my boss told me to be less harsh, ex-employee didn’t check the mail, and more

by Alison Green on September 12, 2024

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

1. My boss told me to be less harsh but I think it was a miscommunication

Yesterday, I had the rare honor of crying in front of my boss. He pulled me aside to gently ask me to rein in my big and sarcastic sense of humor because people have told him they find it dismissive. I told him that I volunteer to be the jerk with external people to protect the team’s time and sanity because we haven’t had a real team lead all year. He then said it was also coming from people on the team. I started crying because all I do is play peacemaker, and I was just baffled how to make fewer waves while everyone comes to me to solve problems from HR to facilities to project management.

I left the office after the meeting and called a friend. During our conversation, I realized the only person I had a dust up with lately is my boss’s assistant. They work in a separate building, so I think of them as both “on” and “off” my direct team.

Last week, in a meeting I strongly pushed back on deadlines they were giving one of my colleagues. He had a lot of technical work to do, and the deadline felt arbitrary. Our boss wasn’t at this meeting (he normally would’ve been), so I had to tell his assistant I would go over his head to pick the fight. He said our boss would not be happy. I said, “That’s fine, because I’m a grown-up.” What I meant is, “He can be mad at me, I’m not afraid of conflict.”

However, his assistant is 24. And I think he took my words personally like “I am a grown-up unlike you, a little kid.” That would be a very mean thing to say to someone, and I wouldn’t blame him for telling his boss I’m a jerk.

In our meeting, I asked my boss if I should make apologies and he said no, just try to be less harsh. Now that I’ve pieced this together (and think it’s a miscommunication), I want to apologize to his assistant.

The caveat being I don’t know if this interaction is what my boss really meant! Should I pass the apology through my boss and he can do what he wants? Should I do a general “sorry, I was really tough about the deadlines” conversation with his assistant? Does crying soften my big bad wolf image enough that my boss will do the damage control for me?

Even taking the potential miscommunication over “grown-up” out of it … it sounds like you might be coming across pretty aggressively in your communications with people: “I volunteer to be the jerk” … “big and sarcastic sense of humor” … “I strongly pushed back” (on a coworker’s deadlines — was it your battle to fight?) … “I would go over his head to pick the fight” … etc. That’s all a lot! You said all you do is play peacemaker, and I’m sure there’s plenty that’s not in your letter, but all of what’s here sounds like the opposite of peace-making. And to be clear, sometimes at work, the thing that’s called for is not peace-making. But this is a striking amount of adversarial framing in a short letter.

I would apologize to the assistant for what you said, because it probably did sound like you meant to imply he’s not a grown-up, and also because it sounds like you were combative with him beyond that. But more importantly, consider that you might be coming across differently than you realize or intend. Your boss called it “harsh” and that’s what it sounds like to me too — not just this one interaction, but the larger pattern. (And no, I would not assume that your boss will do damage control for you; it sounds like he’s assigning that work to you — that’s what “be less harsh” is.)

2. Our entire nonprofit is in jeopardy because an ex-employee didn’t check the mail

I run a small nonprofit. We have an ex-employee who did a lot of damage before she left a few weeks ago and I need advice.

I put J on a PIP last spring. When she did not improve, I let her know that I was not inclined to keep her on for the next year, so (last chance) time to fish or cut bait. J soon turned in her resignation.

While she was here, she had the responsibility to check one of our two mailboxes. One is for our mailing address, but she also had the key for a backup box, in case people send mail to our street address. We mostly get junk mail there, but the occasional legit mail shows up, and we check it regularly. Or so I thought.

A few weeks after J turned in the key and left, we discovered that she had not checked the mail there for five months, lying about bringing it in during that time. We found a stack of wet and mildewed mail in the box.

Among the junk were some significant pieces of mail, including checks due to us totaling $25,000+. We are trying to get those reissued. Worse, there were multiple letters from our state’s charitable registration office requesting documentation. When we did not reply, our state charitable status was revoked and we cannot legally solicit funds as a charity until we are reinstated. We have sent in the documents and are in the process of re-registering for charitable status. We don’t know if this will take weeks or months, and I have not been able to reach anyone at the registering office who can tell us. As a nonprofit relying on donations, this is potentially devastating.

We filed a case with USPS and the Office of the Inspector General with regard to obstruction/delaying the mail. They responded that since the mail was never actually stolen, and was technically in our possession the whole time, no law has been broken.

We will suffer a loss of income for certain. We are not allowed to solicit or receive donations or grants until this is resolved. State funding is impossible. I dread having to “furlough” dedicated employees, but if we don’t have income for months, we will not have the cash to make payroll. Is there anything I can do to hold this person accountable? Can a malicious, disgruntled ex-employee destroy our nonprofit like this?

Yes. This is a horrible situation, but the post office is right that no crime was committed. The mail was delivered to your organization and technically in your possession; it’s just that the person who the organization assigned to deal with it from there wasn’t doing her job.

The tough-love answer is that ultimately it’s the organization’s responsibility to have enough checks and balances in place that you’ll spot it early if someone isn’t doing a crucial part of their job. J had been on a PIP last spring so you’d known for a while that there were problems with her work; someone needed to be managing her much more closely, particularly given the potential high stakes in her area. When you’ve got someone under-performing to the point of a PIP, you’ve got to think about what else might be going wrong in their purview that you might not know about, because often there will be more, and get additional visibility into those things (usually through some combination of spot checks, data reviews, probing questions, direct observation, and extra poking around).

That doesn’t mean you deserve this! This is an awful situation. But J no longer works for you and can’t be held accountable for doing a bad job for an organization she’s no longer part of. All you can do is learn from it and strengthen your systems for the future.

3. Preschool teacher’s pronouns

This isn’t work-related for me as an employee, but as a parent/community member at my son’s preschool. It’s part of a larger organization that is ostensibly religious but doesn’t incorporate religion in any meaningful way.

I’ve known my son’s new preschool teacher from around the organization and we’ve chatted a fair bit — we have some background in common and they’re very friendly. Now that my son is in this person’s class, I decided to Google them (a light Google, I promise!). The search turned up pretty much what I expected; if anything it made me like them more. The reason I’m writing, though, is because one of their profiles pretty prominently and publicly lists their pronouns as they/them. But at the school, all the teachers are gendered with a Ms. or Mr., and this teacher is not an exception — their classroom door says “Mr. Michael.” I’ve always known them as Mr. Michael and referred to them that way.

My gut is telling me to ignore what I learned online and just follow the teacher’s lead. I don’t know what their reasons are for using he/him pronouns at school and I definitely don’t think saying “hey, I googled you, would you prefer they/them” is a great way to show support. Our state is purple but our area tends more liberal, and the organization that owns the preschool explicitly welcomes people of all gender identities and expressions. But obviously that doesn’t automatically make it easy for individuals to be out, and we all know how fraught the topic of gender expression is in general in the early childhood space.

As a parent and member of the organization, I wonder if speaking up about supporting teachers (and others) who fall outside the traditional gender binary could have a positive impact. I just have no idea how to do it without making it weird for this one teacher.

Nope, leave it alone. The teacher may have reasons for using he/him at school and you shouldn’t out them. You can certainly look for ways to signal that you’re a safe and supportive person in general — feel free to carry a tote bag with a rainbow pin or wear a t-shirt with an equality message or anything else along those lines — but follow their lead (not Google’s!) when it comes to their identity.

4. My company posted my job on LinkedIn

I am a great employee who has had no negative events during my tenure. Last night I was told there was a post for my job on LinkedIn, which I saw and took a screenshot of. Ten minutes later, it was taken down. I am not sure what direction to go because I am out of town and my boss has said nothing to me. Can you help?

It’s possible that it was simply an error: someone meant to post job X and accidentally posted job Y. The fact that it was taken down fairly quickly makes that more likely.

But it’s entirely understandable to be unnerved and to ask your boss about it. It’s fine to say, “I saw my job was briefly posted on the company’s LinkedIn earlier this week. It’s down now, but obviously that got me concerned.”

5. Should I follow up on my application again?

I recently applied for a job that I really, really want. I’m not, perhaps, the “ideal” candidate, but I think I am qualified and it’s in a field with a lot of openings, so I feel like it should be to the job seeker’s advantage.

After I found the posting, I went to the company’s website to do more investigation. I followed the instructions on their website and sent a resume, cover letter, and work samples to a careers.companyname email. I got an automated response that they would review my resume within 10 days and get back to me if my qualifications meet their needs. Two weeks passed and I sent one follow-up email just to verify my resume was received.

During that two weeks, I realized I had a connection in my network who used to be a partner in this firm. Although he didn’t know me super well, I knew that I had made a favorable impression on him while participating in some professional organization’s events. I reached out to him and asked if he could forward my name along to a contact at the company. He did so, with a soft but definitely positive recommendation, and cc’d me. One of the principals on the chain replied all with, “Thanks, we’ll keep an eye out!”

Now I’m left wondering what my next steps should be. I have no way of knowing if they have truly even seen my resume. Perhaps they are looking for an application from Indeed or something and by sending it via email, I made a faux pas. Or maybe they have seen it and are just not interested. Or maybe these things just take longer that I’d like. For what it’s worth, the job listing is still active. Do I follow up again? And if so, how long should I wait between the first follow-up and a second follow-up? And do I reply to my first email or the group email with the recommendation?

Don’t do additional follow-up. They know you’re interested because you applied, you confirmed they received your resume, and they told your contact they’d take a look. That’s all there’s really room for you to do; anything else would be pushy and risk being annoying. If they want to interview you, they’ll let you know.

You may also like:
{ 756 comments }

{ 756 comments… read them below }

  1. Daria grace*

    #2. I’m sorry, this situation really sucks.

    It would probably be wise for some reliable to have calendar reminders to check that regular things like registrations and bill payments have happened when they need to. Even if you’re super diligent about checking email and postal mail, there’s all sorts of ways important stuff can go missing prior to reaching you.

      1. MsM*

        Yeah, renewing registrations is a pain and a half – enough so that I highly recommend outsourcing it if you solicit in more than a couple of states and can afford to do so – but it’s not mysterious in terms of what the timeline looks like. And unless all of those checks were from new and unfamiliar donors, it’s a bit surprising that apparently no one noticed Mr. Smith’s gift hadn’t arrived when it usually does and checked in.

        1. MsM*

          That said, OP, you can generally count on a fair bit of slack in terms of continuing to carry out operations as usual if you can demonstrate that you’re aware of the issue and have taken steps to rectify it as quickly as possible. And it probably won’t even come up with non-government institutional funders; they usually just ask for IRS letters and 990s/audits as proof you know what’s required of you anyway.

        2. The Prettiest Curse*

          Yeah, it’s generally not Mr Smith’s big annual cheque that you need to worry about, because at least you know that he should be sending it. It’s Ms Jones who has never donated and suddenly decides to send you a cheque for $10k, because that person has no donor history, so you have no idea that they might be sending you money. (And people will send big cheques to very old or plain incorrect addresses, too.)

          People try to give money to nonprofits in all kinds of wacky and unexpected ways. Back when I was working fundraising walk events, we had to go through everything in every single box that came back to the office in case people had randomly put cash in one of those boxes. We had very strict procedures for handling on-site cash donations, but these things still happened.

          The overall mail situation is something that would never have happened under either of the Ops Directors that I worked with in nonprofits – they were both incredibly organised and ran a very tight ship. As we’ve seen here, so much can go wrong in a nonprofit if you don’t have good procedures. Good nonprofit Ops directions are like gold. It’s such an important role and so under-rated.

        3. CityMouse*

          My other question is then what fraud protections does this organization have? if you only noticed tens of thousands of dollars hadn’t been handled properly when going through the mail, then what if someone had actually stolen or committed fraud? How long would it taken that to have been discovered?

          1. Nicosloanica*

            This is where my mind went too. Granted, I’m not sure what safeguards exist to prevent that same employee from kiting those checks, if you weren’t expecting them anyway.

          3. Christi*

            We have two people check the mail and open the mail together to avoid this sort of thing. It’s a hassle, but worth it.

            1. Jasmine*

              +1 to two people checking the mailbox! At our religious org two people empty and count the contents together and sign the report. No temptation to “borrow” or steal.

            2. Resume please*

              There could still be collusion, but this method does lessen the risk!

              There needs to be better internal controls overall. The bookkeeper should know the schedule for what standard bills come in and out of the organization, annual (and important) documents should be transparently sought after by management, and only reliable staff should handle importang tasks (and their work should also be reviewed.) This is all fixable, fortunately

          4. OP OK-NOK*

            OP here: for the questions of “how could you not miss the money?” and “didn’t you notice you weren’t getting mail?” I’m going to have a hack at them here:

            We noticed the money not coming thorugh right away and contacted the donors. Some was sorted out fast, some is more recent and taking time.

            For “didn’t you notice there wasn’t any mail?” We were getting mail–from the PO Box. So we definitely thought the mail was coming through. The mailbox at our address is not our mailing address and is hard to find. So much that the carriers can’t always find it. The mail we get there is almost exclusively for “Resident” or other junk mail. That we wouldn’t get legit mail there for months was something we *wanted*. It would mean (we thought) that the legit mail was finally making it to the PO Box. Obviously we/I got that wrong.

            1. Productivity Pigeon*

              Thanks for coming here and engaging with us!

              Your letter also illustrates why most of the rest of the world no longer use physical checks!
              I think I’ve gotten one check in my entire life (I’m 34 and Swedish) and that was my very first tax refund and it was sent as a physical check because back then, for some reason, you couldn’t fill in your bank information on the IRS website until you had completed your first tax return. You simply weren’t active in the system before then.

                1. Productivity Pigeon*

                  How many checks are we talking about? And over how long?

                  If you noticed “right away” you weren’t receiving checks you were expecting, didn’t you think it was strange so many checks were going missing? I’d be worried about the mailman or a neighbor or something stealing them.

                  Or is it a common thing, for checks to get lost?

              2. MigraineMonth*

                I wish that were the case with me! I’m only a few years older than you and literally staring at a check that I need to endorse and deposit, then do a funds transfer, then… ugh. Why couldn’t they just direct deposit like normal orgs?

                1. Productivity Pigeon*

                  It honestly seems like so much extra work and hassle, for something that’s inferior in every way (security, practicality etcetc).

                  I guess it’s the ADHDer in me who realizes she would procrastinate every step of getting a check to my actual bank account, haha!

                  I mean, you can even pay the IRS and the local fruit seller here through your phone!
                  All you need is a phone number and the national digital ID app on your phone.

                2. AF Vet*

                  I get reimbursed by the US VA for out-of-pocket medical appointments overseas. They will ONLY cut paper checks, even though I am using my US bank account, into which they deposit money… every month. *facepalm*

              3. Goldenrod*

                My office gets a lot of paper checks, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars! I’m assuming we get wire transfers too, but it puzzles me why we still get checks. I’m assuming it’s just old systems that aren’t being updated…

            2. CityMouse*

              Okay, but that still raises questions. You noticed checks were going missing, what did you do to investigate that?

              Look, I understand this is harsh but you’re taking people’s money.

              1. Whither*

                Yeah, I don’t want to harp on all this too much, but if they knew there were repeated incidents of checks not arriving, then I’m even *more* startled that they never thought of double-checking the mailbox? I mean, even if an employee really was getting the mail as intended, it’d still be possible for something to get missed or overlooked or dropped or whatever!

            3. e271828*

              You need to sign up for USPS Informed Delivery for both mailing addresses, at a generic address at the nonprofit that can be redirected to one or more people internally as needed.

              1. Been There Done That*

                Yes – you are so right! and have two people – maybe Executive Director and the Development Director be the two that get the emails from the Post Office. As a former fundraiser, I was always on the lookout for expected checks (especially grants checks, event sponsorship checks) – because the board was ALWAYS asking me when to expect them!

              2. Sam I Am*

                Yes! Informed Delivery is free and it’s so great. You get an email digest every day with a list (and scanned image) of incoming mail.

            4. GlitterIsEverything*

              25 years ago, the owner of the small office (about 20 people) I worked at decided to let the 4 people with the highest salaries go, without warning. (That office was full of bees, and we all raced to the bank to cash our severance checks, because payroll checks sometimes bounced and most of our deliveries were COD.)

              All 4 of us applied for and received unemployment, without the company ever responding to the unemployment verification requests from the state. Why didn’t they reply? I can’t be positive, but I’m willing to guess that the notifications from the state became part of the 2-foot-tall pile of unopened mail next to the director’s office door.

              While I completely empathize with the position you’re in, this is a really big wake-up call. It’s time your organization evaluates pretty much everything in your procedures, so you can identify other situations where one person failing to do their job could have significant impact on the org. The fact that this could slide through unnoticed is a warning sign.

        4. Meep*

          I used to renew our business license for a couple of years because my boss was useless. (It was her job, btw.) It was like $60 so I put it on my card and then comped it. (Foolish I know but it was my first job and I was I kid you not the only actual employee – the rest, including my boss was contractors.)

          One time, she snapped at me about it in a rather nasty way about how it wasn’t my responsibility and to ignore it, so I didn’t say anything and didn’t renew it (per her orders). Boy did she get in trouble with her boss over it since we hadn’t been licensed for 2 months. She tried to claim it had just gotten lost in the mail, but the renewal date was for the day she had her own butt chewed out for it.

          It took ~maybe~ 10 minutes max to do it in my city/state, but yeah, if you cannot remember when you were founded, just hire someone.

      2. Emmy Noether*

        Ah, I was wondering if this was a regular thing they should have known about. In that case, there needs to be a system other than relying on receiving a letter for something this vital. Letters get lost – not often, but definitely not never.

        I work in a field with lots of important deadlines. Everything has automatic reminders, two-person checks, etc. Sometimes people still miss a deadline despite their best efforts – in that case, in my field, one can sometimes get one’s rights reinstated by writing a letter describing those best efforts, and which processes and checks are in place. If they determine it was an “exceptional failure of a well-running system”, one gets reinstated. LW, I’m sorry, but your process would not qualify.

        You trusted an untrustworthy person with an important task, AND you had no failsafe. From a business perspective, that’s on you at least as much as it is on your former employee. (From a human/moral perspective, it’s on her. But running a business means taking into account the fallibility of employees).

        1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

          Your description of the systems used to monitor deadlines sounds exactly like what I’m used to in patent administration. 90+% of the time, it’s redundant. But the other few times it absolutely saves your bacon.

          1. Emmy Noether*

            It is patents ;-)

            Funnily enough, we did once get a reinstatement for a “one-off mistake by a seasoned employee”. Said seasoned employee has been making mistakes at least weekly for 30 years*. 99% of them are caught (because we know her by now). That one slipped through.

            *don’t get me started.

            1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

              I knew it would be, ha ha! You and I were probably similar horrified at the idea of *not opening the mail* for any length of time.

              I have only once in twenty years been responsible for a reinstatement-level error, and it was a “2+2=6” error checked and waved through by two other experienced people. It happens

              The “mistakes every damn day” workaround is usually to put an additional check level between that person and the patent office – “trust but verify” I guess!

        2. a clockwork lemon*

          This is how we handle it at my company too. Reminders are on the calendar and set for about six weeks before we expect to receive the renewal notice, just so it’s on everyone’s radar, then there’s 2-4 people who have the shared responsibility of making sure the stuff gets done. It’s probably overkill, but if we let something laps we legally cannot continue doing business so there’s a bajillion controls in place to make sure nothing gets buried in someone’s emails.

          1. ferrina*

            Yep, we have something similar. Things that are critical to us being in business are in several people’s purview, and they all have calendar reminders using their various systems. The redundancy is essential.

        3. CityMouse*

          The other thing to understand is that in general things like license renewal notices are considered a courtesy, not a legal requirement. Meaning if the agency has told you “This expires March 2024” when you got your approval and for whatever reason you don’t get notice that your renewal is due, it isn’t generally the agency’s problem, they told you when your license would expire, the “hey time to renew” often isn’t legally required.

      4. fhqwhgads*

        Also tremendously bizarre to me that important stuff wouldn’t go to the org’s official mailing address. Like…that’s a failure earlier in the process. Not just on the “check mail” side. Where do you expect that paperwork to go and when do you expect it to show up? That should be a known to multiple people.

    2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      I wasn’t sure why the charity was registered (with the regulator) under their “backup” mailbox address either. Surely there’s a “correspondence address” for these type of things which is where those renewal letters etc should be sent, so someone has messed up here. Not that that excuses the employee of course!

      1. Daria grace*

        It’s quite likely that on some of the paperwork they were required to provide their physical office location and that got mixed up with their postal address

      2. Emmy Noether*

        That part actually didn’t surprise me. I’ve seen people “correct” (read: change) addresses in systems for no reason whatsoever. I’ve also seen mail carriers deliver to the wrong address.

        I spent two weeks recently chasing after a letter that was sent to an outdated address (that was still up on the official website!). That mailbox surprisingly actually still existed, but the letter wasn’t there OR at the new address. The post office chose to deliver to a third address that they had on file for this organisation. It was a right mess, and took me a good dozen phone calls and emails, and two trips to check in person to sort out (the recipient at this organisation was not very helpful or good at problem solving).

        1. Slow Gin Lizz*

          One time at my last nonprofit job, someone called to ask if we’d received his check. When I asked which address he’d sent it to (because, as I mentioned below, we had a physical address and also a donation address), he couldn’t remember. His check finally got returned to him and when he re-sent it to our correct address, it turned out he’d originally sent it somewhere that had been our address approximately three addresses ago. It hadn’t been valid in at least 15 years and somehow he’d found it in a google search (which I discovered when I did a google search) but instead of using the first address from the search, the one that’s on our website, he used an address from lower down in the search from some very old website. It was so very weird.

          1. JFC*

            Same thing happened at an agency I worked for a few years ago. Items would occasionally get delivered to the agency’s old building. They had moved from there nearly 20 years before. The building wasn’t even in use at the time, so you would think the delivery person would notice that it was unoccupied. Nope. I remember there was a lot of upset when hundreds of pamphlets for a client were destroyed by rain because they were left sitting outside the old building.

        2. Observer*

          In this case, the mail carrier did not make a mistake. It’s extremely unlikely that the Charities Bureau made the change.

          The example you gave- of having the wrong address on the web site is totally on the organization. And it doesn’t make me look any more favorably on the LW’s organization.

        3. Margaret Cavendish*

          I’ve been trying to get my predecessor’s name removed from one of our service contracts for FIVE YEARS. The regular drivers know to ignore Fergus’ name on the work order and call Valentina instead, but “ignore what’s written on the work order” isn’t necessarily an expected part of the process. So every once in a while, a driver shows up and tries to call Fergus, and confusion reigns.

          Then I call our account rep and ask her to remove Fergus’ name from the file, and I follow up with an email. The account rep assures me everything is fine and it won’t happen again…and six months later it happens again. Some places really are that disorganized, unfortunately!

          1. JustaTech*

            I had that with the service contracts for a piece of scientific equipment. Every year I would get the new service contract that would have the wrong person’s name and wrong address, I would have it corrected, sign the corrected contract, and every year the next renewal would still be wrong.
            Thankfully most of the service reps knew that we had moved (5 years ago!), but everyone once in a while I would get a phone call from a tech who was in the wrong building across the city.
            And this wasn’t some fly-by-night company! It is a major international firm!

          2. EvilQueenRegina*

            I used to get those calls for people trying to deliver stationery to my coworker Winifred, but they were orders for the department/building that she’d transferred out of and someone, either the stationery company or her old department, hadn’t been the quickest at taking her name off the account. (They hadn’t been the quickest when Winifred took over from her predecessor either, until the day she found a new staff member intercepting it and saying she’d never heard of Jane Smith and they must have the wrong place.)

            When this happened at their old building, reception would just call Winifred’s phone at her new job and whoever took the call would just say “No, that’s for the Llama team, not us”. Then Llamas moved building, and the new building would try to direct Llamas’ stationery to us because it was addressed to “Winifred Sanderson”. The delivery guy got turned away from two buildings, I had a confused conversation with him when he asked me whether I actually wanted my order. I suspect he wasn’t happy when it finally made it to Llamas and that eventually got them to sort it.

        4. Sociology Rocks!*

          This reminded me that I really need to figure out who at the university mail department things they know better than the sender and redirects mail to our campus box. It’s the same handwriting and similar location on the envelope every time, so I’m convinced there’s one specific person who keeps redirecting stuff to us for people not even remotely affiliated with our department.

      3. Katie*

        Well my company has lockboxes where payments are sent, so different from our actual address. Very few (if any) will send checks there. It must go to the physical address.

      4. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Some legal situations require that you use your physical address for things rather than a mailing address. Like, for instance, forms you need to fill out to renew a nonprofit’s status. But this would only reaffirm that in this situation, someone else should have been checking to see that J was doing her job.

        I agree with the others that say that renewing your nonprofit’s status is an annual thing that, unfortunately, OP or someone else should have been aware was happening. Sorry, OP, but it sounds like you and your trusted employees need to do a deep-dive into your procedures and recurring tasks and come up with the checks and balances you need to make certain this doesn’t happen again.

          1. MigraineMonth*

            I just wanted to say, I’m so sorry you’re going through this. In hindsight it’s easy to see what systems should have been in place, or where someone should have double-checked the employee wasn’t lying, but very often systems are only put in place *after* the disaster that demonstrates they’re necessary.

            Just remember that people have made *far* larger mistakes and recovered from them. I’m impressed that you’re here in the comments, responding and learning as much as you can from this failure. Don’t beat yourself up too much.

      5. CommanderBanana*

        This happens all the time. My org’s lockbox address for check payments is a PO box that is inside a bank, not our physical address. This is really common. And yet, I will get organizations who owe us money who will insist that they simply can’t issue a payment to anything but the address on our W9, which is our physical address. It is very annoying because mail sent to our physical address has a much higher chance of getting lost.

      1. Learn ALL the things*

        That was what I was wondering. Has OP tried calling the post office to see if it’s possible to forward any mail sent to the street address to the mailing address instead?

        1. Fluffy Initiative*

          This was my thought as well – having all mail forwarded to the preferred, frequently checked mailbox would solve this problem long-term.

      3. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Not always. As I mentioned above, there are certain situation where something needs to go to the org’s legal, physical address and not a PO box or whatever. Some larger organizations will only send checks to the legal address, which at my last nonprofit job meant those big donation checks would be delayed as we then had to mail them to the PO box that deposited them into our account. Unfortunately, those orgs were limited in that they could only send to our real mailing address and not our donation address. Yes, it’s a total pain and believe me, at my last job it was a big headache having to keep an eye on two different mailboxes and especially when it meant a delay in processing the big donations.

        1. Nicosloanica*

          Yep, this happens to us too. In fact I think it’s one of our state’s charitable registrations that requires a physical address and specifically says you cannot use a PO Box (tough for my fully-remote office). That listing gets pushed somewhere online, which is how people find it. Even one of our donor-advised funds only uses the address in some online portal that uses this physical address, despite us trying several times to get this changed.

          1. Overthinking It*

            The state requires a physical address to avoid fraud. Also, it’s a place to start looking should they need to arrest/subpeone some officer of the org.

        2. OK-NOK*

          Regarding where the mail goes:

          I would be SO HAPPY if we could get the mail to go to one place. We have spent a lot of time and energy tracking down mail. I won’t bother you with the whole story, but our office is a little off the road, overshadowed by some big office buildings, and wasn’t used as a mailing address for years. Some mail came through, some mail was being returned to sender because carriers couldn’t find it. We got the PO Box to try to fix that problem.

        3. bmorepm*

          but what does that have to do with the potential to have the mail redirected by the PO? I don’t think a permanent redirect is possible, but the point you were responding to was about whether the mail could be redirected, not just having everyone use the mailing address.

      4. OP OK-NOK*

        OP here: I wish! That is what we would really like: mail going to our mailing address. But there are a couple of problems: one is that no matter how much we put “Mailing Address: PO Box”, someone sends to the street address. The other is that sometimes, as a nonproift, stuff legally HAS to go to your physical location. So we need the box.

    4. Nicosloanica*

      #2 reminded me of my workplace. Getting the mail and depositing checks in a timely fashion are two things we struggle with constantly because we’re fully remote and everyone is already wearing a billion hats. Some things do require your physical address, not the PO Box. However, I can’t imagine not understanding the charitable registration system and having nobody checking or confirming that. In our state they also communicate by email and you can check the status online. OP needs to move past “this all happened because one employee was unreliable” and into “our organization is really scrambling and we have a single point of failure for some of our most important administration tasks.”

      1. Hyaline*

        Yeah I didn’t like to kick someone when they’re down, but this org sounds like kinda a mess. I was unclear if the checks were something they were looking for or not, but if they were aware they should be coming (that is, not one-off donor checks but grant money or something), it speaks to some real disorganization that those could go for months and not be missed. And, yes, remembering to register every year is kinda on you! In fact, some registration processes will even go so far as to say that mailing is a courtesy and you’re still required to re-up your paperwork on time if you don’t get it.

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          A $2000 check anywhere I’ve worked (nonprofits) would be a crisis, and we definitely wouldn’t be waiting to ask for them to be reissued if they were lost more than a month. If these weren’t donations I can’t even wrap my head around that.

          Even if they are though, anywhere money may be needs checks and balances around it.

          1. CommanderBanana*

            Yeah, I’d be striking this org off my donation list, even if it was for a cause I really cared about. I’m not trying to be harsh, but I have a limited budget for charitable donations and I prefer it to go to organizations that are efficient in how they use it.

          2. OP OK-NOK*

            OP here: just to clarify: there were multiple checks, and we asked for them to be reissued within a week of not getting them. One place declined to reissue their check. The bulk of the money is earmarked, and scheduled to be spent later this year. Again, this is not meant as an excuse.

