

              I worked in an all-female company (a UX research and design agency). It was tiny and staffed entirely by friends and family of the owner (except me). What a nightmare.

            1. allathian*

              Yeah, in my area women translators outnumber the men by about 20:1.

              I generally enjoy working in environments where the gender parity is more or less equal. In my team it isn’t, but in the organization at large it is. Our biggest big boss is a man, but the divisional directors who make up the C-suite are evenly split, 2 men and 2 women. All 3 department directors in my division are women, and both team leads in my department are also women. Granted, we’re on the admin side, but there are women directors on the production side as well. Overall, our employees are about half and half, with a handful who’ve declined to state their gender (out of 1,800 employees).

          3. Jay (no, the other one)*

            I work in hospice care and everyone I work with daily is female-presenting. The administrator of the overall agency is a man, and he’s not in our office.

          5. noah*

            I worked for a dental office for a few years. Two men there during my time: myself and one of the dentists. All the other dentists, hygienists, assistants, and front desk staff were women. It wouldn’t be uncommon in the field to have an office that is only women.

          6. Never mind who I am*

            I worked in a nursing school and was the only male employee. Never a wait for the Men’s Room!

          7. Sillysaurus*

            In my career I’ve worked in education and healthcare. In both of these settings there are very few men, and at times that number is zero.

          8. Liz*

            I’ve been on library branches with all female staff. Dudes tend to ascend quickly to management or more academic roles

          9. Freya*

            We do business administration, bookkeeping, and payroll for small to medium sized enterprises (defined in Australia as 5-200 employees (<5 employees are micro businesses, 200+ employees are large businesses), it's a sector that makes up ~98% of the businesses here). Admin and bookkeeping are definitely pink collar fields.

            (and I say female-presenting because I've never talked to my co-workers about their gender since it has no relevance to my job and makes no difference in how I treat them)

      4. Caitlin*

        Footy tipping at least doesn’t always have money involved, sometimes it’s just for fun or bragging rights.

        1. Nodramalama*

          In my experience it’s fairly common to pay to enter the tipping and the winner gets the pot at the end

          1. bamcheeks*

            Same in the UK, but I’ve never seen the entry be more than a pound, and the winning pot be about £20. Back when I started work, that was just about enough to buy a round of drinks: it’s not any more!

            1. lemon meringue*

              Yes the closest my office has done for this was for the Great British Bake Off! When your assigned baker went out, you had to bake or buy something baked for the office that week. For the final week, everyone was encouraged to bring in something. No money in or won but obviously some financial cost for the baking. All completely opt in and you could still eat the baked goodies if you’d opted out.

          2. amoeba*

            It’s common here as well, but just as often people do pay a small amount but that money is just used for a barbecue or drinks for all participants at the end! And honestly, at least I’ve personally never encountered anybody who actually was in it for or cared about the money. I mean, it certainly helps that we’re all well paid and the pool is small – it also then gets distributed among the top 3 (I think? Never been in there, haha), so it’s really not a significant amount. I honestly think of it more as an entry fee to make people a bit more committed about remembering to place their bets!

      5. Ellis Bell*

        It goes across all genders in the UK as well, but I find it alienating because I have no interest in football. Usually I just tune it out but the organiser this year thought it would be a great idea to do an after-work presentation on how it went with certificates!

        1. Cmdrshprd*

          “this year thought it would be a great idea to do an after-work presentation on how it went with certificates!”

          That does not seem like an issue, after-work you can attend if you are part of it and want to or if you are not a part of it you just leave at the end of the day, that way it is not taking up normal work time.

          1. Annie*

            Yeah, I agree. People are allowed to form friendships at work about things you don’t find interesting!

        2. Anon for this*

          I guess I don’t understand this particular take on alienating. Were they only talking about that so you could never join the conversation?

          1. MigraineMonth*

            That’s my understanding of the comment. When a particular topic dominates most conversations for a while–whether that’s Game of Thrones, Cross-Fit, Breast-feeding or Football–it can feel like there’s no way to join a conversation.

      6. too many dogs*

        I giggled for about 3 minutes over “footy tipping” before my slow (American) brain finally figured out what you were talking about. I think I’m going to use your phrase from now on! thanks!

    2. allathian*

      Before the pandemic, people in my office, when I went in nearly every day, had betting pools for at least the winter Olympics and Hockey World Championships. There were no pools for the summer Olympics or Athletics World Championships, or the UEFA and FIFA World Cup(s), etc. because the employees who were the most committed to these events would try to schedule their long vacations for them.

      That said, I can’t claim that they took over the office, people might chat a bit about them during our morning and afternoon coffee breaks, but it’s not as if they ever monopolized the conversation.

      1. Nodramalama*

        The Tokyo Olympics DEFINITELY dominated my workplace! Because of our time zone it was really convenient to sit in the kitchen during work hours and watch the events while working. The Paris Olympics much less so, but there’s still been a lot of chat

        1. GythaOgden*

          Yeah, one of the biggest memories for me of starting work again after being on disability was the Sochi Winter Olympics. Russia is 2-3 hours ahead but it was also the first Games since the massive 2012 London Olympics and we were actually in contention for some medals at a Winter Games.

    3. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      Yeah in one of my previous companies there was a big focus on lottery pools, soccer betting etc within the particular team and it seemed like it did take up a lot of time. There were more than a handful of occasions where I needed something (work-related) from someone but they were busy with lottery admin or I’d sent an email but they hadn’t seen it as it got lost in the middle of a reply-all frenzy with banter about soccer etc. Nothing I could do about it as our manager was one of the participants.

    4. KateM*

      I am in that minority with you – how come it is fine for gambling to take over an office like that?

      1. amoeba*

        I don’t think you’re in a minority at all – most people (including me) would be annoyed by a betting pool that actually takes over the office! For us, it is generally at most a few minutes of chat a day during breaks (if that much, most days it’s just not mentioned at all). Plus, like, three e-mails total. So very low-key and probably not even noticed by those who choose not to join.

      2. Antilles*

        Is it really common for an office pool to “take over the office” like this though? OP’s situation seems way beyond the norm from what I’ve seen, at least here in the US.
        Every office I’ve ever worked in does some kind of pick’em or bracket pool around March Madness and it’s usually like 1-3 office-wide emails upfront announcing it and reminding people to join. Afterwards, it’s just a email/Teams thread with the people who joined and maybe some minor chit-chat about “how’s your bracket doing”.
        I’ve occasionally been part of fantasy football or College Football Pick’Em or something like that through work and all of them have similarly low level of importance/time spent on it.

        1. Star Trek Nutcase*

          My various workplace offices (academic and state) didn’t have betting pools but OMG the local university football (America) obsessive discussions – pre-season, season, tailgating, recruitment, coach changes, NFL draftees, post-season, championships, ad nauseum. Average work days was bad enough, but gawd forbid it was game weekend approaching! By the end of each season, the discussions turned to past history football crap.

        2. Tippy*

          And honestly it doesn’t sound like it’s “taken over”. The pool is discussed at work and those who participate go watch games after work.

    5. Fluffy Orange Menace*

      I agree. I’m based on Australia, sports based workplace gambling is extremely common and in your face, and due to personal reasons I do not gamble under any circumstances, as well as I’m against the highly specific sport due to long track record of animal abuse. I was deemded as a bad person because of it.

      I know this isn’t the point, I only wish that I could be excluded by default for anything addiction fostering at work place.

      1. Nodramalama*

        I assume you’re talking about the Melbourne cup? I 100% agree and do not participate in the work (whatever the betting system for the cup is called). We didn’t host it last year and it caused a fair amount of constenation

        1. Fluffy Orange Menace*

          Yes, that. I don’t participate in any gambling, but my distaste for Melbourne Cup is another level.

      2. WS*

        Yeah, it’s so normalised here! My workplace had been in a local footy tipping competition for years and eventually I said that this is kind of a bad look for a healthcare organisation and people were surprised by most agreed, at least.

    6. a clockwork lemon*

      My company has taken a hard line on stuff like this based on the idea that it may be exclusionary or sexist–I’m not sure I appreciate HR deciding for me that because I am a woman (therefore less likely to play fantasy football, I guess?) I am not allowed to participate in an off-hours social activity with my colleagues just because the initial organizing has to be on work systems as a matter of logistics.

      1. Lydia*

        No, I think it’s okay for HR to say they ban certain activities because 1. They tend to be closely associated with sexism, racism, homophobia and a whole raft of other things and 2. Because you’re using work resources to participate.

        1. a clockwork lemon*

          HR is perfectly entitled to do what they’re going to do. I am entitled, as one of the people they are ostensibly trying to “protect” by banning this activity, to be annoyed that this is their position. It’s ridiculous to have someone tell me, a woman, that I cannot participate in a no-stakes social activity with my coworkers because it’s exclusionary towards women in particular and also some people simply don’t like sports.

          1. Lydia*

            They’re telling you not to do it at work, which is well within their purview. They aren’t saying you, a woman, cannot participate in it at all ever. Only that you can’t do it at work, and you can’t use work equipment to do it. I’m not sure what’s so bad about that.

    7. MassMatt*

      I’m not alienated by betting pools but it sounds as though a lot of time at this office is very centered around it, which seems weird. Is the manager OK with this?

    8. Future*

      Most of the betting pools I’ve been at work have been non-sporty. It’s usually the Eurovision Song Contest, but there’s also been who dies in Game of Thrones.

      Also international sport tournaments like the Euros and the World Cup (men’s and women’s) which to me feels a lot more inclusive since even if you don’t know a lot about sport you can still think it’s cool that you got Latvia or whatever.

    9. FemaleSportsFan*

      Not having an annual March Madness pool is one of the things I dislike about my small office. I participated in the NFL pool at a former employer for years after I left until the second time they conveniently forgot to apply my winnings to my tab for participation fees (the first time involved a change of pool administrator). I’ve worked at places that had pretty intense pools and I’d never characterize any of them as taking over the office. The most you’d get is a bunch of congrats to the person who won any given week or pool, but that’s mostly it. Sports talk more generally, like discussions of various movies, TV shows, and infrequently books, happens everywhere and is not tied to gambling. In my opinion, it will invariably annoy the people not interested in whatever the topic any particular discussion is focused on, but unless you’re going to ban any social interactions that’s just life because different people have different interests. I found Game of Thrones tiring, and Buffy before that, and I say that as someone nerdy very into SF/F who happened to not to like those particular popular shows. I didn’t engage and waited for folks to finish if it was an environment I couldn’t leave. That’s part of being around people.

    10. Reluctant Mezzo*

      I was invited to be on various betting pools in the Air Force decades ago, and I must say the nice NCO from Supply who ran it was blessedly gender-free in his desire to part us from our money (though we argued about how much of a point spread I should get when my school played Syracuse, long story). It’s odd to hear of one that’s gendered, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

  2. Nodramalama*

    I agree with Alison’s advice for LW1. Unless you want to join I wouldn’t say anything. You also risk having people resent you if you say something with the impression of instead wanting to shut it down, and I personally wouldn’t use social capital on that

    1. TheBunny*

      Neither would I. LW mentions it’s along male/female lines but doesn’t say anything about it being an issue at her work in other areas.

      There was a F1 pool at a former employer. I wasn’t invited… not because I’m female but because no one expected me to be an F1 fan. Once they could out, not only was I getting invited to the conversations but I was getting text messages about big events that happened in the sport.

      Good thing I assumed I was welcome and didn’t assume I wasn’t.

    2. JSPA*

      I’d probably say,

      “I’m not a huge fan of soccer, but I am a huge fan of inclusivity–and of occasionally hanging with my team. If there’s what promises to be an especially exciting match coming up, could you give [me / us] a heads-up a few days in advance and an invitation to come along to the sportsbar, in case either of us can make it?”

      Once or twice a year is culturally interesting, and (unless you’re more generally isolating for health reasons or have a pressing need to get home on time daily, and stay there) it seems like a fair tradeoff for breaking down the hard gender dichotomy.

      (And I’d say the same for a non-knitter wondering about a knitting circle, or any other “non” who’s not unable or opposed, but just… not terribly enthused.)

      1. Lydia*

        I think that’s a good compromise. Go to the organizer directly and request an invite if it’s something you’d like to attend once or twice.

  3. Pink Sprite*

    Re: letter 1: It would be smart to keep a casual ear out for other women talking about the soccer games – especially new employees and those with less seniority/rank. If any of these women indicate any interest in the games, that’s when the women on the team where it started can begin the conversation. No need to make anything awkward or confrontational, just casual.

    1. Observer*

      This is an excellent idea.

      You really are not interested in joining, so making a fuss is not going to give the message you want. But if a woman *does* want to join, then it should absolutely be mentioned.

    2. Agent Diane*

      I think the point about new joiners is key: when anyone joins the team, part of the informal welcome should be “oh, and Maurice here organises the football sweepstakes”. Then if there’s some unconscious bias at work it will correct itself and if it’s a conscious bias then there can be a conversation.

      I’d note that unconscious bias around sports could include not inviting someone who is gay as well.

      1. sparkle emoji*

        Yeah, presenting like “obviously anyone is welcome to join the soccer betting group” seems like the best low-confrontation way to address this.

    3. Nonanon*

      Bingo; I’m one of those “assume ignorance, not maliciousness” people, and IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER FACTORS, LW and her female colleague don’t like soccer. It could be that the people running the betting pool knew that, and just didn’t think to invite them because they assumed they wouldn’t have fun. If Prudence starts with the team, and she likes soccer, and the betting group excludes her, that’s an issue; if there are other larger factors in play (eg the CEO of the company is part of the betting pool), that’s an issue. With the information we have, it’s not clear if this is just coincidence or if the group is ACTUALLY sexist in nature.

      1. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

        In this case, I agree with Alison about it being not a big deal, but ignorance doesn’t make sexism magically become non-harmful to women.

      2. MigraineMonth*

        OP1 comments below that one of the men invited is not interested in soccer and originally declined, but was then pressured by the other men to join.

        So I don’t think the difference between the people invited and the people not invited was “interest in soccer”. In the absence of other information from OP1, we can only speculate on what differentiated the two groups. Do all the men wear glasses, and they didn’t want to invite/pressure women without glasses to join?

    4. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      If they are really nice guys, I would have a little chat now. Not in an accusatory way but just as an FYI, if you guys start expanding this, you might want to keep in mind that you need to ask everyone, even if you think they might not be interested. Definitely mention they should not just assume when it comes to new people.

      If they are decent, they will do better in the future. When we know better, we do better – Maya Angelou. But if they really are sexist well now you know.

      1. Employee of the Bearimy*

        Yes, this is what I would suggest. They probably didn’t even think about the optics, and a simple heads-up comment is probably enough to correct it.

    5. Not on board*

      Agreed. Also, if any of these men end up promoted and in a supervisory/managerial role they need to cease this activity and the hang outs immediately. It’s definitely sexist in nature, but probably not maliciously so.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        Yeah, that’s my biggest concern. As currently set up, this doesn’t seem like a big enough deal to spend capital on: it isn’t company-sponsored, doesn’t include management, isn’t established tradition, might be open to women joining if they want to.

        Except recurring events have a way of becoming tradition, and people move into management, and adding one woman to the boys’ club doesn’t mean it isn’t a boys’ club.

        If I were in management, I’d talk to the people running the betting pool and establish the ground rules that they a) invited everyone on the team interested and b) understood that they couldn’t have any managers in the pool.

        1. Benihana scene stealer*

          Why couldn’t managers participate? We’re usually talking a few dollars and it’s mainly for fun anyway.

          These things are so common and low stakes – in every company I’ve worked at that has done these managers are always included.

          Everyone should still be invited – it’s usually the more the merrier anyway

          1. MigraineMonth*

            The issue isn’t the betting pool/stakes itself, it’s the bonding time such as getting together to watch the games or going out for drinks afterwards. It shouldn’t include managers for the same reason that managers should avoid all social groups with some of their reports but not others: unequal access to management leads to unequal career outcomes.

            In the US, it’s flat-out illegal if the group with more access is male, even if the women voluntarily opt out. There’s a long history of young men being mentored and selected for management positions because they hung out with management at a strip club or played golf with the bosses. (Note: Golf has always been a rich white man’s sport in the US. Tiger Woods had to get special exemptions to play on some courses since he was a man of color, and here are still golf clubs in the US where women aren’t allowed to play.)

    2. TheBunny*

      I disagree. Mainly as I don’t think there’s really a logical reason to wait. As Alison said, people aren’t paying that much attention anyway.

      I usually announce almost immediately. It’s possible I started doing this because I’ve done a lot of recruiting and higher level candidates often check out LI and it would be odd if I didn’t work for the company I’m recruiting for. I’m not sure when I started doing it this way, but it’s definitely what I do.

      That said, I don’t think it matters either way. There’s a school of thought you wait 6 months, but with all the layoffs and downsizing I don’t think it’s all that important any longer.

      1. TheBunny*

        Probation isn’t even a thing. Companies came just magically for someone on day 49 and not on day 90. Unless you’re in Montana, at will kicks in on day 1.

        1. ecnaseener*

          I mean, at many (most?) at-will companies probation is a thing per their own policies — during the probation period they don’t require the manager to jump through as many hoops to fire the person as they do after probation (at least for mundane reasons like poor performance).

          That said, Female canine didn’t say anything about probation, and 6 months would be an unusually long probation (3 months is typical from what I’ve seen) so I don’t think that’s what she necessarily meant.

      2. Also*

        In countries that provide actual work protections within laws that (in theory) stop you from being fired for no reason, or without proper reason, after the probation period has ended? To stop people from trying to sabotage you, such as by calling up your new employer and telling them a bunch of lies or exaggerations to try and make you look bad in the hope they’ll fire you.