              1. Also at a small nonprofit*

                But they didn’t lose it for malfeasance. They will pay a late fee and it’ll be done with.

              2. Also at a small nonprofit*

                I just realized the confusion: This is very very different from losing your 501c3 status with the IRS. These are state registrations. Every year, if you think you’ll want to solicit donations from people in a particular state, you register and pay $ to that state (regardless of the state in which you are incorporated). In some states, you only register after you receive a threshold of donations from people in that state (which is nice as it prevents unnecessary spending on the part of the nonprofit). Some states you need to register if you plan to apply for grants from foundarions located there. Some you don’t. It’s a confusing cluster of individual state + DC laws that’s extremely hard to manage and very expensive, so many nonprofits don’t bother and just hope they slip under the radar. The fact that OP cares and is trying is a big deal!

    5. Fierce Jindo*

      I would be looking for political solutions. If the nonprofit does useful things in the community, would your Congressional representative’s office be willing to send a letter to try to get the processing of your registration paperwork expedited? Would someone in your mayor’s office make a phone call to find out the timeline, which could also speed it up?

      I understand you don’t want to be too public here since it makes your organization look incompetent. But I would be pursuing solutions within the government.

      1. PublicRecords*

        I believe anything you discuss with a congressional office is public. That doesn’t mean they’ll go off any publicize any one specific thing, but you shouldn’t ask for help on things you don’t want to become publicly known.

        1. Fierce Jindo*

          I don’t think they need to be secretive about it to the extent of worrying about that, do you? Just that they presumably don’t want to, like, publicize that they messed this up so badly.

        2. Grits McGee*

          What do you mean by “public” here? At least at the Federal level, legislative records (including constituent relations) are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so the only way OP’s communications would become public knowledge is if OP’s org or the legislator’s office purposefully shares the information. (Not sure about state laws though.)

      2. NonprofitLawyer*

        If this is a state charitable status issue, your best bet is to call your state rep’s constituent services office and be warmly, effusively grateful for any help they can give you in getting your reinstatement expedited. They are the government entity with the pull — since they fund your state revenue agency — and there is very little risk of publicity here, even under your state’s right to know laws.

        The IRS has a procedure to move charitable status reinstatements up in the queue in cases of imminent financial harm, and your state revenue agency may have a similar process — definitely worth calling and asking, or poking around on their web site. The IRS process has very specific criteria, and a state process modeled on the IRS may be the same, so definitely make sure you understand the magic words to get your reinstatement fast tracked.

      3. OP OK-NOK*

        OP here: Thank you for the suggestion. We keep close ties with government officials, so that might help our status problem.

    6. Blarg*

      The part that got me was:

      A few weeks after J turned in the key and left, we discovered that she had not checked the mail there for five months

      So, even after J left, no one checked the mail for an additional “few weeks.” Is that another month? Half a year went by without checking the mail, and no one noticed — not your donor relations, not your accountants, not whomever maintains your licensing and registration.

      This isn’t a J problem, This is an organizational issue, and recognizing that will really help your agency recover.

      2. Ready for the weekend*

        Yes, I would assume other colleagues would be aware of checks coming in and wanting to confirm their status.

      3. Dust Bunny*

        Yeah, this. There was a J problem but the bigger part of the J problem sounds like a weakly-run organization problem, both in failing to supervise her better during her PIP and failing to pick up her duties after she left.

        1. Chunce*

          Especially since it seems like your secondary mailbox isn’t weather-proof. That seems that a pretty big oversight.

    7. Some Internet Rando*

      Echoing most of the comments… this is a terrible situation but also there are broader issues at play.

      People are making a number of good suggestions. One additional one is cross training your employees and having some of these tasks shared to create a backup. If two employees are responsible for checking the mail on alternate days, its less likely that no one would check for months. I bet there are other routine tasks that need a backup or double check that either you need to be doing or you need someone on staff doing.

    8. Momma Bear*

      I would also find out how to permanently forward the mail from the street address to the regular box. That way there is one point of receipt and less likelyhood of being forgotten.

    9. commensally*

      Yeah, “our nonprofit paperwork expired because nobody saw the notices” seems to be a surprisingly common problem with small nonprofits – I see it come up a lot – but #2 it isn’t a surprise and it shouldn’t be a “one low-level employee not doing their job” problem; if nobody noticed that existential-level paperwork wasn’t being done on time that’s an institutional problem, not an employee one, and the more you put it all on Jo the less you’re going to fix the institutional problem.

    10. iglwif*

      Yes. The situation absolutely sucks AND it absolutely could occur again if OP2’s organization doesn’t put better failsafes in place.

      This time the failure point was an incompetent employee with insufficient oversight. Another time it could be a cheque getting lost in the mail or an email getting caught in a spam filter. When an annual process is this consequential for an organization, you NEED to be on top of the timelines and know when something expected has not arrived on time.

    11. OK-NOK*

      I’m going to reply to the “it’s on you to check the mail & the registration is on you” comments here: you are absolutely right. I’m going to plead guilty by way of being overwhelmed and understaffed there. We have been down a part time admin for moths. I have since got more staff who can help and I am offloading some of these responsiblities onto them. And checking that they have done it.

      1. CityMouse*

        I understand you were overwhelmed but I need to emphasize something: when you tried to report the prior employee for mail fraud you were basically making a criminal complaint against her. So I’m going to ask you: why do you get grace for being overwhelmed but you think Jane deserved potential criminal penalties and wrote into here asking what you could do to Jane?

        2. bmorepm*

          I’m more puzzled as to why they possibly thought this amounted to mail fraud. But I’m not sure that I agree that being overwhelmed and failing to have checks and balances in place is as bad as intentional neglect on J’s part? It clearly states that she lied about checking the mail.

          1. Observer*

            True. But Jane has already suffered reasonable consequences for being this bad at her job. Not only did she lose the current job, she will also never get a good reference from the LW or anyone else in the organization who knows what happened here.

            Criminal charges is a LOT.

        3. Toupeee*

          Yeah I can’t help but notice that either, CityMouse. The employee that left may have been the worst employee everrrr but instead of at all wondering how/why their pitfalls dovetailed with the non-profit’s own blind spots in basic procedures to allow a 5 month lapse to occur…the LW goes straight to “can we get her charged with mail fraud or mail theft?!??” And then turns around and says “oh my gawd I’m so overwhelmed!!! We’re so understaffed, there’s too much going on, of course we couldn’t check the mail from January to May!!”

          The math ain’t mathing hon.

    12. Meep*

      I am just baffled no one missed that $25k if donations were so important to them. I am also baffled there wasn’t a notice. USPS is supposed to remove mail after 10 days if it hasn’t been collected and force you to pick it up.

      So many failures on both sides and only one of them is J’s fault.

        1. Sam I Am*

          ETA: Never mind, I got confused after reading some of the comments talking about the charities register in the UK.

  2. B Wayne*

    #3. Forget you saw that teacher’s info. Don’t mention it to anyone. Also don’t google your friends or co-workers.

    1. allathian*

      Don’t google your employees either! I’m lucky enough to be in a country where googling employees is explicitly forbidden. Employers can and do check things like LinkedIn profiles, but this is only allowed if the candidate has provided a link.

      Or rather, you aren’t allowed to use what you learn from googling someone against them in hiring, so prudent employers don’t google candidates to avoid introducing a bias, just like they don’t ask questions about family relationships and plans.

      Security checks are a different matter, but they’re done by HR or our security services.

      1. Angel*

        Why, I learn such interesting things about my co workers from Google? If it’s on the internet, it’s public knowledge.

        1. Airy*

          They might prefer that you learn about them from conversations with them. “Public knowledge” and “your business” are not exactly the same thing.

          1. Nebula*

            This. I write poetry and used to do readings quite a lot, and if I told someone that and then they went away and Googled me and saw videos of my performances, or read any of my work – absolutely fine. If they happened to come across it and were like ‘Hey I saw this, is it your work?’ – also fine. If a colleague I had never mentioned my writing to randomly started a conversation about it, having found it specifically because they had Googled me – I’d be creeped out.

            1. Mad Scientist*

              Great example. I feel the same way about my poetry and other artistic / hobby work that could be seen online. I don’t work in a creative field so I usually don’t mention that stuff at work, but if it comes up with a coworker I’m friendly with, or if a coworker happened to stumble up on it, that’s very different than googling me. I’d be so creeped out to know that a coworker googled me purely out of curiosity! I had a former coworker who used to google our clients and find out all sorts of random details about their lives that had nothing to do with our projects, and I thought it was so weird. Why would he want to know about our clients’ personal lives? It just seems intrusive.

        2. Disappointed Australien*

          It may also be completely false, or it may be correct information about someone else.

          At best you learn something that prompts you to ask questions of someone, but the nature of those questions might be well outside the bounds of sensible work conversation or normal politeness. Thus you risk wanting to ask questions that you cannot reasonably ask, and are left wondering about someone.

          Of course, using ChatGPT for this is perfectly fine. That way you *know* that you’re getting nonsense back.

          1. Emmy Noether*

            Ha, my FIL asked ChatGPT about (hisname) (country) (sport) and was very confidently told that he was the (sport) champion of (country) in 1967! With a small writeup of how the tournament went. There was even a black-and-white picture of “him” holding a trophy!

            This is not true and the picture was completely AI generated and not of him. But also now there’s kind of a record of this happening (I think he posted it on social media as a joke).

          2. Nicosloanica*

            Someone ChatGPT’d me in my side hustle and got a perfectly plausible, yet completely factually incorrect, summary of my life and works. It all sounded like the kind of thing that could be right (I call it “truthy”) but was in error on almost every point, like where I grew up, where I lived, and how I got my start in the side hustle. It was like that one very confident guy friend who starts to make you doubt yourself because they sound so sure.

            2. Nightengale*

              On a suggestion from here a few weeks ago I chat GPTed myself. I hold a medical license in 3 states (and was at one point licensed in a 4th). It says I have a psychology license in 2 different states I have never worked in.

            3. MigraineMonth*

              There’s an academic paper that describes ChatGPT as a “bullshitter” (with academic citations for the definition of bulshitting, which is hilarious).

              ChatGPT doesn’t *lie*, because it doesn’t actually understand any of what it’s saying. It’s just stringing words together in a way similar to its inputs, and because so many of its inputs present data as if it’s factual (from Encyclopedia Britannica to Lizard People conspiracies, people on the internet write confidently!) you end up with a Bullshitter.

              Maybe what it’s saying is false! Maybe what it’s saying is blue Tuesday up tiddlywinks! But it’s always very confident while saying it.

            4. fhqwhgads*

              Yup. Because ChatGPT isn’t a library. It’s a language model. So it says what it deems most likely for a human to say in response to a prompt. It’s going to sound plausible because it’s job is to sound plausible. Not to make true statements. The more true statements about a thing exist (in what it was trained with) the more likely it is to answer correctly. But it doesn’t need false info to come up with an untrue answer (and I kinda hate it when my boss boss boss calls that “hallucinations” even though I know that kinda-sorta is the accepted term). It’s sufficient for there to be a dearth of information about a thing for it to just start making stuff up. Because it’s just trying to string words together that sound like a conversation.

          3. Chirpy*

            If someone googled me, they would find at least one instance of me being misgendered in a large publication, because that publication didn’t bother to check and assumed I was male. I’m a cis woman.

        3. just some guy*

          It is public knowledge in the sense that you *can* discover it. But the fact that you *can* do that doesn’t automatically mean that you *should*.

          If your neighbour forgets to close their bedroom curtains before getting changed, and you happen to be looking out the window at just the wrong time, you might inadvertently see them in the altogether, and that’s on them.

          But if you’re making a habit of watching your neighbours’ bedroom windows in the hope of catching somebody who’s forgotten to close their curtains, that’s creepy.

          There may be valid reasons to google somebody once in a while. For instance, if a job candidate mentions a major project they worked on and I don’t have a good grasp of what that project is like, I might google it and their involvement in it to get a better understanding of its relevance. On the other side of things, a few years back when I was applying for a job I looked up recent publications and presentations by the panel to get a feel for the terminology they used, so I could explain my own work more effectively.

          But these are very specific, work-related searches, not a general fishing trip for juicy details.

          1. Despachito*

            But in the case of your neighbor you would be spying them to reveal what was not meant to reveal.

            In case of the internet information, however, it is different. Most things you can find about a person were put there willingly BY that person and have become public domain. It is neither stalking nor spying to look them up.

            I don’t think it is inappropriate to look anyone up on the internet because of that – the person is willingly publishing the information about themselves, it is not like you are peeking behind their curtains to see them naked. If anyone looks up my name, they will find my webpage with relevant info about my work (which I would be glad for them to find) … but nothing personal because if I think something is personal I just don’t publish it.

            1. Elitist Semicolon*

              Except that most things you can find about a person on the internet were not put there willingly. If you google me, you’ll get (among other people with the same name) a copy of my high school senior portrait, mention of my name in an article about my college choir, three grad school publications, and a photo of me from a professional newsletter in which I am intentionally striking a ridiculous pose because I knew the photographer was standing right behind me. None of which I put on the internet. I also didn’t put my address, the assessed value of my home, or my political party on the internet, yet all that can be found with a few minutes of sifting through search results. Bottom line: not all info is there with someone’s permission.

              (Also, “public domain” is a specific term with a specific meaning, as is “public knowledge.” I think what we’re all talking about here is “publicly accessible.”

              1. Despachito*

                How come your political affiliation is public (unless you are an active member of a party)?

                I agree with you that all of the above can appear on the Internet without your consent or even knowledge but I can’t see how they could be used against you if anyone googled them. I think that the most potentially compromising material by far is what people put on the Internet themselves, and you can definitely influence this.

                1. Silver Robin*

                  Political affiliation is public record that anyone can access; it gets added to the system when you register to vote.

                2. Gale*

                  Voter registration is considered public record. (In the literal sense of a “public record” meaning it is information that the government is legally required to have readily available for inspection.)

                  I used to live in a state where it was legal for citizens to request these records and then individuals would post huge databases online with all the information they could obtain. And there was nothing illegal about it. I google myself regularly and thankfully haven’t seen one of those databases in a while but I can’t still easily find way too much information about myself (even just my address and phone number is what I would consider too much), and unfortunately it’s all because I’m registered to vote.

            2. LL*

              A lot of info wasn’t, though. My address is online and I never willingly put it there. It’s just something that was pretty easy for a website to find out and then posted it.

            3. Kelsi*

              That’s just not true.

              In addition to data-scraping, social media these days is all about putting up info that the subject didn’t agree to. Tag your friends! I can decline photo tagging, at least on Facebook, but I can’t stop people posting untagged pictures of me or putting my name in the caption.

              Also, in the US, we don’t have the right to be forgotten (yet). So while I can delete accounts, I can’t always scrub everything that was ever on them. And there is also stuff about me on the internet from when I was a teenager that I have not been able to remove. (Things that yes, I did have to use my legal name for.) Nobody even knew when I was a teenager that the internet was going to be what it is now–so no, it didn’t occur to me that I needed to refuse to engage with anything that might put my name on the internet, even in ways that were considered “safe” at the time.

              It’s pretty naive in this day and age to think “just don’t post stuff” is a reasonable solution.

          2. JM60*

            A Google search is usually more analogous to peering into your neighbor’s yard than it is to peering into their bedroom when they forgot to close their blinds. It can be nosy if you’re taking it to an extreme, but it’s generally information that’s either meant to be public, or they’re okay with it being public. You’re not usually going to find something that they have the right to be private, yet was made public without their consent, when you look at the first page of search results wgen simply Googling their name.

            1. Allonge*

              I agree – this is a lot more complex than ‘always google’ or ‘never google’. If we have (especially voluntary) online presence, that may be discovered and using a very common tool is going to happen.

              Of course there are limits, but spending 5-10 minutes with this is very, very common. Whihc will not help some people with making it comfortable! But especially for content you put out there yourself, lots of people will wonder why you are offended that others find it.

              1. Cosmetic Cwtch*

                If I make YouTube videos reviewing makeup products, and you go looking for makeup reviews for a specific product and find my channel and watch a video where I review that product, that’s very different from Googling me to se what gossip you can track down and then watching my channel just to see what I do in my free time. ‘Organically’ finding content I voluntarily post online is very different from being a nosy prying Googler.

                And I’m not “offended” if you find it. This isn’t about offence. I’m annoyed that I work with such a jerk. I’m irritated that you are such an obnoxious person that you’d do that. I’m not offended. I just think you suck.

                1. Allonge*

                  Then you think a lot of people suck. Which, totally up to you! And again, if someone spends hours digging up whatever dirt, that is not cool.

                  I guess what I don’t get is how arbitrary this view seems to be though. When I put content out there for everyone to see – mostly in context of my work – that content is there, viewable, independent of based on which exact keywords people find it. Anything I don’t want people to see, I don’t publish. What is the difference in how people get to it?

                2. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

                  Allonge, if you have never posted anything online outside the content of work, you’re in a small minority. Most of us have forum or blog posts out there, or photos on social media where friends tagged us, or a mention that we won the neighborhood chili cook-off, or something.

                3. Allonge*

                  I (obviously :)) post things online. I am on half a dozen different social media (not counting Whatsapp and similar), forums and so on.

                  I rarely post with my full name, sure. That is my choice – I don’t think it’s an objectively good or bad choice, just right for me. But it illustrates that I am in full control of what I myself put out there, just as most of us are.

                  What others put out there – sure, that is not so easily controllable. I take that into consideration when I google someone!

            2. Nicosloanica*

              So puzzled by this response. Most of the stuff on google is not stuff I posted. It’s innocuous, but it’s stuff other people put on their websites about me, and I can’t delete or correct it easily. Past employers that still feature me on their website or have online newsletters: annoying, but whatever. Publicy tagged pictures related to my side hustle: annoying, but whatever.

              1. Allonge*

                But people know (or – yeah, I am deaming – should mostly know) that not everything that is online is true, and sometimes, just as wind blows some trash into your garden, there is no control over what a search displays of us.

                If someone maliciously posts / writes about someone else, that is the bad act, not googling.

                ‘You might find false information’ is a strange argument against looking something or someone up.’Don’t do it if you are unable to do some critical thinking’ works better for me.

        4. JSPA*

          It’s hypothetically fine if

          A. you are one of the very rare people who take a “life’s rich panoply” attitude to absolutely everything (including the entire political spectrum and beliefs about interpersonal behavior and about identity) so long as they don’t manifest problematically at work, and

          B. you don’t get tempted to bring up that information that you only found by intentional searching.

          I’ve known maybe two people I could confidently put in both those categories–and I’m not one of them.

          Otherwise there’s too much risk of either being creepy by alluding to facts about someone’s life that you’ve never been told, or being more supportive towards some and cooler towards others on the basis of knowing their interests and affiliations (in ways that they scrupulously don’t bring into the workplace).

          There’s a bit of a carve-out if you are early in your career and sussing out how people above you may operate; if you’re worried about behavior that is showing up in the workplace, and trying to figure out if it’s a “tip of the iceberg” or a one-off; anyone who’s creeping you out, and you mostly want to diffuse or create space (or similar safety issue).

          But doing it for fun and general interest brings just way too many chances and lures to be unprofessional or awkward.

        5. br_612*

          Because lots of people want to keep their professional and personal lives separate. They may not want their conservative corporate coworkers in a job that requires business professional dress and no visible tattoos/piercings (other than the standard single earlobe piercing in women) to know they basically have a full bodysuit tattoo and go to raves every weekend wearing a sequined bikini, a mesh shirt, platform sneakers, and carrying enough glow sticks to light an airport.

      2. Productivity Pigeon*

        That’s so interesting! I’ve never heard of a law like that.

        If you feel comfortable sharing, what country is it?

        I’m Swedish and we’re a VERY information transparent country.
        One googling will tell you my current address, my birthday, where I’ve lived before, how long I’ve lived at my current address, WHICH DOOR is mine in my apartment building (second from the left)… how big my apartment is.
        What I earned the last five years. If I have a dog, and what kind of breed it is… what kind of car I own.

        Basically a LOT of information.

        For a small fee, you can access court records and more “private” info.

        I don’t THINK we have a law forbidding the use of googled info, but my guess is that info like children etc and anything else that would fall under some sort of discrimination law covers most cases.

        Are employers allowed to reject someone based on inappropriate twitter posts or something like that?

        1. Miso*

          Ohhh, that gives me the creeps.

          In Germany we’re super protective about private information and our privacy, like Google Street View was virtually unusable in Germany for a long time because the majority of houses was blurred.

          1. Productivity Pigeon*

            I guess it’s just something you get used to!

            I don’t know WHY it’s like this in Sweden (though I’m going to do some googling and see if I can find an answer because it IS interesting.) but as I said in another comment, I don’t think we have unusually high rates of stalking/doxxing/etc. It happens, of course. (As I said in yet another comment, I’ve had the singular luck of having FOUR separate poison pens sending me unpleasant letters. I could hide my address but at this point, it’s more about the principle of the thing. I refuse to hide and cower because of stupid people. I’ve also never gotten threats but if I had, I might do things differently.
            Anyway. What I meant to say was that as far as I know, we don’t have a rampant stalking problem in this country, despite all the public info.)

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          It probably comes up in the event that a company takes an adverse action against an employee and a bit of an investigation shows that they learned information through googling.

          But I think it’s probably more of a protection for workers against harmful actions by their employers kind of thing. It allows workers to have some privacy online.

        2. Hyaline*

          Yeah…I have a feeling it’s not the googling that’s ultimately illegal, it’s *doing anything with that information* which means, in practice, you don’t google (and obvs I’m using “google” as shorthand for “search the internet”).

          1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

            That’s not at all obvious! Looking someone up on LinkedIn which is curated and specifically for professional interaction is way different from using Google and finding a blog or fanfiction they wrote in college, which may still come up many years later for someone with an uncommon name.

        3. Ali + Nino*

          Yeah I am pretty gobsmacked by this. People claiming this is actually illegal, can you link to any legislation or news coverage of people facing legal consequences for this?

          1. Productivity Pigeon*

            Since the person who mentioned living in a country where it was illegal to google potential employees didn’t respond yet (I asked what country they live in), I did some digging and I was able to find ONE really old article mentioning this is the case in Finland. I haven’t been able to find much more info than that so far.

            I’ll post the link in a reply to this comment.

          2. Productivity Pigeon*

            Okay, so I’ve found some credible sources in Swedish (I’m Swedish, and if you don’t know, Swedish is the official “second” language in Finland.)

            It seems that it’s illegal to collect information about an applicant using search engines *without their permission*. Apparently, employers should get information about the applicant from the applicant themself. If the employer wants to gather information from other sources, they need explicit permission from the applicant.

            That source was from 2011 and it said that so far, there have actually not been any cases of this brought up in court.

          3. Another Finn*

            I am going to say that you’ll struggle to find news coverage for anyone facing legal consequences for anything happening in hiring because Finland is a small country, has less lawyers than the US, and anything in hiring is difficult to enforce. That said, I think ithe culture is such that you are less likely to be googled.

        4. Bleu*

          Yeah googling a job candidate is a pretty standard part of due diligence when hiring. Not scouring multiple pages, but certainly browsing to see what comes up with their name (taken with a grain of salt that it might not be true or might not be them).

      4. GoogleIsNormal*

        This has been a standard part of every hiring process I’ve ever been part of on either side of the ledger for decades now. If something unexpected/problematic is found, the candidate gets a chance to explain that it’s their cousin with the same name or why it’s not a big deal, but it would be malpractice not to check that they don’t post racist screeds or eat babies or otherwise do something that could embarrass the company.

        AI is going to add a new and difficult angle to this as AI lies all the time (at this point, at least) but too many people are too trusting of the results, but folks are going to have to start coming up with solutions and (probably) accept that they may lose out on some opportunities because some hiring managers are overly trusting of the results (on the plus side, if they do the same in other work processes it’s probably a nightmare to work for them).

      5. fhqwhgads*

        That’s googling candidates though, not employees. You aren’t allowed to use it in the hiring decision. Says nothing of googling after someone’s in a role already. In the letter, the googling the parent did is more analogous to googling a coworker after they’ve been there six months.
        I’m not saying google everyone in order to hold things against them. But the scenarios here are a bit different. Like, a US example, don’t ask if someone is pregnant has kids to avoid discriminating on family status. But that’s a “before the decision is made” no-no. Doing it in casual conversation after they’ve been there a while, not odd and not disallowed.

    2. Nodramalama*

      … Is it OK to google your ex boyfriends maybe new girlfriends hand though

      Pls nobody respond to me with any level or seriousness.

      2. Emily of New Moon*

        I strongly recommend that you don’t google your ex, because no matter what you find, it will always be upsetting.

    3. amoeba*

      Eh. I often google people just out of curiosity – former classmates and yes, also colleagues, whatever. I don’t go sleuthing beyond the obvious results, which are generally always really harmless. I really don’t see any harm in this – it’s really not spying, it’s looking at the public display people have of themselves!

      Also, I don’t think it’s a bad thing OP knows – I mean, they should obviously not out them at work, but if it helps them be a bit more sensitive (like as in, avoid making any remarks that could come across badly, or maybe just showing their support of the LGBTQ+ community with a tote bag as Alison suggested or whatever!) – why not? I also strongly assume that while the teacher obviously doesn’t want to be openly out at work, they also don’t appear to care that much that nobody discovers their identity – it is, after all, publicly available with a simple search for their name and I’m sure they’re aware of that.

    4. Lim*

      No, always Google people – it’s essential for safety and safeguarding. If someone is a registered CSA offender, and doesn’t disclose, that’s pretty essential knowledge to have.

      I once discovered something about someone which, had it become public, would have destroyed my entire company. I wish dearly that I’d googled this person ahead of time because it would have saved me months of nightmare (including being thrown against a wall by a 6ft man when I’m a 5’2 disabled woman).

      1. Nebula*

        I’m really sorry to hear that happened to you, that’s awful. Do you not have criminal record checks where you are? That is information I would expect to be turned up in a criminal record check rather than relying on a potential employee disclosing, or the hiring organisation Googling them.

        1. ScruffyInternHerder*

          In this particular case…there can be smoke (rumors or things about said man’s tendencies to be violent, including things said man might post himself) without fire (an actual charge that would show up on a background check).

      2. Grisa*

        This isn’t something you rely on a Google search for! This is why you do actual background checks. Safety isn’t something to leave to the random whims of the Google. You need to do your proper due diligence.

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Rely on? No. But supplementing background checks with independent research can bring up a lot of important red flags, especially if you work with vulnerable populations of any kind.

      3. Productivity Pigeon*

        I’m so sorry that happened to you!

        I think most of us assume that people around us are generally decent people, or we at least *want* to believe that.

      4. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        I’m sorry that happened to you! Any sort of criminal record (like registered sex offender status) seems like something a standard background check would surface.

    6. Sugarholic Teacher*

      As a teacher myself, I can’t see a need why parents would ever need to Google us. If a teacher is there, they’ve already been background checked by the system and approved by the principal (of course there are red flags with a small percentage, but it doesn’t seem like the LW had any reason to suspect that). You may find something you’d rather you didn’t see, like the person moonlights as a dominatrix or whatever (my memory is telling me we once had a post about that on this blog).

      I suspect he sticks to he/him pronouns because it’s less confusing for kids that young. Some feel it’s not the right thing to do, but I see little kids mix up “he” vs. “she” all the time, or ask people “Are you a boy or girl?” So maybe this teacher finds that their little brains aren’t ready to throw a third gender into the mix.

      1. honeygrim*

        Another possibility is that Mr. Michael uses “they/them” pronouns AND “Mr.” One doesn’t necessarily require the other, I don’t think

        I’m no expert in this, but have interacted with people who use a variety of combinations of pronouns/forms of address.

        Either way, I agree with Alison. Follow Mr. Michael’s lead here.

        1. Kit*

          Yeah, Mr. is a title of address, they/them are pronouns which Mr. Michael may or may not use. There are lots of nonbinary people who use some combination of titles and pronouns we associate with binary genders, for a variety of reasons, including that they may not prefer something other than Mr./Mrs./Ms. in daily life. (The non-gendered equivalent I encounter most often is Mx. but it is not what I’d call universally accepted by any stretch.)

          It’s also possible that Mr. Michael is comfortable with a variety of pronouns (I’m a they/any enby myself, in part because I know my presentation is read as female and in part because I just… genuinely don’t care what pronouns someone uses about me as long as they’re not being jerks?) or that “Mr. Michael” and he/him is the option in the classroom because parents have been jerks, or any number of other reasons. Signaling acceptance/allyship is fine, but don’t assume that a quick Google has given you some sort of deep knowledge about this teacher’s personal life and identity. Follow the lead you’re given in person.

          1. Gale*

            I also want to add that gender fluidity is a thing. Maybe this teacher identifies as he/him at work and they/them outside of work. I get the OP means well but Mr. Michael has complete agency to decide which pronouns are appropriate and preferred in which settings… It felt to me almost like the OP was somehow doubting the teacher’s pronouns and is assuming that he/him pronouns are incorrect. If the person in question is using he/him pronouns in this context, I guarantee those are the correct pronouns for that context!

      2. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        Nah, littles are still learning, so aren’t going to be surprised there’s a third option. I’m quite sure the teacher is more concerned about pearl-clutching parents who think trans and non-binary people are a danger to kids.

        Lots of people use pronouns situationally. They may be out socially but not at work, or with everyone but family, or whatever. A friend of my son’s uses they/them at school (starting at least at age 9, when my kid met them) but she/her at home, and their friends easily adapted to using different pronouns depending on who was around.

        1. Excel Gardener*

          Another possibility is he/they dabbled in using they/them pronouns but no longer use them, and what LW found is out of date. I’ve definitely seen that before as well.

          1. Hyaline*

            This was my first thought–I have a lot of students who “try on” different pronouns and it’s entirely possible to work through different iterations! (Students can self-identify their pronouns in our software, and I not infrequently see changes semester to semester.) Call people what they say they want to be called and it’s hard to go wrong.

            1. Jessen*

              Yup. I’m in my mid-30’s and switched from they/them to he/him in the last 5 years. So it’s not just teenagers or college students – especially not for those of us who might not have grown up in environments where experimenting with pronouns was safe. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone could dig up something old on me that has they/them pronouns though.

      3. ferrina*

        I suspect he sticks to he/him pronouns because it’s less confusing for kids that young.

        Former preschool teacher here. It’s more likely that the teacher uses he/him for the adults. Preschools are filled with DRAMA and 95% of the time, it’s from the adults (parents, admin, other teachers). The young kids tend to follow the lead of the adults around them and will accept new pronouns without any kind of question. ESPECIALLY in the 2s class where their talking skills are developing by leaps- those kids pick up verbal repetition like a Mensa parrot.

        The adults are a different story. Some of them are great, some of them are REALLY not. All it takes is one teacher “knowing best” and “protecting the children”, and suddenly you have center-wide drama. And preschool teachers have to work together a lot- if you are in the classroom together, that’s 6-8 hours of stressful in-person communication in front of an audience each day. The admins I’ve worked with let a lot of things go as “personal issues that you can talk about”. They are extremely reluctant to fire anyone because it’s hard to hire and retain teachers (low pay, stressful situations, background check required before a new hire can be allowed to be unsupervised).

      4. Bumblebee*

        I don’t know, I think kids are way better at understanding that stuff than us adults! My kids are very attentive to their cousin’s new pronouns and names and are often a little taken aback that we adults have trouble remembering it.

      5. Bast*

        As a parent, I’ve mostly Googled teachers to find contact information, because our district’s websites are so convoluted and make it difficult to find the email, and not all of them follow the same format. Jane Smith’s email could be jsmith@schoolname.org, jane.smith@schoolname.org, or janesmith@schoolname.org. I’m not sure why there are so many variations of what an email could be, but there you are. I’ve also had to look up “mystery” individuals to contact them because my kid magically will forget names, but then I’m usually googling, for example, Guidance Counselor at Blah Blah School and then looking for an email. My son will say something along the lines of, “Oh, the guidance counselor needs to you call her about X.” “Well, what’s the guidance counselor’s name?” *shrug* “I dunno.” Other than directly needing to reach out to someone, I can’t think of many other reasons, IF any others, that I’ve Googled a teacher.

      6. Turquoisecow*

        I have never felt the need to Google my kid’s teacher or any of the aides or therapists who work with her . I trust the school district hired good people in line with the state laws about qualifications including criminal background checks and all that. I assume the school principal or superintendent or whoever has done their due diligence in hiring them and I don’t need to be involved in that conversation.

        If it was a private day care or I was hiring a nanny or babysitter, definitely.

      7. Despachito*

        A high-school teacher of my kids has a webpage with risqué photos, sort of like your dominatrix example.

        Of course her students found out somehow and googled those pages.

        Shouldn’t they have done that? The pages are publicly accessible.

    7. Hyaline*

      IDK, when it comes to your kids it’s fair to know who their teachers are. It’s amazing what people will put online, and, yeah, if you’re not comfortable with your kids’ teachers being, say, open white supremacists or really into porn on their public social accounts, that’s fair, and you have every right to google. Sorry not sorry, but the rules do change in my view when you’re responsible for your kids’ welfare.

      Before you say “but background checks!” a local teacher was caught a few years back for kiddie porn–he didn’t flag in a background check but he posted dodgy stuff online that tipped off parents and instigated a full investigation.

      1. Sugarholic Teacher*

        Just know that anything you find on a teacher’s public profile, the principal would have already found. When I last changed schools, I know for a fact they were looking me up because LinkedIn told me. If there was a child abuse charge then someone screwed up hiring that guy, and the best response would be find another school, because the principal was incompetent to have missed the online red flags. 99.9% of teachers are safe and qualified. You can be looking out for your kid’s safety without assuming the worst of every person you come across.

        My view on this is probably skewed because I work at a low-income public school where I doubt the parents bother Googling the teachers. Some of them don’t even know my name, I go all year without meeting some at all. But LW is at a private school, so there’s probably more helicopter parent behavior. And even if the school doesn’t really “do” anything religious, religious schools may attract a certain kind of parent. Mr. Michael may not be comfortable being “out” to those parents.

      2. MigraineMonth*

        Unfortunately, some parents take this too far and a lot of school districts/principals cave way too easily to parental pressure. Teachers have be fired for being photographed with a solo cup at a party or drinking wine at a restaurant.

        Teachers (mostly women and LGBTQ+) often have to completely hide their romantic life or non-mainstream hobbies, not just from their students but from the entire community. Enjoy learning belly dance? Write erotic fiction for adults? Poly? Interested in kink? Like dancing at clubs? Well you’d better hope the parents never find out, because obviously only nuns and unmarried virgins could teach Timmy algebra.

    8. Ally McBeal*

      Also do not google your family either. I’ve made that mistake way too many times and probably still have not learned my lesson.

    9. Momma Bear*

      Agreed. I have a friend who is trans and for many years he did not change his name or pronouns at work for fear of losing his job and health insurance. If the teacher asks you to use “they/them”, great! If not, then go with whatever their work persona is. Many teachers work to keep their personal lives private for a lot of reasons.

      1. Azure Jane Lunatic*

        I am agender and kept using my Assigned Gender At Birth honorific and pronouns professionally with all except some very close friends (and the co-worker whose presentation made me nearly break cover in front of a likely cis-het person) because it was less hassle, even though I wasn’t in fear of directly losing my job over it in the middle of a blue city.

        I am very aware that I register as Weird on a lot of people’s radars, and a lot of it is things that I can’t help. I use a cane on good days. I don’t wear straight sizes. I have ADHD. I’m deeply, deeply geeky. So I keep a lot of my workplace presentation very keyed down so I look like “that nice lady who always has jellybeans” to a lot of people who know me in passing, even though I am a blue-haired freak.

    10. PhyllisB*

      I’m curious how this works, though. I keep hearing about people Googleing folks, but I tried Googleing myself and all I got were ads for paid sites.

    11. That Coworker's Coworker*

      I changed all my social media pronouns to “they/them” just to stop getting bra ads while playing Scrabble. Granted I’m not a preschool teacher so probably don’t have as many people googling me, but if anybody does google me I don’t really care what they think, and they can call me they/them if they want to, but they can also just ask me what I prefer, which is what many people do these days in a professional setting, regardless of googling.

      1. ThatOtherClare*

        Years ago I changed my Pinterest age to 14 so that I would stop getting ads for alcohol. I am definitely not 14! If it’s just one particular website the teacher might have a practical reason for using they/them rather than an identity based one. Since the stakes around this sort of thing are so high for teachers, I think it’s far more important to follow Alison’s advice and drop it than it would be if we were talking about say, a tax accountant or a plumber.

    12. tamarack etc...*

      I’m a little unclear though. How does “Mr Michael” imply he/him pronouns? Someone can be “Mr Michael” and “they/them”.

      1. tamarack etc...*

        On second thought, I’d like to add: It should be ok to ask people, in a light-weight way, about pronouns. There’s nothing wrong with slipping in a quick question in a 1:1 meeting with the teacher. And if they say “he/him is fine here at school” or just “oh, he/him” then go with that. They may also say “they/them or he/him, either is fine” or “I use they/them outside school, but prefer he/him here in the professional setting”.

        1. JustJaye*

          A good way I’ve learned to do this without explicitly asking “Hey, what are your pronouns?” (which can be off-putting and awkward, even in a 1:1 conversation) is to just lead with your own.

          This is especially ideal at parent-teacher conferences or similar situations when you’re (re)introducing yourself to the teacher: “Hi, my name is Catelyn. I’m Sansa’s mom and my pronouns are she/they.” This sets up an environment where you’ve put yourself in the position of sharing first, signals that you’re understand people have the right to choose their own pronouns, and leaves it up to the teacher to respond in kind.

    13. Kelsi*

      Absolutely this.

      I work in a pretty accepting place, have been slowly transitioning into using they/them pronouns, but I wouldn’t want someone to make a big deal of using them for me at work for the same reason I’m not officially out at work–not because I think people would react badly or that it would have negative professional repercussions, but because I want to a. be in control of the conversation and b. have the conversation as few times as possible. I’ve been sitting on it for awhile as there are some (positive) things happening at my job that I think will provide an easy opening for the conversation, but the wheels are moving slow. Could I handle it if someone outed me earlier? Sure, but it’s not what I want.

      So even in a very accepting place, in the best of circumstances, it’s best to take the person’s lead.

  3. Heidi*

    The USPS sends me emails with photos of my incoming mail. It’s mostly unsolicited mail, but I know to be on the lookout if something important is coming by mail. There may also be other ways to divert mail from the box you don’t want people to use. I hope it all works out.

    1. Emily*

      Unfortunately USPS does not seem to be able to do this for PO Boxes/business addresses, at least in my experience. I have Informed Delivery for my mail, but when we tried to sign our work mailing address (a PO Box), and the office’s physical mailing address, we weren’t able to sign up either address.

      1. Sarahjanesk9*

        Might depend on the box size. I have the smallest one & informed delivery works fine but a bigger one would have a much larger volume that they probably don’t have time for.

      2. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        It’s a new service; hopefully offering it to businesses and PO Boxes is a future feature.

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          I’ve had Informed Delivery for about five years, so I wonder if it’s just not available in all areas, depending on where your mail is being routed from.

          But I have not been able to add a business address, unfortunately.

          1. doreen*

            It’s not available to all addresses – it might depend partly on the area but I do know it has something to do with a “unique address” . It’s very common in my area for multiple entities to use the same address- maybe a business at street level and one or two apartments above or two businesses sharing a storefront office or a store on the ground floor and a dentist on the second floor. They may have separate physical mailboxes that the carrier knows about but if all the mail is addressed to 123 Main St , then that address is not eligible for informed delivery.

          2. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

            I stand corrected. The USPS sure did a good job of making it sound bleeding edge 6-months or so ago when we first heard about it in our area and started receiving fliers to sign up.

      3. ILostMyBananapants*

        I was able to sign up with my PO Box – I don’t have street delivery, my village is too small, so we are PO Box only. I did it with my name and addresses, and it works great. So maybe it’s the commercial aspect and not the PO Box?

      4. The OG Sleepless*

        Informed Delivery isn’t available for our business PO box, and I SO wish it was. Much like the OP, 95% of our mail is junk mail. But a few times a month we get paper checks as payments, or letters from the DOL or IRS etc. We’ve moved our office since we got the PO box so it’s not on my normal flight path anymore, so about twice a month I have to drive all the way over and check the mail. It would be so nice to just look up what’s being delivered.

    3. OldHat*

      I use to be treasurer for a nonprofit. Think local chapter of a professional organization. We did the profession during the day and didn’t have a physical address. 80% of everyone in that profession work in downtown, so the mailbox location is good for most potential officers. I changed jobs and was never in downtown (except to check the mailbox). Trust me, I tried getting informed delivery and the fact that we were classified as a business/organization/nonprofit prevented us from doing so.

      When you log into USPS to manage your PO box, they have a banner that informed delivery is not available for businesses (and getting a street address as a perk for package delivery is not either; there’s red text when you try to sign up that its only for individuals and there is a penalty if not doing it as an individual).

      Hopefully it changes and is offered in the future, but hadn’t been an option.

    4. fhqwhgads*

      Well it sounds like in this case they don’t need informed delivery on the PO box. They need informed delivery on the physical address. Donno if it’s available for non-residential, but it doesn’t surprise me it wouldn’t be offered on a PO box.

  4. Emily*

    For #2 I am super baffled as to why they filed a claim with USPS at all, unless it was before they realized that the mail was not getting picked up and they thought the post office was not delivering the checks. I do think this is a painful and expensive lesson about having cross checks, especially for work assigned to an underperforming employee.

    1. MK*

      I think OP is understandably upset, but not entirely reasonable about this. The tone of her letter seems to imply that the former employee deliberately tried to sabotage them, when their actual actions are mostly negligent. I mean, not checking a mailbox that usually gets junk mail, is lazy, not malicious.

      1. Allonge*

        It’s also, as the answer points out, something that the company needs to have some kind of backup for in any case. People go on leave, get sick and so on.

        And I totally know the feeling of monitoring a (in my case email) mailbox with mostly spam. Our “contact us” mailbox has 99.9999% spam, including from some very disturbed people. In some cases, there is a message that our oversight bodies need us to read. So we monitor every day, cause you never know.

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Yep! And I’ve definitely been guilty of going a week without checking something I should check daily because it’s usually spam and I get distracted. But a week, not a year.

        2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Always have two keys and two people responsible for checking. We had to do this in my philanthropic organization. One key was held by the treasurer because checks coming in. The other by another member who was a very former president of the club. He would regularly get the mail and distribute it as he saw fit instead of bringing all correspondence to the attention of the board. Turns out he was personally assigning the property return all organizations in my state had to file to one person — who was not a board member. When that person died, mail picker upper didn’t bother mentioning to the board about it when notices came in. Our Charter was revoked and we had to reinstate it.

          After this we took the key from him. And all paperwork now goes through the board. Period.

      2. Ally McBeal*

        I’m so curious about how the fundraising team never sent up an alert, like “hey Donor X said they were pledging $25,000 but I don’t think we’ve received it. Can someone check the mail?”

        1. Delta Delta*

          It could have been multiple smaller checks. Although, I can also see how a donor who sent a check and then saw it wasn’t cashed might call and wonder what’s going on.

      3. Smurfette*

        Exactly what I was thinking. OP really comes across as looking for someone (anyone) to blame – almost as though she is trying to avoid taking responsibility for the situation.

        If you’re getting $25K in donations PLUS official documentation to that mailbox, it’s clearly a mistake to leave it up to an incompetent employee to check it.

        > Can a malicious, disgruntled ex-employee destroy our nonprofit like this?

        Not malicious or disgruntled – just lazy and inept.

        > We filed a case with USPS and the Office of the Inspector General with regard to obstruction/delaying the mail

        But nobody obstructed or delayed the mail…

        Instead of wasting time looking for someone to blame, fix your processes and systems so that you don’t end up in a similar situation again.

        1. ferrina*

          100%

          I feel for the OP- they are in an awful situation. But outsourcing the blame won’t help. There are lessons to be learned. The lesson isn’t “The post office should make sure that I read my mail”. The lesson is to have internal redundancies in place for essential items. The fact that they missed a renewal deadline that should have been on someone’s calendar tells me that there is more issues than just the one employee. When something is essential, it needs to fall on multiple staff with checks and safety nets in place. No one person should be able to cause the fall of the business.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Another lesson is that – a PIP is the final chance. Not you didn’t pass the PIP, now one more chance to straighten up and fly right. You have the talk about improving at the beginning of the PIP and make it clear if the person does not pass the PIP, they will be let go. It’s actual kinder this way. Because otherwise they think the PIP is just a check box and no big deal, then would be surprised that no you must improve or you are out.

          2. Anonymous Educator*

            Yes, it’s good to get mail reminders of “Hey, you need to do this,” but renewals usually come on some kind of predictable schedule (e.g., once a year), so a calendar reminder for the whole org (or at least several people in it) would make sense for something so critical.

          3. Momma Bear*

            Also, I would contact every org that sent information to that other box and make sure that the address on file with them gets updated. Update the website to clearly specify the address.

        3. Dust Bunny*

          Yeah. I mean, the mail was in the box. It was delivered. The USPS did their job. I don’t know what recourse the OP thinks there might have been with that.

      4. Jackalope*

        To me the “sabotage” part was more that if I understood correctly, the former employee lied about having checked the mail. It’s one thing not to do her job, but I can see how it would feel more personal if she lied about having done it. (Note that I still agree that a significant part of the issue here is the lack of checks and balances. But I can see how that part would make it feel more malicious for the OP.)

        1. sparkle emoji*

          I can see how it would feel that way, but to assume she was deliberately letting mail pile up while malevolently cackling isn’t helpful to LW. She was floundering in many ways, maybe she just affirming that there was no mail in order to cover up one more area she was failing in? That’s technically still lying but it feels different than LWs mental framing.

        2. Meep*

          Did she lie, though, or was she told about it once along with it is “just spam” and then got distracted by all the other aspects of her job to the point when asked “did you check the mail” her brain went “I checked the PO box so yes!”?

          I ask because OP says they were understaffed and overwhelmed which implies J was also probably overwhelmed as well. Not to mention, the lack of accountably on OP’s side to the point they think they need to file a case tells me that *maybe*, just maybe J’s shortcomings weren’t entirely J’s fault.

          But like your and OP’s thoughts, mine is also just unfounded conjecture

          1. bmorepm*

            we’re supposed to take LWs at their word, so I’m going to say that they said she lied because they know she lied.

      5. MCMonkeybean*

        I don’t read the tone as assuming deliberate sabotage, but I do think they want to conveniently lay all the blame on this one person–which is very understandable but not really reasonable. That person certainly messed up most directly, but I have to agree that 1) her tasks should have been more closely monitored and 2) assuming this #1 most important registration task is something that has to be done regularly they should probably have systems in place to be prepared for it beyond waiting for a letter anyway, and then ideally someone would have noticed they were past an expected timeline earlier.

        This situation is awful, but they are wasting their time trying to punish the person who is gone instead of spending it setting up checks to make sure this can’t ever happen again.

      6. Tippy*

        Ehh, but when you add in her actively lying about checking it…. naw, I can see why the LW is thinking malicious intent.

    2. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      I read that part as meaning they had reported her to the USPS for tampering with the mail.

      2. londonedit*

        Yeah, I read it as they’d reported her for in effect ‘stealing’ the mail, as her actions had prevented the company from being able to access it. But that’s not what happened – it’s not the USPS’s fault if someone doesn’t check their mailbox. I imagine their responsibility stops when the letters are delivered to the correct address.

      3. CityMouse*

        Honestly this to me is a sign that the organization is flailing and not owning up to their own failures. Of course an employee isn’t criminally liable under laws are meant to punish stealing mail for simply not checking the mail, and the fact that they tried to get this person found criminally liable for that is just very much not a good look for this organization.

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          Agree on the flailing. OP should be setting up checks and balances so this can’t happen in the future.

        2. Rebecca*

          I’d go a step further and say it’s outrageous to want someone to be charged with a federal crime because they didn’t check the mail. Should they lose their job? Probably, and that’s a reasonable consequence. But to try to saddle someone with criminal charges that will follow them around for the rest of their lives? That’s not ok. The more I think about it, the more not ok it is. The consequences to this ex-employee for having a criminal record of tampering with mail are severe: it’s going to make it halfway impossible to find employment elsewhere and federal criminal defense attorneys are very expensive.

          1. CityMouse*

            Yeah, the more I think about it, the more disturbing it is. Trying to get someone arrested for your own business failures? You had someone on a PIP who didn’t check the mail and then tried to have criminal consequences for thay? That’s pretty horrific. And we all know that even had Jane been arrested and cleared later, it still could have had devastating consequences for her. So nope, that’s not remotely okay.

            1. Wes*

              And by OP’s own admission it took them a few weeks after J left to check the mailbox themselves! Should OP be held legally responsible for any mail that came in during those few weeks?

    3. MistOrMister*

      I found that odd as well. It sounds like they didn’t file anything with USPS until they found all the molding mail – in their own mailbox. I don’t see how they think there are any possible criminal charges that can apply here. Not to be unkind, but I do wonder if OP is freaking out and trying to place the blame in such a way that it doesn’t come back on them. Because it does seem to me that as J’s boss they should have realized core aspects of the job weren’t being done. They admit that important items do sometines go to that mailbox and yet there was no oversight of it. It also begs the question of how they had multiple checks sit in there for months without noticing they had not received payment! And who is in charge of the paperwork to keep their charitable status? Surely rhat sort of thing needs to be done regularly and someone should be on top of making sure they receive what they need from the state in order to file everything. It honestly sounds like there might be a certain overall level if disorganization/dysfunction at this place and it’s just now coming to light as one person’s actions have shown multiple places where they don’t have things in order. I think OP needs to take a long hard look at how their organization is functioning and make changes to keep things like this from happening and stop acting as if this is J’s fault alone.

      1. Mockingjay*

        Agree; this organization lacks…organization. Making a fired employee into a scapegoat for the entire institution does nothing to change that shortcoming.

        OP2, you stated that you run this nonprofit. Please, start looking forward and implement better business practices. There are many good suggestions in this thread.

    4. el l*

      Here’s the takeaway from this letter:

      If you got a task that can turn your lights out – don’t give it to someone on a PIP. (Or who you don’t trust)

    5. CommanderBanana*

      Yeah, not checking the mail is really not mail fraud.

      I mean, the OP could theoretically bring a lawsuit against their former employee for damages resulting from her actions, but I doubt it would go anywhere, and I think their energy would be way better spent not trying to file mail fraud claims, but actually working on their organization’s processes so this doesn’t happen again.

      Ultimately, if OP leads this org, the buck (and the mail) stops with them.

      1. Just Thinkin' Here*

        And that’s where the situation lies. This wasn’t a failure of a single employee. This was a failure of management to ensure the continuity of operations for the organization.

      2. CityMouse*

        No attorney would bring that lawsuit. Even if you came up with a legal theory and proved damages (extremely doubtful), Jane is unlikely to have sufficient funds to make suing worth it. You’d lose money on attorney fees.

        1. CommanderBanana*

          True, but doesn’t mean an attorney wouldn’t take it. They’d just want their fees upfront and not contingent.

        2. Bast*

          Well… I hate to say it, but sometimes when people are angry enough, they come up with another reason, and will usually ignore what actually got them fired in favor of “I got fired for PROTECTED REASON.” This, of course, makes it difficult for people who truly were fired for a protected reason, but I can promise you there are attorneys who will completely build a case around something like whistleblowing or age discrimination that never happened. This depends a lot on how ethical the attorney is and how the potential client appears (you want someone who appears credible and not deranged) but I have worked at firms that would 100% take a dubious case and focus on all the wrong things to build a case.

    6. Just Thinkin' Here*

      I don’t think OP understood that once the mail is delivered to the mailbox, it’s on the non-profit to pick up their mail. As Alison noted, this organization is severely short of checks and balances and needs to cross-train employees to ensure responsibilities are being covered.

      I would question why the mail was wet – is this a PO Box? That would be in the USPS’s purview to fix. If it’s a private mailbox like the big, multi-unit boxes found in stripmalls, then it’s the landlord’s responsibility to waterproof the box.

    7. Ginger Cat Lady*

      Especially since it took them “a few weeks” to check it themselves once the employee left! This is all about blamethrowing, period. The employee wasn’t supervised enough while under PIP, there were no backups or crosstraining, and renewing the registration shouldn’t be reliant on reminders! That place is a mess, it’s caught up with them, and they’re just pointing fingers all around instead of taking responsibility and fixing it.
      I kind of wonder if J really was a problem at all, or if she was just everyone’s scapegoat and now she’s being portrayed inaccurately.

      1. Rebecca*

        They’re not just pointing fingers. Throwing a fired employee under the bus isn’t the worst thing you could do. But attempting to bring federal criminal charges? That’s genuinely outrageous. Imagine the consequences on the fired employee. The more I think about this, the worse it gets. Imagine deciding “someone didn’t get the mail and I didn’t notice, I’ll try to have them charged with a federal crime to avoid taking responsibility”. That is some next level toxic workplace insanity.

      3. Justin D*

        right, they didn’t even have a backup or fallback or anything for the FIRED employee! that’s insane!

    8. Pay no attention...*

      I’m wondering though at what point the mail carrier would have stopped delivery if it was stuffed and rotting for months, because I’ve had it occur where the post office will hold any more mail if my box can’t fit it, or the box is damaged. I end up having to pick it up from the local office. I potentially would have complained that the carrier didn’t at least hold the mail or return to sender once they realized it wasn’t being picked up. I know that’s not really the same as what the OP was hoping.

  5. Sister George Michael*

    LW5, best of luck on the job search! I have definitely been in the same situation of second guessing whether I submitted my application correctly and wanting to triple check. Take Alison’s advice and a deep breath!

    1. CityMouse*

      Yes, I think everyone has experienced the anxiety you get when job searching, particularly if you really want a job. But the reality is those “I need to communicate just how dedicated I am” impulses are generally not good ones and they just backfire badly.

  6. Double A*

    As a teacher, I have come to increasingly hate having to use honorifics. Not only does it force everyone to gender themselves literally every time their name is used, BUT ALSO it brings women’s marital status into things! Yes, I identify as female so Ms. is more or less fine. And sure, I am married. But I didn’t take my husband’s last name but even if I did “Mrs.” is like nails on a chalkboard to me. I get called Mrs. alllll the time. Sometimes even Miss. And I don’t even blame people; keeping track of honorifics is way worse than keeping track of pronouns, and it’s not like it’s even about a key part of someone’s identity. My marital status should not matter at work unless you’re in HR and it’s benefits related.

    At my school there’s big talk about making sure to use people’s right pronouns and pronounce names correctly (which we should absolutely do!), and yet there’s nowhere to push back about gendered and marital-status related honorifics. It’s just so deeply embedded in education culture.

    Maybe someday I’ll raise a stink about it. Today I’ll just rant on the internet, thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

    1. Samwise*

      In higher ed, students pretty quickly learn to use professor or Dr. regardless of the person’s actual job title or whether they have a doctoral degree or not.

      Except for the ones who think every female presenting employee is Mrs. Alas.

      1. HSE Compliance*

        I had a few of those when I was teaching. I was a graduate student at the time, and usually confused for one of the students (I taught freshmen). “Mrs HSE” was incredibly grating to me. Especially when I made it ABUNDANTLY clear that I preferred my first name, which was how 99% of the other grad students wanted to be addressed.

        I did enjoy the student who got confused one day early on and called me “Mrs. Doctor. Professor HSE Compliance”. Not a single one of those was correct apart from my actual name (I wasn’t married, getting a doctorate, or an actual professor). We did end up discussing it and they told me they had gone through school calling everyone Mr/Mrs and it was *so* ingrained in them now, they had trouble not immediately using the honorific. I am glad that this student was able to work through all of that in my class and not in a workplace though.

      2. hohumdrum*

        Tbh my experience in higher ed was that the higher I went the more casual the address went. Elementary teacher was Mrs. Whoever, grad school teacher was Casual Nickname.

        As an educator I got by first name with all students, and I don’t really love when other adults try to force an honorific on me. I can hold authority with my students without needing what feels to me like an archaic title.

      1. Ally McBeal*

        I agree, I volunteer at an afterschool program and all of us – teachers and volunteers – are “Ms Jane” or “Mr John.” I suppose if someone really cared about being called “Mrs Jane” they could try spreading that around, but the kids are just as likely to forget and use Ms. We’ve had a couple nonbinary staffers who stuck with the binary options even after I asked if they’d prefer something like Mx.

      1. Elizabeth the Ginger*

        I have had coworkers that were Teacher Lastname, and I know some Friends schools use the convention “Teacher Firstname”.

      2. Beebis*

        I had a Teacher Anderson back in 2002 and he chose to go by it because his last name is so common he didn’t want to get mixed up with other Mr. Andersons

        1. Meep*

          Mildly off-topic scandal time, but we had 3 Andersons in HS. There was Mr. Anderson who was married to Mrs. Anderson, and Ms. Anderson who was his ex-wife that he cheated on with Mrs. Anderson.

          It was such a wild ride when that went down – even the other teachers couldn’t stop gossiping.

      3. Zee*

        I have a non-binary friend who uses Teacher Lastname in their classroom. It seemed weird at first but if they taught college it’d be Professor Lastname, so why not?

      4. KatCardigans*

        My daughter’s preschool uses Teacher Firstname for all of the teachers. When parents help in the classroom, they sometimes use Teacher Firstname for them, too. Works pretty well! I work in a high school and can’t imagine that here, though; it feels very young.

        1. JustaTech*

          My kiddo’s daycare/preschool uses “Teacher Firstname” for everyone and I think it’s pretty brilliant: it describes the person’s professional position and nothing else. Non-gendered, nothing to do with marital status.

          When I was in high school I had one teacher who insisted on being Miss History, and heaven help you if you slipped up and called her Ms History. So we all over-enunciated and ended up sounding like a class full of snakes “Misssssss”.

    4. Elizabeth the Ginger*

      Relatedly, my friend’s preschooler said the other day, “it’s funny how all my teachers have names that start with ‘mizz’. Mizzannie, mizzjill, mizzterjames…”

      2. General von Klinkerhoffen*

        Also relatedly, I saw on social media this week that a new school starter (age 4 because England) had started calling his parents Mrs Mummy and Mr Daddy.

    5. Ellis Bell*

      In the UK all female teachers get called “Miss”, (without the surname) we even refer to each other as Miss regardless of the actual title we use when employing surnames. It doesn’t really solve the problem of gendered titles, but having the same title regardless of marital status is strangely soothing. I do think you tend to have a different persona at school anyway.

      1. londonedit*

        Yep, it definitely just defaults to ‘Miss’ and ‘Sir’, especially at secondary school. At primary school it was more likely to be Miss James and Mrs Smith, etc, but even then I don’t think kids really grasp the whole concept so everyone just becomes Miss Lastname. At secondary school obviously you know that it’s Miss Jones and Mrs Taylor and Mr Davies, but 99% of the time the kids just go ‘Miiiiiiiiiiiissssssss’ and ‘Siiiiiiiiiiiir’ and don’t even use their surnames at all.