        Never underestimate how petty and vengeful some people are.

        1. Lydia*

          That is going to be a very, VERY, rare thing to happen. LinkedIn does not carry as much weight with most people who are on it as some tend to think.

        2. TheBunny*

          I can’t imagine that happening…and if it does why would a new company listen to anything said by an old employer? Frankly were this to happen (which I’ve literally never witnessed and I’m in HR) and the new company gave them any credibility, I’d take it as a sign to find a new job.

    4. Audiophile*

      My last role, I waited over a year to update LinkedIn. That was the longest I’ve waited and I only did it at that point because people from the company were requesting to connect.

      After being burned early in my career, I usually wait about 3-6 months.

      2. I Have RBF*

        I usually do it after 6 months to a year. I still haven’t updated my current on LI. I probably should do that…

      3. Elizabeth West*

        I don’t like it much and only use it when I’m job hunting. When I get a full time job, I update it, turn off “Open to Work,” and ignore it.

    5. ComputerJanitor*

      From an IT security perspective I couldn’t agree more. LinkedIn has absolutely no protections in place to prevent scammers from scraping data from their site and there are automated tools out there that scammers use to ID new employees to target.

      I know exactly when an employee updates their LinkedIn profile because we get a flood of phishing emails to our payroll and HR departments trying to change the employee’s direct deposit bank info. They also target the employee pretending to be a C-suite VIP asking for gift cards, but that’s become less common now.

      1. learnedthehardway*

        Wow – that’s good information to know!

        Personally, I waited until over a year after I had gone off into my own business, before I changed my LinkedIn profile. At the time, I felt like I was jumping off a cliff, without really knowing how things would go, and while I wasn’t working at the old company anymore, it felt a lot safer to me to have that assurance that I really had been in a management role with a major company. Once I was reasonably certain that my venture was going to be successful, then I re-branded myself as Self-Employed.

    6. VP of Monitoring Employees' LinkedIn Profiles*

      I recently saw a goof video in which a boss berated an employee for not updating his LinkedIn on Day 1 (and thus showing complete disloyalty).

      He then abruptly ended the meeting to go to a 30th round interview with an applicant whose LinkedIn already reflected the job.

      1. Polaris*

        That guy does an amazing job on his videos…I wind up such a ball of rage over them (because yeah, I’ve had a boss like that) before I start laughing!!!!

    7. rebelwithmouseyhair*

      That is a good suggestion. I announced a teaching gig that I started in Jan 2020: not the best time to launch a teaching career. I hated the switch to online and decided not to continue teaching in September because the school was going to be completely online all that year. Somehow I haven’t managed to delete it, so it now looks like I’ve been unemployed since then. I suppose I should try again to delete it and make sure it’s obvious I’m still freelancing. LinkedIn has been a great source of work for me and a great way for clients to stay in touch as they move to different companies.

    8. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      This is probably industry dependent, but most people aren’t remembering who announced what when. Or even the details. I would bet you dollars to donuts, most folks don’t even remember OP announcing the first job.

      Others just aren’t as invested in our lives as we think they are.

      1. Hyaline*

        This–stop overthinking LinkedIn, I promise you’re the only person thinking about it this much!

    9. Lady Danbury*

      I usually wait until at least a few weeks in, when I’m reasonably certain that the job meets my expectations (and vice versa) and that I intend to stick around for a while. As today’s LW shows, anything can happen before you even start!

    10. lost academic*

      That would be extremely detrimental in my entire industry. Movement between competitors is common and we update the minute we start a new role. Otherwise you risk losing business to your previous employer, etc. I honestly don’t understand the rationale for 6 months in any field…. unless there’s a role in which there’s a reasonable chance you might not make it past 6 months for some reason? That seems like a very long probationary period to me.

    11. Alan*

      Many years ago I was seeing a therapist for anxiety and at one point he said something both insulting and freeing: “Alan, I know you are really embarrassed about this, but honestly, no one is paying that much attention to you. Everyone’s got their own stuff, and people spend 90 % of their time thinking about themselves.” No one is obsessing over your LinkedIn status. They likely won’t even notice the change.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        This is so true. You’re only the protagonist in your own story, not in anyone else’s.

    12. Cinnamon Stick*

      I’ve worked for one organization that told me to update my LinkedIn profile on Day One with my new title. On the site, I often see people announcing when they’ve accepted a job with a new position. It’s optics that makes you look excited to join the organization.

      While LinkedIn has gone way downhill as a source for networking and business resources, many employers will still compare what’s on your profile to your resume. One hiring manager told me that he wants “to see how a person describes themselves.”

      Obviously everyone’s experience varies, but I think using it still has some value.

    13. el l*

      Agree, if you’re starting out and don’t know better.

      Also agree if you have good reason to worry about leaving a job against your will. Like if your industry has a long track record of layoffs and you’re hired during a downturn.

      But heartily disagree otherwise. Just announce it and don’t worry.

  5. Techie Boss*

    LW3, it stood out to me that both times you’ve been passed over that they’ve asked if it was ok with you, and you said “yes” (although the second time, it was a very lukewarm “yes”). You know your company better than I do, but would it have been ok to tell them straightforwardly that you think you should be considered for the role? It may be true that you don’t have any say in the matter and they had already decided before they asked you, but I would think that flagging for them that not getting the promotion would cause you to be less happy in your job could at least make them consider whether it makes sense to keep you in your current job.

    2. Kella*

      This struck me as well. Perhaps instead of “I have no say in this, so yes?” you could have responded, “Can you give me context on why you’re asking me that? It doesn’t sound like you’d make a different decision if my answer was no, so I’m not clear on what information you’re wanting from me or what that would accomplish.”

      And also, as Alison said, you have plenty of reason already to stop trying to make this work and move on.

      1. English Rose*

        Exactly. OP’s response comes across as passive-aggressive. Your (Kella’s) wording “Can you give me context…” or similar is assertive.
        I do feel for OP but framing it as gaslighting in their own mind is leaving OP feeling like a victim, and internalising “I have no say…” is compounding it.
        OP, sounds like you have great skills and experience, time to move on.

        1. bamcheeks*

          This is a great way of putting it!

          LW, it’s possible to get trapped in a thought-pattern where something has happened at work that makes you feel bad, and you believe the employer has to have done something objectively “wrong” to justify you feeling bad, so you start looking for a Reason. I’ve done this myself before, when I didn’t get a promotion I wanted AND I didn’t get given the opportunities / visibility that would have helped me quality for the next promotion, and I went round and round on resenting the managers and trying to figure out The Thing They Did That Was Wrong, or looking for mistakes by the person who did get the promotion and think about how I would have done it better, AND trying to work out what I could have done differently to be more like that person, and it was EXHAUSTING. And then one day I realised it didn’t matter. I could just say that for whatever reason, this wasn’t a place where I was going to be supporting into a more senior role, and look for somewhere else that was.

          It was honestly so liberating to give up on that thought spiral, and just say, “they’re not that into you, let’s find somewhere else that is”. They don’t have to have done anything wrong, or be actively manipulating you– they’re allowed to think X would make a better manager and prefer Y for the high-profile projects, and yeah, that sucks, but there is probably somewhere else which will recognise your skills and talents and support you much better.

          (This is not to say that companies don’t frequently do stuff Wrong– one of the reasons why experiencing discrimination is so exhausting is because you spend so much time analysing things and second-guessing yourself. But even then, I think “It probably was discrimination, I’m never going to know for sure, but I can definitely see that my goals and this organisation are not aligned so let me look somewhere else” is often the least worst option.)

          1. MigraineMonth*

            I agree with this completely. The company is showing you its priorities through its actions. The ‘why’ doesn’t really matter; the company doesn’t owe you a promotion, but you don’t owe the company loyalty either: go find your promotion elsewhere!

        2. Falling Diphthong*

          Agree with bamcheeks, this is a good way of describing what OP is doing to themselves.

          OP, you have fallen into the trap of focusing on intent rather than outcome. The outcome is that this job doesn’t want to promote you or give you a raise. It doesn’t matter if their secret reason is because you are so effective in your current role, or if they are hoping you will eventually quit so they can move in a nepo hire–what matters is that they aren’t interested in giving you what you want.

          One of my favorite updates on here was someone who had butted heads with management about how to do things multiple times. They were training all the new people but couldn’t get promoted. AAM told him that he wasn’t getting promoted at this spot. In the update he’d found a new job and already been promoted there.

          1. Sandi*

            I think it’s important that LW 3 says that they weren’t promoted because they are really valued in their current role. Currently my bosses really value my skills in my current job and they don’t want to move me into management because I would be hard to replace. Most importantly, they have spoken to me about how they will get me more pay and opportunities that would be similar to the benefits of being in management.

            LW 3: If you like your job then it’s okay to stay there, but only if you get paid much better. It sounds like you do fundraising, and that should be well paid!! If you do well at it then there should be other job opportunities, and I encourage you to take those if you don’t get a raise that reflects your value.

            1. MassMatt*

              Yeah, “you are too important at your current role” does not match with what OP says about being the lowest-paid and most overworked. Nor for that matter does being the lowest-paid match with what OP reports about bringing in millions of dollars in funding.

              OP seems to have absorbed a lot of the nepotistic thinking around jobs there with her talk of “inheriting” promotions. These are jobs, not real estate or drilling rights.

              1. Dust Bunny*

                I slightly wonder if attributing these outside hires to nepotism or pseudo-nepotism is easier for the OP than telling the organization than they’re not actually OK with these decisions and promoting themselves for the positions. It’s often very comforting to tell ourselves that it was entirely out of our hands when it maybe wasn’t, but it would have required us to do things that were out of our comfort zone/rut.

                1. Plate of Wings*

                  I thought the same thing. I know it would ease the sting a bit for me if I could point to a reason.

              2. House On The Rock*

                I’m not sure about that. It’s not at all uncommon for management to think “praise” is a fine stand in for promotion and monetary compensation. I’ve known plenty of people who were very valuable to their organizations and did the lion’s share of the work, also not receive commensurate titles or compensation. It’s quite common, especially for women and under represented groups!

                1. MassMatt*

                  It’s sadly very common, but not among good employers, which is a detail I mentioned in another comment but not this one.

                  I have been on the receiving end of the “we won’t pay you but we’ll make compassion faces while we express our regret, isn’t THAT enough!?” conversation.

            2. House On The Rock*

              This is really good advice and highlights something that (weirdly) many managers/organizations don’t consider. There’s this idea that telling an employee they are “too valuable to promote” is flattering and make them happy. Of course it’s usually more demoralizing than anything, unless the person is being rewarded for staying where they are.

              Years ago I had a director try to block me making a lateral move to a different department. He pulled the whole “you are so good, we want you to stay!” thing. He was taken aback when I told him (diplomatically) that this was a move I was making to further my career, which I could do within our organization, or elsewhere. I honestly think it didn’t occur to him that I’d start looking for another job if I was denied the move!

      2. MsM*

        Or even, “No, I’m not. You’ve acknowledged I’m valuable to the organization, and while I understand you might prefer for me to stay in my current role, I’m increasingly wondering why I’m not receiving any kind of recognition for my work when there seem to be so many opportunities for others to advance if they’re interested.”

        Mind you, I don’t actually think that’ll prompt anything more than empty promises at best, and the only real solution here is probably to start job looking. But it’s easy to keep getting passed over as long as they think you’re not going to make a stink about it.

        1. Awkwardness*

          I like this. It does not linger on the decisions already made, but is asking for advancement either in position or money.
          And even if OP is looking for other jobs without intention of staying – that would be a good way to practice assertiveness.

        2. Crencestre*

          Mmm…I don’t think so! Saying outright – especially in front of managers! – that the decision to pass you over once more is NOT okay with you might feel satisfying in the moment and would certainly be true.

          But it could also backfire badly when it came to getting a good reference from one or more of those managers whom you’ve just told off and embarassed in public. That’s what they’ll remember when you ask them for a reference, and they may just be petty enough to get their revenge by giving you a lukewarm reference that damns with faint praise or, in a phone conversation with a prospective employer, make you look like the kind of pot-stirring, grumbling, spiteful employee that’s nothing but trouble for an organization. Remember, there’s no law that a reference MUST be positive – and there’s a LOT of room for subjectivity!

          1. My Useless Two Cents*

            If telling a manager that is passing you over for promotion (for the second time!) that you are not okay with it is going to get you a bad reference, run… don’t walk, from that job and that company. Especially if they are doing it in a “public” setting. If the conversation is not in a one-on-one meeting, get out as quickly as possible. That company would be hella toxic.

            1. MsM*

              And LW doesn’t really need a current manager’s reference that desperately. They’ve been there long enough, they could ask some of the people who’ve moved on to bigger and better things. Or one of the other stakeholders they work with on a regular basis.

              But yeah. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility this place will try and sabotage LW if they receive a reference call out of the blue simply because they know they can’t actually afford to lose them. LW might as well at least try using that leverage to their advantage, if only to get a sense of how they’ll respond if (when) leaving actually becomes a reality.

        3. Chick-n-Boots*

          I was actually going to ask the LW if they’d ever advocated for themselves? I ask not as a way to denigrate them or make them feel like what has happened is their fault; more as an opportunity for reflection.

          LW3, you clearly bring huge value to your company! Have you ever sat down and calculated the dollar value of that? If you can’t compare the business you’ve secured to others easily, can you quantify it as a percentage of the company’s overall revenue? Companies SHOULD recognize the contributions of their employees and reward them accordingly, and good companies do. But bad or inept ones often take the path of least resistance – if you are staying put and not speaking up, then they get to benefit from your work without having to spend more on you.

          I think its safe to say that you need to move on to a place where you can start over with a clean slate and hopefully find a role and compensation package that reflects your value! But sometimes (oftentimes) we HAVE to be our own best advocate. I think we’d all like to believe that if we show up consistently, perform consistently, and contribute value to our organizations, those things will be recognized and rewarded as a matter of course. In the capitalist machine, that’s too often not the case – so you need to find a way (if not in this job, in your next) to say “Hey! I’m great! I bring X value and contribute in A,B,C ways and I’d like to negotiate a promotion/raise”. Know your worth and advocate for yourself accordingly! I hope your next employer treats you like the rock star you are.

    3. Ellis Bell*

      Yeah, OP feels they are being led to say yes and not speak up in the conversation simply because they “have no say”, but that’s not gaslighting, it’s conflict avoidance. I do think the whole “oh you work so well where you are” thing is bullshit because it’s inconsiderate, but it’s usually not untrue or manipulative when they say this.

      1. Spencer Hastings*

        It sounds like it’s just bad management. The boss is telling LW about a decision they’ve already made and asking “are you OK with that?”, when (if anything) something like “understood?” would make more sense. It’s not like they’re going to un-hire the new person if the LW says no, which I think is what she’s picking up on. Management has the authority; they should talk like it. If they were writing in, I think they’d be getting advice to become more comfortable with being direct.

        1. Marzipan Shepherdess*

          “Fait accompli questions” like that are asked to make the inquirer feel better about a decision that they’ve already made. The person asking a question like that couldn’t care less about what the answerer actually feels or thinks – nothing that the latter says will make the former change their minds about that decision anyway.

          The LW was asked that so that the managers could assure themselves that “LW is indeed being passed over for a promotion that they’ve earned but if they say they’re just fine with it then we can absolve ourselves of any guilt for exploiting them. We get to do whatever we want AND feel virtuous about it too ’cause LW won’t do or say anything to make us uneasy about how we’re treating them. Win-win for us!”

    4. Brain the Brian*

      Definitely wondering this myself. I know I am conflict-avoidant and often say “yes” when I don’t really have to.

      1. Escapee from Corporate Management*

        This, 100%. It sounds like your employer has not lied to you. They tell you uncomfortable news and you say okay. That’s not gaslighting. That’s telling you—directly—that they don’t value you. Don’t stay at a place that doesn’t appreciate you.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          Or maybe they value OP, but in the position OP is currently in, and OP hasn’t told them otherwise.

    5. Your Former Password Resetter*

      Maybe, but given the situation I would not assume that management was actually open for discussing this.

      Notably in both cases they did not seem to include OP into the discussion until they already made their decision. And one of those was during a team meeting, which obviously pressures OP to go along with them.

      This feels far more like management is aware they’re denying opportunities to OP, and is trying to smoothe things over without actually doing or saying anything meaningful.

      1. Wings*

        So much this. It’s no wonder that OP reacted like they did when put on the spot in a team meeting after a new hire/somebody else’s promotion has been announced. The discussion on OP’s career development and goals shouldn’t happen like this and just by being a good sport in front of others shouldn’t mean that they have been “heard” and interpreted like they haven’t expressed interest in development.

      2. Insert Clever Name Here*

        I agree. When it’s already done and you’re informed of it after the fact and asked “are you ok” it can be hard to come up with anything other than “yes.” Maybe raised eyebrows and “oh! Well that is very unexpected news!” but I don’t know if I’d think of that in the moment.

        If OP has never had a conversation about wanting advancement and opportunity*, they should have that conversation but also…they should honestly just be looking to get out. Practice some alternates to “yes” for the next time you get sideswiped, but polish up that resume and take your skills at fundraising elsewhere.

        *considering OP was the apparent successor to their boss I doubt they haven’t had any discussions about this but hey, who knows.

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          It wasn’t clear if OP every actually advocated for herself or just went with what was understood. Then is surprised others are getting advancement. Maybe they are asking for career advancement and opportunities while OP is just thinking I work hard and nobody cares to offer me advancement.

          Either way, OP, time to job search.