        1. Tangerine steak*

          I would do not be ok with that. Sir is a title of respect. Miss is historically for a woman without high status (Miss and Mrs used to be status based not marital status based) and now used for little girls. Neither is equivalent to how Sir is used.

          1. londonedit*

            Well, yeah, but teenagers aren’t exactly the most rule-abiding and respectful people in the world! We knew we were supposed to call the teachers Mrs Jones and Mr Davies but the vast majority of the time it was just ‘Miiiiiiiiissss’ and ‘Siiiiiiiiiir’ and the teachers didn’t seem to mind.

            1. Allonge*

              Teachers also have a thousand other battles to fight; even if some of them may not appreciate this, it will likely not be on the top of their list of things to change.

          3. Ellis Bell*

            Not in this context, they both just mean “teacher” and has done for most of us since we were five. It was very jarring to be called “Miss” in the US by people in a non-teaching context. I kept wondering what they wanted help with!

              1. Ellis Bell*

                No, you wouldn’t never Miss in a courtroom, it’s too teachery. Courts are one of the few places I’ve ever heard anyone addressed as ma’am. Court “ma’am” is pronounced to rhyme with palm (never heard sir used oddly enough) if the judge is female. Apparently Ma’am and Sir was scrapped in 2022 on favour of ‘Judge’ but I can’t say for sure as I was done working in courts by then. Actually it was always pretty rare, the preference of court honorifics is actually very gender neutral until you get to the higher courts: Your Worship (magistrates court), Judge (district court), Your Honour (crown court) and My Lord or My Lady in the high courts. Solicitors and barristers like to refer to each other as “My Learned Friend” and “My Friend”. If my rusty memory serves me right.

          4. Nodramalama*

            I think you’re over thinking how teenagers use language, because I would all the money in my pockets that the average student does not distinguish between Sir and Miss as a sign of respect

          5. Not Australian*

            Well, the direct equivalent of ‘sir’ is ‘madam’ and a lot of people – myself included – object to being called that.

      2. Magenta*

        At my normal comprehensive just north of London in the 1990s it was always Sir and Ma’am because women deserved the same amount of respect as men.

        1. londonedit*

          Wow, I’ve never heard of anyone calling a teacher Ma’am in the UK! Definitely wasn’t like that in my comp in the south-west. Miss and Sir all the way.

          1. Audrey Puffins*

            I presume Sir and Ma’am is mostly an independent school thing, though I do know of at least one state grammar school that does it.

        3. bibliotecaria*

          Yep, same at my secondary school in the West Midlands in the 2000s – ma’am makes a lot more sense in combo with sir, to my mind!

          Sidebar, at my current workplace some of the men call each other “sir” as a little friendly honorific (think in the context you might use “pal” or “mate”) which I’ve never heard elsewhere. Don’t know if that’s a cultural thing I’ve just not encountered before, or if my office is weird.

      3. fhqwhgads*

        I was under the impression that was born of a time when if a woman got married she’d be expected to quit her job… so less about “regardless of marital status” and more about “historically you wouldn’t even be here anymore”.

      4. Humble Schoolmarm*

        It’s a thing over here in the commonwealth too. I insist on say, Señora, because I teach in a non-English language that bases honorifics on age rather than marital status, but in English speaking rooms if it’s not Miss and Sir, it’s last name, no honorific. I had a non-binary colleague who wasn’t a fan of Mx and just asked that the students refer to them as Lastname. It worked quite nicely.

    6. Productivity Pigeon*

      That’s the nice thing about living in a country that just don’t use honorifics haha!

      —-
      *COMPLETELY irrelevant info-dump about formality in Sweden:*

      We’re on first name basis with everyone from the neighbor’s kid to the prime minister. The one and only exception is the royal family but even then we use a very outdated “third person” address. (Or is it adress? I’m never sure!)

      We stopped back in the 60s sometime. Before then everyone used that awful third person.
      If I was Mr X’s, the director’s, secretary I would ask if “the Director wants his coffee now or after the meeting” and he would answer that “Miss Pigeon can bring it in during the break.”

      A very big production on all ends!

      Funnily enough, it changed VERY quickly. A man called Bror Rexed was the director of a big government agency.

      Bror means brother in Swedish and he became famous for telling all his employees to “Call me Bror.”/“Call me Brother.” which certainly had a nice dramatic flare.

      We HAVE a normal “T-V”-distinction like German or French and lately, it’s gotten more popular among young people.

      However, people of my Dad’s generation who experienced the language reform firsthand will often find it LESS polite and more disrespectful to be addressed with a formal pronoun.

      —-
      /END of completely irrelevant info dump

      2. Emmy Noether*

        That was an interesting info dump – thanks!

        I think internationally, there’s a definite shift towards using first names and no honorifics. It does make things easier, especially internationally when you’re unfamiliar with the intricacies of the other person’s culture’s system.

        As a person who grew up with it, I do find the formal “you” useful in some situations. I wonder if we’ll evolve another way to convey formality/respect/distance if this one falls out of use.

        1. Productivity Pigeon*

          I totally see what you mean!

          I’ve lived in the US quite a bit so I’m familiar with their “politeness culture” and there are definitely situations where it feels *good* to be able to convey “extra” respect.

          This is probably a weird example but I was traveling home from the US once and my bag was too heavy and I figured I’d just pay the fee. It’s usually around $50, right? The wonderful man at the check in counter politely informed me that it would be $250 (!)!
          But he then spent almost 20 minutes helping me repack so I could avoid the fee all together.

          Calling him sir (and tipping, of course!) just felt right in way a lack of honorifics wouldn’t.

          On the other hand, I’ve also lived in Germany where you end up with really comical things like “Herr Professor Doktor”…

          From what my dad tells me, one of the driving forces behind the language reform was that respect can just as easily be conveyed through tone and language. Which is true, certainly, but I agree that sometimes something more is nice.

          The “just first name”-policy becomes slightly awkward in things like political debates. Regardless of any reform, it just SOUNDS weird if politician A said “I don’t agree with Peter on this.” or “Eva’s policies are bad for working parents.”

          So they’ve adopted some sort of middle ground and use first AND last names: “Peter Andersson’s vision for Sweden is one I agree with.” And so on.

          1. SnackAttack*

            It’s also heavily dependent on geography in the US! My husband grew up in the South, and the whole “ma’am/sir” thing is basically ingrained in his head. He’s trying to break the habit but it’s so automatic. As a kid, he always referred to adults with Ms/Mrs/Mr. However, in California (where we live now), people chuckle or look puzzled when he uses ma’am or sir. All of my California friends referred to adults by their first names when they were kids – no Mr. or Mrs.

        2. Ineffable Bastard*

          In Brazil, you can know a lot about the school depending on how names and honorifics are used.
          First name = in general considered very good school, likely inclusive, probably expensive.
          Professor/Professora (it means teacher, and younger kids may call us “prô” if they feel comfortable with us) = a wider range of schools, public and private, of varying quality and resources. Mainstream.
          Tia/tio (aunt/uncle) = run for the hills. It took decades of political and cultural movements to move from tia to professora (and it started in the 1970s) so this a school that does not even acknowledge its professionals as such 50 years later… yikes.

        2. SnackAttack*

          If you want more, in Russian, honorifics don’t really exist. They did develop some after Peter the Great became tsar (largely because of his obsession with France) in an effort to westernize. Paris (and to a lesser extent, Germany) were seen as the pinnacles of culture that all “civilized” people should strive to emulate. However, the honorifics fell out of the use during the Soviet Union, when they started using the gender-neutral “comrade” (“tovarisch”) in an effort to verbally recognize all citizens as equal members of the same society (of course, we can debate about the ACTUAL level of equality – or lack thereof – in the Soviet Union all day long, but that was their intent).

          Throughout history, though, people’s patronymic names have been hugely favored instead of specific honorifics like Mr. or Ms. You get your patronymic by taking your father’s name and adding “-ovitch” (male) or “-ovna” (female) to the end. So if my father’s name were Ivan, I would be SnackAttack Ivanovna, and that’s how people would address me in formal situations. That’s how I addressed my teachers and superiors when I lived there.

          1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

            Russian names are already among my most beloved linguistic rabbitholes (started when trying desperately to follow War and Peace).

      4. Vanamonde von Mekkhan*

        I find the most interesting about the historical usage of titles in Sweden is that it was so much of a trouble to remember all of it that people invented lots of indirect ways to speak so they could avoid using the titles or thou/you.

        Like “Vad får det lov att vara?” (which still is in use today btw). A direct translation would be “What is it allowed to have?” which sounds decidedly weird in English :). Or “Ska det till att resa bort?” (not in use anymore) directly translated something like “Is it to go traveling?”.

        1. Productivity Pigeon*

          That is so true! I hadn’t thought about that!

          I know from watching the Netflix show Unorthodox that Jiddisch (or at least Jiddisch in the Hasidic community in New York) uses a similar way of speaking.

          I assume there are other languages too.

          But I’m glad we got rid of it, it’s so roundabout.

      5. DrAndMr*

        My mother got her PhD in 1972, ~12 years before my dad got his. She was very mild mannered, but woe be to anyone who was using formal address and didn’t call her Dr, and don’t get me started on her reaction to mail addressed to Dr and Mrs X.

        I went to a very well known prestigious university where it was common to call professors by their first name (a few older folks still demanded Dr, and I use the word demanded deliberately). It was a horrible adjustment for me, but it also caused multiple fights with my mother who felt I was being incredibly disrespectful, especially to the women who had to work so hard to get doctorates in physics in particular (my major) but also in other areas.

        I work in healthcare data now and the office manager when I started (since retired) was an absolute stickler for using Dr Lastname for any medical doctor (in non-clinical situations) and no one else (PhDs were not real doctors and should not be called such). I insisted on at least using Dr universally for anyone who qualified. Everyone else was addressed by first name.

        I admit, thanks in large part to my college experience, I am most comfortable in all first name territory (which has been the norm at most places I’ve worked, up and down the hierarchy, but I deeply understand the “I earned that degree, dammit” attitude. But in that case, apply it universally.

        1. Productivity Pigeon*

          I don’t think that’s a bad rule of thumb at all.

          It “costs” very little to address everyone with a doctoral title as doctor and there are all those underlying gender issues. I can see why someone would make a point to always use the title.

          (I will admit that when I send requests to my doctors for renewed prescriptions, I always address it to Doctor Xxx Xxxx. Does it make a difference? Probably not. But it doesn’t hurt to show I’m aware of their expertise etc.)

        2. Azure Jane Lunatic*

          There’s a specific friend of my household who we probably would be on a first-name or nickname basis with if we were in the same area; we’ve been given her offline name as well as her online one and we exchange winter-holiday cards. She is, universally, “Doctor N” within the house. She earned that PhD with every scrap of blood, sweat, and so many tears.

        1. Productivity Pigeon*

          A T-V distinction is when languages use different pronouns to convey different levels of formality.

          Like French’s formal vous and informal tu, and German’s formal Sie and informal du.

          What I specifically meant was that we DO have that distinction in Swedish (“ni” is formal and “du” is informal) but it wasn’t the common way to convey formality, back before the reforms.
          It was used, especially in some parts of the country.

          But it’s often used when translating books or movies etc from languages that have a t-v distinction.

          And even though English doesn’t have that, it’s still common practice to use it for English translations. So if you’re translating subtitles for Downton Abbey, the you’ll use the formal pronoun “ni” when Mr Bates is addressing Lord Grantham and the informal “du” when Mr Bates is talking to Anna. (I’m hoping you’ve seen Downton Abbey or else it won’t make sense, haha.)

          What’s happened is that we consume so much English lanaguge media that many young people think it is “standard practice” to use “ni” when they’re being polite (for example if they’re cashiers in a store or working in customer service).

          But because that’s not “really” how we actually were polite in the past, and because a lot of older people feel very strongly that the formality reforms were something very positive, they dislike it.

          Though to be fair, I’m not old-old and I don’t like it either. We’re all equals here.

          Sorry, that was a very long answer to a short question. :)

    7. CityMouse*

      I do always ask my kid’s teacher “what do you want to be called” and really would accept anything. I did encounter a bad preschool director who came in and tried to chamge up everyone’s names (calling everyone Ms. First name when they’d gone by a choice before). Best I could do was direct my young kid to just keep calling them a choice and a talk about using the names people choose (at his age mostly nicknames).

      1. CityMouse*

        I want to add, as someone who’s been a parent in this situation what I’m aware of is also that to some degree me getting involved in potential conflicts between teachers and management is a delicate balance and really depends on the organization. I’ll go to bat for teachers and have, but it’s different when we’re talking a small preschool (and when I was on the Board), versus a large public school. There’s some degree you can be supportive privately but know emailing the principal or director would just cause problems. It’s a line to walk.

    8. ecnaseener*

      My preschool teachers didn’t use honorifics, just first names. I always assumed that was normal, and learning honorifics was considered a kindergarten-level skill. TIL!

      1. londonedit*

        Yeah, my nephew’s preschool teachers were called by their first name, then when he started in Reception (the first year of primary school, age 5) that’s when they started having to call the teacher Miss Jones.

      2. Say It Ain't So*

        My husband is a teacher at a private preschool-8th school. There’s also a daycare next door. He bounces all over the campus to do music classes. The daycare and preschool-4th grade crowd all call him Mr. Firstname. The 5th-6th graders are mostly Mr. Lastname but sometimes sprinkle in Mr. Firstname. By the time they get to 7th and 8th grades, all the teachers have (respectful) nicknames and my husband’s is “Mr. Initial.”

      3. sparkle emoji*

        My preschool teachers used HonorificFirstname instead of HonorificLastname which feels like a stepping stone? Something to differentiate a teacher from a peer but not as formal as a school teacher. Most of my childcare roles with early elementary students did the same because they were more on the casual side.

    9. Been There*

      Can you just ask your students to address you by your first name? It’s what I did all through primary and mostly through secondary school. Even when it was a mix of addressing some teachers by their first name and some by honorific + last name, it was fine.

      1. Azure Jane Lunatic*

        One of my beloved high school teachers asked us students to use her first name. We cheerfully complied. The school system was not great about it (this was the 1990s) and she eventually legally changed her name to be mononymous so the school would have to use her legal name like they’d apparently been insisting they had to.

        Shout out to Zena!

    10. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      It seems like this came up recently, but I really wish it were common to use “Mx” when you don’t know someone’s title, as it is to use “they” for unknown pronouns. I do this sometimes but it’s definitely not the norm yet.

    11. ArtK*

      My sons’ school (K-12) solved this by addressing *everyone* by their first name. Students, teachers, staff, administration were all addressed that way.

      For folks stuck on “but whaddabout respect???????,” there was no lack of respect; it was just based on who people were and what they did, not some tired shibboleth.

    12. Zee*

      When I was teaching, I had one student who called me Mrs. Lastname alllll the time (instead of Miss/Ms.). What’s weird is that this was in a country where it’s quite common for women to NOT change their last names when they get married! And this particular school had very few married women teachers. But she just got it stuck in her head that all adult women were Mrs. (I would much rather have been Ms. Firstname or just Firstname but the school wouldn’t allow that.)

    13. BigLawEx*

      I’ve always kind of side-eyed my son’s lower and upper schools use of teacher’s first names. BUT it eliminates all the issues of honorifics and pronouns. I think it’s a LA hippie leftover, but turns out to be a good fit now.

      I also hate Mrs! I never changed my name and am now divorced. I *know* some people truly believed they needed to *honor* my former marital status. But it has never been relevant outside of my…well…marriage.

      I may enjoy saying I’m divorced when people call me Mrs., and they stumble. I hope they take away from that, honorifics aren’t necessary in very many contexts.

    14. Wade*

      In my elementary school days in the seventies, all teachers were Mrs./Miss Lastname. (I didn’t have any male teachers until junior high).

      When did the switch to first names start? Or is that just for nursery/kindergarten?

    15. Emily of New Moon*

      When I taught preschool about 20 years ago before I was married, all the women teachers went by Ms., which was pronounced Miss, plus their first name. In other words, I was Ms. Emily. My married co-teacher was Ms. Rose.

  7. Jenesis*

    To #3, I think it might be beneficial for Mr. Michael to be made aware that a first-page Google search turns up a public social media profile that a disgruntled parent or colleague could potentially use to out them – but that’s a conversation that needs to come from a person with a preexisting close relationship, not a random “concerned” parent.

    2. amoeba*

      I mean, I’d assume they are aware of that and it’s not a secret – but they just chose to not have the hassle at work. (Or they actually go by they/he)? I mean, sure, maybe they messed up and would be horrified that it’s out there, but that would at least not be my first assumption.

      1. a clockwork lemon*

        My assumption would be either that the teacher is one of the many nonbinary people who is comfortable using or goes by “they” online for anonymity reasons or something else. Plenty of people have, on purpose, internet identities that are distinct from their real lives for a number of reasons.

        Use the names and pronouns people use in the context in which you know them. If and when they want you to use something different, you’ll be informed.

    3. Ellis Bell*

      It could be that they’re okay with having a different work and personal persona. Teachers sometimes have entirely different names in their personal life because your teaching persona is like a character. Also whenever I’ve seen a teacher be obviously out online, but not at school it’s largely so parents have nothing concrete to moan about, even if they know. If you do have an arsehole parent saying “think of the children! What will your title be!?” it’s an easy comeback to say “I’m Mr Michael, at school and this literally has never come up”. All the more reason for OP to leave it alone so it doesn’t come up.

  8. Dark Macadamia*

    #3, please drop this and take it as a warning not to “lightly” internet stalk people in the future. I have an NB teacher friend who has faced harassment and discrimination at work and in their community for years because of their identity and it is such a drain on their mental health. You don’t know how you might compromise Mr. Michael’s safety, employment, or professional boundaries.

    Focus on making a difference in your larger community (voting, donations, advocacy, etc) and respect this teacher’s choice not to bring personal details to school.

    2. Productivity Pigeon*

      I agree with dropping it but I honestly don’t think there’s anything wrong with googling your kid’s teacher.

      They’re someone who’s going to be spending a lot of time with someone important to you. I’d prefer to have as much information as I can.

      1. bamcheeks*

        But what are you going to do with that information? If you find something you’re uncomfortable with but it doesn’t seem to be impacting your child’s experience in the classroom, you’ve just created a quandary for yourself that you absolutely didn’t need to do.

        I do think we have to be willing to grant teachers privacy, and that means not going looking for information, even if we believe we’re not going to “use” it for anything. We need to cultivate more discretion around how we use access and use online information, the same way you grant people more privacy and mutually agree not to see in a dense city where many people are using public transport and you can see into other people’s windows. I just don’t think it’s fair to say that teachers (or at this point, anyone who might be a teacher in the future) has to put up ten foot walls around their social media identities because they’re going to be responsible for children for six hours a day.

        1. Productivity Pigeon*

          Valid point.

          I’m not interested in what they ate for lunch or where they went on vacation last Easter and I wouldn’t look for that information either.

          I think part of it is that I’m a very curious person and I really do appreciate having a lot of information about things and people. But you made me realize I wouldn’t actually go poking around that deeply without cause (and I honestly can’t think of a time where I have…) and you’re right about what I could possibly use the information for.

          So I guess you’ve convinced me. We shouldn’t poke around unnecessarily.

          (As a side note, and I said this in another comment, I live in a country where there is a LOOOT of information transparency. All tax records and “government registered” is completely public for everyone. (You can choose to protect it of course but most don’t.) so just googling my name will give you my address, my phone number, my birthday, what I earned last year, how long I’ve lived at my current address, that my door is the second from the right on my floor, the name of my dog (if I had one), the license plate of my car and when I bought it… you get the idea.
          So I think I’m culturally trained to accept a larger degree of information transparency in general. )

            1. Productivity Pigeon*

              Thank you for taking the time to explain! :)

              (I have many defects but I generally don’t have a lot of problems with admitting I’m wrong, haha!)

          2. English Rose*

            As a side note, this level of public information would scare the shit out of me! Have people in your country never heard of identity theft and doxxing?

            1. doreen*

              It really depends – I’ve actually been a victim of identity theft but it absolutely didn’t happen because someone found information on the internet which is publicly available. There’s lots of info about me that’s publicly available on the internet , more than is available for most people because I worked in the public sector – but most of it was publicly available before the internet. It’s just that the internet makes it easier to get. You no longer have to track down a 1999 phone book to find out what my phone number was back then. The one thing that isn’t publicly available is my social security number – which was absolutely used to attempt to open various credit card accounts. But my SSN got out as a result of one data breach or another.

            2. Productivity Pigeon*

              Sure. I won’t say it doesn’t happen because of course it does.

              But I’ve had the VERY bad luck to have had FOUR different poison pens sending me unpleasant letters (what are the odds, eh? I’m neither interesting nor important nor provocative so it’s really just bad luck.) but I’ve never considered hiding my address.

              An important point to add, though, is that I’ve never gotten threatening letters, just (sometimes deeply) unpleasant. The first and worst was in college when I got a series of postcards where someone had traced letters (to hide their handwriting) to write things like “No one at [College Name] likes you.” and “Everyone at [College Name] knows you won’t pass Statistics 101.” Like, how many people could possibly know which classes I had passed or not?

              I never found out who did it. I have a suspicion but I decided years ago I don’t need it confirmed.

              I did however have extra security at school and a panic number, just in case.

              And then I’ve had three others.

              At this point, it’s more the principle of the thing.

              I refuse to be scared and hide, just as I forced myself to get the mail everyday. I won’t let stupid people force me into changing.

              —-
              All that to say that YES of course it happens but waaay less than you’d expect.
              Most people are decent, after all.

              1. Productivity Pigeon*

                As for identity theft, we have a VERY well developed national system for mobile identification that’s used for pretty much EVERYTHING from logging into your bank, ordering groceries and accessing your medical records and submitting your tax return. Same app for everything.

                We definitely have identify theft issues (and it’s fairly easy for scammers to manipulate old people into signing stuff or sending money) but on the whole, it also provides a lot of protection.

                (There are other ethical and practical considerations like “what happens to people who for some reason can’t operate a smartphone or don’t have access to one” so it’s definitely not a flawless system. But on the whole, it’s EXTREMELY convenient.)

              2. Blarg*

                If you want to be just shockingly creeped out by a guy doing that, listen to the two part series “Solider of Misfortune: Frank Sweeney” on the new podcast Weird Little Guys. It takes your ‘poison pen’ letters to a stunning and disturbing level — but told in a way that makes it fascinating.

                1. Productivity Pigeon*

                  Thanks but I think I’ll pass, haha!
                  I’ve made my peace with it and it doesn’t affect me in my daily life, but it’s still an unpleasant thing.
                  I’ve accepted that whoever did it must have been absolutely miserable and deeply unhappy. I wish they hadn’t taken it out on me but… it is what it is.

                  The other three… Well. Life goes on.

                  Funnily enough, whenever I feel low about it, I remember the following quote from, off all things, one of Enid Blyton’s (of the Famous Five fame ;) ) books about a boarding school for girls:

                  “‘The point we have to keep to is that there is a girl in this school, a girl in the first form, who is guilty of something for which in later years she could be sent to prison–a thing that as a rule rarely begins until a girl is much much older than you, because it is only depraved and cowardly characters who attempt this underhand, stab-in-the-dark kind of thing.’ She paused. Her eyes bored like gimlets into the petrified June. ‘We call this kind of thing “poison-pen” writing, when the writers are grown up,’ she went on, ‘and they are held in universal loathing and hatred, considered the lowest of the low. Did you know that?’ ‘No,’ gasped June.”

            3. doreen*

              It’s not available to all addresses – it might depend partly on the area but I do know it has something to do with a “unique address” . It’s very common in my area for multiple entities to use the same address- maybe a business at street level and one or two apartments above or two businesses sharing a storefront office or a store on the ground floor and a dentist on the second floor. They may have separate physical mailboxes that the carrier knows about but if all the mail is addressed to 123 Main St , then that address is not eligible for informed delivery.

              1. doreen*

                This went in the wrong place. But about identity theft – there’s a lot of information available about me online, more than is available for most people since I worked in the public sector. And it was available pre-internet, just not as easily – you would have had to track down a physical phone book from 1999 to find out what my phone number was back then and now it shows up with a simple Google search. But opening a credit card account etc. requires a Social Security number, which is something (maybe the only thing) that isn’t publicly available online. So I know those accounts someone opened in my name were the result of one data breach or another , not because someone found my information available online.

        2. a clockwork lemon*

          I may be an outlier here (and I don’t have kids) but I know that if I found something out online that made me, personally, feel concerned about my kid’s teacher, I would probably take some steps to remove my kid from the situation. Plus, the teacher is an adult in a highly sensitive profession–it’s on them to manage their online presence.

          I have very vivid memories of being in the fourth grade and switching schools mid-year because my brother’s kindergarten teacher at the time grabbed him by the arm and dragged him to the aftercare program he wasn’t enrolled in because he was hanging out in the school library for a few minutes while my mom helped me do something. My dad was on a plane the next morning and we were at a new school two weeks later. We found out after the fact that this teacher had had a few other incidents. I’m not saying Google would have prevented this, but it is MUCH harder nowadays for teachers to get away with bad behavior in part because internet searches have made it easier for parents and students to share their experiences. See also: the decline and fall of the scammy therapeutic boarding schools Dr. Phil got everyone obsessed with in the mid-2000s.

        3. Malarkey01*

          As someone who found out my son’s preschool teacher had white supremacy rhetoric online (and not something that could be in a grey area), we pulled him out of that preschool and found another center.

          So, no I wouldn’t agree that there’s no point in googling someone who spends significant time with your young and vulnerable child.

          1. Productivity Pigeon*

            Ah, that would be something I definitely wouldn’t be okay with with regards to my child. I would’ve pulled my kid out too.

          2. LW3*

            Yup, one of the people let go previously at this school was for something similar to that. Not that I in any way suspected that of this particular teacher, but come to think of it, that was when I started googling my kid’s teachers.

          3. ferrina*

            Yeah, this is where my mind went. I’m a former teacher, and I don’t mind a light Google on my name- all you’ll get is my LinkedIn page. Anything I post on the internet under my real name is something I don’t mind strangers knowing. When someone sees nothing wrong in posting hateful things under their real name, you definitely don’t want that person around your kid.

            But don’t go deeper than a light Google (unless you have reason to be concerned about a particular person). Most teachers don’t want to bring their “whole selves” to work- students are incredibly nosy and most teachers are very strong about boundaries at work!

        4. Hyaline*

          Well, if truly troubling information did pop up, I’d be going to my kid’s principal or head of school to discuss what I’d found, and if nothing was going to change, we’d be switching schools. Say, a teacher posting white supremacist ideology on a personal webpage or disparaging remarks about students on social media. Yeah, that’s a quandary I will gladly raise for myself because it’s worth following through on.

        5. Emily of New Moon*

          I disagree. The only information that is available on social media is whatever the person has chosen to post and make available to the entire internet.

      2. Peanut Hamper*

        Schools (at least in the US) are required to do background checks. In my state, they also have to be fingerprinted. What is your google search going to turn up that a background check and a government background check isn’t going to turn up?

        Leave people alone, for the love of god.

          1. Peanut Hamper*

            Yes, but people are allowed to have opinions. If you post that you support LGBTQ rights, and someone finds out about that, would you want them to use that to try to get you fired? This thing goes both ways.

            I also feel that in the event that Malarkey01 has mentioned, eventually this would have come out in the classroom, because that’s how it goes.

            1. fhqwhgads*

              A teacher who supports gay rights support humans being allowed to exist unharmed and with the same rights as other humans.
              A teacher who supports white supremacy rhetoric supports (as best) oppression of other humans for simply existing and at worst supports genocide.
              This is not a “both directions” thing because one search result reveals intent to harm. If I google one person who posts supporting their local humane society and another posts themselves kicking a puppy, that’s not a “goes both ways” situation either.

              1. Peanut Hamper*

                True, but my point is both

                a) googling people can work against you, even if you have the best of intentions

                b) people who have reprehenisble opinions tend to bring them into the workplace, and this will (or should) get noticed, which should, if the school is on their game, get this person fired, and thus a lot of children (not just your own) are protected from this person.

                So you google this person and they have terrible ideas and you pull your kid out of that school. That’s great for you and your kid, but what about all the other kids in that school?

                My comment was based on the assumption that this person can keep their opinions out of the classroom. I hate beets, but there’s no need for me to talk about it all the time. But racist people? Yeah, this is eventually going to be a thing.

                1. New Jack Karyn*

                  The question is who gets harmed by the racist teacher? If a quick Google can find the white supremacist rhetoric, then complain to the principal and/or district office. Hopefully that teacher gets shown the door BEFORE they do harm to students.

                  And then there’s all the ways in which racism can play out in subtle ways, that wouldn’t necessarily get flagged by administration, but affect students. Who gets extra support, and who gets sent to the office? Who gets the opportunity to shine in class, and who gets demoralized?

                  I’m also not cool with your conflation of white supremacy and being pro-queer rights.

          1. Peanut Hamper*

            My last year of teaching I had two hundred and sixty students. I wrote that out because I didn’t want someone to think that “260” was a typo.

            Most of those parents were divorced and remarried. So that is around 750 total strangers who could have been googling me for any little thing. Do you really want 750 total strangers googling you to see what comes up every single year?

            Plus, not everything on the internet is accurate or even true. (And thanks to AI, the proportion that is accurate or useful is probably going to go down precipitously.) Do you really want parents coming after you because they think you are “Joe Smith, notorious bad person” when in reality that Joe Smith is a different person in a different state? The more common your name, the more of a problem this is. I don’t have a very common last name, but a quick google search of my name turns up a lot of people with less than clean records who just happen to have the same last name as me. It’s all too easy for people who are looking for any excuse to grandstand to jump on this.