          1. sparkle emoji*

            Yep. LW, if you want to give this company one last try, that needs to involve a more direct, proactive conversation with your manager about your goals. It sounds like you have been going with the flow even when it frustrates you. That sucks but its not gaslighting. You have power in this situation, you sound very capable and can go elsewhere(and I think you should). However, anywhere you go you need to be ready to have some direct conversations if you want to avoid this in the future.

        2. Lydia*

          I may be off, but I feel like them asking if OP is okay with it is because they knew she wouldn’t say she wasn’t. They don’t really care if she’s okay with it, but it might be worth upsetting the complacency a little by being honest and saying no, she’s not okay with it.

      3. bamcheeks*

        I’m on the fence about whether it was intended as “make us feel better by telling us you don’t mind”, “we genuinely didn’t know you were interested in the role” or “here is your opportunity if you want to tell us your objections”, but it’s really important to note that even if it was intended as the former, you don’t have to accept that script.

        Even if you’re bounced into a positive answer in the middle of a meeting, it is absolutely OK and professional to re-visit that with whoever made the decision, whether that’s in a regular one-to-one or by emailing them to ask if you can speak to them directly: “I wanted to ask about the Manager role. I’ll be frank, I was hoping to go for that role and was disappointed I didn’t get the opportunity. I am looking to advance my career in the direction of XYZ, and it would be good to talk about what the opportunities for that are, and what you would need to see to make me a viable candidate.”

        Your company still might not support you– but you know that you’ve given it *your* best shot.

      4. Awkwardness*

        I do not disagree that there very likely was no room for discussion. Or that there might be nepotism hires and that there is no room for OP for development.
        But the letter and the overall tone of passivity really stood out to me. I think there is a certain risk in argueing that something is not up for discussion and use this to gloss over the fact that one did not communicate dissatisfaction, wish for development or pay increases.

        Not every bad decision of an employer is directed against an employee. Not giving opportunities to OP does not automatically equal gaslighting. And being asked if one is okay with a decision gives room for a tactful, yet truthful answer, even if it would have been: “That is surprising and a lot to digest. Could you explain this to me in more detail after the meeting?”

        I think it is a good idea for OP to move on. But it might be helpful to reflect on the amount of passivity in their letter in order not to come across the same pitfalls with another employer.

        1. My Useless Two Cents*

          I struggle with this a lot but when I see this level of passiveness I get so frustrated. I don’t know if it’s because I see too much of myself (I hate conflict and am generally an agreeable person, although I can be really stubborn, blunt, and don’t pick up on a lot of social cues to truly fall in to the passive category). I just hate the amount of pressure women have to be agreeable and go with the flow, and then have the world turn on us and tell us it’s our own fault for not sticking up for ourselves, or advocating for ourselves, or blame us for not asking for what we want.

          1. How do I advocate for me*

            Yes, this thread has been very interesting. As I am dealing with this myself.

            I am asked questions I cannot say “no” but penalized based on saying “yes.”

          2. Awkwardness*

            I am not sure that OP is a woman, so I tried to leave any gender specific arguments out of it. But as you brought this up – yes, opportunities are more likely given to men, while women have to be assertive and explicit. That is unfair, but it is important to be aware of this, especially as a women. Hard work without self promotion will rarely get recognition.
            Therefore the encouragement and critical remarks from the comments to keep on pushing are even more important!
            (And this is very different from saying a situation is somebody’s own fault.)

        2. Jackalope*

          The thing here is that the OP was asked in front of a group of people, her teammates, in a way that would have made it really hard to disagree. I’m not saying it would have been impossible to say no I’m the circumstances, but as someone who had a boss that used this tactic to stop people from arguing with him (say something they were likely to consider bad news but in front of a group so they had less social ability to argue), and as someone who tried to argue back the time it happened to me and got a quick verbal smack down, it can be a pretty effective technique for shutting you down. That’s even more true of its news you weren’t expecting.

    6. linger*

      Yes, the question OP3 should be asking is not “am I being gaslit”, but rather,
      (a) “am I being fairly recognized and compensated for the contribution I make to the org in my current role”?
      and
      (b) “am I being given opportunities for the career development I want beyond that role”?

      The description given suggests those answers are respectively:
      (a) maybe verbally recognized, but not commensurately compensated; and
      (b) no — but on the other hand, it is not clear you have explicitly asked for the development opportunities you want, rather than just expecting those will happen, and then accepting those going to others as a fait accompli.

      1. sparkle emoji*

        Yeah, the letter describes a lot of stuff that is demoralizing and frustrating, even if it’s not gaslighting. You can leave a job for that alone, LW! You can have a job where you’re enjoying your work.

      2. Really?*

        It is also not clear that OP3 has asked for a raise. If you are bringing in the bucks, and valuable where you are, then you should ask to be rewarded financially.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          Yes! OP3, if you like the position you have now other than the compensation, look at Alison’s advice on making a case for a raise (possibly with a title change). Because if you’re bringing in lots of money, they should be paying you what you’re worth!

          If you want a different position (e.g. management), this company has shown it isn’t going to promote you, so find a company that will!

    7. rebelwithmouseyhair*

      yes, I’d have said “I have no say in this, but no I’m not happy about it”

    8. Nicosloanica*

      LW3 is asking the total wrong question about their career – the questions should be, “am I happy here and do I think I could be happier elsewhere?” In nonprofit it’s quite common for people who are good at fundraising to be stuck in that track – funding is the lifeblood of an organization, and most people don’t like doing it or aren’t good it (it’s my current field, one I’m looking to exit). It can be hard to get out of it. But usually it’s at least a well-respected and well-compensated role! It will be somewhere else. It’s always in demand.

      1. MassMatt*

        This. It’s strange that LW says they have raised large amounts of money and yet are the lowest-paid. That really does not add up. If it’s true then LW is indeed undervalued. I’m skeptical the current employer would start treating the LW better if asked (good employers generally treat valuable employees well as a matter of course) but LW might want to make a case for a promotion or raise (and not a small one) before looking elsewhere. I predict surprised Pikachu faces if and when LW gives notice.

    9. Trout 'Waver*

      The subtext of “Are you OK?” is “We’ll fire you if you’re not”.

      So blaming OP for answering in the affirmative is incredibly unhelpful.

      There isn’t some magic phrase that OP could have said that would have made this company recognize their desire for advancement. In fact, they’ve clearly communicated that they value OP in their current role more than in an advanced one. With both words and actions. OP should take this information and use it to make the decision that is best for them and their career.

      1. Awkwardness*

        The subtext of “Are you OK?” is “We’ll fire you if you’re not”.

        Not necessarily. If the employer was that authoritative, they would have informed OP instead of asking. This was rather an attempt to smooth things over.

      2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        You weren’t there, so you can’t definitively say what the subtext was. Several people have already given other possible subtexts. I also don’t think pointing out “here is something different you could have done” is blaming the OP.

        In fact, from the letter, they have no intention of firing OP. They’re taking advantage of them, why would they? They also have no intention of promoting OP either, so I agree OP needs to move on.

        1. Trout 'Waver*

          Asking a subordinate if they’re OK with a decision after that decision has been made to their detriment does have the subtext of “get on board”. Any assertion of authority carries the threat of exercising that authority. Even if management didn’t mean it that way, they should at least be aware enough to consider how it comes across. But, given the fact pattern established by OP, I’m not feeling charitable enough to extend grace to their manager.

          Additionally, my point is that there is nothing OP could have said that would have resulted in a different outcome. So, yeah, “here is something you could have done different” is victim blaming.

      3. Observer*

        The subtext of “Are you OK?” is “We’ll fire you if you’re not”.

        Not necessarily. In fact, from what the LW says I would be very surprised if that is what it was.

        So blaming OP for answering in the affirmative is incredibly unhelpful.

        If the LW is even half as good as they say (and it sounds like they are not exaggerating at all!) I would strongly disagree. There would have been very little risk in them saying “Not really. I’ll make it work but I would have appreciated the opportunity” or something like the other suggestions.

        And I think it is useful for the LW to realize that these *are* in fact option that would be perfectly appropriate. And the response to those kinds of answers would be enlightening.

        There isn’t some magic phrase that OP could have said

        That’s true. But the problem here is that the OP has not, from what they say, communicated what they want. Even their last conversation is very indirect. So, a bit of direct communications is worthwhile.

        Now if they stick with the “you’re too valuable to move” stuff, the OP should understand that they are working for people with some very mistaken management philosophies. Not that Management is trying to bamboozle the OP, but that Management doesn’t realize that if you refuse to promote someone because they are “too valuable” and don’t provide *concrete* recognition and recompense, that person who is “too valuable” can move on to a different organization, and there is nothing the employer can really do about it.

        So I would say to the OP that some clear communications are in order. And if you don’t like what you hear, well “at will” works both ways, and you are free to move to a place that will treat you better.

        1. Really?*

          …and it sounds like you have some great resume material. Bought in $$$ in funds would probably earn you and interview in a number of places in the nonprofit sector

          1. Observer*

            Yes, they really do. This is one of these quantifiable results that would make a decent place really interested.

    10. WellRed*

      Yes, OP, do you ever actually advocate for yourself? Your whole post reads as very passive. If you are a moneymaker you can leverage that but not by meekly mumbling agreement with whatever they throw at you

      1. cosmicgorilla*

        WellRed, this was my question. I don’t see any evidence that OP actively advocated for themselves, initiated conversations about advancement or growth.

    11. Hyaline*

      And maybe I missed it, but aside from a conversation about moving into the boss’s role, are regular them-initiated irregular conversations about goals and career growth happening? If not, are you initiating them? I’m not saying they’re handling anything well here, but it seems that you’ve gone with the flow. When they passed you over for that promotion into your boss’s shoes, it was prime time to initiate a conversation about your goals (and to personally assess from their response if achieving your goals is a possibility staying within the org).

    12. Star Trek Nutcase*

      IME the employees treated the worse (promotion, raise) are always the hardest working lower level ones who do an important function extraordinarily well and who never advocate for themselves. It’s not fair, but managers usually are consumed with dealing with crappy employees or trying to mitigate damage by upper level bosses. LW doesn’t describe gaslighting but definitely poor management of a valuable employee.

      1. The grease that holds everything together*

        That’s 100% true. Great managers will make sure to support these employees as well, but all know that in most cases the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

        Being squeaky doesn’t mean causing problems (I suspect LW doesn’t want to be a “troublemaker”), it means vocalizing one’s needs and desires. If nobody knows LW is unhappy or wants more, nobody is going to do anything for them.

    13. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

      Agreed. It doesn’t sound so much like gaslighting as taking advantage and you are letting them. They have put out feelers if you are going to raise a fuss if they continue to treat you poorly and you have let them know you will not raise a fuss. They flat out said you are more valuable where you are, they will never promote you.

      At the very least you need to push to be adequately compensated and titled since you are so valuable where you are. I would start looking elsewhere, but you need to be able to stand up for yourself no matter where you end up so you may want to do some work there.

    14. Dust Bunny*

      I noticed this, too. This sounds not-great of the company, but the LW is “agreeing” to it rather than advocating for (her?)self.

      Obviously this person knows the company culture better than we do but where I am open positions are advertised internally first and if someone was qualified for a role it would be very normal for them to put themselves forward for it. I can’t tell if this place is really that bad or if the LW is giving a lot of signals that they’re not interested and is expecting to be handed the position, anyway.

    15. Not on board*

      It comes across that the OP is conflict averse and has a tendency to just accept things and not stand up for themselves. The employer is taking advantage of this. Not a criticism of the OP as a good employer wouldn’t take advantage of an employee in this way.
      However, now is the time for OP to stand up for themselves. They need to demonstrate how valuable they are to the organization, show all the extra work they do now and say that they need to be properly compensated. They should also be looking for other jobs. A good employer wouldn’t undervalue an important asset to their organization but they can only do so with the employee’s consent.

    16. Boof*

      Indeed; I’m sure LW’s managers could be a lot more proactive about asking what LW wants and trying to get them there, but I was also left wondering how much LW has told their managers what they really want. Again, it’s totally ok for LW to look around and see if there’s a place that has a more encouraging management style, but I don’t see that LW has much to lose by having a real discussion with their manager “I’ve seen a lot of people advancing around me while I seem to be passed over repeatedly. I’m really interested in [more money, moving to management, whatever]. Is that possible here, what will it take, and what will the timeline look like?”

    17. Slaw*

      100% this, exactly what I came here to say. Don’t say “yes” if the answer is “no”. There are a lot of different ways to say that and to have the conversation, but the passive aggression will achieve absolutely nothing. Make it known that you’re not okay with it, OP. Who knows what the outcome will be, but at least you won’t be stuck where you’re at now.

  6. CatsNotKids*

    #1 it feels blatantly sexist because it is. They invited the men who aren’t soccer fans to participate so this wasn’t based on who was a soccer fan, it was based on who was male. It was: we are having a sports related activity, let’s ask the other men to participate. It’s regressive and not where we should be in 2024.

    In a perfect world, you could call them out on their sexist bullshit, but we live in a deeply imperfect world. if you said anything, now you’re the overly sensitive feminist who wants to ruin their fun time. There’s no win for saying anything.

    I disagree with Allison when she says that it’s not outrageous that they excluded you guys because you aren’t soccer fans. They included the men who aren’t soccer fans… that says it all, I wouldn’t necessarily use the word “outrageous” but I think it’s very clearly a gender issue. And when you pile it up with the other micro aggressions women deal with, sometimes it just gets very tiring.

    1. Nodramalama*

      Well, all we know is that the men who were invited after aren’t soccer fans. We don’t know if they expressed interest to the organisers to join. LW isnt aware of a conversation but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Maybe one of them just over lunch one day, “oh I’d be up for joining this.”

      1. OP1*

        I suppose that’s possible, but I think it’s unlikely. We are in an open office, and I witnessed the organizers going up the desks of the male non-fans, explaining the pool to them and asking if they wanted to join.

        1. Nodramalama*

          Have the other men shown interest in betting for other sports, or sport in general more than yourself and the other woman?

          It could just be inherent sexism of assuming men are more interested in betting on sport than women. But sometimes people also making logical inferences based on surrounding information. E.g I know a lot of people who bet on basketball but not soccer. But knowing they bet generally, if I was to start a betting pool, id be more likely to ask them than someone who hasn’t shown any interest in betting or sport at all.

          1. Orv*

            I feel like you’re putting a lot of effort into trying to figure out a way in which this isn’t sexist, and I’m not sure why? Occam’s Razor suggests they’re just sexist and don’t think women are interested in sports.

            1. Nodramalama*

              Because I disagree that thats Occam’s razor? Sometimes this commentariat is so anti giving anyone who doesn’t align their personal world view the benefit of the doubt.

              1. Myrin*

                I generally agree but I also think that in this instance/with this topic, Orv is correct – there is definitely a tendency, not just here or on other web pages, but in society at large, to go all “But what if it’s not really xy-ism but actually because of [x reason]? Could it be [y reason]? Have you ruled out [z reason]?” and often, the [reasons] become more and more outlandish and unlikely the further you go (and they tend to go along with an undertone of “please explain to me in detail and to my satisfcation why you think every one of my proposed scenarios didn’t happen”).

                I don’t think your thoughts re: the other two men being interested in betting in general are super unlikely in this case and I do enjoy thinking through different possibilites and explanations, but 1. I’m not sure this one relatively benign instance matters a ton in a way where you have to determine exactly what happened and 2. I absolutely agree that the by far most likely explanation is that they thought women aren’t interested in sports or at least not as interested as men.

                1. Nodramalama*

                  I think the distinction is important here because most peoples response is likely to be coloured by what they think the intent of a person is. Some people here are already saying, this is clearly sexist and they assume women don’t like sports. Most people are going to take a very different action and tone moving forward with this issue than if it’s, “these men assumed THESE women are not interested in sports betting” and we don’t know why.

              2. Medusa*

                It’s pretty obvious that they made a sexist assumption. Nothing that LW said indicates that it was out of malice, and based on the letter I doubt that they’re bad guys, but everyone has their blind spots.

                2. Angstrom*

                  Could be some of both: “They’re women AND we’ve never heard them talk about sports.”
                  I’m not a big sports fan, but some of my colleagues are, so sometimes I’ll scan the sports news or watch a few minutes of highlights of a big game so I can say something in the inevitable conversation the next morning. If OP has never joined a conversation about sports that may have been noticed.

            2. GythaOgden*

              No, it doesn’t. Ockham’s Razor suggests that there’s a clear reason based on factors other than ones that stem from direct bigotry. The women could be uninterested in gambling for starters — I know I wouldn’t be despite knowing enough about cricket to have a conversation about it with the lads at work.

              You’ve never met these guys, you’re not in the situation at hand, you don’t know the office dynamics. OP doesn’t know what’s in their heads either or why the other women don’t get involved (you know, women having the agency and all that to not bother). There are many other variables, and I think leaping straight to sexism is the point where you’re expending a lot of effort trying to force this into an ideological pigeonhole yourself.

              1. Grammar Penguin*

                The question isn’t if the women are interested in gambling or sports, it’s were they excluded from an a workplace activity that was presumed to be for men only?
                Ockham’s Razor, iirc, is that usually the simplest explanation is the best.
                The simplest explanation for this exclusion, if that’s what happened, is the men’s unconscious assumptions about women’s interest in office sports betting led them to exclude them. This is an example, albeit mild, of how sexism can be expressed in the workplace.

            3. Sneaky Squirrel*

              I don’t think everyone will agree that “they’re sexist” is what Occam’s Razor would imply here. The simplest solution that exists in this case is that the organizers didn’t invite the women because they already knew the women wouldn’t be interested.

              I’m not saying that to dismiss the chances of sexism. I actually think it’s likely that they were being sexist here (if unintentional). Looking for explanations for every microaggression only continues the cycle. But it’s not an unreasonable leap to also consider that the organizers knew that the other two males might have had an interest in the pool because they expressed an interest in adjacent activities (e.g. other sports or sports betting).

            4. Hyaline*

              There’s a sample size effect here, too. There’s a small number of people involved, which means a small number of women and a small enough number of everyone that people could know one another well enough to assume preferences outside of gender considerations. If this was an office of 100 people and 50 were women and none were invited, I’d have a different opinion on “it’s obviously sexism” because there’s no way you know that 50 women are not even a smidgen interested in sports or betting. But two or three? Yeah, I would be able to know that about my colleagues in a smaller office.

              I’d still advocate for ask everyone, every time a new activity pops up, because a) people surprise you and b) this exact issue but yeah.

            5. I should really pick a name*

              The LW wouldn’t have written the letter if they didn’t think there was some doubt, so it seems pretty reasonable to explore other interpretations.

        2. Ellis Bell*

          It’s possible I think this because UK culture is to invite everyone to participate in sports pools regardless of interest, but I think you’re right about the sexist flavour of this. It’s exclusionary and it costs nothing to at least invite people. That said, because you don’t want to participate (and I also always notice when the hobby /interest is exclusionary in terms of interest levels) I don’t think it rises to the level of objecting unless it’s taking up all the oxygen in the room. If one of them was writing in I’d say they get to have their friendships and special interests but to try and keep it out of people’s faces at work. If you feel like you’re suddenly working in a sports channel then I think you get to speak up about the impact on the rest of you.

      2. MK*

        They aren’t “huge” fans. They apparently are interested enough to join, while OP says she and her female colleague aren’t.

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          Yeah, it seems like the people with a level 10 interest asked the people with a level 3 interest (based on their previous many many office conversations about soccer) if they’d like to join the pool, but not the people who had expressed a -2 interest.

          1. Awkwardness*

            I think that is a good summary. And it would not be my hill to die on.
            The optics aren’t good, but framing it as sexism might raise more problems than it might solve. If this pool, along it’s gendered lines, does take too much room, OP could focus on this. “Can we reign in the sports talk a bit?”

        2. Yikes Stripes*

          Yep. There’s a difference between “not a huge fan” and “not at all interested.”

          I’m a woman but I wasn’t invited into the Bachelorette/Bachelor betting pool/watch party group because everyone in the office knew that the only tv I ever watch is sports, Jeopardy, and the local weather report and that I strongly dislike reality tv. I didn’t take offense because that’s *really* not for me. However, I was asked if I wanted to join the office trivia team at a local bar because of the Jeopardy thing – I declined because I don’t drink and am uncomfortable in bars. There’s often nuance to this kind of thing, even if there’s a history of discriminatory bs around it.

      3. Ellis Bell*

        I think the soccer fans accurately judged who would be interested and who wouldn’t be; they were correct about the non soccer fan guys, and they’re also correct about the women’s level of interest. If that helps OP be less annoyed, then great, but this stuff can still feel exclusionary especially on such a small team.

    2. ecnaseener*

      Re “if you said anything, now you’re the overly sensitive feminist who wants to ruin their fun time” — I do think there’s room for saying something like “you know, it was kind of a weird look that Jane and I were the only ones not invited to the betting pool. I don’t think you guys meant anything by it, but it did come off as a ‘men only’ thing.”

      1. xylocopa*

        Yeah, if OP’s sense is that this is more of a casual non-malicious but still sexist blind spot, I feel like there’s room for a similarly casual conversation like “hey, I noticed you only asked the guys. I’m not into soccer but did you really mean this to be a boys-club thing?”

        Of course it’s very likely that the rest of the conversational dynamics would be the OP feeling she has to apologize for bringing it up, which is tiring and annoying. But I do agree that there’s some room for a relatively low-key but still productive conversation.

        1. Verity Kindle*

          I think this is a helpful take. Another thing she could suggest is that they ask any new women joining the team if they’d like to join the pool, and explicitly position it as something the whole office is invited to, even if all the women currently on the team are opting out. Of course, this depends on how receptive OP thinks they’d be to such a conversation and whether she thinks it’d be worth the effort.

        2. MigraineMonth*

          I’d feel comfortable saying something like that. Or “It doesn’t feel great that you didn’t even ask any of the women if they’d be interested.” Be ready for an answer, though, because they’re probably going to respond with an invitation!

          I’d probably go to one of the watch parties to be social. Hey, at least soccer games are only an hour (possibly plus overtime), not “until the game ends” like American football where they’re constantly stopping the game clock.

      2. HonorBox*

        Agreed! I think it is totally OK to point out that it felt exclusionary. Also, it would be a million times easier to understand whether the intent was to exclude or not if OP indicated interest in participating in future pools.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          The thing about “boys’ club” groups/events is that there doesn’t need to be an any intent to exclude for it to be harmful. As Alison points out, this group is very low-stakes, but a company-sponsored event with management present that women choose to opt out of still has sexist impact.

          (As someone who was raised “colorblind” in the assumption that ignorance and good intentions could fix racism this took me way too long to figure out, but impact happens regardless of our intentions.)

      3. AmuseBouche*

        This is exactly what I think. If they are great guys, mentioning this will hopefully make a point and the men won’t get all butthurt about it.

    3. Bill and Heather's Excellent Adventure*

      This is where I fall, too. They invited men who weren’t footie fans to the original pool, but not women, then made it even worse by organising a pool for the fricking Olympics (one of the world’s biggest sporting competitions) without it occurring to any of them that they should offer the women on the team an opportunity to join! Not good.

    4. Trout 'Waver*

      Oh pish and tosh. They correctly intuited that OP wouldn’t be interested and correctly intuited that these two other people would. Someone needs to explain to them that it’s polite and proper to invite everyone in a work setting even if you know they’re going to say no. But calling it blatant sexist is a leap.

      1. Spencer Hastings*

        Okay, but sometimes people say yes to things they’re not personally super interested in. I’ve done this a few times at work, just to make sure I wasn’t giving off “clearly doesn’t want to be part of the community” vibes. Not to be given the chance at all is kind of awkward.

      2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        “Intuited” meaning “assumed based on the contents of their pants”. It is not at all a leap.

        1. Trout 'Waver*

          Using the phrase “contents of their pants” when you mean gender is trans-exclusionary.

          You weren’t there, so you can’t definitively say what the subtext was.

            1. MissElizaTudor*

              You can’t “talk over” anyone in an asynchronous comment section. No one is unable to read what one commenter said because a second commenter replied.

    5. It's The Small Things*

      I agree, CatsNotKids. I think it says a lot that they asked the non-fan men and didn’t just ask the whole office (which they should have because it’s so small and they’re making it such a big deal/topic). It probably wasn’t malicious but they should maybe examine their unconscious biases.

    7. Stuart Foote*

      At least in this case, the other two men were big enough soccer fans they wanted to join the pool and go watch the games, while the women are not, in fact, soccer fans. The fact that the women aren’t interested in playing does seem relevant.

      1. OP1*

        I honestly think I have the same level of interest as the male non-fans—that is, none of us follow soccer and none are interested enough that we would go out of our way to ask to be included, but probably would’ve said yes if asked for the social aspect. (Actually, one of the male non-fans did initially say no, but the fans ended up cajoling him into joining.)

        1. Ellis Bell*

          Hah, we live in a football/soccer mad city, and when I summarised your letter to my male, football hating partner he said “The guys went along with it so as not to become pariahs”.

        3. allathian*

          Yes, everyone who commented earlier in this thread should read this.

          It is problematic, not only because they assumed without asking that neither of the women would be interested in the pool or going to watch a game (at a sports bar rather than the stadium, I assume?) to socialize after work, but also because they apparently “cajoled” a male non-fan to join them for the socializing.

  7. Goldie*

    #3 In nonprofits usually the fundraising person is really high up. Can you negotiate for a promotion with a raise? Are you trying to move out of fundraising? That is usually such a valuable role that I can see why they want you to stay in that role if you are good at it. But you should be compensated for your value.

      1. Nicosloanica*

        They’re certainly in demand though; it’s probably one of the more common postings I see on Indeed. If OP wants to flounce (I would), it should be relatively easy to find another job in grants writing / grants management.

        1. MsM*

          Or freelance. I didn’t love being my own boss for the brief period I tried it, but I wasn’t hurting for work.

    2. rebelwithmouseyhair*

      Yes. Also if OP is the best at fundraising, she should not only be paid handsomely for it, she should also be considered for other roles in which she could presumably excel too. This whole thing smacks of discrimination to me, it’s the kind of thing that happens to admins: nobody can imagine how they’d manage without Nicole, but Nicole is such a talented person she could probably shine in loads of other roles too and is a victim of her success. A man who similarly succeeds in a lowly role will immediately be considered for promotion.
      I might be wrong but we’ve seen this all too often.

      1. Nicosloanica*

        This does happen, although sometimes it makes me want to shake the Nicole in my life; she could easily use those accomplishments to get a job somewhere else and start moving up! However she has a misplaced loyalty to this org, is adverse to change, and inertia is powerful …

        1. Cmdrshprd*

          ” to get a job somewhere else and start moving up!”

          It could very well be that Nicole does not want to move up, for lots of reasons. Current position allows her to do her job and leave it at the door versus other positions if she moves up that require more constant attention to work/email etc…

      2. Alan*

        Yeah, this is really weird. One of the criteria for advancement at my last job was success in bringing in money. You *want* to compensate the people that are keeping your funding going. This is very odd.

      3. Sandi*

        Years ago I saw this great advice:
        Never be so critical at a job that they can’t afford to promote you out of it.
        Originally it was:
        Don’t be one of those people who is so worried about your job that you hoard information and become the only one who can do the role, because in the end that backfires when they don’t want to promote you.

        I work hard at what I do and I give the first advice – not as a suggestion to laziness – but rather as encouragement to collaborate well with others, write down processes, teach others what has worked well for you, and overall make it easy for someone else to do your job if you suddenly left.

    3. Clorinda*

      LW3 is a rock star being treated like a drudge. Take you stellar fundraising skills and your great personal network, make sure your resume reflects your accomplishments, and find a place that will value you as you deserve.

      Don’t be mean about it, but don’t be available for a lot of hand-holding for your replacement during the transition and after. Give them their two weeks and updated files, and go on your way.

  8. Anonychick*

    Just to clarify something…even in the cases Alison mentioned (for example, someone whose job requires driving taking drowsiness-inducing medication), that still wouldn’t excuse a company asking employees to list all of their medications…would it? That seems far too broad, especially since practically all medications say they “can” (not “do”) increase drowsiness in some people.

    Note: I’m not asking if workplaces do this; I’m sure plenty of them do (often with no penalty). I’m asking if it would be legal under the terms set by the ADA.

    1. Nodramalama*

      I know some workplaces do drug testing. I wonder if they could ask for a list of medication to ensure they don’t mess with the testing?

      1. Orv*

        I could also imagine a workplace where there were specific license requirements, like commercial drivers or airline pilots, asking those employees. But normally that’d be handled as part of their medical assessment.

        1. Christmas Carol*

          I once worked for companies that required such a list under the guise of “fairness” For example, since they had a couple of delivery trucks, and therefore employed two truck drivers, everyone in the company had to pass a DOT physical in order to be hired. I was young, dumb and much healthier than I am today. Now that I’m older ,wiser and a bit creakier, I tend to think this is over the line.

          1. Worldwalker*

            I believe that medical requirements for employees have to be necessary for their job. For example, you can’t require a DOT physical for salespeople or programmers.

            They’d be setting themselves up for a major lawsuit if, for example, they refused to hire a graphic artist in a wheelchair because he couldn’t meet the physical requirements for a truck driver.

            And the fact that they didn’t require their truck drivers to pass an accounting exam makes me think this has much less to do with “fairness” to the truck drivers and everything to do with hiring young, physically fit (i.e., cheaper insurance and/or no icky disabled/ild/icky people).

            There were definitely at least a few bees flying around there.

            1. Observer*

              And the fact that they didn’t require their truck drivers to pass an accounting exam makes me think this has much less to do with “fairness” to the truck drivers and everything to do with hiring young, physically fit (i.e., cheaper insurance and/or no icky disabled/ild/icky people).

              Good point there!

              The rest of your comment is all really on target, but this is especially good.

            2. MassMatt*

              Medications are incredibly personal I would never provide a list of them to anyone but a medical professional.

              Many meds can reveal all sorts of personal info—sexual activity, fertility, mental health, HIV status, etc. No, just NO.

              On top of that, many meds have multiple uses. If you are an HR manager you may THINK you know what something is for, but you probably don’t.

            3. MigraineMonth*

              I once applied to a company that actually did ask every applicant about their comfort with machining tools as part of the interview process, regardless of role. I double-checked, and yes, it was part of the software developer job. Some mandate from HQ, apparently.

      2. Adult ADHDer*

        The way I’ve always seen this work is that drug testing is handled through a lab with a medical review officer. If you test positive for a substance, they will contact you and ask if you take any validly prescribed substances that could account for the positive test (e.g. you take Adderall for ADHD and you test positive for amphetamines). If you say yes, they can ask you to provide proof of the prescription. Once you have done that, they should report it as a negative test to the employer. They are not supposed to give the employer the details of what types of medication you are taking.

        1. AnonymousOctopus*

          And if you want to take a shortcut, bring your prescription bottle with you when you leave the sample and have them notate your file in advance.

          I almost lost an offer as a ADHDer who takes Adderall, because any problem with a candidate’s drug test signaled bad news to this employer and they didn’t want to wait the couple days needed to sort it out. So now I’m proactive about it with the lab so I don’t have to disclose later to the employer.

          1. noah*

            That’s interesting because as someone who takes Adderall I’ve tried to tell them in advance a few times and they always tell me to wait for the MRO call and deal with it then. As I mentioned down below though, I’m subject to DOT drug testing which is highly regulated.

            1. AnonymousOctopus*

              Yup, highly regulated testing like DOT definitely have their own process that must be followed. For me it was a crap retail job that almost pulled the offer, and then later jobs were in education and the testing place allowed me to proactively offer my RX bottle. In both cases I wasn’t dealing with heavy machinery or driving, so that makes sense. YMMV indeed.

      3. Banana Pyjamas*

        When I did a drug test during the hiring process, we were instructed to bring any prescriptions with us. I showed up with nothing (because I don’t take any), and they still asked if I take any medications. This was for a county government position, and the county administered the tests.

        1. Jay (no, the other one)*

          I work in healthcare and when I did my pre-employment physical and drug testing for my current job they asked for a list of prescriptions. We didn’t have to bring the bottles, though.

          They also asked if I had ever been diagnosed with a mental or emotional illness. They did not add “that would interfere with your ability to do your job.” When they solicited my feedback on the onboarding process, I flagged that. My license renewal asks that with the addition of “would it interfere” which is fine with me. Flat- out “have you ever…” is not fine. It’s none of their business *unless* it interferes. I have had episodes of depression. It is well-managed and not going to interfere with my ability to work and thus I should not have to disclose it.

      4. Person from the Resume*

        I think it would still need to be a list of specific medication. The birth control pill, blood pressure medications, etc won’t show up on a test for illegal drugs. What could show up and possibly test is typically prescription pain control medications ie legal uses of drugs that are also abused illegally.

      5. 4 Star Day*

        I’ve had mandatory drug testing a few times for jobs. The listing of medications was all done with the doctor’s office when I had the testing.

        I was irritated that at one job the report went to my new manager that I had X in my system. “Yes I do. It’s listed on my medications.” That the testing office didn’t double check but reported it was frustrating. I shouldn’t have had to explain that, especially when the amount shown in the test was exactly what it should be.

      6. sparkle emoji*

        I know you’ve mentioned your Australian so it could be different there. However, with the US(PA) only caveat, for most companies that require drug testing I’ve recruited for, the actual testing is done through a third party company. If someone uses a drug on the testing panel legally, they can tell the center that they have a med card or a prescription, so the system will give a “pass” result even if the drug is present. This system requires disclosing certain medications to the testing company(only if those drugs are on the limited drug panel) but not anyone at the actual company they work for.
        There may be other scenarios where things are different, but drug testing doesn’t mean the hiring company necessarily knows your full prescription list.

      7. noah*

        I don’t know if this is universally how it is handled but in my experience the employer doesn’t know what medication you’re taking. I will test positive for amphetamines because I take Adderall for ADHD. A physician (called the Medical Review Officer) with the drug testing company calls after the positive test and asks if there is any reason I might’ve tested positive. I advise them of my prescription medication, and they verify it somehow. The test result is then reported to my employer as negative. The only odd thing from the employer side is that it takes an extra day or two for the report to be sent to them.

        This is very US-centric and possibly specific to Department of Transportation regulations since I work for an airline. However, it was an identical process when I worked in healthcare.

    2. Freya*

      It’s certainly not legal here in Australia – what you’d do here is ask whether you’re on meds that might affect your ability to do the job and give an example of “if you’re on a med that causes you drowsiness and you’re operating machinery or driving on work time, this could cause you to be unsafe at work. Letting us know means we can put processes in place to mitigate any workplace risk”.

      You also have to give the option that if a medical practitioner signs off on a report stating that the employee can safely perform their work duties while on their medication, then the employee does not have to reveal anything about their medication or the condition that requires medicating.