            Also, declaring bankruptcy isn’t a crime, but do you really want to know that about somebody, or have somebody know that about you? How is that actionable in any way?

    3. Hyaline*

      Uh, in some ways…your comment gives a reason that Mr. Michael might WANT to know the results of a google search by a random parent. Clearly LW isn’t going to harass Mr. Michael, but the kind of people who WOULD aren’t likely on board with “don’t Google people, it isn’t Nice.” LW shouldn’t go broadcasting this to everyone she meets, and it doesn’t seem from the letter she wants to, she’s just asking if she should change how she speaks with the teacher.

    4. Ainsley*

      Lol I google pretty much everyone I ever meet – it’s not like I tell anyone what I find. It’s for me.

    5. Nothing Wrong With Research*

      One of my high school teachers was arrested and convicted of having sex with a student. It came out that he was asked to quit several previous teaching jobs because school administrators saw him being unprofessional – flirting – with female students. They essentially told him to leave immediately and quietly and they’d give him a good recommendation. So he ended up at our school and r*ped a 15-year-old. So I’m not at all against Googling people. A lot can be missed in background checks, if a check is even done. Because this teacher, who had worked at several schools, also lied about quite a few things on his resume.

    6. Dark Macadamia*

      Okay, I used the word stalk, I thought that was a common way to describe this type of behavior. My stomach dropped reading this letter thinking about how LW could unintentionally cause harm while trying to be an ally, and my first thought was wondering if LW specifically googled Mr. Michael because they already had an inkling about his identity and wanted to confirm it.

      Wish people would focus on my main point to respect what the teacher has chosen to disclose at work and that there are more meaningful ways to be an ally.

      1. LW3*

        Yeah, no, I definitely would not out Mr. Michael. At most I was considering a discreet question about how he wanted to be addressed out of earshot of anyone else. Also, I actually did *not* have an inkling about his identity. I googled for reasons more similar to what people have suggested above and just to find out about Mr. Michael’s educational/work background.

        This school has been going through a lot of changes, not all of them good, and in the past there have been some under-qualified teachers. Communication has also been poor. It seems like things are getting better but I still had concerns. As I had hoped, I learned that Mr. Michael is qualified and is exactly the kind of person I want teaching my kid. The identity piece really was secondary. I had a moment of thinking maybe there was something I could/should do to show support, I emailed Alison, said nothing in the meantime, and will absolutely take everyone’s advice to heart to stay out of things unless asked. (Which I do usually do, I promise. I know that much. I just wondered if my position as a parent meant I could have some positive impact here. I see now that the potential for harm – or just making things awkward when Mr. Michael is just trying to do his job, which he does not need or deserve – is way more.)

      2. Productivity Pigeon*

        I don’t think there’s any indication that LW was googling specifically to get information on Michael’s gender.

        There are a million and one possible reasons to google someone and most aren’t nefarious.

        1. fhqwhgads*

          Yeah, reads like “googled to check Michael’s credentials/license/degrees , in the process discovered self-posted pronouns”.

    7. BigLawEx*

      I just want to chime in that I completely agree with this. I *know* that if I google someone it’s a rabbit hole I can’t dig out of, so I don’t do it. Coupled with the fact that I’m a lawyer and had an in-house job for one of the biggest information aggregators (with free database access for employees!), keeps me away from the keyboard. I have to trust my son’s schools have background checks, etc., that he’s well informed of dangers to avoid, and that me finding out ANYTHING will not be useful, but will live rent-free in my head.

  9. Aardvark*

    #1 The context of sarcasm is really important.

    Occasional use to lighten the mood can be great. To lighten the mood when it is something justifiably serious like a death it can just be tactless.
    If in response to someone raising a genuine concern, particularly a personal one, I’d agree with dismissive.
    If at or about someone in a way that you are punching down; condescending or just rude.

    If you are being sarcastic a lot, then sometimes it will be ok but there is a fair chance you stray into some of the less pleasant interpretations. And having had colleagues do this, after a while it is just a bit wearing, and even the potentially funny bits just don’t seem funny to others anymore.

      1. ecnaseener*

        That’s odd to me, to call sarcasm purely negativity. I’ve never thought of it that way. I’ve often heard it used (and used it myself) in non- negative, funny ways.

        I checked a dictionary and there’s one meaning listed that’s explicitly “cutting” and a different one with no negative connotations mentioned. Huh!

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Agreed, I think calling sarcasm purely negative is conflating sarcastic and sardonic. Which I don’t say to be pedantic, but sarcasm can certainly be light and friendly.

        2. ferrina*

          It’s negative in that you’re saying the opposite of what you mean.

          I agree with other commentors that it’s to be used sparingly at work. I’m ND, and when someone I don’t know is using sarcasm, it’s super frustrating because I don’t always know whether to read it as sarcasm. I’ve gotten it wrong quite a few times, and it’s really embarrassing and frustrating. It hinders communication and stalls out relationships.
          Once I know someone and their POV, I’m fine with sarcasm. I’ve also found that sarcasm is best used in low-pressure, relaxed situations with people that are sharing goals. When sarcasm is used in high-stress situations or people that aren’t yet aligned in their goals, it’s a recipe for disaster. I don’t know if OP has figured that out yet.

          1. Bay*

            Thank you for articulating this so clearly! Sarcasm has made me frustrated and uncomfortable sometimes for most of my life, but not *all* the time, and this is a very helpful insight into why

          3. The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon*

            That is such a good explanation, and it fits with the ways I use sarcasm at work. I am careful that I’m on the “same side” as the person I’m speaking to, that there is no chance of their taking an action based on my sarcastic statement, and that the sarcasm isn’t about that person’s conduct because those words can sting even if we know the opposite is intended.
            For example, someone asked me to help them with a task today and I said, “I do not have time. One of my clients moved up their deadline. There should be a LAW forbidding that!” We both hate it when clients give us less time than promised, they can’t do anything about the law even if they misunderstood, and there’s nothing implying I’m annoyed at them. We both chuckled and moved on.

          4. daffodil*

            I agree. I tend to use sarcasm either as a way to good naturedly admit my own mistakes (wow, somebody should have put that on the agenda! when I am the one who made the agenda) or acknowledge hard things we work on together (we can just quick revolutionize llama grooming today, right? that’s how this works?)

          5. Azure Jane Lunatic*

            Agreeing with you!

            One of the many tips I’ve heard about fighting depression: when you’re tempted to call yourself very bad things because you’ve just screwed up something major, use sarcasm with yourself. Broke a plate? “I am the most graceful human being on Earth.” I’m inclined to like this one, because it gives fewer nasty sentences to echo around in your head at 3am.

            But even that should be used carefully at work, because around someone who doesn’t know your priorities, if you accidentally delete the production database and then say “I am an exceptional computer genius and having the BEST day!” they could think that you’re taking the error too lightly.

          6. Emily of New Moon*

            I think that the only time that it’s appropriate to use sarcasm in the workplace is when you say something like, “Oh, wonderful, the copier is jammed again.” In that case, the target of your sarcasm is an inanimate object, not another human. Plus, everyone knows that you’re being sarcastic in that instance.
            Or do they? I’m ND myself, but my mom is one of the most sarcastic people I’ve ever met, so I learned sarcasm at an early age. I’m not sure if “oh, great, the copier is not working” is something that other ND’s would understand as sarcasm.

        3. sparkle emoji*

          I agree with your understanding of sarcasm, but I was trained when I worked with young kids that we weren’t meant to use sarcasm because some kids would take it at face value/as negative, so it is a perception that’s out there.

    2. Ellis Bell*

      It comes up a lot in teaching, and because I love sarcasm myself and can be quite sarcastic, it was very eye opening during the observation period of my training as to just how badly sarcasm can land. When people feel at all vulnerable, or if the tension is raised in any way at all, sarcasm is interpreted negatively. This happened even when the teacher was lovely and clearly joking; sarcasm really needs a level playing field on a sunny day. You can only really get away with it in the most positive of situations in a dad joke sort of way. It’s also worth learning to employ sarcasm sparingly because of how badly it goes over with certain neurodivergencies that makes interpretation difficult. Don’t make people guess what you mean by tone!

      1. Mallory Janis Ian*

        “sarcasm really needs a level playing field on a sunny day” — Amplifying this!

        Even in relationships where sarcasm is a common language, if you’re in a disagreement or (as you mentioned) if someone feels vulnerable, it is NOT the time to use it.

        I feel that it can be a way to relate to people who you already have a positive relationship with and when the stakes ae low, but it can take a negative turn when all the elements aren’t just right. And if someone uses sarcasm all the time as their main form of communication, I tend to view them as kind of a negative person.

        I use it in my family, but really only when we’re obviously joking or being intentionally funny, and not so much when I’m being serious or the conversation calls for earnestness.

      2. Turquoisecow*

        “When people feel at all vulnerable, or if the tension is raised in any way at all, sarcasm is interpreted negatively.”

        Absolutely. If I’m feeling okay, someone joking about how terrible I am will get a laugh. If I feel crappy, I start to wonder if they really mean it, and I start to feel that negativity more than the joking it was intended to be. This can happen when the same person makes the same comment or similar comment on different days, and often when it hits me hard they’re left wondering why it should bother me now when it didn’t before and we were having fun joking with each other.

    3. Allonge*

      This. My default humor setting is sarcastic; I had to learn to be very careful to employ it sparingly (certainly at work). This does not mean I am never (participating in) fun, it’s just watching what comes out of my mouth a bit.

      1. Elle Woods*

        Yes, situational awareness is important, especially with a sarcastic sense of humor. (I know, because my default humor setting leans that way.)

    4. londonedit*

      Yep. I’m British and we run on sarcasm/dry humour. Until a few years ago my general tone was usually pretty self-deprecating and sarcastic – that was until someone I worked with said ‘You know, I never know how to take you – I can never tell whether you’re being serious’. And I realised it was holding me back, because everyone basically thought I was taking the piss 24/7, and that’s not a good look. A lot of my sarcastic tone and general air of piss-taking was coming from the fact that I was lacking in confidence and working in a fairly toxic environment at the time, but I realised that what I thought of as a dry sense of humour ran the risk of making people think I was being flippant or arrogant or whatever. So I totally reined it in, and – having grown up a bit as well – I make sure my tone is professional at work (and friendly both in work and outside of it!)

      1. English Rose*

        And I think it depends on the relationship as well. I can indulge my sarcasm freely with close friends and family who get me, but not with coworkers.

        1. Jay (no, the other one)*

          It also depends on cultural context. I’m Jewish and I grew up in the NYC area and sarcasm is my first language. When I moved to CA, I had a really hard time until I realized that it wasn’t how people out there related to each other. People thought I was just flat-out mean.

          Now I live in eastern PA and it’s a sort of in-between culture. I can be sarcastic with some people some of the time. I am very careful at work because I’ve gotten the same feedback as the OP. And I’m a cis woman which makes it worse – men can get away with more of it.

          1. Really?*

            Not Jewish, but had the same issue. Somebody took me aside when I moved out of NYC to explain that my usual sarcasm was landing badly with my staff…never even occurred to me that it could be misinterpreted…

            1. MigraineMonth*

              I moved from New England to the Midwest for college, and I definitely had people think I was being mean. I don’t think I stopped being sarcastic, but I made it a lot more obvious when I was being sarcastic so that people without East-Coast sarcasm detectors could read it correctly.

              The other thing is that sarcasm goes over best with people who already know you. There’s a huge difference between new coworker Jane saying that cats are awful because all they do is shit and shed hair, and your longtime coworker Jane (who owns 5 cats and knits them all sweaters for Christmas) saying the same thing.

          2. fhqwhgads*

            Yeah, I’m an East Coast Jew (not from NY) and when I first came to Los Angeles – people didn’t say I was mean per se – but I had some friend-ish people literally laugh at me snarking something and saying “so you’re so New York” which they shortly thereafter explained to mean “defaults to pessimism”.

      2. Dust Bunny*

        I was Princess Sarcastic when I was younger but I found that it didn’t age well both at work and in most of my social life once we all started facing a lot of adult problems, and I’ve dialed it way, way, back. I really don’t want to be the one pouring acid on everything all the time. (I still do it sometimes, but much less often and with a lighter touch.)

    5. Nicosloanica*

      Number 1 I thought learned something that I also had to learn painfully earlier in my career: your coworkers are often happy to use *you* as a shield/the designated complainer while they stay safe, and you will always get screwed this way. You’re not the boss and you’re not being paid to be the boss, if I understand correctly, and now your actual boss has signaled they’re not going to give you the tolerance and lattitude often granted to managers when underlings complain. You’re an underling. Just keep your head down and do your own work as well as you can, don’t take on the pains of other people.

      3. Nothing Wrong With Research*

        Absolutely this. And there are ways to support your coworkers without actually speaking for them. Let them raise their own issues or push back on deadlines themselves, and if someone tries to shut them down, you can say something in support of your coworker’s position.

      4. Venus*

        I came here to say this too!

        I feel like the coworkers are expecting LW1 to play the Team Lead role, except that LW has no authority (“because we haven’t had a real team lead all year”) so they are trying to get things done by pushing more aggressively in the hope that that will bring success.

        LW, be kinder to yourself. The best leader is one that doesn’t push harshly, but rather has authority and knows how to use it. It sounds like you have a bigger problem because you don’t have a team lead, and it isn’t on you to solve that. You can argue problems with logic, for example the deadline can’t be met because… , but not emotion. Sarcasm is totally fine when talking in general, but not when decisions are being made because then it’s hard to know what is sarcasm or fact.

      5. Shirley Keeldar*

        Very much agree. It sounds like the LW is pushing hard and being “harsh” because they have no authority to solve the problems that they see. But maybe…time to drop back from this role?

        If people ask for your help, you could try, “You know, I realize I’ve gotten too deep in the weeds trying to solve stuff like this when I don’t actually have the authority to do it, and it’s not helping anybody. Probably better to bring that to Boss.”

        If Boss won’t do anything to fix stuff, sounds like that can be Boss’s problem.

      6. Beth*

        Yes, this! LW1, I understand the desire to step in and push back when you see your team in a tough position. I especially get it when you’ve gone a long time without a reliable team lead.

        But it is not in your personal best interest to become the nail that gets hammered down. There’s a level of pushback that you can do as an individual contributor, but it’s not “protect the entire team from whatever problems come up” level. That’s a job for a manager: someone with the backing of higher-ups and the official authority to speak for the team. You don’t have that, and biting humor isn’t a long-term-viable substitute.

        Let your teammates do their own pushback (or not–their choice). When they bring problems to you, give advice or suggest they bring it to their manager, but don’t try to jump in and fix it for them. Your boss is telling you that you’ve run out of room to be the big bad wolf. It’s time to be known as the calm, chill guy who gets his work done.

      7. MigraineMonth*

        OP1, this may be totally off-base (in which case, please ignore it!) but your situation reminds me a little bit of the role I used to play in my family of origin. My parents and older sister were having a conflict, but instead of talking directly to my sister my parents would ask me if I’d talked to her/how she was doing/what she was feeling/why she was acting the way she was. Pretty quickly, I took on the “Peacekeeper” role you mentioned: trying to bring the two sides together, speak for my sister to my parents, speak for my parents to my sister, and generally help them out in ways they never asked for. Then my parents had an argument with each other, and I tried to step in and play peacekeeper there, and it got to be too much.

        On the one hand, the role was incredibly satisfying. I was the linchpin holding my family together! I was important! On the other hand, it was incredibly stressful to be the only thing holding my family together, and no one seemed to appreciate all the ways I was helping them (that they never asked me to).

        So I did the scary thing, and let it all drop. When my parents ask me about my sister, I tell them to talk to her directly. When family members have arguments, I leave the room until I’m no longer tempted to intervene. I ask my sister if doing X would be helpful instead of doing it and hoping it will be appreciated. And you know what? It’s been fine.

        I know your self-appointed role feels really important right now. I’m betting you feel stressed and underappreciated. However, right now you’re setting yourself on fire to keep other people warm, and it might not even be necessary! Maybe they have a winter jacket they can put on, but haven’t yet because you’re putting out so much heat.

      8. Bleu*

        I’d guess it’s less that they’re using OP as a shield, and more that OP elected themselves spokes person in a way their coworkers never asked for, and don’t really want, especially if OP has so little self-awareness about their tone.

    6. RIP Pillowfort*

      Yeah, so personal story of growth here- I have a fairly sarcastic sense of humor. Combine that with ADHD and depression and I can be a lot for someone to deal with. I found out pretty early on in my career that my boss found me extremely passive aggressive at times. I was really blindsided by that (I also almost cried) because I really didn’t see myself that way.

      But I self-reflected and realized that my sarcastic and negative comments would come across as passive aggressive at times. And that’s not good for the work environment. So, I did a 180 with how I interacted with the workplace. I’m warm with coworkers and people outside my office even when we don’t agree. I still make silly jokes, so I get to have a sense of humor that hasn’t caused problems. I don’t vent negativity or sarcasm at work anymore. I am direct with communication.

      Like I wouldn’t have said the line about being able to handle it because I’m a grown up. I would have said “If they are upset with me pushing back, that’s fine. I still want to talk to them because I feel like this deadline is flexible compared to our other ones.”

      In my personal life I would have said something more like the OP did. Heck I can think of a few times I have joked about “I ain’t ‘fraid of them” when it came to making someone potentially mad.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        I also can be verrrrry sarcastic and I used to mouth off all the time. At some point I figured out that I don’t actually need to say out loud all the sarcastic things that pop into my head (and hey, I’m also ADHD so I get a lot of random things popping into my head all the time). The thing I realized was that a lot of my sarcastic comments served the purpose of derailing conversations and it’s both unhelpful and not very professional to derail work conversations.

        So, for instance, my commenting on a conversation about checking the mail (to take a subject from a different letter here) with, “You know, if the mail ever actually gets delivered” [eyeroll], isn’t very helpful to the topic of figuring out who will check the mail next week when J is on PTO.

        When OP said that they were pushing back against deadlines set for a different coworker, I did think, as AAM pointed out, that it really wasn’t OP’s battle to be fought. OP, I’d suggest reining in some of your battles to the hills that you’d die on, rather than taking a stand on every injustice you see. It’s exhausting for your coworkers and your boss for you to always be pushing back in every discussion and obviously it’s not welcome since your boss spoke to you about it. And even though you didn’t say it is, I would imagine it’s exhausting for you as well; save your energy for the things you need it for.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          Seconding both of these comments SO HARD.

          I’m just kind of over negativity in the workplace. It’s frustrating enough when things aren’t going well; please don’t poison it further. My supervisor is very good about apologizing when she has to give us a tight deadline or when a patron is being demanding–she doesn’t deserve a tart response.

          1. Crencestre*

            Yes, it doesn’t take long for a person to get a reputation as the company complainer – the employee who can be counted upon to dampen the brightest day. I’ve worked with someone like that; she doubtless thought that she was being witty and that everyone agreed with her, but knowing that she would ALWAYS find something to grouse about soon made others avoid her whenever they could. “Toxic positivity” is often criticized (and it can indeed be obnoxious!) but toxic NEGATIVITY is far more common and is at least as irritating.

            1. I wear my sunglasses at night*

              Word to everything you’ve said! Someone who CONSTANTLY complains can bring a team down faster than a pay cut, unpopular policy change, etc (for real). I know a coworker who, when asked how was the graduation party for their relative that previous Saturday, immediately launched into a litany of complaints about having to set up for the party, having to clean up after the party, etc. They just NEVER stop with the negativity and the complaining and it makes them very difficult to work with. Are they the best in their field? I honestly don’t know because I’d rather eat glass than be around that much negative energy 24/7 so I try to limit my working with them to the absolute bare minimum. And have let management know that.

        2. Circle back synergy*

          This section stood out to me:
          “ I started crying because all I do is play peacemaker, and I was just baffled how to make fewer waves while everyone comes to me to solve problems from HR to facilities to project management.”

          OP#1, It sounds like you might be overwhelmed with trying to solve all these issues without the standing, tools, or resources. I think it’s easy to get sharp when we feel we’re standing in the gap for others on so many fronts. I wonder if you could approach your manager about the big picture that you’re doing your best to navigate. Maybe if they were tuned in to that, they could help support you unburdening yourself in some areas and that would allow you to take a deep breath and focus your efforts, without feeling so much weight on your shoulders. That might get at some root causes, lower your stress, and allow for a lighter approach.

    7. CB212*

      This letter has big “I like to play devil’s advocate” energy. Coworkers (and maybe clients) don’t like it, nobody asked for it, and the boss wants it to stop – this is really straightforward!

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        The boss has given an instruction. It needs to be followed whether OP agrees with it or not.

        But I also agree with Alison here. OP, you come across as A LOT at work. Folks are probably getting a little tired of your large and in charge personality. Dial it back a notch and see if you are fighting less battles at work. Also did anyone actually ask you to be the jerk or did you self-appoint?

      2. Dust Bunny*

        Agreed. I feel like this person has invested in An Identity, and it’s maybe not one that is doing that many favors.

        1. Ally McBeal*

          Similarly, “I just tell it like it is!” has not served society well and should never be considered a badge of honor.

    8. Perfectly Cromulent Name*

      I am a pretty hyperbolic person with flits into dry humor, but I never use it at work because SOOOOO many people do not *get* it. Many people take it literally. Or they just…don’t *get* it. So I learned very early in my career that I am Boring Business Perfectly Cromulent Name at work, and the real me at home/with my friends. Every now and then hyperbolae comes out at work, and then I find myself having to explain that no, the report is not going to take a million years to finish, I was just saying that it’s a lot of work and it is taking a long time. I can see how sarcasm could come off as aggressive, mean, or negative to people whose brains do not work that way.

  10. Nell*

    As the mom of a gay adult kid, do not get involved in names, pronouns, give unasked for help or intrusive support. Just go with the flow and treat them like normal human beings.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Yes, exactly.

      I know people will sometimes stumble over themselves because they want to be seen as an ally, but really, “ally” is not a job description.

      People of color, LGTQB+ folks all know who their allies are. You can be an ally simply by not outing them. You don’t have to fight all their battles for them.

      1. LW3*

        Agreed! I’m learning, which is why I checked the impulse and wrote to Alison. I have not and will not say anything.

      3. MigraineMonth*

        I agree with the recommended course of action in this case (leave it alone), but I disagree with that definition of ally. (Yeah, sorry, I’m way overthinking an internet comment.) I think “don’t out someone at work” is basic decency, not being an ally.

        I also don’t think “fighting their battles for them” is a useful framing. Fighting for trans equality and decent treatment isn’t a battle that they should fight on their own. You are right that they should be leading it though, and that taking action without listening to what would actually be useful could be very harmful instead.

        For that matter, screw being an ally. Solidarity is where it’s at: equality for the most marginalized of us means equality for all of us.

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          I think you figured it out in your final paragraph.

          Fighting battles for individuals is off limits unless you are asked. But fighting battles for groups of people–whether it’s protesting, or voting, or whatever–yes, those are the battles that everyone should be fighting.

    2. ferrina*

      100%

      Let the person whose identity it is tell you how to identify them. If Mr. Michael has given no indication that you should use they/them pronouns, don’t single out Mr. Michael to ask what pronouns to use. Not only is it rude and can be othering, it can also put people in danger (for example, is there an administrator or teacher that would target Mr. Michael if you brought Mr. Michael’s gender identity into question)

    4. Emily of New Moon*

      Does “treat them like everyone else” mean that you use the pronouns that match their appearance unless they tell you otherwise? Because I’m from an older generation (Gen X) and that’s what we’ve always done until about 5-10 years ago.

  11. Pink Sprite*

    Re: letter 3: As a teacher, I always make it very clear what I want my students to call me. And not just at the beginning of the year, but also when new students come or just randomly.
    No one else has the right to decide otherwise for me.

    1. londonedit*

      Yeah, it’s clear that for whatever reason Mr Michael has chosen to be Mr Michael and he/him at work, and it’s not really for anyone else to decide to change that.

  12. Hello Nurse*

    LW2: reach out to an elected official in your state government- could be govenor’s office and tell them your plight. They will call the licensing board/whoever has put your fundraising on hold and suddenly, THEY will be calling YOU.
    Elected officials have staff for this purpose- helping their constituents! And you run a nonprofit- if you can’t fundraisers, you can’t pay your people and help your community.

    2. MsM*

      Whoever takes that call is just going to direct them to the state charitable registrations webpage, which will have all the information about what forms they need to fill out and what the fees are and who they can contact if they have questions. Elected officials are only going to see a lack of reinstatement as an emergency if the charity fails to take their responsibility to do so seriously and keeps soliciting without it – and even if they do want it expedited for some reason (e.g. they awarded a grant to this organization), there’s nothing they can do until the paperwork’s been dealt with.

      1. WoodswomanWrites*

        LW2 says they already submitted the required documents to get their charitable status back. In that context, elected officials may be able to speed up the process of reinstating the organization’s charitable status.

        1. doreen*

          They might – but it’s going to depend on the details. I recently got assistance from a state senator’s office – but I am his constituent and the state agency had not fixed the problem in over 2 years. A charity is most likely going to have to write to the governor’s office (unless someone lives in the same district as the charity) and no one is going to jump at a call from an elected official if the process normally takes eight weeks and it’s only been two. If “I have not been able to reach anyone at the registering office who can tell us.” means they couldn’t reach anyone, the call to the elected official might be able to get an response such as ” It normally takes three months” . But if it means that the person the LW reached gave an answer like “there is no set timeline” ( the answer I got) then it’s going to depend on how long it’s been since the paperwork was submitted.

      2. nerdgal*

        I disagree. Elected officials generally have staff members that can help constituents with a wide variety of issues. I wouldn’t assume anything about what they can or can’t do. If they can’t help you, they’ll tell you, but it never hurts to ask.

        1. cactus lady*

          Agreed! I have contacted mine multiple times for different reasons and they have always been really helpful. I learned this when I worked at a 501c6. If you are in the US it would be best to contact your state senator or assemblyperson, as they are there to help you navigate state bureaucracy.

    3. WoodswomanWrites*

      I came here to say this.

      LW2, I was once an aide to a state senator. After a constituent would let us know they were having a problem with state bureaucracy, I contacted the appropriate agency. Believe me, they acted fast to resolve problems, typically within a day or two.

      Recently, I lost my drivers license and was taking a plane trip so I figured I’d bring my passport as ID. Except it was expired. The aides to both my state and federal officials were amazing, making a bunch of calls to many people to help me out. In the end, while my replacement drivers license got lost in the mail for a couple weeks, it showed up the day before the the passport office appointment that the federal aide had arranged for me.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        But they aren’t having a problem. The organization didn’t submit their paperwork on time, they have now submitted it. There’s nothing to solve other than wanting it done faster. Which not the state agency’s fault that the organization didn’t check their mail.

        1. Friendo*

          No one is saying it’s the fault of the state agency. That doesn’t mean that a state legislature’s office can’t try and expedite it.

    4. Observer*

      They will call the licensing board/whoever has put your fundraising on hold and suddenly, THEY will be calling YOU.

      Not likely. Sure, if the Charities Bureau is dragging its feet, then the EPO’s staff can be helpful. But they are not going to start jumping up and down unless or until a decent amount of time has passed. The only exception would be if the LW’s organization already has a strong relationship with the official or their staff and the Official has actually directed / allocated money to the org that they want to make sure gets where it’s supposed to go.

      1. Spicy Tuna*

        My dad had sent in the renewal for his concealed weapons permit timely and it was getting close to its expiration and he hadn’t heard back from the agency that issues those permits. He called his state rep and got the permit the following day.

        1. Observer*

          That’s a very different situation. It was a relatively small issue, your father had done everything correctly, and the agency had not. So on the one hand, it was relatively easy for the agency to clean up and on the other hand the Rep’s staff had strong standing to say “Hey, you messed up here. People don’t like that. Get it done.”

    5. Spicy Tuna*

      +1 to this. During Covid, a squatter moved into a vacant rental home that I was renovating. I had expensive materials being delivered there and no way to receive them. He showed the police a bank statement and flea market vendor ID that had the address on it, so there was nothing they could since he “lived” there. They did look him up in their system and found that he had recently been released from prison for a violent crime and had failed to check in with his parole officer. In addition, he had an underage girl with him in the house, whom the cops did remove and took back to her parents (why they didn’t arrest him for that is beyond me).

      The police advised me to call the city’s squatter’s unit, who, told me that due to Covid eviction moratoriums, they were not removing anyone for any reason.

      I called my state rep who was extremely helpful! He got me in contact with the guy’s parole officer, who had been looking for him for months. She arranged for court officers to wait for him to leave the house to go get food and then they arrested him, so I was able to get my property back.

    6. Coverage Associate*

      It’s hit or miss. I once got a bureaucrat to expedite something with just “my boss should have handled this months ago, but now has dumped this on me.” On the other hand, when K Harris was my senator, her office was completely uninterested in getting the federal DoJ to correct its website about her being California AG. (She had been a senator for over a year.)

      It can’t hurt, though. And a representative should be interested in helping an organization that is staffed by constituents or helps constituents, so I would think someone in this organization would be able to get some state elected to at least take the call.

    7. Sparkle llama*

      I would not recommend the governors office. I was a constituent outreach intern and know that all we would have done is transfer you to the charity department and if you submitted it online you would likely wait months to get a call telling you to talk to someone else.

      A state rep might be more effective but at least in my state I wouldn’t expect much out of that since the state agency isn’t doing something wrong.

  13. Nell*

    A big and sarcastic sense of humor is exhausting for other people. Take your boss’s advice and tone it way down. That “grown up” remark was very rude, no matter the context. Of course that employee felt talked down to.