      AND you have to make your workplace safe enough that an employee who has to go on a medication of concern will let you know and ask to be transferred to alternative duties (where possible) for the duration of the medication. Like, there’s one antibiotic that sends me ultra-rapid-cycling bipolar, and when I’m on it (thankfully now rare), I should have zero contact with clients. I like having a workplace where I can say to my boss that for the next three to five days it would be a good idea if I never answered the phones.

    3. Brain the Brian*

      I work in a company that does a lot of travel, and they ask us to disclose if we take medications that might make it illegal to travel to certain countries. (For instance, there are countries that ban medical marijuana and others that ban PrEP anti-HIV pills and others that ban certain types of birth control.) Management doesn’t force us to disclose, but it does make planning travel easier if they know that Employee X can’t travel to Country Y because of a medical / legal combination and not just because of a less-serious personal preference.

    4. rebelwithmouseyhair*

      I’d have said employees’ medical information is nobody’s business but their own and no way should they have to reveal anything unless, as in Alison’s example, it would hamper their work performance.

    5. Broadway Duchess*

      I used to work in a clinic that provided employee and occupational health services. For positive drug screens, a copy of a prescription was submitted to the medical director for review, so a positive drug screen was basically ruled justified or not justified, but the actual medication or diagnosis was not provided to the employer. Some patients who knew they’d test positive would preemptively bring their prescriptions and it made it easier to procesd them and close out their screenings. In my experience, the companies were never privy to any health information provided by the employee, only a ruling of cleared for job responsibilities or not. In the case of the employee health side of things, our EMR was completely different from the one used by every other facility within the health system, so, say a nurse manager from an Ob/Gyn floor, wouldn’t be able to see if one of the nurses was being treated for depression.

      1. Broadway Duchess*

        Ugh, please forgive the horrible punctuation — my phone does not always do what I want it to do.

    6. Database Developer Dude*

      I’m in the Army Reserve. In all components (active duty, Reserve, National Guard) when they run urinalysis testing, they tell you not to bother disclosing prescriptions unless something comes back in the test.

    7. Dek*

      I let my immediate supervisor know if I’m changing medications. I don’t *have* to, but I do, because sometimes I’ve had a bad reaction (vyvanse was a nightmare), and some of them do have the potential to make me drowsy, so I’d rather give her a heads up before that happens, in case it happens.

      But I can’t even begin to imagine a situation where it was appropriate to ask an employee to list all of their medications.

    8. Cedrus Libani*

      As I understand it (not a lawyer), competent HR would shut it down unless there’s an obvious business need. Once you tell the company that you’re in a protected group, there’s the risk that you can claim discrimination. If the information wasn’t “need to know”, it’s easy to spin as a “want to know”, and why else would the company want to know? Clearly up to no good, says your former employee’s lawyer.

      For example, I once had a job where I had to be HIV negative. This was a completely legitimate requirement, believe it or not. (Lab science can be fun that way; I’ve seen some weird ones.) But if it was basically any other job, asking for HIV test results on the pre-employment medical screen would be pure lawsuit bait.

      1. Bird Lady*

        I am LW #2: HR was involved with it and created the form for the new hires to complete. I was a grant writer and wrote donation appeals. My assistant managed our database. We did not perform heavy labor, work with children, or drive machinery to complete our jobs. I didn’t see the need for anyone to know if I took Singulair for my allergies or a thyroid hormone to supplement the thyroid hormone I should have been making had mine not been removed as a child.

        But yes, I was becoming increasingly concerned about this request, especially because of potential discriminatory issues. Our facilities director was a lawsuit waiting to happen, and I did not want him knowing what medication anyone was taking!

  9. Observer*

    #3 – Lack of promotion.

    I agree with the comment about communicating your lack of being “ok” with these changes.

    But also, I totally agree with Alison that you get to move on if you’re not getting what you need. Moving on in order to move up is a common and time honored tactic. These decisions could have been made with all of the best intentions in the world, but that’s not the real issue. Just as the organization has the right to make the decisions that are in its best interest *so do you!* And that includes making the decision to find a job that better compensates you for your work and experience.

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        With a side of “In fact you’re so valuable we can’t even give you a raise.”

        1. froodle*

          “But we told LW3 how valuable they were! Surely they can pay their rent and put food on the table with the power of our extremely valuable empty words!”

      2. Irish Teacher.*

        It definitely sounds like that is what they are saying, in which case, the LW definitely deserves a raise.

        1. Nicosloanica*

          Yeah this is the thing. If they were really happy with OP in their current role, why is OP so underpaid? I suppose because they know OP is willing to put up with it. Someone who is responsible for most of the funding should be highly compensated and they should be very afraid of losing that person. It doesn’t sound like they are. I have also seen companies create “grab bag” roles for low-respect employees that get everyone else’s least-favored tasks. I hope that’s not what’s happening.

          1. MsM*

            Yeah, unfortunately, at this point I think they’re not afraid of losing LW because even going back on an implicit promise to promote her just resulted in her “taking it like a champ.” And while I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to counter-offer if she leaves (although I also wouldn’t be surprised if they just try to guilt trip her), she really does need to ask herself whether she wants to stay somewhere that she needs to result to ultimatums to get treated with anything resembling respect.

            1. MigraineMonth*

              Do not take a counter-offer, LW. You deserve a company that recognizes your worth all the time, not just when you’re leaving.

      3. Sheworkshardforthemoney*

        Yes, I encountered that at my last job. I was really good at my work, so instead of promoting me into the acting manager position that I had filled during the pandemic, they went for an outside hire who had very little experience. Withing six months I departed for a better job. Soon, I started getting the phone calls asking for help because no one else could do my job. They actually could do my job but why bother to learn when there was always someone there who knew how to do, until there wasn’t.

      4. Observer*

        I suspect this is a case of ‘You’re too valuable where you are to promote.’

        True. And the LW gets to decide that they are too valuable to stay in a position that doesn’t adequate reward them for their work.

      5. My Useless Two Cents*

        Years ago, I took a job as X and was very successful. About a year later the owners sold the company. Shortly after that I was “promoted” to Y. Eventually my manager told me that if the company hadn’t been sold I would have never gotten moved to Y because I was doing such a good job at X. It didn’t sink in at the time.
        I continued working at Y until I was the only person at the company doing it (formerly a 3 person dept.). The, by this time not new, owner realized he could never replace me if I left and rather than compensate me accordingly or hire someone to help with the work, he revamped the entire office structure. Again it didn’t sink in at the time.
        So now I was doing Z. Which was a combination of Y with new duties. I didn’t particularly like the new duties as they were very customer service oriented. However I was still enjoying doing Y duties.
        It wasn’t until years later when I started to burn out (mostly because the “new” duties were pushing me to be/act like someone I’m not) that it hit me. If I was so valuable and successful at those other jobs, why wasn’t I properly compensated??? Especially at Y.
        It was very demoralizing and I was getting very bitter about it at the time. I had really internalized the belief of “good work will be recognized and rewarded” at a young age. It took a lot of work and time move past that thinking. And is why I’m a huge proponent of quiet quitting now.

        1. Observer*

          And is why I’m a huge proponent of quiet quitting now.

          Why? It would make a lot of sense to OPEN quit. The LW should continue to do good work and then parlay that work into a job at another organization that will compensate them properly.

          1. My Useless Two Cents*

            Quiet quitting doesn’t mean not doing good work. It means not going over and beyond for a company that will not recognize or reward you accordingly. It’s doing the job to get a C, not killing yourself to get an unachievable A. I do my job, and I do it well. I don’t work overtime unless absolutely necessary. I take my breaks and use my PTO. I meet my deadlines but I don’t commit or try to exceed output that another acceptable worker would do. ie. The company expects and will pay me to get out 5 widgets a week, even though I can routinely get out 8 without too much stress, I’m only turning out 5 widgets. The company will not reward me more for those extra 3 a week. And it took me a long time to realize it is a very rare company that will.

            1. MassMatt*

              Sad to say, I’ve worked at a few companies like this. They skewed annual review scores making it impossible to get the best (out of 5) ratings (one director literally compared it to getting a Nobel prize. Yes, really!), and if you scored on either of the two lowest, you were expected to be on a PIP or on the way out.

              So that leaves only “average” and “good” and even the “good” (4 stars) rating was strictly rationed. Lazy managers also phoned in their reviews, giving everyone the same rating.

              I resented excelling and being compensated at the same rate as mediocrity, which is what that culture promotes.

              Still, as Observer said, I think it’s better to do well and move someplace better than coast. It is possible, there are better organizations out there.

    2. Anonymouse*

      Yes, it’s time to go.

      This dynamic is common is small nonprofits in my experience — orgs don’t create pathways for growth or give real salary increases, so the longer you stay the farther below market your comp becomes. It sounds like OP’s org operates this way so there’s no real option other than to leave.

  10. TheBunny*

    LW#1

    I’m with Alison. I think it was less along gender lines and more “heh… they might be interested” lines. Sports…for better or worse…do tend to have a more gendered fan base. And I don’t think it’s totally able to be blamed on men assuming only men like sports. Especially as you’re in a small office…I’m guessing they already knew you weren’t going to be interested.

    I’m a huge F1 fan. My husband and I actually both are but of the 2 of us, I’m the bigger fan. My husband is also really into cars and works in the automotive industry. So he’s not exactly protesting when I say what race I want to attend each year.

    When people hear we’re F1 fans, they ALL assume he’s the fan and he brought his wife along. I think it’s more because they know my husband is really into cars than anything else.

    I’ve definitely had some spirited debates with people and can definitely hold my own and I’ve never had anyone dismiss me as being just a woman who can’t know about this stuff.

    1. Free Meerkats*

      You should come to LVGP this year. Other than the problems the first night, it was great to watch and participate in. I was yellow flagger at Turn 1, so cars almost within reach; no telling yet where I’ll end up this year, but my application got accepted this week.

      1. TheBunny*

        Exciting! I hope hipe you get a good spot again this year.

        We actually went last year. We were in the Sphere Zone and had a great time…aside from Sainz and that drain cover. I’m a Leclerc fan (really wishing we’d gone to Monaco this year can’t lie) and my husband is for Checo… so we loved the podium for the LVGP last year.

        We’re sitting at the Sphere again this year, right by the chicane so the cars are going slowly enough to see and not just hear them. We decided once more just because it really was a great race last year.

        1. Free Meerkats*

          I’ll post a get together time and place during the race weekend if you want to say hi. I’ll probably get there the Sunday before and stay downtown. The worker hotel is the Luxor.

  11. TheBunny*

    This. Yes the women weren’t invited and the men were. We don’t know why and LW didn’t ask to be included and was turned down.

  12. Free Meerkats*

    For #5, this falls into the advice Alison gives most of the “What will people think if I XXX?” posts; most won’t even notice. And of the few that do, most of them really won’t care.

    Pivoting to my own advice: for the miniscule number left after that, you need to ask yourself why they care. Do they have a good reason? Are they perpetually nosy? Are you being stalked?

    1. UKDancer*

      Yes definitely. Most people don’t notice linked in changes and those who do are unlikely to remember if the job you start is a different one from the one you announce. Yes there may be a few people who will clock this but they’re not likely to be very numerous.

  13. Awkwardness*

    #3: LW writes that “Others have …been given a voice in their career trajectory” and at the same time, they answer with avoidance/no clear plan:
    I was (…) asked if I was okay with it (as if I had a choice or a say)”
    they asked me if that was okay. I was flabbergasted but said, “I don’t have any say in this, so yes.”

    There is no shame in telling that you would want career advancement too or to ask for opportunities or what would be required to have changes to your tasks! But I am not sure if LW is clear what they want except opportunity or voice. For example, it is not clear to me if they actually wanted the position of their former manager or if that only would have been “natural course of things”.

    1. Nicosloanica*

      That’s a good point. I think a lot of people think the workplace is a pure meritocracy (so if they’re doing a good job, or even a fine job, they’ll keep getting promoted forever) or that if you’ve been there for enough time you’ll naturally get promoted without any effort on your part- after all you would have heard about it if there was a problem with your work, right …? That’s probably true for some roles/offices but no place I’ve ever worked. You have to proactively work the power structure pretty hard and angle for promotions and make it clear to the decision makers that you’re a go getter who wants to be in the next role. Working back channels, interviewing well, keeping an eye on the broader ecosystem of your office and field. It’s not just about showing up and doing a good enough job.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        I have a friend like this. She worked a lot of associate lawyer jobs. She worked really hard and did good work. But she also did things like leave a lunch with other associates and the partner to go back to the office to work figuring that would show dedication. She kept getting passed over for moving up, suggested to that there was no long term place for her at the firm, etc. It took her the longest time to realize that there was more to a job than just hard work.

    2. Hyaline*

      I mean, I’m not there in LW’s workplace, but they perceive others as “being given” a voice when it very well could be that those people proactively initiated conversations about their careers and desire for advancement. If you don’t say peep about your goals, it’s no one’s fault that they didn’t intuit your desire for movement upwards. Plenty of people *don’t* want to be promoted out of their comfort zone, or out of a particular niche of work.

    3. iglwif*

      I noticed the same thing in this letter — a lot of passive voice (“have been given a voice,” “was talked at”) and a general sense that things happen around and to LW without their participation or comment.

      The situation sounds bad, and I wouldn’t want to stay there either. If I were LW’s friend or spouse, I would totally back them in looking for another job!

      And also … as a person who struggles with self-advocacy and speaking up in her own defence, I gotta say, it is not at all clear that LW has ever said any of what’s in this letter to their boss or grandboss, or said out loud what it is they want at work.

      A successful fundraiser at a nonprofit should be paid really well (relative to other staff)! They are literally critical to the organization’s ongoing solvency!! So unless a lot of info is missing here, something is definitely hinky … and it might be that management is Deeply Nefarious, but it might also be that management and LW are not communicating things to each other that they really need to be.

  14. Adam*

    For #3, it’s really unclear to me to what extent you’ve communicated any of this to the higher ups at your workplace. Is it possible you’ve never mentioned to them that you want to be promoted or see the scope of your work expanded? For example, when they asked if it was okay that someone else was going to get the manager job, did you act happy, or did you say you were disappointed and were hoping to get that job yourself? Because that would be the perfect opportunity to communicate that, and if you didn’t, then they may have inferred that you didn’t have any interest in the management job in the first place.

    Some people are happy to keep doing the same job, and while a good manager will proactively talk to their people about what they want, lots of managers assume that if you don’t say you want something more, you’re perfectly happy where you are.

    1. Shrimp Emplaced*

      This, exactly.

      Also, OP — even if you do move on to a different org and job as Alison suggests you can, it’s crucial that you learn to advocate for yourself in the ways many of the above comments describe. Otherwise, you may end up repeating this passive, victim mindset with your new company. You’re allowed to have a vision for your career path wherever you work, and you’re allowed to communicate that to your managers, higher-ups, and coworkers. The company may not (or may never) be able to give you everything you want, but if you [i] never [/i] tell them your true feelings about a) what you want — title-wise, duty-wise, recognition-wise, $-wise, etc; b) what you believe you’re worth and what you deserve; c) feelings of being passed over, even a good boss may think you’re content with what you’re given.

      Your current nonprofit definitely seems to be taking advantage of your passivity. As others have pointed out, at many nonprofits, they’d be falling all over themselves to keep you happy because of the money you’re bringing in.

      That said, it sounds like there’s an internal messaging somewhere that combines “You get what you get, and you don’t get upset” with “If they truly valued me, they’d be able to read my mind and give me what I believe I’m worth.” In a work context, you’ll be much better off if you take either or both out of the equation and learn to speak up.

      1. ThursdaysGeek*

        Yes, it’s very important to realize: they can’t read your mind. They don’t know what you want if you don’t tell them.

        I know, it seems like if you do good work, that should in itself be recognized. But too often, quietly doing a good job means they can just depend on you and spend their time addressing the squeaky wheels. Quiet good workers can get overlooked and forgotten.

    2. Shrimp Emplaced*

      This, exactly.

      Also, OP — even if you do move on to a different org and job as Alison suggests you can, it’s crucial that you learn to advocate for yourself in the ways many of the above comments describe. Otherwise, you may end up repeating this passive, victim mindset with your new company. You’re allowed to have a vision for your career path wherever you work, and you’re allowed to communicate that to your managers, higher-ups, and coworkers. The company may not (or may never) be able to give you everything you want, but if you *never* tell them your true feelings about a) what you want — title-wise, duty-wise, recognition-wise, $-wise, etc; b) what you believe you’re worth and what you deserve; c) feelings of being passed over, even a good boss may think you’re content with what you’re given.

      Your current nonprofit definitely seems to be taking advantage of your passivity. As others have pointed out, at many nonprofits, they’d be falling all over themselves to keep you happy because of the money you’re bringing in.

      That said, it sounds like there’s an internal messaging somewhere that combines “You get what you get, and you don’t get upset” with “If they truly valued me, they’d be able to read my mind and give me what I believe I’m worth.” In a work context, you’ll be much better off if you take either or both out of the equation and learn to speak up.

  15. Jo*

    really number one?

    “A group of people with a shared interest at work are having fun and those of us with no interest feel we are missing out, also we don’t want to do it. This isn’t fair!!”

    1. Nodramalama*

      I think thats a little unfair to LW. Im not convinced there’s any sexist intent here without further evidence, but 1) LW is right that the optics are not great, and 2) gambling is a lot like drinking in that while great swathes of people do it and don’t see any issue with it, it’s also a sensitive area of a lot of people and involving the workplace can be dicey.

      1. Jo*

        If this was a man complaining about a group of women not inviting him to their “cliche female activity” that he has no interest in he would be rightly roasted for such a dumb “problem”

        1. Nodramalama*

          Cool it’s almost like “reverse the genders” is a false analogy designed to invalidate arguments because it removes all context from the problem.