    2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      OP comes across as quite un-self-aware of how people perceive them. I can be a bit “conflict seeking” myself and even I thought what they were describing is too much. Every workplace seems to have someone who will pick a fight over anything, OP is likely that person in their workplace and I bet the boss is right. It’s really hard as a manager to get someone to change what are fundamental traits though (which is why issues like lack of knowledge, demotivated due to circumstances etc are much easier problems to fix). I can understand the peacemaker comment though, I think it means “I take up the conflict in order to protect the harmony of the team as a whole”.

      1. Katie Impact*

        Yeah, it sounds like either LW1’s workplace is particularly high-conflict to begin with, or else LW1 is bringing in expectations that conflict will happen and that’s becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. From an outside perspective I can’t be 100% sure which is the case, but it seems like something worth thinking about. What does “volunteering to be the jerk with external people” look like in practice, how often does LW1 find themselves in that role, and are they sure that’s the best approach to take?

        I get the impression from the letter that LW1 has ended up in a dynamic where someone comes to them with a problem, and LW1 then takes it upon themselves to solve that problem by whatever means are available to them without actually having formal authority to do so. However that came about, it’s probably not a great way to run things in the long term. It may be time to start letting other people’s problems belong to them, even if that means they go unsolved for a while.

        1. WellRed*

          “Volunteering to be the jerk” had me scratching my head and maybe cringing a little. I’m also curious whether the coworker needed OP to jump in for them. OP I’ve toned down my own inclination toward sarcasm because I realized one day that it’s probably exhausting for other people. I’m much happier for it.

          1. Tippy*

            And one can handle work conflict, both internal and external, without being a jerk. I’ve been that person at work who people have asked to go to the other party and work towards a solution for issues (one’s that don’t necessarily involve me directly), primarily because I am effective at it and don’t leave wither side with negative or unpleasant impressions towards the other party. I’m not sure why the LW thinks they have to be so aggressive in these type of tasks.

          2. Medium Sized Manager*

            This phrase stuck out to me and made me wonder if I need to adjust my phrasing with certain people. I manage people who are in charge of managing programs, not people (i.e., they are responsible for the teapot painting process but I am responsible for Suzie painting 10 teapots an hour). I have said something along those lines to mean “You do not have to take the heat if people are upset because you are not a people manager” but I would hate for it come off adversarial or like other people can’t come to me with issues (even though plenty already do). Good introspective post today!

          3. Bleu*

            It seems like op is focused on this idea that they’re this kind of star/fixture are their team, when it comes across as though they make every situation into “me my me”. That it’s more about what kind of sense of humor they are perceived as having rather than focusing on trying to get the job done rather than reinforcing their preferred persona.

            1. Bleu*

              Basically, they think they’re doing a good thing by volunteering to be the jerk when in fact, most work situations require no jerks at all.

              1. Bossy*

                LOL this is such a great comment, like why are you preparing for needing to be a jerk? Can we just work?
                I actually work with a woman who always has to preface and characterize stuff “Oh you’re gonna hate me for blah blah, I’m going to need so much help and I hope you don’t feel…” and I’m like What do you need, just tell me so I can frigging get on with it! While I’m thinking Pu-lease, I can’t muster up hate for random irritating people because that would be stupid.
                I think a lot of people think they’re super special cuz Oh I’m so intense Oh, I’ll be the jerk… and it’s like great- so you want 3 copies of the TPS report? Cool byeeeeeee

          4. AnonForThisOne*

            I understand what is meant by volunteering to be the jerk…but I wouldn’t put it that way. Just this am one of my team came to me and asked me to step into an exchange that had become A LOT and put a stop to it. That’s not being a jerk…that’s doing my job.

        2. Mockingjay*

          It took me decades – and this forum – to understand that it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.

          I think outcome-based these days – what resolution do I want? Extended due date. Okay, what’s the best way to get that? Maybe it’s facts to persuade the boss: “The sales figures Joe needs won’t be available until after that due date, so can we extend it two weeks?” Maybe it’s priorities: “Boss, we already have six active projects; if you want us to get New Task done by X day, can we put a couple of things on hold?”

          The point is, make things a discussion, not a sarcastic reply, and learn to problem-solve as a team. And your team includes managers.

        3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          For someone who describes themselves as a peacemaker they are anything but. Constantly arguing with everyone, threaten to go over the boss’ head even before making the boss aware of the issue is not smoothing things over. It is the exact opposite, its bringing unnecessary drama into an already difficult situation.

      2. londonedit*

        Yeah, it sounds a bit like the OP is a bit ‘attack first, ask questions later’. I’m not sure why they’ve come to be the ‘peacemaker’ on their team (I agree that it sounds more like they’re jumping into conflict to save their team taking the flak, which isn’t really peacemaking) but it sounds like they’re jumping in any time there’s an issue and not really thinking about how it’s coming across.

        1. bamcheeks*

          I’m so interested in that “peacemaker” comment, and I’d love to hear more from LW what they mean by it. I can see a few possibilities:

          – this is a high-conflict environment, and they actually do spend a lot of time defusing conflict, this just isn’t one of those times
          – they take up arms on behalf of others, and see that as a peacemaking activity because they are protecting their team/colleagues from having to do so
          – they believe that engaging in smaller, short-term conflict is a way of avoiding larger conflict.

          I do think there is probably a LOT to unpack here in both how the environment operates and how LW operates within it.

          1. Myrin*

            I instinctively understood it as your second point but you’re totally right that it could be any of the others as well!

          2. Pocket Mouse*

            I read it as strong-arming the parties into a resolution, any resolution, as long as the work can then move forward and/or LW is no longer aware of further discussions.

            1. ferrina*

              That would be my guess. I used to operate that way in high school, and quickly learned that while it solved the issue short term, it was always at the cost of the long-term relationship. And you need those long-term relationships to get stuff done.

      3. bamcheeks*

        It’s really hard as a manager to get someone to change what are fundamental traits though

        I’d disagree with this, actually. I come from a fairly high-conflict family and am very comfortable with conflict: my dad and my sibling actively seek conflict and thoroughly enjoy it. In my late teens, I realised that I didn’t want to perpetuate that, and started actively looking for other ways to deal with conflict, both interpersonally and later professionally.

        I’d now say I’m very good at handling conflict and defusing it (and I’ve been recognised and described as that by others), and part of that is because I am relatively comfortable with conflict so I feel like have a lot of power to stay calm and think through what I want my reactions to be in a situation where there is the potential of conflict. I can make an considered choice about whether it’s something that requires conflict / escalation, and if so what are the most productive channels for that, or de-escalation. IMO, it’s the same thing my dad has of not being scared by conflict or conflict avoidant, but he frequently uses that power for chaos and I try not to!

        So in my opinion, you can absolutely use “comfortable with conflict” powers for good– you just have to be *believe* it’s worth doing and that it’s a better way of getting the outcomes you want.

        1. Carol*

          You decided to make that change – thats the important part. It was intrinsic. A manager can’t force an employee to go through the thought process you did.

          1. ferrina*

            This.

            An individual can decide to get better at conflict management. I had severe anger issues in my teens, and I worked on it for a long time and now I’m known as friendly and easy to work with, who is always calm and patient in any situation.

            But it needs to be a choice by the individual. As Carol said, no outside party (including a manager) can force the process. No outside party can do the work for them. If the individual won’t do the work, the manager needs to focus on the outcomes. Some people will learn, and some people won’t.

          2. bamcheeks*

            A manager can’t force someone to have an intrinsic reason to change, but they absolutely ca create extrinsic pressure to change behaviour, and there are lots of examples of that turning into internal change!

            Change is rarely entirely self-willed or entirely externally directed: overwhelmingly, it’s a function of both. We definitely see managers making the mistake of thinking they need the employee to understand and want to change, when they actually see the change enacted on the outside, but thinking you can’t influence change because you can’t tell someone what to think is the same mistake in the opposite direction.

      4. Emily of New Moon*

        I’m ND and I can relate to OP. I often don’t realize it when I’m doing something inappropriate.

      1. Myrin*

        I think it was meant in seriousness (“What I meant is, “He can be mad at me, I’m not afraid of conflict.””) but it seems like a bit of a strange way to express that sentiment. Why not just say “If he is, I can handle it” or something to that effect?

        2. Emmy Noether*

          I think LW has gotten in a habit of expressing things in a way that is meant to be humorous?

          I get it, because I sometimes also have that tendency, but it’s a really, really bad idea in conflict situations. Do NOT use humor or sarcasm in conflict situations*, it WILL be taken the wrong way. Especially never at work.

          *Maybe with a partner or other very, very close person, where you know from experience it will diffuse tensions. MAYBE. It can still backfire.

          1. CorporateDrone*

            Humour at work is so fraught. In a situation where you are trying to resolve a conflict it’s pretty risky to joke about things instead of speaking plainly.

            There’s a ton of really great material available on effective communication at work and conflict resolution. OP should look into finding some training. If there isn’t any available through the workplace directly I think it’s important enough that OP should seek out material on their own time. And definitely apologize to the admin person!

        3. londonedit*

          I think the OP meant it to come across as ‘Don’t worry about me, I’m a grown-up, I can take it’ – but they didn’t say that, they said ‘That’s fine, because I’m a grown-up’. Which definitely runs the risk of coming across as meaning ‘That’s fine, because I’M a grown-up, unlike YOU’.

          1. Ellis Bell*

            Even when the sentiment of “I can take it, I’m grown up” is spelled out and clearly stated ” it still comes across as a bit…. edgy? I think OP could benefit from being really really bland with a touch of warmth for a while and just seeing if that affects their relationships at all. I would have phrased this as “Oh that’s disappointing if he doesn’t like it, but I will talk to him”. OP basically went with the equivalent of “so what?”

            1. Bleu*

              Yeah, even if OP learned to tone down things they’re saying, the way they’re thinking about things is the underlying problem

          2. Chocolate Covered Cotton*

            It might have been ok to say if the person she said it to hadn’t been half her age. That’s what makes it dismissive and insulting.

            1. Roberta*

              and her junior. If it was to a senior role who was unsure how to share something, I have been known to say to my supervisor “Don’t worry about tact if it blurs communication. I am an adult and can handle the feedback” if they are struggling with how to frame something.
              By saying it this way to someone who is junior, OP’s framing is already a bit off.

            3. Turquoisecow*

              Even if they were at all close in age, it could imply the other person is immature. Maybe say it to a mentor 20 or 30 years older than you, who knows that no one perceives them as young, naive, or inexperienced, but anyone other than an elder statesman type might take that the wrong way in a tense situation.

              And this goes back to what someone said above about the environment you use sarcasm in. If it wasn’t a tense discussion and they were discussing a problem without much urgency, OP could lightly say “it’s fine, I’m a grown-up,” and everyone laughs and it’s fine. But it sounds like this was a tense meeting, the person expressed concern, and OP was dismissive of that concern. Which is fine but then that dismissive tone carried into the grown-up comment and so it reads as though they are dismissing the assistant herself instead of just their concern, so I don’t blame her for feeling insulted.

              I also see how someone used to using sarcasm might throw that out there and not realize how the tone and meaning changed, and why OP only realized after the fact. Which all points to why reigning in sarcasm at work and trying to focus on a more positive type of humor is good advice for them.

        4. Lana Kane*

          I read it along the lines of “I can out my big boy pants on”. Which would be insulting even if the assistant weren’t 24 – the jab isn’t at someone’s age, but perceived level of maturity/bravery/whetever the OP thinks being an adult means.

        5. fhqwhgads*

          Yeah and that’s the problem. They used a phrase that was clear in their head, but definitely an internal shorthand. It took the misunderstanding for them to realize the ambiguity. Now that they realize they wanted to apologize (good impulse) but a probably wider-ranging affect – which I can’t tell if it’s on their mind yet or not – is to move forward being more careful how they word these sorts of things. That should be a big part of the takeaway. Like this isn’t just a smooth it over sitch, it also needs to be a learn and grow sitch.

      2. Hyaline*

        Honestly, I did not see the comment *itself* as being that bad as a response to “Boss will be upset”: “Don’t worry about that–I’m a grown up, I can handle the Boss getting upset with me.” It’s not a great response, and LW definitely needs to rein in the sarcastic or caustic humor at work because this is often how it lands–not great–but the assistant took it a weird way if he felt he was being told “you’re a little kid, I’m the grown up here.” But that’s the lesson, right? When you’re acerbic, people take things the wrong way and that’s not helpful.

    4. amoeba*

      Huh. I mean, in the way the intended it (“It’s OK, I can take it, I’m a grown-up and not afraid of consequences) I honestly find it pretty harmless. I’d probably be more worried about the discussion as a whole! Threatening to go over the person’s head, etc. sounds like it might have been the real problem…

      Although, sure, if they did understand it as a reference to their age, that would land badly and it would make sense to clear that up.

      1. Blue Pen*

        I suspect the LW’s delivery of that line created the (understandable) impression that the colleague was being talked down to, though.

        1. ecnaseener*

          I would bet against you on that! I believe LW genuinely didn’t mean any hint of “and you’re not a grown-up,” they honestly were only talking about themself. Basically saying “that’s fine if he’s mad, I’ve had plenty of people mad at me over the years, I won’t melt.” It wasn’t a good way to express that idea, but it’s completely believable to me that that’s all they meant.

          1. Amy*

            Why would you genuinely believe that? LW has made it clear they are sarcastic and abrasive. And that’s from their own self description which is often going to skew more positively.

            This is exactly the tone I’d expect a sarcastic abrasive person to take with someone they consider beneath them.

            1. amoeba*

              Because they literally say that (and also that they were horrified when they realised how it could have been taken!) and we’re supposed to take letter writers at their word.

              1. DawnShadow*

                I agree that we should take letter writers at their word, it is a site rule and an important one. But it’s also true that LWs can be unreliable narrators. In this case, I can certainly see where – perhaps subconsciously – LW saw this very young person standing in front of them in an adversarial position and they took this opportunity to use sarcasm in a way that cuts the person specifically. To an older person they might have said “I’m not too frail to take him on” or whatever.

                It may not have even been conscious to LW but I think it’s telling that of all the problematically aggressive ways they were acting in this conversation, this is the one they felt guilty about later. I would counsel the LW to really sit with that guilt feeling for a bit and rethink more of their interactions. There is almost always a more low key, inclusive, compassionate way to stand up for someone.

              2. Amy*

                Not that horrified if their last question isn’t “does crying soften my big bad wolf image enough that my boss will do the damage control for me?”

                Their focus is on damage control and perhaps manipulation too. They should focus on changing out of this “voluntary” jerk persona.

                1. Chocolate Covered Cotton*

                  Thank you! I saw that line and thought “this is a person who is consciously using over-the-top emotional reactions to manipulate others.”

                  LW, look what you wrote there. You are contemplating how to use your tears in front of the boss as a way to change his image of you, rather than change it by adjusting your behavior with coworkers, which is what he’s actually telling you to do.

                  If I were in your boss’s place, I’d be seeing you as the one employee who constantly escalates conflicts, won’t stick to her own job, is sarcastic and abrasive with external parties (that would be who exactly? Vendors, clients, regulators?), takes on management tasks without my knowledge in a way that undermines my own authority, dismisses my assistant, and when told to tone it down and stay in her lane starts literally crying at me with actual tears.

                  I expect the PIP will be a complete surprise.

                2. Learn ALL the things*

                  I said this in a comment further down, but I think LW’s big bad wolf line is intended as a joke, and it’s another example of how their attempts to use humor don’t always land and cause people to assume the worst of them.

                  This is why it’s so important to be careful about humor in the workplace, if you sound too flippant about serious things, people are going to assume you don’t care and start thinking of you that way.

                3. Ellis Bell*

                  I think the OP is still using a jokey, overly metaphorical tone. They really need to simplify tone and language, like a lot.

            2. Sneaky Squirrel*

              “I’m an adult, I can handle X” or “we’re both adults here” are common enough phrases that someone uses when they’re trying to get real with someone that I can believe the comment itself wasn’t intended to be malicious.

          2. Myrin*

            Yes, and I can absolutely believe that OP would’ve said the same thing to a 50-year-old, mostly because I, too, have said things like this to 50-year-olds. (In very different contexts, but it was definitely solely about my being an adult and had nothing to do with my conversation partner’s age.)

          3. Ally McBeal*

            I’m with you. I’m about 20 years younger than my manager and I say that to him occasionally. I think it WOULD come off differently if I said it to a coworker who’s significantly younger than me.

        2. Chocolate Covered Cotton*

          My guess is LW would have said it to a 50 year old and it would have been taken exactly as intended. But she said it to someone half her age so of course it came across as insulting.

          1. Saturday*

            I feel like even if it was taken as intended, it still wouldn’t have been a great way to say it. Maybe just trying to be more straightforward would be better, “I understand Boss might not like it, but I feel strongly that this issue needs to be addressed with him.”

      3. Nicosloanica*

        Yes, the discussion on the whole sounds like you basically blocked something the boss had ordered and said you’d take it to the boss yourself. Perhaps that’s exactly the right move if you’re confident enough that you have the authority and can carry it off, but it’s highly likely to annoy people around you; and it sounds like the boss *didn’t* totally have your back here, or at least wanted you to find ways to make less waves. Also, what you said matters less here than how you made someone feel, which is a combination of tone and circumstances as well as the precise wording, so don’t get tricked into thinking that if you just explained the precise wording to your boss all would be well.

      4. Nodramalama*

        Even if that’s what they actually said, I still think it’s fairly hostile to someone who is essentially passing on a message. It’s pretty to just say, “thats ok, I’ll handle it”

        1. MigraineMonth*

          Yeah, even if it’s taken exactly as intended (“He can be mad at me, I’m not afraid of conflict”), that seems to me like a pretty wild response.

          If you boss doesn’t want you to push the deadline back and you think you have to, you have a number of professional options:
          –go talk to the boss about reassigning other tasks, and then meet the deadline
          –warn the boss you might miss it, but try your best to meet the deadline
          –go talk to the boss and explain why you think the current deadline is arbitrary, listen to his reasons, and get her to agree to move the deadline

          “I’m going to change the deadline without her permission, I don’t care if the boss is mad at me” is *not* a professional response! It’s insubordination… on behalf of a teammate who never asked you to change the deadline??

      5. Medium Sized Manager*

        In a vacuum, it’s not the most egregious comment. But combined with the other comments, I can see it as a “tipping point.”

    5. bamcheeks*

      I think they’re really focussing on the wrong part! Long before that comment, they’ve decided this is a conflict, and they’ve talked about “going over [the assistant’s] head”, ie. they’ve invoked status and hierarchy, and they literally describe it as “picking a fight”.

      I suppose my big question is why they’ve looked at this and the only thing they can think of that might be considered out of line is the “grown-up” comment. But the much bigger problem is their willingness to escalate every disagreement into a conflict, and the fact that they equate “being a grown-up” with being willing to engage in conflict. It’s not!

      1. lunchtime caller*

        agreed, even willing to just say “I’ll ignore your dissent here and take it up with the boss” to the assistant is pretty dismissive of their voice in the conversation without explaining why you think it’s worth escalating

      2. zillah*

        yeah – I’m not sure why they’ve assumed that the comment is what bothered the assistant, as opposed to the broader exchange.

    6. CityMouse*

      Yeah, I realize that getting correction can feel hard, but it’s sometimes easy to get into these patterns and escalate until you lose some context particularly when there are other stressors at play, like described here. So just take the note, check if you’ve let the stress turn you into someone you wouldn’t necessarily want to be. And remember this is something that happens just make sure to be aware now you have the feedback.

    7. DJ Abbott*

      What I noticed is they said they meant it’s OK if the boss is mad at them, they can take it. Why not just say that, instead of something that could be hurtful?
      It sounds like OP’s workplace is much more contentious than mine, unless OP is bringing all the conflict themselves.

      1. Nicosloanica*

        Also not to be rude but it sounds like they are actually not fine with the boss being mad at them, considering the tears!

        1. ecnaseener*

          Not really? They cried at hearing that other people on the team saw them this way, not because the boss was “mad” (which it doesn’t even sound like he was). Idk if I’d call your comment rude per se, but I’d call it unfair to draw false equivalencies between the experiences of “boss is mad that you contradicted him” and “your coworkers think you’re a mean, dismissive person.”

        2. Silver Robin*

          I see it as LW is okay with boss being mad about deadlines, but not okay with boss being mad about their personality at work. Seems reasonable to me

          1. fhqwhgads*

            I see it as LW is okay with boss being mad about deadlines, but not okay with coworkers being put off by their personality at work when LW feels like they’re doing the put-off-by-stuff in service of the coworkers.
            In other words “what do you mean they think I’m mean? I’m doing it to help them get what they need from others.”

    8. el l*

      I think this letter suggests at least 3 patterns worth a talking to.

      First, a pattern of abrasive behavior, regardless of whether it was with this assistant or not. (e.g. They don’t sound reluctant “to volunteer to be the jerk”)

      Second, a pattern of seeking out fights, regardless of whether OP has standing to intervene. (e.g. Another coworker’s schedule is their problem, not yours)

      Finally, a pattern of persistently lacking self-awareness, examples being thinking it was only this incident, seeing themselves as the peacemaker, and in thinking that crying somehow gets you off the hook (rather than indicating they can dish it out but not take it).

      I have no idea if OP is doing otherwise well enough to keep their job – but if I’m their manager and thinking about the future, I have serious concerns about their maturity, judgment, and people skills.

    9. Learn ALL the things*

      In college, my friend’s roommate would say “I’m a very sarcastic person,” but she wasn’t. She was just one of those people who regularly said mean things and claimed she was joking if anyone got upset. The number of people who use sarcasm as a shield to be mean is not low.

      It’s important to remember that sarcasm is a form of humor, and jokes aren’t funny unless everyone’s laughing. Sometimes people don’t laugh because this was the wrong venue for the joke, but other times they don’t laugh because the person told the joke wrong. Sarcasm is very, very hard to get right, and if you’re not absolutely positive your delivery is going to land, then this is not the right situation for it.

  14. April*

    For #2, Wonderful reply! I would be really nervous to donate money to a non profit who couldn’t even guarantee that they check their mail. I hope safeguards are put up quickly and donors are reassured that nothing else will fall through the cracks.

    1. Indolent Libertine*

      Absolutely, this was an organizational failure, not the responsibility of USPS or anyone else. Sure, J failed to check that mailbox, but nobody else ever thought to make sure it was being checked. Surely she had a supervisor, especially while on a PIP? Where was that person for those 5 months?

    2. refl*

      I wonder how that even worked for several month. We have a similar setup at the small company I work for. Our street address mail box is fairly large but it would easily fill up in a month, probably sooner, with all the spam we are getting.

    3. Peanut Hamper*

      LW actually says “we check it regularly” (emphasis mine). Which is fine, except that it’s not true. There was no “we” here. There was just an employee on a PIP. Had there been an actual “we” involved, they would not be in the situation they are currently.

      They seriously need to re-evaluate how they manage things. Because they are assuming a lot of things, apparently.

    4. CommanderBanana*

      I wouldn’t. A nonprofit losing their charitable designation is a BFD. I can’t really think of any scenario in which it’s ok that the leader of a nonprofit wasn’t on top of that.

  15. Elsa*

    LW1, I just want to add that crying does NOT soften the “big bad wolf” image. When your manager tells you that you are being mean, and your response is to get hurt and distraught instead of trying to fix the problem, that really makes things worse. It communicates that you don’t really want to improve, and you will turn constructive criticism into drama about you and your feelings.

    1. Glen*

      Coming from someone who talks to colleagues the way LW1 described it would quite likely come across as insincere and manipulative, to me. If someone is sensitive enough to cry when their boss asks them to “be less harsh”, it rather beggars belief that they are not sensitive enough to tell how harsh they are being (and the one interaction they described was Harsh, even without the age of the assistant in the mix)

      Not that I don’t believe LW, to be clear. Obviously it’s possible. But it’s not the place my mind would go if I witnessed all this go down.

    2. MrsThePlague*

      I really did not love the crying part – not that it’s terrible to have a human moment at work, rather that it came across as calculated (whether or not that was the OP’s original intention) and has shades of weaponized tears (that often get used against women of colour, for example).

      To be clear: I am NOT accusing the OP of doing this. I’m just pointing out, for OP’s reference, how this can come across if you’re not careful. Hoping that the boss will take care of a problem for you because you cried isn’t a great look.

      It does sound like OP is at least curious about what the problem is/what to do about it, which is a good thing (we’ve all seen OPs with a startling lack of self-awareness in these kinds of situations), and hopefully this curiosity means an openness to making changes.

      Rooting for you to make good change, OP!

      1. Productivity Pigeon*

        I don’t know, I genuinely did interpret it that LW honestly didn’t understand how they’ve come across.

        I think, for better or for worse, they *do* believe they’re acting as the “peacemaker”.

        Now, there’s obviously quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on. “Taking the fight” isn’t the same as being a peacemaker in my eyes.

        But my feeling is still that the OP believes this and was blindsided and therefore started crying.

      2. Nicosloanica*

        I totally felt for OP because it sounds like, in their perspective, they’re going above and beyond for this org, putting out fires, and acting managerial, presumably without compensation, because they want to help and support their team. (I’m not saying they’re right, I’m saying this is what I think they’re feeling). They probably expected they would at least be paid back in deference when they’re right bout a workflow task and given more leeway in the way they get things done. But now they’ve learned they won’t and they’re not. My only advice is to drop your end of the rope here. I’ve been the one trying to bulldoze through dysfunction and understaffing like the horse in Animal Farm. As I recall, doesn’t end well for the horse *or* the farm.

        1. lunchtime caller*

          This is how I read it too, that in the OP’s eyes they’re being a tough guy because they care about their workplace and coworkers, but if it’s not their job to be doing these things then doing them abrasively on top of everything will make people just dislike them and they’ll get punished when they’re putting their hand out expecting a reward.

        2. MigraineMonth*

          Yeah, I’m one of these people exactly. I try to help, then I see more problems, so I try to fix those too even though I don’t have the power to fix them, and in no time I’m stressed to the breaking point and still refusing to delegate anything. I don’t take leadership positions anymore, because the kindest way I can describe my leadership style is “micromanager with dictatorial tendencies”.

          OP1, you have to let go of the problems that are outside your role. Your manager will never see them if you keep handling them on your own, and you aren’t getting the pay or the authority to deal with them.

      3. Jennifer Strange*

        Yeah, I’m with you. Whether the LW intended it or not, saying “Does crying soften my big bad wolf image enough” comes across as insincere.

        LW, I say this as someone with a biting sense of humor: There’s a time and place for whipping out the sarcasm, and a disagreement with someone at work is DEFINITELY not the place for it. I get that you are trying to go to bat for your team, but sarcasm is always going to be your enemy when asking someone to compromise or work with you. Remember that the outcome you want isn’t that you get in a zinger, but that you are able to get (at least partially) what you want while still maintaining a relationship that needs to be maintained.

    4. Nicosloanica*

      I’m not faulting the OP for crying – sometimes we can’t help crying – but I think Elsa’s comment is an interesting perspective that needs to be considered. OP may have felt like such an emotional reaction clearly conveyed that they care, but it can be taken other ways too.

    5. Learn ALL the things*

      I think the LW’s “does crying soften my big bad wolf image” was another attempt at a joke that didn’t quite land. It sounds like OP tries to use humor pretty often to try to soften their combative stances, but it’s not working. The people they’re talking to don’t perceive it as “LW said something mean, but they wrapped it in a joke so they must not intend to be mean,” they’re perceiving it as “LW said a mean thing and the wrapped it in a joke because they think being mean to people is funny.”

      LW, don’t make your resolution of this issue about your own feelings. As other people have mentioned here, getting super emotional about it to the people you’ve already hurt isn’t going to help your cause. And remember that the best apology is changed behavior. You absolutely should apologize with words, but you need to back those words up with a commitment to stop hurting people.

      2. Dark Macadamia*

        I think this is a really good point. Sarcasm can often be a cover for insecurity and I think if you see that comment as a flopped joke it places the whole letter in the context of someone trying to seem confident or witty and not quite pulling it off.

    6. Paint N Drip*

      I think that crying unfortunately has the optics of ‘OP is highly emotional, possibly emotionally volatile’ – when OP is just a sarcastic steamroller there is an option to seem tough, but when we add sarcasm and picking fights with crying…
      I am someone who IS very emotional, even sometimes at work, so I am not judging that! But I do think OP is struggling with how they come across to others and understanding how their actions are working within the organization.

  16. Quoth the Raven*

    LW3: As someone who is bigender (I was AFAB and go by he/him and she/her depending on the moment), please follow the teacher’s lead. I am very proud and loud about who I am, but there are many reasons I am not out with everyone at work (and not necessarily because I fear bigotry! Sometimes I’m not close enough to be out with them yet or I don’t particularly feel like explaining myself) and ultimately, in the end of the day, it really is up to me to decide which pronouns to use and what my gender identity is.

    Furthermore, being a teacher represents its own challenges (especially in preschool). Unfortunately, there is still a lot of bigotry, and teachers have been accused of indoctrination or worse. There is a not insignificant possibility Mr. Michael’s livelihood or even safety could be in danger, or that they have decided this isn’t a topic they wish to tackle at work.

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, a parent who has Googled My Michael and found out their pronouns sounds like it could be his nightmare. Leave them their privacy. They have decided how much to be out and what to be called at work.
      NEVER out someone or, in effect, ask if they want to be outed.
      And stop being so nosy about teachers and other people you know.

      1. Tangerine steak*

        I feel we should also consider that Mr Michael is not in. It may be that “Mr” is the correct title to use. It may be that Mr Michael is entirely comfortable with the pronouns he/him in classroom with the little kids not because of fear, but because it works for them in that context – but in different contexts they use they/them benches that is right for those contexts. Mr Michael may be entirely open with their colleagues about their gender identity but has themselves made the choice to use “Mr” and he/him because they want to.

        Naturally it could also be a protective action. I just think it’s important to at least be open to the idea that Mr Michael neither needs or wants saving.

        1. ecnaseener*

          That’s a great point. Many people use multiple sets of pronouns even in contexts where they’re out. Listing only one set on a particular profile doesn’t mean that’s the only set the person identifies with IRL. Practically speaking it doesn’t matter — LW should assume they might be closeted at work and do nothing to jeopardize that — but it may make feel LW better.

        2. Dark Macadamia*

          Yep. The teacher has explicitly provided a title and pronouns for LW to use. It feels icky to go searching to see if those are the “right” words.

    2. Lake (they/them)*

      “don’t particularly feel like explaining myself” is a huge part of why I’m not out at work. Really don’t want to have to bring out the genderbread person while talking to my boss…

  17. Observer*

    #2 – Missed mail.

    I see several areas where you really want to look at your set up. Hopefully you will survive this fiasco. You want to set yourself up so that it’s highly unlikely that you will ever find yourself in a mess of this scope.

    1. You had an employee on a PIP and then on the verge of being fired and no one bothered to keep an eye on the mail situation. You knew that some legitimate mail came through that box, but no one thought to check if she’s actually doing what she was supposed to for *five months*. And then, when she left it took another “few weeks” to check the mailbox. That should have been one of the first things you did, after she resigned.

    2. Some significant places don’t have your correct mailing address. That’s on you, for the most part. If for some reason you cannot properly register the correct mailing address for your State Charities Registration or any other significant organization you deal, they you should at least have a record of that fact, and carefully monitor your street address mailbox for mail from these places. This is not just some random people who took your address off your website without realizing that that is actually not the proper place. These are organizations that *you gave the address to*.

    3. No one seems to be keeping track of whether expected mail is coming in, nor of normal registration / renewal / important submission dates. Large checks don’t usually just show up, so you should have been expecting some of those checks. How did no one realize that they hadn’t shown up? And don’t you have to periodically submit renewals (whatever the State calls them) for your charities registration?

    4. You apparently have no cash reserves. And apparently no plan for dealing with disasters of any sort. I get that cash reserves are *hard* to develop, especially if you are young organization. But that’s all the more reason to have some planning in place. There is a reason by disaster recovery / business continuity planning is such a big deal. Stuff happens, even if your staff are all doing their jobs perfectly. I mean “stuff” that costs A LOT. Like significant damage to your building that could happen in a half a dozen ways.

    5. You seem to be reactive, without solid legal counsel and without any real though. Why are you wasting your time filing with the USPS? That mail was delivered. And your former employee did not steal or even hide it. It *was* in your possession, you just never bothered to look at your mail. That’s not a “technicality”. Sure, J fell down on the job, but what she did is no different than if she had physically brought it into the office then stuck it into her desk without going through it. To be honest, even if a crime *had* been committed, this would still be a waste of time with real potential do you harm.

    Also, what is the point of holding your former employee “accountable”? You have a massive problem on your hands. Why are you diverting time, energy and mental resources on that, when you should be trying to figure out how to make payroll? (Maybe a some sort of loan?)

    Right now, if you can get through this, you’ll be able to go on with your mission without that much damage. Getting criminal charges filed against your former employee could do you a lot more damage that could leave lasting reputational damage and impair your ability to raise funds for years to come. Word of this stuff gets out, and you are going to look vindictive. It’s not like you have any chance of getting any money from this, much less enough money to make the situation right. So the only reason to go after her is revenge. You may call it holding people to account, but most other people won’t see it that way. And the few who do are likely to ask why that’s your job. especially when you have more pressing issues to deal with.

    Also, it means that people are going to hear a lot more about this mess and in the least flattering light. That’s likely to tarnish your reputation for a long time. Look at some of the discussions that come up here about where to donate money. Look at the discussions on any sane forum or platform where the question comes up. A couple of things that constantly come up are relevant here. People often suggest that people donate to causes that they / their circle know of and are confident are reasonably well managed. If you set off the gossip on this, it’s not going to be favorable to you, so that’s a real turn off. And in general, the main suggestion is to do your research to make sure that a place is well managed. Most people who hear about this are *not* going to get the impression that your organization is well managed. And if part of what they are gossiping about is how you spent your scarce resources on revenge (as people are going to perceive it) rather than fixing the problems and figuring out how to survive the situation, that’s going to really cement that impression.

    Focus on surviving this. Be discreet in who you discuss this with. Don’t get into how terrible J is. Rather focus on what you need to do to move forward. You will have a much better chance that way.

    1. Productivity Pigeon*

      I agree.
      It’s not criminal to be incompetent ( least not in most cases, haha!).
      She didn’t defraud the organization or steal the money. I can’t see what crime she possibly would’ve committed.

      Focus on putting checks in place to ensure this can’t happen again.
      No one noticed $25,000 missing all this time??

      1. CityMouse*

        Well and also have to point out trying to seek some kind of civil case against Jane even if you had some kind of case (which is very questionable) wouldn’t be worth it because it’s not like Jane has thr lost money. You’d just be wasting attorney fees. The whole “punish Jane” thought is a massively unproductive distraction from anything that might actually help.

        1. Productivity Pigeon*

          I mean, I understand the impulse.

          But like you said, “not getting the mail” is hard to spin into some kind of crime. I suppose you might have something if you could prove she didn’t get the mail with the specific intent of screwing over the company but I’d be very surprised if any lawyer would touch that.

          It’s an organizational problem, not a J problem.

    2. snowfall123*

      All of this.

      1 – 4 of what Observer mentioned above all point to the organisation not having the proper checks and balances set up, something to be done ASAP as you try to bear the chaos.

      While the employee dropped the ball, that does not mean that the organisation is not culpable for this mess either.

    3. CityMouse*

      I’d also question the organization’s accounting department. How do major checks go missing and no one in accounting notices? If that can happen, does this organization have proper controls?

      1. RVA Cat*

        This. The organization is a house of cards that would collapse with or without J. Ultimately that’s on the leadership.

      2. Productivity Pigeon*

        Oh my goodness.

        I’m having all sorts of terrible visions of their record-keeping now.

        (Accounting was my absolute worst subject in business school but at least it gave me a healthy amount of respect for the need to keep accurate records.)

      3. Lauren19*

        Yes! That was my thought – where was accounts receivable in all of this? They should have been proactively checking for these expected checks.

      4. Devo Forevo*

        I wouldn’t blame accounting for any of this. This is a nonprofit that takes charitable donations. People send you checks, and they don’t tell you they’re sending them. I once had a boss who left $20K on his desk for weeks – crossing a fiscal year – because he didn’t bother to open his mail. After that I started opening it for him.

    4. ecnaseener*

      Also, what is the point of holding your former employee “accountable”?

      This. I’m not sure whether the org genuinely thought they might be able to recoup some money from J — let alone enough money to be worth it — or if they were just panicking, focusing on blame and punishment because it felt easier than damage control. At this point, they’ve been told they have no case for stolen mail that wasn’t stolen, but they are still putting time and energy into looking for a way to hold the “malicious” J accountable. That won’t save the org. When the building’s on fire, you don’t focus on punishing the person who left the stove on.

  18. leif*

    LW3, I am trans, and worked with kids while out as nonbinary. Respect that Michael is “closeted”. Part of being an ally is using people’s pronouns. That includes not asking questions and respecting and going along with what they are choosing in different environments and contexts. Your relationship to this person exists in the context where they use he/him pronouns and Mr., so being an ally means respecting that. That is truly the most compassionate and inclusive thing you can do, is to let Michael have full autonomy and choice in his/their workplace. It is denied to us so often. It does not matter how “purple” your area is. It only takes one well-meaning parent outing you in front of a parent who thinks trans people are child abusers to ruin your entire career and possibly life. I am in a deep red state, and when I started visibly transitioning I chose to quit my childcare job because the headlines were very heavy focused on trans people = child abusers, even though I have a degree in child development, to avoid that exact situation. Consider this was something else that you saw, something else personal about their life. You would not bring it up. Definitely leave it alone. And thank you for asking.

    1. bamcheeks*

      LW1, I used to teach assertiveness and handling conflict to people working in high stress, high stakes environments and I would really encourage you to look out for something similar and ask your boss if you can do it as professional development. If you don’t have the funds to do that, I do really rate Ken and Kate Back’s Assertiveness At Work, which is extremely readable and has lots of good strategies for handling potential conflict in a productive and collaborative way.

      One of the things I spent a lot of time on was that a disagreement doesn’t have to be a conflict. It becomes a conflict when you start seeing each other as opponents. There’s a huge difference between, “you want this by Friday? No way! You have no idea how much I have to get done by Friday!” and “ok, you want this by Friday— realistically, I can’t see anyway I can get that done without deprioritising lots of other things that I need to get done. Do you have any flexibility? Is there a reason you need it on Friday?”

      What you should always be trying to do in work is frame things as, “ok, we have a shared goal, but different ideas about how we should get there. How can we find common ground?” But keeping the focus on the shared goal means that you are still working collaboratively to find solutions.

      With your disagreement with your boss’s assistant, you “pushed back strongly” (why not gently at first?); you say the deadline “felt arbitrary” (but was it? A really good way to push back gently on an unreasonable deadline is to ask WHY it’s needed then— once you know what it ties in to, you have more information and can find solutions that meet the need not the want); you said you’d “go over their head to pick the fight”— that’s both belittling and aggressive. “Ok, I’m not sure why this deadline is so early but I don’t think we can do it without dropping some other stuff. Can we check in with Boss and see which he wants us to prioritise, because this feels like a mixed message and it would be useful to get clarity!” — this is much more collaborative, but does exactly the same job. You are not framing the coworker as the problem, but the situation / communication errors.

      (and that’s without even getting into whether it is actually your role to manage your colleague’s workload, which I genuinely can’t tell! I am taking your word that it’s appreciated, but if you don’t know, you should definitely check that with both colleague and boss.)

      What I don’t know is whether you are the only one bringing this conflict energy into work or whether you work in an environment which is high-conflict. The latter definitely exists, and if you’re someone who doesn’t shy away from conflict it’s easy to be the person who responds in kind. But then you are escalating. Even in a high-conflict environment, and as a person who is reasonably comfortable with conflict, you can be the person who identifies and de-escalates conflict.

      But what you’ve described here isn’t de-escalating or peace-making— it’s literally picking a fight where there didn’t need to be one. If you can see that, it’s a really good thing to go and get some training on!

    2. bamcheeks*

      Oh sorry! Bad nesting error!

      leif, what I meant to say to you is that I’m so sorry bigotry pushed you out of the profession. There was a non-binary practitioner at my daughter’s pre-school and as a queer family we loved the representation. It sucks all around. I hope you found something else as fulfilling to do.

  19. Nodramalama*

    I… Yeah I don’t want to pile onto LW1, but this behaviour doesn’t sound like being a peace maker, it sounds like specifically picking fights and being combative. If your coworker can’t meet a deadline they can say so!

    Saying this as a fairly sarcastic person, the interaction in that meeting comes across as hostile, not conciliatory. If you really wanted to jump in for your coworker a better approach would have been “oh, those timeframes sound pretty tight and we might not able to meet them. Assistant, if boss has concerns I’m happy to talk to him”

    1. Snow Globe*

      I wouldn’t even say that much – it was a co-worker’s deadline. Maybe the co-worker thought the deadline was reasonable. Maybe the co-worker was about to speak up, but the LW jumped in first and derailed the conversation.

      I think the LW sees themselves as someone who advocates for their team, but maybe the team doesn’t really need or want this kind of advocacy.

      1. Nodramalama*

        Well that’s why I said if they were so insistent on stepping in, they might say that. But I agree, just let coworker decide if they can meet the deadline

        I agree with you, I think of advocating for your team as like, a manager backing their team up. Not a colleague just inserting themselves and escalating the issue unnecessarily

  20. Irish Teacher.*

    LW3, it’s also possible that Mr. Michael is a cis male (or non-binary) who is equally OK with he/him and they/them and uses he/him in the school context, feeling it is simpler when dealing with young children and parents but they/them online, perhaps just to normalise pronouns beyond he/him and she/her, perhaps because they like both and having one used at work and the other online suits them or perhaps in order to leave their gender online a little vague. I remember in the early days of internet culture, it was normal to keep your identity vague and many people used usernames and profile pictures that didn’t indicate stuff like gender, so it’s even possible that’s just an Internet thing.

    I say this as a cis female who is fine with she/her or they/them. I guess if I had to choose, I’d lean slightly towards she/her, but so slightly that putting one in bios feels weird, on a par with putting in my bio that I don’t want you to mention my hair without saying it’s brown or something like that.

    Of course, it’s probably equally or more likely he is concerned about backlash working with children. Even in many very liberal areas, there are still prejudices against non-binary and trans people. It may be worse in conservative areas but I don’t think there is anywhere it’s completely safe to be out. And preschool teachers, especially male-presenting preschool teachers, get held to particular scrutiny.

    LW1, I think I’d apologise to the assistant and say something along the lines of, “I’m sorry for getting argumentative with you. I didn’t in any way mean to blame you for the issues or insult you, but I think it could have come across that way and I’m sorry.” Obviously adapting to fit any specifics of the situation.

    1. beware assumptions*

      I came here to say something similar. They/them are supposed to be NEUTRAL pronouns. You are interpreting them to mean more than that; don’t do that. You may be correct, but you might also be incorrect. It may be a case of an ally doing this in support. I work in academia and a lot of folks have gone to they/them in support of trying to move away from gendered pronouns.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        They/them is used both as a gender-neutral pronoun (for when the gender is unknown) and as nonbinary pronoun (for when the gender is known).

    1. Productivity Pigeon*

      Whoa, that’s a bit harsh!

      I agree with your main point, they should have had systems in place so this couldn’t happen. No one noticed $25,000 missing? Not good.

      But calling them a bunch of incompetents is hardly constructive.

      1. Black*

        I agree. They’re incompetent. And vindictive. They called the inspector Generals office trying to get their ex-employee charged with a crime. That’s delulu behavior.

      2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

        Not noticing key tasks undone for so many months that it puts the existence of the organisation in jeopardy = incompetent, or nothing ever rises to that level.
        It’s staggering.
        It even took them several weeks after firing to check up on the work tasks.

        The OP needs to accept who is really at fault and drop her vindictive sideshow against a low-level ex-employee. Only then can she concentrate 100% on saving her org and also putting in the professional systems that any org should have, to avoid this ever happening again.

      3. CityMouse*

        I’m okay with being harsh to this organization because they tried to get someone held criminally responsible here. Mail fraud is no joke, it comes with serious penalties and they wrongly tried to get someone arrested. There is no interpretation 8f the statute where not checking the mail qualifies.

        There are a lot of serious organizational failures here and pinning them on a single employee to the point they tried to get her arrested is frankly bonkers.

      4. Peanut Hamper*

        It is harsh, but it is far less harsh than having to lay off a large number of people because you didn’t think to have a checklist somewhere that has “Check mailbox this week” on it.

        My management mantra has always been “trust, but verify”. If I’m expecting a $25,000 check, you’d better believe that I’m going to verify.

          1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

            It’s not done because the OP is too focused on punishing the lower level ex-employee in her rear-view mirror. That’s a diversion of time & resources, unprofessional for someone running an organisation in desperate trouble.

            She needs to accept that the fundamental problem was her organisation’s lack of checking systems and procedures – for which she is ultimately responsible. So, focus on saving the organisation while also implementing these systems.

            Also, the OP may well face consequences herself to her own job if the board holds her ultimately responsible and to her reputation. I wonder if pursuing the ex-employee is motivated only by feeling betrayed & furious, or whether pursuing J is the OP, maybe unconsciously, attempting to avoid blame herself.

        2. Sunflower*

          I don’t think it’s too harsh either. They have over $25k owed to them and nobody followed up on the why the other persons/companies haven’t sent them payments? They never noticed they haven’t received at least one piece of mail in five months? The ex-employee failed at her job but she was on PIP and nobody was watching or asked for for a weekly report to see if she’s improving? The ex-employee wasn’t the only one neglecting their job.

          And I agree now is the time to focus on fixing this mess and not plotting revenge and punishments.

          1. Productivity Pigeon*

            Fine, I fold! ( ;) )

            I wasn’t saying that the OP didn’t mess up (in fact I posted a comment saying that they needed to do some serious oversight.), just that I would (and did) phrase it differently.

            But I hear what y’all are saying and I DEFINITELY agree with the fact that OP is focusing on blaming and punishing the wrong person.

            OP messed up badly.

          2. Polly Hedron*

            They never noticed they haven’t received at least one piece of mail in five months?

            Well, to be fair, the ex-employee only failed to pick up the mail from their backup mailbox. They were still receiving most of their mail through their main mailbox.
            But I agree with the rest of the criticisms in this thread.

      5. Carol*

        This is a perfectly politely worded statement. It’s accurate. I’m not sure why LW is getting such lax responses . . .

        1. MigraineMonth*

          Probably because they wrote to an advice column for help, and the column’s commenting policy is to be kind? Alison told them they messed up and should stop pursuing the ex-employee. Commenters have left a lot of advice on what systems to put in place to avoid anything like this happening again. LW1 has been active in the comments thanking people for their advice, adding additional information and accepting responsibility for the screwup (which is having pretty devastating consequences for their org and in their life right now).

  22. Agent Diane*

    OP1: you understand the big bad wolf is the villain of the fairy tales, right? That they are the one who ruins perfectly nice houses built of straw and wood, and eats old ladies who were just waiting for their granddaughter to bring over their lunch? They are certainly not the peacemaker.

    Maybe rethink your approach to peacemaking as being needlessly combative and sarcastic is, as your boss flagged, harsh. If you don’t rethink how you interact in situations where there are conflicting demands, your boss might decide it’s the axe for you.

  23. Productivity Pigeon*

    LW#1:
    I think AAM’s point about whether or not this is really your responsibility is an important one.

    We all take on different roles in a team, that’s true.
    But why did you specifically have to be the one to “pick a fight” with the assistant? Why couldn’t your coworker do that himself, if it was necessary?

    I’m someone who really tries hard to… I don’t get into conflict with people, but I try to assume that many problems can be solved by treating “the opposing party”, haha, as an adult who means well and wants to solve whatever issue has cropped up.

    To give an example, I took a college course related to the military last year, taught by officers.
    During an exercise, one teacher got a bit short because a fairly young student didn’t know the range of a particular missile, or something like that.

    During the break, many of my fellow students felt insulted and not very welcome in the class.

    So I went up to the teacher, told him nicely that he might want to think about his tone a little bit. He was shocked and apologetic and apologized to the class. And more than that, he was very grateful.

    It ended up being exactly as drama-free as it should. We were two adults who with a bit of communication ended up in a situation that was beneficial for everyone. It ended up being a positive interaction.

    What I meant to say with that long side note was that I understand the impulse to want to solve problems directly and feeling like someone has to take on that role.

    But there’s a difference between being the “fighter” and being the mediator.

    —-

    LW#2:

    I’m so sorry, what a mess!
    You should probably look over your procedures though. I don’t know how big your organization is but no one noticed that $25,000 was missing?

    And no one else knew about the need to send in documentation that was that essential?

      1. Productivity Pigeon*

        I agree.

        I mean, I totally see WHY they prefer to blame J, who really did damage the organization a lot…

        But this is exactly why we build in failsafes and checks in organizations.

        I mean, what if your organization has an IT-person, ONE person who has built everything from the ground up etc. Who has all the admin rights and all the passwords…
        And that person gets hit by a bus.

        Oops.

        (I don’t know how many times in my career I’ve had to be the party pooper and ask “well, what if this goes wrong?” “What if X gets sick?” (or hit by a bus…) “What if we can’t access our servers?” and so on and so on. And I’ve gotten so much pushback on it sometimes.
        “Well, no one’s going to get sick so we don’t need to plan for that.”

        But you can’t know that!

        (Incidentally, I’ve made a career switch into crisis preparedness and management haha. My school’s inofficial motto was “Assume everything will go wrong.” haha)

        1. Zoe Karvounopsina*

          I usually go with “abducted by aliens” after hearing about an org where the emergency shorthand was “If John gets hit by the number 63 bus” and then John was indeed hit by that bus…

          1. Productivity Pigeon*

            Smart, I might steal that! It can definitely hit the wrong way otherwise.

            Now that you say it, that happened to the company I wrote my master’s thesis about. It was a fast-growing startup and I wrote about “growing pains” (problems sizing up) in entrepreneurial organizations.

            One of the common issues in such companies is a concentration of knowledge in one person.
            And in their case, someone didn’t get hit by a bus but by a train! (“Only” an accident, not suicide, thank goodness.)

            Funny that I’d completely forgotten that until your comment.

          2. Magenta*

            I go with “wins the lottery and goes on a round the world cruise”, I don’t believe in fate but I still don’t want to tempt it!

            1. Productivity Pigeon*

              You’re both absolutely right! I will change my example from now on.

              Yeah, tempting fate IS a bad idea especially in these times…!

              Plus a funnier example might make people a little more open to the idea of assuming things will go wrong, ironically. Lowering the stakes might make them more receptive than doomsday prophecies.

          4. General von Klinkerhoffen*

            Yes, I agree that a lottery win isn’t a great analogy because it isn’t as abrupt as the, erm, bus.

            “Abducted by aliens” is excellent. I also like “runs away with the circus” because it also conveys suddenness and lack of handover or communication, and has a similar cheerful absurdity.

          5. ecnaseener*

            Yes, I love abducted by aliens! Less morbid than sudden death, but conveys “absolutely unavailable with zero warning” better than the lottery thing.

          6. Hyaline*

            Surely this proved your point!

            Yeah, I’ve chimed on “if so and so is hit by a bus” to add “and is only mildly injured but sues the city for millions and quits this job” to pivot from the morbid before.

        2. Pipskew*

          You’d presumably know if someone suddenly left the company for whatever reason, though. This is a task that 99% of the time results in zero visible effects because it’s just throwing away the junk, and the person responsible said that was done. It turns out they weren’t trustworthy, but it’s hardly unreasonable to expect that someone saying they did their job means they did it.

          1. Productivity Pigeon*

            But surely it’s important to notice that $25,000 they presumably were expecting didn’t show up?

            I don’t get the impression that they get a bunch of random, unexpected checks all the time.

            1. Devo Forevo*

              This keeps coming up in the responses. Nonprofits get random, unexpected checks all the time. Just because you solicit someone for a donation doesn’t mean they tell you when they drop it in the mail. Especially smaller checks adding up to $25K, which is what LW2 said.

              1. Productivity Pigeon*

                I freely admit I’m not an expert whatsoever on non-profits but I would’ve thought $25k, even if in many small donations, would be a significant amount of money for a small organization?

                1. Devo Forevo*

                  It is! That’s why LW mentioned it. But generally if you are corresponding with a donor or sending an invoice about mailing a check, you’re giving them your actual mailing address. Unexpected checks could easily end up in the wrong mailbox.

                2. daffodil*

                  it’s definitely a significant amount, but that doesn’t mean they were expecting it! haven’t you ever made a spur of the moment donation? Mine are modest and mostly done online, but it definitely happens. Maybe someone did a fundraiser to “benefit” the org without actually partnering, so they just sent a check when they balanced the books, for instance.

                3. Productivity Pigeon*

                  Daffodil (can’t nest any more)

                  Honestly? I’m not American so I’ve never used a check in my life.
                  (No, my very, very first tax refund came as a check because for some reason you couldn’t give the IRS your bank details until the first time you filed a tax return.) Anyway. You get the idea, haha.

            2. Coverage Associate*

              It’s 25k over several months, too. And they have at least 3 full time employees, it sounds like. While small, that could still have variation in donations by about 5k per month be within a normal range, depending on whether the missed months included December, the biggest month for donations, including from new donors.

              Also, losing the 25k, while a big deal, doesn’t sound like as much of the crisis as losing the ability to solicit donations for however long it takes to reinstate the charity registration.

              Oh, and, hate to add on, but in my experience with nonprofits, it’s not so much donor taxes that depend on state registration (in the USA, that’s federal), but property taxes. Nonprofits generally don’t pay property taxes, and landlords renting to them also don’t pay property taxes, but without the state registration, the nonprofit or landlord will lose that tax break.

        3. Insert Clever Name Here*

          We call that the lottery rule — if Insert Clever wins the lottery and moves to a villa in Mallorca…

  24. Despachito*

    OP1 – the situation at your work seems a bit of a mess.

    You say you don’t have a team lead, and that you have to fend off external people to protect your team. Ideally, it should be precisely the team lead who would manage that and prioritize work, and should do it in a non-confrontational way. I understand it is frustrating to not have this, but I don’t think the right way to go is to self-assign yourself as the “bad guy”.

    I also absolutely don’t think sarcasm is an efficient way to communicate with people. It indeed does sound dismissive and I see it as the last desperate resort to vent in a situation that does not have any other solution.

    I think that what you should look at is your overall style of communication. And also consider the atmosphere at your work which may be quite frustrating.

  25. Carole from Accounts*

    LW2: a similar scenario happened at my last job. An employee volunteered to check the mail, so the other employee who had been checking it stopped. The new checker picked up the mail and then… bizarrely only reported some pieces of mail and kept the rest in a box in their home (so no one noticed the missing mail). The company was not notified of a state tax audit in a timely manner, in addition to some other serious oversights. We only found out when the new checker quit and returned the box of unopened mail.

    It’s the type of thing that messes with you and makes you wonder how you could have managed better. There’s also the anger towards good employees being inconvenienced by bad actors, but I agree that going after the former employee will not provide the solution the LW is seeking.

    2. Overthinking it*

      Oh how strange! Wasn’t there a letter some time back from a LW who had some document he didn’t know how to deal with (maybe discovered after being temporarily lost?), held on to it for ages, and then eventually drove out far out into the country and burned it? And requested a replacement?

  26. Blue Pen*

    I don’t really have advice, but I just wanted to extend my sympathies to LW #2. That’s an awful situation to be in. Knowing how busy nonprofit work can be, I can totally understand how more checks and balances weren’t initially put in place to monitor a simple task like checking the mail, but like Alison said, at least you know where the fatal flaws are now in your organization. It’s a painful lesson to learn the hard way, though, and I’m really sorry you’re in this spot.

  27. Blue Pen*

    For #2, I would also encourage the commentariat here to remember how pants-on-fire nonprofit—especially small nonprofit—work can be. When I worked nonprofit, it was not at all uncommon to be working 12+ hour days, running around like a chicken with your head cut off. Things change on a dime. I completely agree that better systems need to be in place at the LW’s organization, but I also know that reality on the ground doesn’t always allow for that in the way the organization would want. It’s easy to armchair criticize from afar. Nonprofits can be (and usually are if you’re a small/er organization) incredibly hard, thankless work, and I don’t see any value in raking the LW over the coals over it.

    1. Dust Bunny*

      . . . except that the existence of the organization is now in jeopardy because of it.

      I say this as a longtime employee of a moderately small non-profit: They cannot be so all-hats and pants-on-fire that they can’t function, and the tone of this suggests that they haven’t considered that and are more focused on punishing someone who doesn’t even work there than on improving some really basic systems that they will need if they want to survive.

    2. Hyaline*

      I don’t think it’s valuable to rake anyone over the coals; I do think it’s fair to point out that “the problem you identified is not your actual problem.” Here, LW was relying on a flaky employee to get mail promptly and didn’t get vital mail, including registration notifications. The problem isn’t “This person didn’t bring in the mail” as LW identifies; it’s “you relied on a flimsy and inadequate system for things you should be on top of and plan for regardless.” The solution isn’t “get a better employee” (though that will certainly help!); it’s “fix your systems.” I’d bet a whole dime the state does not care that LW didn’t get the reminder; often this kind of registration renewal treats mailed notices as a courtesy and not receiving one is no excuse not to do it.

      1. EvilQueenRegina*

        This. Suppose they did get a better employee, but then this better employee ended up off sick for any length of time, and no one thought to pick up this task in their absence, they could just have the same problem again. Better communication with people about what mailing address to use, having a rota system for picking up the mail so that even if one person was sick someone else would get it shortly after and it shouldn’t sit there for months, having an e-reminder set up…any of those would be better than the existing system.

    3. Overthinking it*

      Yeah, that’s rough. But in addition to better systems, LW needs to change her default setting AWAY from looking for someone to punish and blame, and TO examining how LWs own behavior may have contributed. (If it didn’t contribute that’s fine, but you need to ask yourself before deciding that, instead of immediately directing the blame outward.)

  28. MyStars*

    #1 I have had similar problems. Consider the possibility that you are advocating for others who could/should learn to advocate for themselves and that you are taking on fights that are not yours. You may be feeling protective and acting from a caring place, but it can come off as aggressive. I was fighting battles for people who not only did not want to fight them but also did not want them to be fought, and my intervention was unappreciated.

  29. Ganymede II*

    LW1: I can be fairly sarcastic myself, but the moment I notice the person I’m being sarcastic with doesn’t get it, I switch it off. If I didn’t, I would go from sarcastic-with to sarcastic-at – and i never want to give anyone the impression I am mocking them.
    You have just been given really good information – that your sarcasm has at least on one occasion missed th mark enough that someone felt like they had to bring in their manager. You might have missed the mark more times than you realise but people did not feel like telling you, if you are as battle-prone as you say you are.