        2. bamcheeks*

          “there are five women and two men in our team, and the women have formed a XXX group and talk about it all the time, it’s really annoying” would be a completely legit complaint IMO. If everyone’s on the same level and it’s not giving anyone a clear advantage like “more time with management”, there’s nothing you can actively DO about it but I think everyone has the right to feel a little narked if there’s something dominating the conversation at work that excludes them. If you’re in the majority group, it’s good to be aware of the dynamics of these things.

          1. Myrin*

            And didn’t we actually have at least one letter like that, and possibly this year, even? I believe it was about pregnancy and childbearing/-rearing and OP both didn’t want to hear about the topic in such immense detail in general, especially about his coworkers, but was also the only man in the group.
            I can’t seem to find it in the moment but IIRC correctly, Alison’s answer was exactly along the lines you outline here, too.

          2. Peanut Hamper*

            Yes, it’s this. It’s not that OP wanted to participate; it’s that they weren’t even asked.

            Three people who like football; four who don’t. Two of the people who don’t like football get asked to participate, and they just happen to be the same gender as the three who do like football. That seems like gender-based discrimination to me, regardless of the genders involved. The optics are really bad.

            You should at least give people the opportunity to say “no” rather than assuming their answer will be “no”.

            1. doreen*

              The letter doesn’t actually say the other two don’t like it – it says they ” are not huge soccer fans” which covers a lot , including the pretty likely possibility that they are casual fans.

              It’s a small group , five men and two women and they were in fact correct about the women’s lack of interest. If there were some reason, any reason, to think the women would be interested, then they should have been invited. If they were football fans, or even if they were known to be the sort of people who bet on ants crawling up a wall , they should have been invited. They should have been invited if the men had no idea about their interest in sports, which might be the case in a larger group. But if they made comments about there being too much sports conversation before the pool started , or said they don’t understand why their coworkers spend so much time watching sports, or replied to ” Did you see that game yesterday? with ” I’m not a sports fan” or otherwise made their lack of interest clear , then that’s a different issue.

              It’s fine to be annoyed that a topic is dominating all the conversation when it excludes some people – but that would be true even if the women were asked and declined or if the genders were mixed. The conversation part wouldn’t really be any better if everyone was invited, one man and one woman declined and the four men and one woman in the pool talked about nothing else.

            2. Caramel & Cheddar*

              Yeah, the issue that popped out at me was that they are too loud / too frequent in how they talk about their little gambling league, not necessarily the fact that it exists. Asking them to be a bit more quiet / take it to the break room / chat about it on Teams or Slack is a perfectly reasonable request.

            3. MigraineMonth*

              OP1 comments that one of the men asked originally said that he was not interested, and the others pressured him into joining anyway. So it’s pretty clear it wasn’t “lack of interest” that differentiates the men who were asked from the women who weren’t.

              We can only guess what that difference might be. Hair color?

        3. Ellis Bell*

          That would still be a legitimate problem and I for one having worked in female dominated professions, think it would be incredibly rude and not dumb at all, especially if the person affected said so, but for some reason men are less affected by gender segregation. Can’t think why.

        4. Orv*

          To be honest? I work in an office where all the other employees are women. One day the manager got everyone but me flowers as a “thank-you” for a project being finished. I felt slighted. Maybe you think that’s dumb, but it was a friendly gesture that everyone else got that I didn’t.

      2. Bud Nipper*

        Only on AAM would there be a letter complaining of not being invited to participate in an event in which they had no desire to participate in the first place.

        1. Still*

          Sure, it sounds silly on the surface! But only until you realise that there are more layers to it.

          – Purely socially, I think most people have experienced the feeling of exclusion when they’re not invited somewhere even though they aren’t particularly interested in going, because it signals that the other people in the social group don’t care about them being there, which can be hurtful.

          – Considering that it’s happening at work, whether or not the person is interested in the specific activity, they can still be sad about missing out on the bonding and networking opportunity.

          – Historically, women have been left out of such sports-based bonding and networking opportunities, which can directly impact their success at the company. In that context, five male coworkers having a recurring sports-based activity and not even considering inviting women along rings alarm bells, even if the men are perfectly pleasant human beings and the women have no interest in said sport.

          1. doreen*

            I don’t think it’s silly for someone to have feelings about being excluded from something they don’t want to do – but I kind of wonder if anyone really thinks. ” You should have invited us to join” “OK, it’s ten dollars “. ” No, I don’t actually want in. I just wanted to point out that we should have been invited” is going to go over well.

            1. L-squared*

              Agreed. To me its just one of those things that you maybe are annoyed by and complain to your partner about, but saying something just doesn’t sound great.

              Like, I had a bunch of women coworkers who watched the Bachelor shows. They even one year did a fantasy league for it. If I wasn’t invited, and a lot of my colleagues were, yeah, maybe I’d feel a bit left out when they talked about it the next day. But I couldn’t see myself saying “I wish I would’ve been invited” and them to say ok we’ll add you next year, only to then say “well, I don’t really WANT to participate, just to have the option to say no”

            2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

              Well, that’s a fantasy scenario you’ve cooked up that isn’t going to happen, so no need to worry about it going poorly.

              I notice you ignored Still’s third point because you’re pretty dedicated to pretending sexism doesn’t exist.

              1. doreen*

                I am not dedicated to pretending sexism doesn’t exist – it absolutely does . But the letter doesn’t have enough information to tell if that’s the case here. The third point is irrelevant to what I’m talking about which is that it’s not silly to feel excluded but there ‘s really nothing you can do about it that will go over well.

                I’m not sure how you can say ” that’s a fantasy that isn’t going to happen” – the LW asks “Is it worth bringing to the rest of our team’s attention”. Ok , so she brings it to their attention. Then what? Are you saying that it’s not possible they would invite her to join them? Are you saying that once they invite her, she will join the group even though she’s not interested?

                1. allathian*

                  One of the male non-fans who declined to join at first was eventually “cajoled” (or maybe coerced would be a better term) to join them. The OP has posted elsewhere on this thread.

        2. MigraineMonth*

          Another reading of the letter is, “The men on my team have organized a club that excludes both the women on the team. I am familiar with the history of boy’s club activities at golf courses and strip clubs that have damaged women’s careers so much that they are against the law (even if the women voluntarily opt out). Is this one of those illegal boy’s club activities that I would have to do something about, or can I leave it alone?”

    2. Irish Teacher.*

      I think it is quite weird to organise an event at work and invite all except two people. Especially since it made it more difficult for the organisers. They had to go individually to the two guys to invite them rather than putting up a notice in the staffroom or sending around an e-mail. That feels exclusionary. Even if you guess certain people wouldn’t be interested, it makes more sense to announce it to everybody and let people opt in.

      This might be different in a workplace of over 20 people where you don’t want things to get too big and you are only inviting five or six people, but inviting 5 out of 7…even without the gender issue, that seems like excluding people.

      I doubt they meant it that way. It’s more likely they just got up the idea between the three of them and thought, “hey, might be more fun with a couple more. We’ll ask John and Barry if they want to take part,” but it was thoughtless at best.

      The gendered issue makes the optics worse, but even without that, I feel that any time you are inviting more than say half of a group to take part in something, you should open the invitation to everybody. This goes double if you think all of those who wouldn’t be interested fall into a category, like all are women or all younger or older or all new to the company

      1. KC*

        Not everyone gets invited to every social event. Because that’s what this is. It’s a bunch of people who are friends planning to hang out together.

        It’s very elementary school to say that everyone has to be invited to off the clock, not sanctioned by work social activities or they aren’t allowed to happen.

    3. Greg Brady*

      As a man, I understand the tendency to simplify it to “someone is complaining about being excluded from something they don’t want to do anyway,” and rolling one’s eyes. My younger self would have done that.

      But context is everything. There’s a long history of women being excluded from socializing opportunities at work. It’s not a level playing field. As men, it’s our responsibility to be aware of this and, if necessary, go out of our way to make sure we’re neither doing that — nor appearing to do that.

      I expect to get pushback on this from other commenters. I just ask that we keep it respectful.

    4. KC*

      That’s exactly the vibe this is giving. OP can’t be mad because they weren’t invited to something they have no interest in.

      It just feels like they’re upset that people are being friends without them.

  16. Fluffy Orange Menace*

    #4, I’d say every one of my jobs in the past decade (approximately four of them) are verbal agreement, and official contrast months later. Is it ideal? No. It is the industry standard, and wanting to have official contract first would guarantee we’d never get a job in our field.

    1. LC*

      This is very very normal in Australia. No point getting HR to generate the paperwork (which can take a week or so) if it then has to be reissued because you want to negotiate a different salary of start date.

    2. LC*

      This is very very normal in Australia. No point getting HR to generate the paperwork (which can take a week or so) if it then has to be reissued because you want to negotiate a different salary of start date.

      Especially so in the public service

    3. Anonymouse617*

      U.S. based, but higher ed. It’s extremely normal to get a verbal agreement first, and then the formal offer which the employee signs. It’s not for any nefarious reasons, but for the amount of bureaucratic procedures involved in writing a job offer. We typically need the salary, start date, and title confirmed before writing the job offer, otherwise we have to start the writing (and approval of higher ups) from scratch if there’s negotiations.

      1. Goldie*

        Yeah it’s a pain in the rear to have to get paperwork re-approved and signed because someone ones to start 2 days later.

    4. Brett*

      My tech company also asked for a verbal acceptance. Offers go through a compensation committee, HR, and other approvals so I think they just wanted to find out if there was any problem before taking 2-4 days to get the formal offer prepared. You would essentially negotiate the offer with your recruiter if you had a specific compensation number in mind, bonus, equity, etc. I asked for an additional signing bonus and he said he would pass that request along to the comp committee. I’m not sure what the reaction would have been if I was non committal (looking to get other simultaneous offers or unsure if this was the right fit). I suspect they would have still extended an offer.

      The key, I think, is that candidates need to realize in this scenario you’re negotiating the offer right now…not when you get an offer letter. And if it’s done over the phone, feel free to ask to call them if you need time to decide whether and how much to counter.

      1. Plate of Wings*

        Same at the tech companies (US) I have worked at. After some talking (questions and negotiating, mostly over the phone or Zoom/Skype) they say something like “okay I’m going to put together an offer with this compensation, title, and expectations, and you’re planning to accept?” and I say yes.

        I have never negotiated after I got the paperwork, it would have to get redrafted, approved and signed again by multiple people. And these were small, casual companies! I can’t imagine the bureaucracy of a large corp!

    5. Salty Caramel*

      This has been the way for most of my jobs since 2005, and I’ve usually had the start date with the verbal offer as well. (USA)

      1. OP #4*

        Thanks all for the thoughts on this – which is more or less what I told my husband, he just wanted outside perspective because the interactions with HR up to that point had been somewhat frustrating and miscommunicative. It was much simpler, as you all stated, than what he’d been imagining :)

    6. iglwif*

      I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a written, formal job offer that wasn’t preceded by a verbal offer and agreement to accept it. It doesn’t make sense to do all the paperwork for someone who doesn’t at least indicate they are very likely to accept!

      As Alison says, if the offer letter / contract you’re sent to sign contains terms not mentioned in the verbal offer or terms that contradict the verbal offer, it’s extremely reasonable to say “hang on, this isn’t what we agreed to.”

  17. BellaStella*

    LW2 on medications listen to this advice and flag the ADA info. I do not work in the USA and recently had to see a work appointed doctor. She asked about my meds for context of the sick leave but did not include this info in any formal report for work. I agree this can lead to discrimination and especially for new hires this is not ok. And to be pressured by the person doing background checks who has additional info that can link to context the medications this is really not ok!

  18. Nene Poppy*

    Personally I don’t gamble. If others want to, then that is up to them; but I don’t think gambling should be in the workplace.

    I used to work for a HNW person who was not only a internantional property developer but an owner of a horse racing stable and stud. I worked in his property business.

    He was a HUGE gambler in racing and football (soccer). On days where one of his horses was racing, the office staff would gather and watch the race on the huge tv and cheer his horse on…

    However, absolutely no betting clubs, pools, syndicates etc were allowed in the company. He refused to give racing tips.

    He said that he had seen more people ruined by gambling than benefited from it.

  19. Rosacolleti*

    #3 Sounds like you’re in Sales and are very good at it – sales people are normally about the best paid people in a business, go find somewhere where they appreciate you.

    #4 I always try and get verbal acceptance before going to the effort of putting together the paperwork. I never celebrate until I have a signature on a page, but it’s a decent show of faith.

    1. Charley*

      My understanding of 3 is that they’re in Development at a non-profit, rather than selling a product, but your point still stands. Every org needs a good dev person!

  20. amoeba*

    LW1 (Betting pool): How’s your relationship with those colleagues? I’d definitely be low-key annoyed by the gendered invited, so I’d probably just mention it to them during lunch or something – like “Hey, I noticed you asked all of the men but not X and me. In that case, that’s no problem because I’m actually not interested, but can you make sure to ask the women as well next time/when somebody new joins/whatever? Some of us like soccer, too and would probably feel left out. Thanks!” (with a friendly tone/face).

    TBH, that’s the diplomatic version – with my close coworkers who know me and my feminist ways (haha) I’d probably be more like “Oh, come on, really? You mist realise how sexist this looks!” (again, in a friendly tone, of course). But that’s for people I know really well and am friendly with and where I know they can take it.

    2. Myrin*

      I was also thinking that this might be a good example of gendered behaviour (for lack of a better expression) to keep in mind for when the topic of (low-key) exclusion and bias comes up later and possibly even regarding much bigger/more severe concerns.

      A friendly “Remember how it was with that betting pool back in July? That’s the smaller/less important version of [this situation] which might feel like nothing at all to those who aren’t affected but can still make people feel alienated, and that’s the kind of thing that adds up.” can go a long way in making people understand what others are talking about because it’s something very concrete which they probably remember and might even have been involved in.

      1. bamcheeks*

        YES – and you can emphasise that you know there was no *intent* to exclude, but the *impact* was…

    3. I Have RBF*

      This. Besides, you don’t have to be interested in a sport to join a simple pool.

      I loathe American football. But if people at work were passing around a simple Super Bowl pool I’d buy a square, just for fun. I don’t do fantasy-style teams or anything complicated, because I have no interest in that. But if people were passing around a simple pool and skipped me because I present (mostly) female? I would be annoyed.

  21. Helvetica*

    LW#1 – I think I disagree slightly with Alison in that I would mention to the guys that in an office setting, it makes sense to ask everyone. I am bothered by the fact they only asked men, tbh.
    I had some colleagues who were setting up a team for a casual football tournament where they only asked men, despite it being with mixed teams, and I did tell the organiser that he should ask everyone. He did next time and we got a mixed team – not all men or all women wanted to do it, after all.

  22. Oldsbone*

    LW #3- they’re probably being completely honest with you and not gaslighting you at all when they say they don’t want to lose you at your current position and then not promote you. They want you to stay in the little box that benefits them forever because it benefits them the most. Companies forget that when they don’t promote the worker bees because they don’t want to lose them in the field the worker bees will often leave the company to promote themselves. Promote yourself if they won’t do it for you.

    1. Person from the Resume*

      Also if they value so much they would offer you an increased salary and you wouldn’t be the lowest paid employee with the most tenure.

      But it is not gaslighting. It would be gaslighting if they were lying to you and trying to convince you that this all you deserve. “This is all fundraisers make. You’re in a dead end role. You work output doesn’t deserve more money.”

      Them asking you if you’re okay with the changes they’re making (where you are not being promoted) is not gaslighting. It’s disingenuous because your probably right you saying no won’t change anything.

      But it doesn’t have to be gaslighting or have a technical term for you to be treated badly, unfair, taken for granted, overlooked, not paid what you’re worth, bait and switched with promise of promotion that was taken away. You deserve better. You deserve to be promoted and make more money. You deserve to go some place else to get paid what you’re worth. You can look for something better.

  23. Dear Liza dear liza*

    LW #4- getting a verbal ok before sending an offer letter is common in places with lots of bureaucracy, like higher ed. We have to go through the budget office and have HR run a background check before a letter can be offered. A simple change like start date can trigger another round of approvals. It’s quickest to get all details ironed out before formalizing it with the letter.

    1. Hyaline*

      Was going to say this–I work in higher ed, and the offer letter is the last piece, not the initial piece of hiring. I’ve always gotten a verbal (sometimes phone, sometimes “verbal” over email) confirmation of the offer with the basic terms we’ve discussed (and a lot isn’t open to negotiation in my field, so that’s part of it, too). Then they go through the process to draft the letter.

      1. Orv*

        When planning this out in terms of start date keep in mind that your new hire probably won’t be able to obtain housing until they have the offer letter in hand.

  24. Lala*

    I have a related question about insurance/prescriptions maybe someone can answer. I work for a small business, and for many years, whenever they switched plans, and/or if you decided to switch plans the plans they offered (sometimes your exact old plan wasn’t offered, even if the same insurance company was offering plans the company was offering) the insurance company forms would ask for your health conditions and/or prescriptions. The paperwork would also say that if you didn’t fill them out honestly, they could deny coverage. Which meant, of course, that the person in the company who took the forms to send over saw everything about people’s medical conditions/prescription information.

    Was this legal and why, given Allison’s answer? If it wasn’t legal, why and how could it have been avoided?

    This didn’t happen last time (though the insurance company asked for access to my HSA account, which I crossed off – again – REALLY?) but I’m worried this will happen and and am very uncomfortable with the above, particularly because the person who is in charge of this stuff is both a gossip and prejudiced.

    1. metadata minion*

      When was this? I think the answer may be different depending on whether it was before or after the ACA was passed.

      1. Coverage Associate*

        Not an expert on the ACA, but that is my understanding as well. With both ACA/marketplace and new employer plans, the only medical underwriting allowed at the individual level is age and maybe smoker status.
        Pre ACA, a small employer might have avoided collecting the information internally by using a broker who would collect the information from employees and present it, anonymized, to insurers.
        I know that there’s still some medical underwriting of employer sponsored plans, but the employers should have all the claims data, again, usually anonymized as much as possible, without having to double check with employees. Eg, at the beginning of Covid, our CEO could report on how many claims for positive tests were reported to our health insurer, but he didn’t know who had tested positive while everyone was working remotely. (When we started to come back to the office, we had to self report.)
        As for medical underwriting post ACA, I haven’t heard that it’s like before, and of course they have to cover everything that the ACA makes them cover, but a lot of those workplace wellness programs are because the employer gets a discount on their portion of the health insurance premiums if they put them in place. I once met someone who negotiated such things on behalf of a large HMO with large employers. Things like switching to healthier snacks in the vending machines, or some of the steps challenges.

        1. Coverage Associate*

          Actually, it’s probably not a discount on premiums per se, it’s a reduction of the employer’s co insurance portion. Some plans the employer pays a percentage of the claims, just like I pay a percentage of my claims as an individual. So it’s win win win if the employer can reduce claims by moving the needle across all enrollees on diet and exercise issues. It is a loss for employees annoyed by the workplace wellness programs, but the programs are easier for me to put up with knowing that they are based on aggregated data and profit motives, not personal judgments.

        2. Lala*

          if my memory is correct, it was both pre aca and after the aca started. but maybe not? I’m not sure I remember the timing properly anymore. I didn’t think with group insurance meds and stuff mattered though, even pre aca, since you were getting it through a group and couldn’t be denied.

    2. Observer*

      Was this legal and why, given Allison’s answer?

      Probably. The issue here is “business necessity”. In other words, it was the only way for the insurance to be processed.

      Having said that, the only person who should have had access to that information should have been the person dealing with the insurance company, and it should have been kept separate from any other files that anyone else would have access to.

      1. Lala*

        ah, got it. and I’m sure it probably was kept separately, if that was required, but the information contained was definitely not kept private.

    3. anon24*

      I was wondering this too. Last time I worked for an employer that decided to change insurance companies they sent out an email that they were shopping for new plans and that everyone needed to fill out a form listing all doctors and pharmacies we used and medications we took and that if we did that we’d have coverage and wouldn’t have to switch but if not we would lose coverage.

      None of my 3 doctors were covered under the new plan, including the specialist who had written my intermittent FMLA forms, and I was never able to find a new specialist under the new insurance, leaving me without FMLA coverage and causing me to almost get fired for calling out too many days because one my chronic health conditions was no longer being treated, I was having more flare ups and no longer had the legal protection to take time off when I needed it.

      Another co-worker lost access to her long time pharmacist who worked with her on filling her meds and also one of her doctors.

      We weren’t the only ones. It felt deliberate and like a slap in the face. I’ll never be honest on those forms again. This was shortly before covid times.

  25. Sheworkshardforthemoney*

    No. 3 You need to update your resume and include a timeline of how much money that you raised for your organization especially during the pandemic years. Get a better job where you are compensated for your skillset. Don’t listen to any counter-offer or guilt tripping about how valuable you are to the team. If they respected and valued you then you wouldn’t be unhappy watching others progress while you are left behind. “Because you are so good at your job” is not an excuse for limiting your career progress, it’s BS.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      This hits hard, because it perfectly describes both my last position (which was terrible) and my current position (which is not terrible, but pays less than market value). At my current job, I’ve watched people get hired, I’ve trained them, then I watched them get promoted, and then eventually quit. I get told how valuable I am to the team, but every time a chance to get promoted comes up, they move the goalposts.

      I am working on my resume and portfolio, and plan on being out of here before the end of the year. And when I leave they will ask why, and I will let them know. And it will feel good.

      1. Lily Potter*

        Peanut Hamper, can I assume that when promotions become available, you’ve applied for them? Or at least been explicitly clear with management that “the next time an analyst position opens up, I want to be considered?” I can’t tell for sure, but I have the feeling that OP3 wants to be promoted based solely upon her good past work and hasn’t made her desire for promotion clear to management. Even if she had said “I want Lucinda’s job someday”, she needs to let people know whether she’d be open to other possibilities too. I’ve seen many times where businesses reorganize internally, new positions are created, and those are given out to people known to be ambitious – without any open/competitive process at all.

        One other thing. The term “gaslight” is trendy now but I don’t think that it’s happening to OP3. Gaslighting is when a person psychologically manipulates another, causing the second person to question reality. If OP3 were really being gaslit, her management would string her along with promises of promotion and then later say “We never discussed giving you that promotion, That’s crazy talk”. I don’t think OP3’s managers ever promised her anything; I think OP3 expected to get it organically somehow.

        All this to say – time to find a new place for yourself, OP. Once you’re there 6-9 months, start talking “career development” with your boss during 1:1 sessions. Ask what skills you need to learn to be an even better Analyst, and also what skills you’ll need someday to become a Senior Analyst. Get the skills, and around the 18 month mark, let it be known that you’re interested in becoming a Senior Planner the next time there’s a position opening. You don’t threaten to leave, you just make it clear that you don’t want to stay where you are forever.

        1. Lily Potter*

          My apologies – I just reread OP3’s letter and she notes that she DID make her desire for advancement known (sorry, no coffee yet….). A reread also revealed that management has been pretty explicit that they don’t see OP3 advancing within the organization. No gaslighting or hidden agendas there. OP3 needs to move on.

      2. Sheworkshardforthemoney*

        Yes, I left a job because after doing the manager’s work and mine for almost 2 years. I was told my I was too valuable to be promoted?? I resigned in favour of a better job at the same level. There was a lot satisfaction in running into my former boss and letting them know that my experience was recognised and compensated.

    2. El l*

      Stem people get this all the time – “You’re so good at your role, we can’t lose you! It’ll be impossible to find as good a replacement, etc etc.”

      They have shown repeatedly a different idea of your potential than you and will do everything possible to lock you in place. Don’t consent to this. The only way out of this jam is to leave.

    3. Person from the Resume*

      If the LW really were SO VALUABLE at her current job, they would be paying her more and trying to keep her happy.

      This seems to happen a lot with women in admin roles. Not saying that the LW is necessarily in an admin role (but she’s paid the least). I think a lot of the time the woman (very often the woman) is good at a low level work and also willing to do the less glamorous (sometimes shitty) jobs, and that is valuable because other people wouldn’t put up with it for long. She puts up with it and puts up with being passed over because of unwillingness to rock the boat, make a fuss, quit over the poor treatment.

    4. sometimeswhy*

      This is what I came here to say. When you give notice, they will try guilt (but we need you, we can’t do this without you) then money (it will not be enough, could never be enough to make up for being passed over for years) then *maybe* anger (how could you do this to us + implied threats) to keep you.

      Do not accept a counter offer. Do not give them a long notice period. Do not believe them when they’re desperate if they couldn’t do right when they were comfortable. If they actually valued you, they’d’ve promoted you into a position where you could develop and mentor a bunch of people to do the sort of work they value from you.

      If you love the company or the mission or have other things that make you value the place over the people and the politics, you can leave and go back but absolutely leave. They keep telling you and showing you that you’re not going to advance while you’re still there.

  26. El l*

    OP4:
    Some the extra precautions may be stemming from it being a more senior role. If they’ve had to negotiate things like location, exit arrangements, WFH, it especially makes sense that they’d want the basic terms agreed before the contract. Their question struck me as standard negotiation-speak.

    But there’s no obligation till there’s a signed formal offer letter. Till then it’s just talk.

  27. Fluffy Orange Menace*

    #1 I agonised on if I want to comment on this one. Ultimately I think there’s not enough to go on to say it’s definitely sexism, but I also feel that your coworkers mishandled it regardless of sexism or not. Workplace hobby groups are tricky! I’m personally quite prone to hyperfixiation, but also found the people who behave like circa 2010 Homestuck really terrifying. My only balancing act is announce free to join for everyone, and then if anyone mentioned they are into the same thing first, I then invite them. Never based on perceived gender or assumptions. I don’t think it’s foolproof, but also better than whatever your workplace’s approach.

    1. Chirpy*

      Yeah. I’m not going into details of what happened at my workplace, because they will identify me, but it was a similar situation, only I was interested in the thing and was specifically not invited because the boss wanted a “boy’s night”. To make it even more awkward, I was sitting 20 feet away during their event and was the only one in the room not welcome to participate. So #1’s situation is at least something she wasn’t interested in, but yeah, the guys could have handled this a lot better. They should have at least asked out of courtesy.

      1. allathian*

        It’s one thing to ask, another to actively welcome. Asking merely to comply with formal requirements while making it clear that the person being asked is definitely not welcome is just as bad as not asking at all.

        Before the pandemic, my office had a yarn crafts club. I wasn’t a member but one of my work friends was and she said that one of the most active and enthusiastic members was a guy who loved to knit and he was usually working on a sweater/jumper, generally one of Kaffe Fassett’s patterns. He also wore them to work in winter. Apparently some of the older women were a bit weirded out at first to have a man in his late 30s or early 40s join their sewing circle, but he was so friendly and enthusiastic about knitting that they soon got over the weirdness and welcomed him, When we still had our own desks (before hotdesking), he had a picture of his family with his wife and two kids wearing sweaters that he’d made for them.

        1. Chirpy*

          Yes, that’s the other part of it, the welcoming. In my case, I think the other guys were at least uncomfortable that they were doing this activity in full view of me, knowing that I wasn’t invited but actually couldn’t leave the room (I needed specific equipment, they could have gone literally anywhere). So I’m pretty sure they would have been fine with me joining, the boss just had some weird need to prove his masculinity all the time and decided “boys’ night” was a good idea.

  28. Elise*

    It bothers me so much, as a domestic violence survivor, when people use the term gaslighting so cavalierly. Gaslighting is a psychological abuse tactic used to control victims. It takes years of therapy to recover from. I’m sure it sucks when your work doesn’t follow through or isn’t reliable, but that’s not even close to gaslighting. Using the word that way feels very demeaning of what abuse victims go through.
    Not trying to be too fragile here, but that was upsetting. I wish Alison had pushed back a little harder on that.

    1. jane's nemesis*

      I hear you, but it’s not the letter writer’s fault that society and pop culture have completely devalued the term to the point of meaninglessness.

      1. JustaTech*

        And the OP was *asking* if they were being gaslit, not saying that they were. Asking is good!

        So, no, OP, you’re not being gaslit, these people are saying to your face that they don’t want you to move up.
        They’re not good people to work for, and I totally understand how this is damaging to your self esteem and evaluation of your professional judgement, but they aren’t trying to make you doubt your own experiences, so it’s not gaslighting, it’s just general bad behavior.

    2. Kathy*

      Thank you…it’s not the LW’s fault that this is so common now, but I can’t even figure out what they think gaslighting *means*, from this letter. It seems like people are using it now for any situation that made them feel bad at all, or made them second guess themselves. Certainly any lie or disagreement seems to result in a gaslighting accusation these days.

      It feels like we need a more technical term now for the actual psychological abuse technique of deliberately and systematically lying to someone with the goal of making them feel they can’t rely on their own perceptions of reality. The word “gaslighting” has been so watered down it’s useless at this point.

  29. Tom R*

    LW4, this is pretty normal. The company just want to make sure that the terms are acceptable before drafting the offer letter, the only thing surprising is that the start date wasn’t part of the conversation. They don’t want to draft an offer letter, then have the candidate decide they want to negotiate the terms (and then they have to re-draft the offer letter). When I hire people I have a conversation with them to discuss the terms, the start date etc…. and if they verbally accept then we draft the offer letter based on what was discussed. There is still a chance for them to change their mind so I am well aware that the verbal conversation is not the final offer but at least we know what to put in the offer letter

    1. Sneaky Squirrel*

      Yes, this is my perception as well. When we hire candidates, we extend the offer verbally with the negotiated terms. The offer letter shouldn’t contain any surprises to our candidates. Our offer letters go through multiple layers of review to minimize mistakes so it’s a lot of work to have to redraft a letter when the candidates request changes. Though the candidate verbally accepts, the signed offer letter is considered the formal acceptance of employment.

      1. VerbalOffers*

        This is not normal. Yes, it is normal to get a verbal offer first, but a verbal offer is a preliminary offer that can only reasonably accepted provisionally. I will always say something like ” thank you so much, I’m looking forward to seeing the formal offer in writing”.

  30. Trout 'Waver*

    OP#4: This is a good problem to have. As Alison points out, they are expecting your husband to negotiate. He should take them up on that and negotiate for whatever he thinks would make him the happiest: flexible start date, work from home, money, PTO, whatever makes sense.

    They’re doing it this way because the offer letter probably has to be drafted by an exec and run through legal. They don’t want to do that because it costs political capital or could cause delays, or another bureaucratic reason.

  31. Aye Nonny Nonny*

    #2 – As someone taking an antidepressant and birth control, I am incandescent with rage about this (at best) nosy employer. This will 100% be used for discrimination. Whether it’s ableism, sexism, or the mean cheapness of “we don’t want to cover this expensive drug” doesn’t really matter.

    1. mreasy*

      There is no legit reason for them to know this outside of very specific medical contexts (e.g. a pilot like Alison mentioned, but jobs like that have very clear and specific guidelines around gathering this information). The reason they WANT to know it is 1000% so they can discriminate against people with mental illness, who are on birth control or IVF, or with a host of other conditions. This is so infuriating and seems certain to run afoul of laws.

    2. Bird Lady*

      I’m LW #2, and for the life of me I still can’t figure it out. I was a grant writer and wrote fundraising appeals. The assistant I hired stuffed envelopes and entered things into the database. We didn’t use our car for work, interacted with children, or performed any physical labor. And yet, the Director of Facilities and HR really wanted a list of prescriptions. It was wild!

  32. Edith curb*

    Re:L1 I find it pretty poor social etiquette that the organisers didn’t ask everyone first if they’re interested in joining. But my impression may be coloured by my work experience being entirely in public service where I’m pretty sure we have policies about this sort of thing.

  33. Judy*

    #2, I would just say “I take no prescription medications”. Period (even if I take ten). What more could they do? Subpoena your medical records?

    1. Alan*

      Yeah. My employer announced at one point that all employees (and there were thousands) needed to report their current medications to the company doctor’s office so that they could make sure that no one was medicated inappropriately for work. The vast majority of the company is engineers and administrative people, not nurses or truck drivers. I chose to ignore the request. It was never repeated, and I never heard from anyone that they had actually complied. I suspect that the doctor had visions of grandeur, sent the e-mail, and was quickly shut down.

      1. Observer*

        My employer announced at one point that all employees (and there were thousands) needed to report their current medications to the company doctor’s office so that they could make sure that no one was medicated inappropriately for work.

        I always wonder if these kinds of companies know when to run stuff by their lawyers. Because I suspect that this would have sent a competent lawyer through the roof.

        I suspect that the doctor had visions of grandeur, sent the e-mail, and was quickly shut down.

        I hope you are correct. Because that was really out of line. In fact, I hope he got shut down so hard that he was worried about his longevity in the job.

        1. Alan*

          I think a lot of times no one thinks to contact the legal team because “Why should I? This is a great idea!” We had someone else who apparently decided that age was a great metric for deciding whom to layoff because duh, of course you want to lay off the old expensive people first. They ended up losing a very expensive age-discrimination lawsuit, and the pendulum has swung so far the other way now that with the last layoff they published statistics showing that the demographics of the remaining employees were exactly the same as previously so no one should even *think* of suing.

          1. Observer*

            and the pendulum has swung so far the other way now that with the last layoff they published statistics showing that the demographics of the remaining employees were exactly the same as previously

            That may not be a “pendulum swing” as much as something required by law. In some cases, a company may be required to provide that information. The official reason is that it gives people the information they need to decide if they might have a case. I suspect that the real idea is that if you do this, people are going to be more careful because it’s going to be a lot harder to pretend and then hide the information.

            1. Alan*

              Perhaps. But they didn’t start publishing this until they lost in court. Or are you suggesting that the court judgment imposed this on them? It strikes me as a little silly because it appears that they chose whom to lay off specifically to make the metrics work and avoid litigation. During this last layoff they removed some *very* senior people and it feels like they’re throwing away expertise simply to balance out removing more recent hires. Plus it’s sad to think they’re dumping people who have contributed for decades to meet metrics.

  34. Sneaky Squirrel*

    #3 – It sounds like every time they’ve asked you if you were okay with a decision, you said yes when you weren’t. You may not have any say in this decision and saying no might not change anything, but you should still be making sure that they have a plan for your career development. And if you’re good at bringing in the money and are as invaluable in that role as they seem to claim, then they should be wanting to make you happy enough to stay. Gather that information about how much money you’ve made them and use that as leverage to present that case about how you deserve a raise and career opportunities. If they hem and haw at it and continue to say no, then you have your answer that it’s time to leave.

  35. yikes*

    in defense of the men starting a betting pool without inviting the women – inviting people who dont follow or know about a sport into a betting pool is actually kind of predatory if you think about it. ‘here, we’re wagering on this thing you know nothing about, why dont you put your money up too?”

    1. Anonymous Educator*

      Wouldn’t that logic also apply to the two dudes who also weren’t interested in the sport (but were invited to the pool)?

      1. Bella Ridley*

        All the letter says is “not huge soccer fans.” That could cover everything from “knows what soccer is” to “watches a game when it’s on at the pub” to “has a favourite team and a jersey but no season tickets.”

        1. Anonymous Educator*

          I don’t think the OP would have brought that up if the other two dudes were clearly more soccer friends than she and the other woman were.

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      I think it depends on how it was done. If it was “come on, join our betting pool,” then yeah, arguably, but if it was just an e-mail to all staff or a notice up in the staffroom, “we are starting a betting pool for x. If you want to join, sign up here,” then that seems reasonable.

      Going around to people individually, even if you are choosing those who have previously shown an interest strikes me as far more likely to be predatory, since it would likely have been harder for the two men who aren’t particularly interested in soccer to say no that way than it would be for them to just…not sign up.

    4. Orv*

      It could be if you’re pressured into it. But I think most adults can recognize that sort of situation. I certainly knew that when my coworkers asked me if I’d like to join their poker tournament that they were just looking for fresh meat. (Of course, the risk there is I could have turned out to be a hustler who had been hiding my poker knowledge up until that moment — I hadn’t been there that long!)

  36. ItsAllFunAndGamesUntil*

    #1 Reminds me I need to see who’s running the office squares pool this season for the Steeler games in the office, but in a way that it does not become me running the weekly squares for the Steelers games this year…… lol

  37. Grith*

    I feel like if I was OP3, I would have got halfway through writing the letter and laying out my situation, seen what was happening and not hit send.

    They want you where you are. They have no interest in advancing you – for nepo reasons or simply because they don’t want you in a management position. It’s past foolish to expect them to change their mind having seen all the evidence laid out in your letter, let alone the insinuation that you’re only showing highlights.

    You should be being paid more for what you’re doing, and it should be fairly straightforward to ask for a within-role promotion to “senior [job title]” and a pay rise that matches. Just simply point at your tenure and results and make it clear that your contributions deserve to be the best-paid person doing that job. They’re never going to pay you more money to stay and do the same job if you don’t ask. But if management is your ambition, you’re not going to get that where you are

  38. ijustworkhere*

    Is the job safety sensitive? If so, it needs to say so on the job posting and in the job description. That’s the only reason an employer might be legally able to ask about medications. And even in that situation, a doctor’s letter stating that you do not take any medications that would impair you for the work you are doing should be sufficient.

  39. ticktick*

    LW#4, I’d suggest using wording like, “Subject to the offer letter reflecting all of the points we’ve agreed on, then yes” – just to close the door on a bait-and-switch scenario and subsequent whining of “but you said yes!”.

  40. Hyaline*

    In agreement with everyone noting that LW3 has been passive and needs to consider advocating for themselves, but one other things, too: After rereading the letter, I’m not even sure LW3 knows what LW3 wants! I’m kinda getting the sense they want to be recognized and rewarded for their hard work with…what, exactly? Well, workplaces give raises (which LW should be acknowledged with, it seems, though I’m also not clear that despite being the “lowest paid person” they haven’t been given regular or even merit-based raises) and promotions (but those are also shifts in career scope and level). Does LW *want* a promotion for career-goal-oriented reasons, or just to feel acknowledged? A good manager isn’t going to promote someone for good work alone, but because they feel the person would do well in a more advanced role AND that person WANTS to move into that work. What are LW’s career aspirations? You can’t very well express those to a manager if you yourself don’t really know what you want. Put another way, if you’re passive and nonspecific about your own goals, it’s very hard to actively advocate for yourself.

  41. Just Thinkin' Here*

    OP # 3 – you’ve had a voice several times in your career progression. You’ve failed to use it. You were asked for your feedback and you failed to provide an honest answer. So why would management do anything different then let you sit where you are?

    You’re not being gaslit. You’ve become a doormat. You need to learn to fight for yourself, your career, and most importantly your salary.

    1. EvilQueenRegina*

      One thing I might pick up on is, at least the second time it sounds like this conversation was held in front of others – apparently last week it was brought up during a team meeting. That setting doesn’t sound exactly ideal for the conversation and may have made it more difficult for OP to say how they really felt.

      1. Observer*

        True. But they could have followed it up in private.

        I don’t want to come down to hard on the LW. But I don’t see any nepotism. What I do see is someone who seems to think that they need permission to ask for what they want. They don’t.

        And that they can only take action if there is a “good enough” reason or the employee is behaving “badly enough”. And that’s not the case either. They can take action simply because they have reason to believe that they should be better compensated.

  42. Fluffy Orange Menace*

    I may be in the minority here, but complaints like LW1’s kind of annoy me. “Other people are doing a thing that I don’t even really want to do but the fact that they didn’t ask me to do it feels sexist/ageist/exclusionary/whatever, so should I complain about it?” People in an office are allowed to like or interact more with other people who share their interests as long as it isn’t affecting your pay, promotion opportunities, etc… They prolly figured out pretty early one when you and other woman didn’t engage in sports talk with them, that you weren’t interested. No.Big.Deal. Not EVERYTHING that happens in the office is a workplace discrimination issue waiting to happen.

    1. Dawn*

      I think because it can be, and it’s been surfaced more than once here that a sports activity in the office which inherently excludes women – golf is the classic example – is discriminatory. Full stop, do not pass Go, discriminatory.

      The fact that this particular instance may not be (mostly because it was not organized by the employer,) does not make the question “annoying” or “not one you should ask”.

      1. Fluffy Orange Menace*

        I think, not to assume malicious intent for no reason. The women in THIS letter didn’t even WANT to participate, so it is a non starter of a complaint to begin with. A sports pool that isn’t sponsored by the organization/office, with males that the LW says she and the other woman get along with just fine, shouldn’t even be an issue, but they decided that just maybe they should make it one…because… Historical sexist behavior doesn’t mean that now EVERYTHING now probably is, too. Yelling WOLF for no reason diminishes the real wolf sightings.

        P.S Also, I am the original Fluffy Orange Menace; there are a lot of FOM postings today that are not me/mine.

        1. Dawn*

          I’ll say that I have to disagree with you, and I think that “annoy” was a particularly poor choice of words given how women’s complaints have traditionally been received by the men in charge, and I’ll leave it there.

    2. Orv*

      In an office *every* social opportunity with coworkers potentially affects your pay and promotion opportunities. If you don’t participate you’re “not a team player” and you get passed over.

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      I think the issue here is that inviting 5/7s of an office to participate in something does feel exclusionary and more so when those 5/7s are all one gender.

      Yeah, I doubt they actively thought, “hah, let’s exclude the women for the fun of it,” but they did go to the trouble of going over to each of the two remaining men individually and discussing it with them rather than doing something like putting up a notice and letting anybody who wanted to sign up. Things don’t have to be a workplace discrimination issue waiting to happen to be a bad idea or rude or inappropriate.

      And I do think it is kind of rude to start something like that and invite all but two people. Yeah, maybe they guessed they wouldn’t want to be involved, but then…what’s the harm in asking? Why not just ask “who wants to join in?” even if you had a good guess. For one thing, your guess could always be wrong.

      I don’t think there means to be malicious intent for it to be a bad idea. I doubt there was malicious intent, but honestly, most discriminatory behaviour doesn’t have malicious intent. Most is just assuming something as the default. I don’t know whether this would rise to the level of discriminatory behaviour or not, but I don’t think it really matters. It’s not like something is either discriminatory or else a good idea. And I really feel that if you are asking more than half of a small group to take part in something, it should be open to everybody. Otherwise it feels a bit “everybody but you.”

    4. allathian*

      The other side of the coin is that there was at least one male non-fan who they “cajoled” (or perhaps “coerced” would be more accurate?) to join them in the social side of it, and he did. (The OP commented elsewhere on this thread.) That is also sexist, expecting men to be interested in sports when many of them aren’t. I’m much more interested in watching sports than my husband is, for example.

  43. Neurospicy*

    I dread the next drug test I’m asked for because I take a prescription stimulant for ADHD. I am not open about it at work and would prefer people not know.

    1. Tippy*

      If it makes you feel better, and this is just my experience, but I used to be in charge of drug tests at my last job (the ordering and collection but not the actual testing) but unless your workplace is the actual lab running the test, they shouldn’t be told the results if you are legally permitted to have the medication (assuming it’s a federally legal prescription). When we did our the lab ran the results and is something came up positive and could be a legal medicine, the patient was contacted by the lab and afforded a time frame in which to bring in documentation that the med had been prescribed. If they did, the result was sent back to us as negative. If not (sometimes they ignored the message, didn’t answer or really didn’t have a prescription) the result was sent back as positive.

  44. Fluffy Orange Menace*

    LW4: Every corporate/contractor job I’ve ever had, I was first given a verbal offer with the basics of compensation, PTO, etc… and then when I said, “Yes” told “Great, we’ll have the offer letter to you by CoB tomorrow,” or whatever. This is perfectly normal! They want to know your hubby is on board with accepting before drafting the formal letter because that starts to trigger other paperwork etc… to begin the onboarding process.

  45. Fluffy Orange Menace*

    LW5: I hate to break it to you, but people are not paying that much attention to your LI posts, etc… that anyone will likely blink an eye that the name of your new employer isn’t the same. And anyone who does notice will likely think, “oooh she must have gotten an even better offer!” Either way, I wouldn’t worry about it because nobody else is going to.

  46. Dawn*

    #2 – you keep telling them that you’re ok with these things. I’m not saying you shouldn’t get out, or that they are treating you the way they should, but you keep telling them “yes I’m ok with this”. I also don’t see where you’ve asked for a raise or a promotion.

    By all means you should find a new job, but it’s also not entirely unreasonable for your employer to assume you’re ok with their decisions when you keep saying, “yes, I’m ok with it,” and not asking for more.

  47. Hydrates all the flasks*

    Alison, thank you for clarifying that this isn’t gaslighting. It’s still not-great treatment but if anything, the company is being very up front with their shoddy treatment of the OP: we’re not promoting you because you’re too good at your current role. They’re not messing with the company’s gaslights and then claiming the OP is imagining things. They’re just treating the OP like they’re disposable and shrugging about it because hey, OP hasn’t left it.

    I feel like “gaslighting” (like “toxic”) has became way too watered down and gets thrown around all the time when it actually has a specific meaning for a very specific way of being mistreated.

  48. Dog momma*

    #1. let.it.go. not a hill to die on.
    maybe they want some guy time.

    #2. agree with Allyson. However, worry about yourself, your co workers can handle their own issues

    1. Observer*

      maybe they want some guy time.

      At work? Absolutely not.

      They can want all they want, but you cannot do that stuff.

    2. Orv*

      “guy time” = forming bonds that will lead to them getting favorable treatment over people who don’t participate.

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      If that is the reason, then it’s definitely problematic. I would probably let it go, because I don’t really think that’s a very likely reason. It’s still not great if it’s just “well, we didn’t think they’d be interested,” but probably not worth an argument, but if it were that they wanted “guy time,” in an office where men make up 5 of the 7 employees, that would be something worth pushing back on. In a male dominated office, men having “guy time” tends to lead to women being excluded and missing out on opportunities.

    5. Martin Niemöller*

      “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    6. allathian*

      I also think it’s problematic that they “cajoled” at least one male non-fan to join. Clearly they wanted to have a reason to bond with male coworkers and exclude the women, even if most of it was after work socializing.

  49. learnedthehardway*

    OP#4 – This is very, very common, especially in larger companies where HR is processing hundreds of offers at any time. It makes a lot of sense to get verbal acceptance of the terms of the offer, before creating the offer letter.

    A verbal offer IS an official offer. If the terms of the written offer don’t conform to what your husband was expecting, he can go back and point that out and get the terms changed to fit what he agreed to. Sometimes that happens. More likely, though, the company will provide all the details and access to the benefits information, so your husband can make a decision with all the information.

    The company just wants to complete the negotiations and avoid rework with the letter, which ties up a lot of HR time.

  50. Not on board*

    I agree it’s not worth saying anything. I do also think that they should have at least invited the 2 women to participate at the start – they invited 2 men who had zero interest in soccer, and they chose to participate. Also, it’s important to note that should one of these men get promoted into a supervisory/managerial position they would need to give this up immediately. No men only socialising or betting pool.

  51. Dedicated1776*

    Re: letter 4, some HRMs are cumbersome when it comes to creating, issuing, and/or revising offer letters. We get a verbal first at my job for exactly that reason.

  52. CC*

    Regarding letter #2. When I worked in a small call center many years ago, one of my co-workers was out sick a lot; probably the full 12 weeks a year of FMLA for a couple years. I once saw the CEO and another manager-level employee LOOKING AT THE PRESCRIPTIONS he left out on his desk while he was out. They weren’t trying to hide their activity. And I assume it’s not illegal for an employer to look at personal items in plain view. But it felt icky and invasive.

    1. Freya*

      That’s why my prescriptions live in my handbag. That, and if I put the meds straight back in the handbag after taking them, there’s a lower chance I’ll leave them behind.

    2. 1LFTW*

      It’s not illegal for employers to look at personal items in plain view (at least in my US state) but that doesn’t mean they *should*. It’s a great way to set up liability for an ADA claim.

  53. blood orange*

    OP #3 – I don’t like the reason they gave you for hiring externally to replace your manager. They may very well have had a different reason(s) and not shared them with you, but if that was indeed the only/main reason then it’s a bad one. To hold back a talented team member from progressing because they’re too valuable in their current position is a terrible business practice. They now risk losing you because they’re holding you back both in your career and in your earning potential.

  54. ES*

    Re: #2, not commenting on the legality of it or the principle of privacy or how said information is secured, but I do know as someone who runs youth programs that our insurance companies *require* us to collect prescription information on health and medical forms. The purpose of this is that if we have a medical emergency while someone is in our care and they need to go to the ER or receive emergency care, we need to be able to tell the care provider about what medications and allergies they have so they don’t receive medication or treatment that could inadvertently harm them. The employer in this case could have a similar provision in an insurance policy.

    1. TotallyDifferent*

      That’s entirely different, and you’re getting consent from parents/guardians as a condition of participation in an optional activity. You are not being forced to disclose it to the people who control your health insurance as a condition of making the money you need to live.

    2. Coverage Associate*

      Just yesterday, I was at church and they had to stop the service because someone appeared to be having a cardiac event. She was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Her daughter was there, so EMS received a pretty complete medical history, but of course people have medical emergencies at church and work with no family present.
      Is it helpful if EMS can get the medication and other medical history? Yes. Are they also trained to respond with 0 context? Also yes.
      So I can see a workplace (or even a church) thinking that it would be good to collect the information, but it should be optional.
      Also, updated if it’s collected, although EMS is also trained to be skeptical of old records.

  55. Clementine*

    Re #4, the company wants to know that you will accept the offer once presented, and aren’t planning to use it for leverage with your current job or another potential offer.

  56. Zee*

    #3 – Ah, the classic “you’re too good at your job to promote you” dilemma. Sorry, not much you can do there except leave.

    But the good news is, if you’re that good at fundraising, you should have a decent number of opportunities. I recommend looking at jobs at colleges – they tend to have huge development departments with lots of layers so lots of promotion opportunities, and also lots of options for lateral moves if you decide you want to specialize in a different area.

  57. EA*

    Hi OP3, I work at a small nonprofit so I know exactly where you’re coming from. I feel like one of my former coworkers could have written this. The nepotism, the tight budgets for raises, the keeping the consistent fundraiser in a lower role – all so common (and so frustrating!) in this sector. This doesn’t seem like gaslighting to me, but rather par for the course nonprofit.

    On the coworker I mentioned – she was always so frustrated with a string of VP of Development being hired over many years when she was bringing in all the money. This stands out to me from what you wrote: “A few years ago they decided I was not the one for that role…” This is exactly what happened to my colleague, and she was so hurt and frustrated, but she never once approached our Exec Director and said something like, “I really want to take over VP’s role / move into a leadership role / etc. What could I do to improve my candidacy or get to where you need me to be to take on that challenge in a few years?” She always just kept doing what she was doing – very well – and giving them no reason to move her into a new role. Also, because she was always so in the weeds on event planning and major donor engagement, she didn’t show some of the big picture strategic thinking, innovation, and thought partnership for the Exec Director that the leadership role required. It’s not that she did anything wrong exactly, but I can also see why the nonprofit sometimes passed her over.

    My advice to you… put all those fundraising accomplishments on your newly updated resume and job search! Your skills are in high demand. I know it’s hard to leave a mission that you probably care about deeply, but it will be worth it. Best of luck, OP3!

  58. Not the class clown*

    For OP4 – Is there anything they haven’t told your husband yet about the compensation being offered or expectations of the job? If there is (like PTO, holidays, or things like travel required), he definitely shouldn’t accept, verbally or otherwise, until he gets that information. But if he has that information already, I don’t think there’s a problem.

  59. DisclosingMeds*

    OP2, there’s a popular “outsource your HR” company that includes this in their employee handbook/company policies by default. When I read it before accepting the job, I pushed back on my prospective boss (the CEO) and he was horrified it was there and had it removed.

    When we switched management companies two years ago, our new company had a less strict version of this. Our then new HR person was less happy about pushing back, but my boss sided with me and forced her to have it changed.

    So there’s some set of folks helping small businesses with business operations that think it’s okay to ask. I suspect it’s there to allow the option for those companies that do need it for drivers, etc. but companies rarely bother customizing.

  60. Anna*

    I just got a promotion, but I didn’t post on LinkedIn until after it had taken effect – you never know what might happen between the offer and the start date, and that goes double if those dates are months apart.

Comments are closed.