  30. Turingtested*

    LW #1, are you sure your colleagues want you to fight these battles for them? I’ve encountered more than one person with a strong sense of justice who inadvertently made coworkers feel incompetent by swooping in on their behalf when it wasn’t wanted.

    Maybe take a few weeks and only stand up for yourself/your immediate business unit. If your coworkers appreciated your services they will ask you to resume. If not, maybe they didn’t perceive things the same way you did.

    As for sarcasm, take a real look at how you use it. My boss’s favorite joke after hearing something complicated and fraught is to say “Sounds like a piece of cake!” and it comes off as acknowledging how hard it is and implying “for you, this will be easy because you’re competent.” He has always offered us support and been fair so he can get away with it. If he were an ass, it would seem mean.

    So think about how you are perceived, how you want to be perceived, and how to align those goals.

    1. londonedit*

      I think your ‘Sounds like a piece of cake!’ example is really good, because it shows it really is all about context. You and your team know how he intends it to land, you know it’s something he always says, and you know it’s an in-joke that means ‘Well that sounds like a bloody nightmare, but I know you can do it and I’ve got your back’. If a brand new member of staff came on board, and the first time they encountered a tough situation the boss said ‘Sounds like a piece of cake!’ and they didn’t have all the context, I can totally imagine them thinking ‘A piece of cake? Doesn’t he care that this is really difficult? Is he not going to give us any support with this at all? He’s just waving it off with “a piece of cake”???’

    2. Dust Bunny*

      Ours is, “That sounds like fun,” except it works because we know our boss knows exactly how not-fun it will be, and will very often not being having fun along with us.

  31. Don't You Call Me Lady*

    I don’t work in the non profit sector but I don’t get how an entire organization’s status hinges on a missed piece of physical mail.

    The employee was obviously not doing the job but there has to be some kind of backup system other than this. This whole setup sounds like a much bigger problem than one lousy employee

  32. I should really pick a name*

    #1
    You have a lot of mistaken ideas about how a workplace operates.

    I volunteer to be the jerk with external people to protect the team’s time and sanity because we haven’t had a real team lead all year

    Protecting the team’s time and sanity does not mean being a jerk.

    I was just baffled how to make fewer waves while everyone comes to me to solve problems from HR to facilities to project management.

    Then ask for suggestions on how to approach these things.

    I realized the only person I had a dust up with lately is my boss’s assistant

    Lately? That makes it sound like it’s not an unusual occurrence.

    He had a lot of technical work to do, and the deadline felt arbitrary. Our boss wasn’t at this meeting (he normally would’ve been), so I had to tell his assistant I would go over his head to pick the fight

    If you have standing to push back on deadlines like this, a reasonable thing to say would have been “We disagree on the priority level for this work, let’s talk to the boss about it”. This should not be picking a fight.

    And I think he took my words personally like “I am a grown-up unlike you, a little kid.

    That would be a pretty fair interpretation because it’s basically what you said.

    The caveat being I don’t know if this interaction is what my boss really meant! Should I pass the apology through my boss and he can do what he wants? Should I do a general “sorry, I was really tough about the deadlines” conversation with his assistant? Does crying soften my big bad wolf image enough that my boss will do the damage control for me?

    The point here is not this single interaction. Your boss is referring to a pattern of behaviour which includes HOW you approach things, not just “dust ups”. This isn’t a situation where you make an apology and then just keep doing what you’re doing. Your boss is telling you to change your behaviour. And you’re refusing to listen.

    1. londonedit*

      The ‘I was just baffled how to make fewer waves while everyone comes to me to solve problems from HR to facilities to project management’ bit stood out to me, too. I’m getting the feeling the OP sees ‘solving problems’ as running in there hammer and tongs demanding to know what’s going on. That’s not an effective way of solving problems. You make ‘fewer waves’ by engaging with people in a calm manner to find out what the issue is and what they’d like you to do to solve it. Is it frustrating? Of course, it can be. But ‘making waves’ isn’t how you deal with problems.

      Either the whole place is extremely confrontational, so the people coming to the OP with problems are doing it in an aggressive or antagonistic way and the OP feels fighting fire with fire is the only way through, or the OP is coming at everything from a defensive position and lashing out whenever someone points out that something’s gone wrong. I’m not sure why every ‘problem’ demands a fight, or demands that the OP is ‘the jerk’, etc. It sounds exhausting and it’s not how a functional workplace runs.

      1. Ganymede II*

        Also “people come to me with problems”. Are they? Or are they venting about something and LW thinks it’s a new task on their list?

        Additionally, no is a full answer. If people genuinely are coming to them with impossible problems all the time, it’s ok to say “hey, i have a lot on my plate right now. Feel free to escalate to Boss if you think this should take priority, but for now I’ll focus on my tasks at hand.”

      2. Dust Bunny*

        It’s like when people use “diffuse” when they mean “defuse”: No! You want to put the fire out, not spread it around!

  33. LW3*

    LW3 here! Thanks for the response, Alison! Since writing I had memory-holed the information and have not (and will not) say anything to Mr. Michael or anyone at the school.

    I do want to clarify that this profile is one created and set to public by Mr. Michael. He has an online presence that he’s clearly cultivated in
    service of his artistic pursuits. This isn’t from one of those random web-scraping sites or anything.

    And while I might think a little longer before googling, I did it for two reasons. One, I’ll admit, was just general parental anxiety about a kid going off to school. But two is that, while I like this program (and get good vibes from the current staff), it is a program that has had some trouble in the recent past and has let go a bunch of teachers for various (mundane but justified) reasons. It also has a communication problem, largely due to all that turnover. None of that is on Mr. Michael, but I was definitely looking for reassurance that history wasn’t about to repeat itself. And in the absence of information from the school, I sought out what was available to me. But, lesson learned! Next time I’ll stick to LinkedIn when looking for a teacher bio!

    1. Don't You Call Me Lady*

      I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Googling people you know, you work with, or your kids teachers.

      It doesn’t mean you’re up to anything nefarious, just curiosity. LinkedIn is fine too of course, but I think you are good here

    2. Lana Kane*

      FWFW, I don’t think you did anything wrong. I googled my son’s preschool teachers as well and I’m not conflicted about it.

    3. Hyaline*

      I know there was lively disagreement above, but I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with Googling a kid’s teacher. Sorrynotsorry, but my kid’s wellbeing does come first; yes–even before the teacher’s privacy, which I do value as well. It just comes lower on the pecking order to me, as a parent. That’s allowed, actually–valuing two things at once but privileging one over the other.

      Shit happens. Good schools make poor hires. People start in on weird crap after they get hired and occasionally parents pick up on it first, not principals or heads of school. I’d rather risk miffing teachers everywhere who think they deserve a google-free life than risk my kid being subjected to some of the stuff that’s been described even in this comment section alone.

      1. Kitten*

        I Google my kids’ teachers out of genuine curiosity. I like to learn something about them. I’m not driving by their houses or anything.

  34. S.S.*

    Is anyone else getting crazy pop-up ads today, and Mazda taking up half the screen and not being able to be closed?

    1. Hlao-roo*

      If you have a problem with an ad, there’s a link to report it directly above the box you type a comment into. (linked on the works “an ad, tech, or typo issue here”)

  35. Esti*

    LW1, what stood out to me in your letter was how hurt you were by your boss raising a concern about your performance with you, even though you said it was done gently. It’s hard to get bad feedback at work! And the feelings you had in that moment are something you should keep in mind when you find yourself wanting to get combative with others at work, because if even the most gently delivered criticism can have that effect, imagine how much worse it would feel if the delivery was harsh, sarcastic, dismissive, or aggressive.

    1. Smurfette*

      I also noticed that…

      I get the feeling that OP may be under significant strain – someone feeling that they must try to support the team by stepping as an unofficial team lead usually means that there organisational or resourcing issues.

      For some personalities (often those a little over-invested in their work – as me how I know) it’s difficult to stay in your lane when things are going badly for the team or the project. You end up taking responsibility even when you have no authority. And it usually ends badly – in my experience.

  36. Lexi Vipond*

    I am curious where LW1 is based, because sarcasm seems to be much more common in some areas and cultures than others, and where it is it’s not necessary seen as particularly negative. Certainly variations on ‘well, I’m a grown up’ would be a standard comment round here on being told that someone might be angry with you, to th lole extent that someone would have to wilfully set out to misconstrue it as an attack on them.

    But the part of the message that really strikes me, and that a lot of people seem to be reading over, is:
    we haven’t had a real team lead all year… everyone comes to me to solve problems from HR to facilities to project management.

    It’s amazing common that things are done willingly by other teams for the Grade 8 boss (substitute your own levels of seniority as required), reluctantly for the Grade 6 team lead, and somewhere between ‘not at all’, ‘only on the 50th time of asking’ and ‘only after someone points out firmly and if necessarily loudly that this is an essential part of the departments activities and not a personal favour to some peons’ for the grade 4 team.

    And the most difficult part of that situation isn’t even that, it’s the inability of the boss who has only ever met with willingness to conceive that things might be different for someone else.

    It’s probable that the LW has behaved inappropriately (although possible that they’re only guilty of asking for the basic requirements of their job while being too poorly paid to expect them), but it sounds like a situation where they feel that nothing will happen otherwise (flaring up because they think someone else is being treated unfairly seems quite symptomatic of that particular frustration), and that the boss would be better off putting their effort into asking why (and why at least part of the team is feeding things through LW rather than the boss) than into getting mad at the LW for feeling that way.

    1. Hyaline*

      Yeah, while I agree that LW might have an overly adversarial attitude, this line struck me as explaining where that attitude came from–very possibly from the workplace environment itself. I noticed–and appreciated–that LW seems to see themselves as the person who stands up for their team *because no one else is there to stand in the gap.* It’s possible this is a confrontational and pushy work environment where someone has to chin up and be confrontational back, and LW seems to be doing so *on behalf of others* not themselves. I think this is the bigger issue, and while LW should take the critique to heart and adjust their tone, I also think they could ask if the emotional response was out of frustration that they’re thrust into a problem situation and were just told that their strategy for coping with it isn’t ok–but they don’t know what else to do.

    2. DawnShadow*

      This is very insightful, I hadn’t looked at it like that. Thank you! I hope it helps the LW if they see it.

      I’d add that it may help the LW more to step back, in this case. She isn’t being paid enough to take on these fights, and she doesn’t have the seniority, so she should let things go. Let the company feel the lack of a team lead, that’s the only way they will fill the role.

      Once they have a team lead, it’s possible that LW will not feel so much stress to where they are lashing out all the time (this does feel like someone angry needing to lash out but trying to use that power for good, and failing).

  37. Dinwar*

    #1: Sounds to me that you’re more of a problem solver than a peace maker. These are two different things. A peacemaker is about smoothing the waves and finding common ground–and I find it somewhat difficult to imagine someone willing to volunteer to be the jerk also being someone who finds common ground. A problem solver, on the other hand, often makes waves–often very large ones–because dealing with even a large wave is far better than dealing with a tsunami or a criminal trial.

    The problem with being a problem solver is that you’re going to run rough-shod over other people’s emotions. It’s part of the job. Some organizations are fine with such people, or even encourage them. But it sounds like this isn’t one of them. There are ways to manage this, though.

    For me, what I’ve found is best is to make it about something other than me. I’m not going over your head because I think you’re an idiot, I’m going over your head because the Code of Federal Regulations requires we do X in three separate places and I’d rather we not all go to jail. That sort of thing. I’m still being the jerk–I’m still the one raising the issue–but it’s not a personal thing, or about me at all; I’m just the person who identified the issue and is mitigating the company’s liability (a bit of corporate-speak is helpful here).

    It gets easier once you build up a reputation. You’re going to burn through political capital, but if you also build it up by proving that most of the time you’re addressing real issues, you’re probably fine. You may take on roles you don’t necessarily want, like helping people learn to set boundaries in their career, but that’s part of the job as well, and partially how you’ll build up political capital.

    2. Nomic*

      I want to add to this a thought a “conflict”. Conflict doesn’t have to mean a fight. It means there are two goals in some opposition to each other. But there are many resolutions besides just a fight. There is often a possibility of negotiation, or blending both goals.

      Stop seeing a resolution to conflict as demanding a fight.

  38. D.C. Paralegal*

    LW1: The problem with people who “volunteer to be the jerk” at work is that it often becomes a role they relish playing, even in instances where it’s not needed. Similarly, big and sarcastic is fine in small doses, and ideally when you and the other person are venting about some third party. But when I’m hashing out a low-stakes work disagreement with a coworker, I honestly just want to have a normal conversation, not feel like the other person is working on their tight five.

  39. Grandma of Cats*

    LW#2 As a long time fundraiser, I so feel for you. There are some pretty harsh comments upthread – pls try to take the good advice about stronger processes while also giving yourself some grace. We all make mistakes. You might be feeling guilty yourself, because the staff person you supervised screwed up. Pls try to put what they did/didn’t do and what you did/didn’t do behind you and focus on damage control. Some thoughts:
    Look at info on crisis communication. Make a plan on how/ whether to share this with different audiences.
    Figure out better processes so you can confidently say you’ve fixed the cause.
    Assess your political capital with community partners, your State legislators, and others in your community with power. Is there someone who can ask the charity bureau to expedite your paperwork without causing drama?
    But first, what do you know about the charity bureau? Are they generally helpful or punitive? It may make sense to call them, at least to determine how long renewal will take. Be very polite, accept your org’s responsibility for the mess and try to have a human to human conversation with them
    Frame the problem in terms of your services. Most folks will be more understanding if they see the org trying to preserve needed services than if they see the org as trying to save itself. This is the right way to approach it as well as the smart way.
    If you’re in an area that has attorneys who specialize in nonprofit law, there may be one who’s handled this issue before. You’re not the only group that’s let your registration lapse by mistake! Your goal is not to punish the staff who screwed up but to tap her expertise on how to resolve this. She may have info you can use or the ability to call a contact at the bureau. Do expect to pay for this help.
    Good luck!

    1. Productivity Pigeon*

      The crisis communication thing is an incredibly important point!!!

      LW, you need to assume this is going to come out and be interpreted in the worst possible way by your most important stakeholders and you need it like yesterday.

      I have no idea how big your organization is but you need a very clear and actionable plan for how to deal with this. Like, you need professional help and the sooner, the better. Ignore USPS and use the lawyer money to hire a really good crisis consultant.

  40. Safely Retired*

    Regarding #3, I’m just an old fart who got out of the work force decades before pronouns were a thing, and my appreciation of the nuances is probably wrong, but isn’t a preference for they/them open to everyone? Can’t a cisgender person prefer them as a neutral choice? Declaring “I’m a person, the rest doesn’t matter”?

    1. Silver Robin*

      I know some folks who use they/them that way, yes! Some people do not have a strong feeling of gender (cis by default is one way I have seen it put) and so something that just indicates “I am a person” is a good option for them. I know of at least one cis person who uses they/them as a political stance, also similar to “we are all people and gendered pronouns need not be the default”, but this is a friend of a friend so I do not know the details.

      Also, all pronouns are open to all people. Pronouns are a personal choice to reflect one’s internal reality. I can present as traditionally feminine and have been assigned female at birth and still use he/him if that is what aligns with my own understanding of myself. There are no rules except that we respect how folks present.

      A small note, the language of “preferred” pronouns is fading because pronouns are not a preference, they are a reality. Mostly now I see “the pronouns I use” or “my pronouns” and the like.

      1. Peanut Hamper*

        Thank you for that, especially the last paragraph. We used to talk about “sexual preference” when talking about people’s sexual identities, but that usage is now long gone. Which is good, because who you love isn’t a “preference” it’s just part of who you are.

  41. M*

    #2 keep calling your state at different times to try and get through. You might also want to reach out to your local state senator or representative might be able to advocate for you on your behalf. I also wouldn’t completely stop submitting grants – there is typically some leeway given for this.

  42. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    LW1 – it sounds like you’ve got some dysfunctional management AND dysfunctional culture in your organization, and you’ve shaped your behavior to respond to that.

    I would advise you to reconsider whether your “protect the team” impulses are really necessary and welcomed by your coworkers. And whether they actually help in the long run – you may be training people to behave even more aggressively in order to get past your gatekeeping.

    Also do yourself a favor, and don’t take those behaviors with you to your next job. A business that operates rationally doesn’t need this kind of thing, and you’ll be terribly out of step.

    1. HB*

      Yeah, in re-reading the letter the thing that jumped out to me was this:

      “and I was just baffled how to make fewer waves while everyone comes to me to solve problems from HR to facilities to project management”

      It sounds like the LW stepped up initially because they were in a bad spot without a team lead, and the brashness got reinforced over time. It may be that the team is encouraging the behavior – by continuing to go to LW with their issues – but if it’s doing real harm to the LW and their reputation, then they need to step back even if their coworkers *do* welcome the intervention. And if the problems continue, LW needs to let the boss deal with it.

      I also wonder if some of the more aggressive traits the LW has adopted are partly the result of not having real authority. For instance, in the scheduling meeting the LW pushed back on behalf of a coworker because they knew that the timing was too tight, but since they’re not the Team Lead they can’t really say “No, that’s not feasible” and have a normal back and forth conversation. Instead, LW is responding from a place with less power in the situation, but wants a particular result, and escalates dramatically as a result. In any case, stepping back is still the right call because they need to reset their instincts. You can protect your coworkers just as easily by supporting them and helping them stand up for themselves, or advocating for them to your boss, but you don’t need to act like a human shield or battering in every (any?) situation.

  43. crookedglasses*

    LW4, I post jobs on LI fairly frequently. One of the many LI quirks that I abhor is that it weirdly saves info from prior postings and auto fills in the fields with that. I can easily imagine how someone could miss clearing out some of an old post’s info, set it to go live, and then catch it later. That wouldn’t make sense if you’ve been ther for many years, but if you started within the last year or two the “it was an error” explanation really is quite plausible.

  44. Fishsticks*

    A nonbinary person working at a religious school may be flying under the radar or choosing to stay “in the closet”, so to speak, to protect themself from potential retaliation. Especially in at-will states, they won’t have any recourse if they are fired, because they will officially be fired for some random nonsense reason as a CYA move, even if everyone knows the pronouns are why.

    I live in an at-will state whose state government is so busy legislating bigotry we routinely forget to legislate anything else, and I am not straight. I have found that the queer community here does a lot of subtle signaling to each other, because many of us don’t feel safe being ourselves at work. It can feel so good to see that pronoun sign-off in an email or catch the small rainbow necklace someone is wearing.

    Follow their lead, but find subtle ways to let them know you are a safe person for them to be themself with. I’ve made friends this way, and I always make a point to ensure my kids’ teachers know that – for instance – I come from a family of educators and I consider myself working alongside the teachers to provide instruction, that I welcome them turning to me if they need help with my kiddos and I will turn to them if I believe we’re missing some kind of structure or support, I support them having full control over their classrooms and don’t believe in book bans, think increased pay and support for teachers would solve about 75% of our current education crisis, etc. The look of relief on a teacher’s face when they realize you are a parent who will stand behind them rather than throw metaphorical punches is always bittersweet to see.

    In short, Allison’s advice is good. Do something subtle. I promise they’ll pick up on it, and even those small subtle gestures can mean so much.

  45. tiny potato*

    Re LW#3, it may be helpful to think of it this way: if someone asks you to use certain pronouns in a given setting, even if they use different pronouns elsewhere, using the pronouns they’ve asked for when in that setting is not misgendering them. Even if it’s their pronouns assigned at birth, even if it’s because they’re closeted in that setting. It’s still gendering them the way they’ve asked. Others have pointed out why it’s important to do in terms of safety, but it may be worth adding that you can be entirely comfortable knowing that you’re literally respecting the person’s stated pronouns when you do so.

  46. HonorBox*

    OP1 – Whether or not the comment to the assistant is the one that prompted the conversation with your boss, I think you have two things to do. First, have a conversation with the assistant. Clearly you know that might have come across poorly now that you’ve reflected on it. Go to the assistant and apologize. I have had situations in which I’ve said something that I’ve felt landed poorly, and even if it wasn’t taken the way I thought it might have been, the apology clears the air. And several times, it has just put my mind at ease more than it has rectified any “wrong” that I assumed happened. Second, you should figure out how to pull back on some of the sarcasm and “defending” language. There are ways to run interference for others that don’t come across as harshly. I think your intent is wonderful. Being a shield for others is a great thing. But you can probably still do so and choose words a little more carefully.

      1. Jane*

        If you continued to read the rest of the paragraph, OP is like this because they do not have a team lead so someone has to stick up for the team.

  47. nycnpo*

    LW1: “The only person I had a dust up with” “I volunteer to be the jerk”

    Really, there shouldn’t be dust ups at work. Don’t beat yourself up but take the advice to heart. You might not mean anything by it, but I have a similar coworker and it makes the work environment very uncomfortable and I am looking to leave because of it.

  48. Spicy Tuna*

    #4, this happened to me. For months, I was doing my job plus a “temporary” job while my company looked for someone with more experience than me in doing that job. They finally gave up and promoted me to the “temp” job full time – at that point, I had gotten more experience since I had been doing it for nearly 6 months, and they just couldn’t find anyone better to take the job. Shortly after, one of my friends sent me a Linked In or Monster (this was a long time ago!) posting advertising the job. It was just a technical quirky, although it did unnerve me!

  49. mango chiffon*

    LW3, I’m nonbinary and use they/them pronouns. I’m out at work, and have included my pronouns in my email signature. Sometimes people don’t notice it or for whatever reason, I get included as “girls” or “ladies” and I do get she/her-d often. For the most part, I don’t want to get into educating people constantly so if I get she/her-d, then whatever. Why spend energy and time on correcting people. I also HATE title honorifics like Ms./Mr. etc. and once, I suppose someone was trying to be kind and referred to me as Mx. mango chiffon in an email and honestly it gave me such an ick. I don’t think Ms. is any better, but I’ll tolerate it in some situations. I understand Michael’s situation a lot. In some situations it’s worth trying to correct people or be Seen as nonbinary, but in other situations it’s not worth it at all. Especially if they are in education, I totally see it being safer to keep to the “standard” name and pronoun conventions when teaching young children. Teachers are being targeted by the right wing and it just might be a battle that Michael doesn’t want to have to deal with in addition to educating children.

  50. Rebecca*

    LW1:

    This is a “two things are true” situation:
    There was a miscommunication, AND you were too harsh. Whatever our intentions are, they are locked inside our own head. if our words are coming across as harsh, then we were too harsh.

    Please learn from my situation: my manager recently sent me down to tell me that I was coming across as extremely sarcastic and demeaning. What was actually going on is that I am frustrated and fed up and I am almost ready to commit arrestable offenses at the mansplainer on our team, and I am decreasingly able to carry on as though I am not. I definitely acknowledge my lack of emotional regulation in this situation, and I promised my manager that I would work harder at managing my emotions so that I come across differently.

    Understanding how you come across and managing your demeanor should be your take away as well. Whatever is going on with you, and it sounds like you are well-meaning, it is coming across in a way that is negatively impacting your relationships and possibly your job, if you don’t get it under control.

    1. ThatOtherClare*

      If it helps at all, one of my favourite ways to deal with a manplainer is to respond to his mansplaining like I’m being kind to an overenthusiastic toddler. It’s ok little Timmy, I don’t need the other half of your soggy, chewed-up cookie, but thanks for thinking of me sweet pea :)

      ‘Thank you for offering to explain Fergus, but it’s ok, I’ve read the report!’

      ‘I appreciate your offer to help, but I’ve used this equipment before, so I’m fine for now. I’ll give you a call if I get stuck!’

      ‘That was the topic of my thesis so I’ve got a pretty good handle on it, but thanks for checking!’

      Like with a toddler, I aim for genuine warmth, not saccharine sarcasm. Unlike toddlers who can accept small rejections so long as you’re still happy with them, mansplainers hate it. But that’s their problem, not mine. Off you trot, little Fergus, time to go and play the attention seeking game somewhere else now. The grown ups have got work they need to do.

      1. Rebecca*

        I’ve been a female engineer for 20+ years, so ironically here, you are doing some kind of ‘splaining to me.

  51. HannahS*

    OP1, are you burnt out? I’ve worked with people in a similar situation to yours–in my case, bosses who felt that they were unappreciated for doing a huge amount of work to smooth the path for everyone but were being perceived as harsh.

    Generally, they were people who were naturally driven and frank, who were then under a lot of stress, and then veered from “driven” to “steamrolling” and “frank” to “pretty mean, actually.” It sounds like you’re under a lot of pressure, and maybe missed how it’s affecting you and changing the way you interact with people. Most people, including me, are pretty terrible at hiding how we feel for hours a day every day.

    As for solutions, I think you need to tell your boss that you need a lower workload.

    1. Abigail*

      I think the LW needs to be brutally honest with themselves if they are asked to do a huge amount of work or if they are volunteering to do a huge amount of work.

      Some people thrive just under the breakdown limit. And if that isn’t created in their job naturally (like an emergency room doctor) they will create it.

      I have people like this in my professional and personal life. They are always stressed and overworked but they are also creating the situation that leads to that. I’ve learned the best thing I can do is stay far away from this vortex because it is very hard for them to see it within themselves.

      If the LW is this kind of person they need to change careers to something where this skill is an advantage.

    2. Rebecca*

      Ooh, I feel pretty seen right now (description of recent feedback in comment just above). I’m not burned out (yet), but I am thoroughly fed up. I can tell it’s affecting me, but I definitely thought I was managing it better than I am.

  52. Garlic Microwaver*

    #1

    Your entire first paragraph illustrates an example of cause and effect. What do you want the outcome to be?

    Your actions and reactions are all over the place here. A quick search yields why you should keep sarcasm out of the workplace:

    “sarcastic, satiric, ironic, sardonic mean marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. sarcastic implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing. a critic known for his sarcastic remarks. satiric implies that the intent of the ridiculing is censure and reprobation”

  53. Jules the 3rd*

    LW 1: Sarcasm often doesn’t work well in professional places. It requires shared context, a lot of shared history, and a lot of trust. I am genX, so Sarcasm Central at home or with friends, but I have really cut back on it at work.

    First step for me was to still think it but not say it – like that “because I’m a grownup” comment. Just stop at “I’m fine with that.”
    Next step was to start leaving that thought off, by occasionally challenging the thought later with yourself – “what did I mean by thinking ‘grownup’ – do I think this person is unreasonable bcs they’re young?”

    Make the transition easier by stepping away from conflict situations – stop volunteering to be the ‘jerk’, that sort of thing. And yeah, think about whether HannahS is right about pressure / burnout.

    Good luck – you are not a bad person, but impact is what matters, not intent. You have been blessed with information about your impact, these are ideas about how you can make your impact match your good intent.

  54. musical chairs*

    FWIW, LW3, I’ve seen the “wear a pin that shows you’re not a bigot” line advice before and maybe I’m alone in this opinion, but I (someone who is of multiple marginalized identities, but not marginalized by my sexual orientation or gender expression) can’t imagine seeing something like that and feeling generally safer with that person in a work context.

    Obviously, I strongly don’t want to risk associating with bigots, but it’s also a risk to me to rely on people who are overinvested in communicating that they’re “one of the good ones” with very little substance behind it. In my experience, they can be super clumsy in their “support” in ways that have been harmful to me as a person or harmful to my career. They seek a camraderie with me that is unearned/self-appointed. It’s exhausting.

    Everyone’s learning/nobody’s perfect, but I know more than anything that it’s on me to protect myself both from bigotry and from people who overestimate how helpful they can actually be in a vacuum.

    The pin to me sometimes reads a yellow flag in the absence of any other substantative risk taking when it comes to diversity, equity or inclusion. Simply put, if it costs you very little, it’s usually worth very little.

    In your case, the best response here is to do nothing right now and to do less in the future. I hate to chide you for even asking the question (you were looking for help and that’s fine), but this one was easy, and your uncertainty should tell you that you have a little work ahead of you to have better instincts on this stuff. Not a dig, just a diagnostic!

    I’m just one person. But thought I’d share my perspective.

    1. LW3*

      I appreciate this! And you’re right, doing less is often the answer. I was raised to want to Do Good, and it’s definitely been a process of unlearning that. I mean, I know to never, ever out someone and I wouldn’t speak *for* anyone unless they asked me to. But when I was growing up I was often the only liberal in the room (but also have a lot of privilege) and therefore tend to be pretty comfortable calling people out and speaking up for myself. So you’re absolutely right, my instincts are usually “must do something” and I’m working hard on changing them.

    2. 1-800-BrownCow*

      Thanks for sharing musical chairs, I personally never considered a perspective like yours. And to be honest, I think it was good that LW #3 asked the question, it’s how people learn. You said “your uncertainty should tell you that you have a little work ahead of you to have better instincts on this stuff”….well, isn’t asking questions a way of doing that work?

      While your perspective has a lot of merit, an LGBTQ+ friend of mine recently shared about the time her and her partner placed a rainbow flag outside their business during Pride Month, in a very conservative area. One day that month a very nervous teenager walked into their store, quickly stammered “Thank you for making me feel not alone!” and then quickly ran out. She said after that, they decided to keep the flag out year around even though they knew they’d probably lose some business from locals for displaying their flag. Maybe that teenager feels differently now about a business displaying a rainbow flag to show “support”, I wouldn’t know. But from their perspective, on that day, it was a huge deal to them as I’m sure in that very conservative community, they likely had never felt supported before.

      1. metadata minion*

        I think it can be very important in areas where putting up a flag/pin/etc. actually is taking some risk. If putting up a flag is going to create a real risk of the business being boycotted or vandalized, I have a good sense that that person is really committed. In my overall very liberal area, I can’t count the number of times I’ve had medical staff wearing happy rainbow lanyards completely ignore my pronouns, because I’m pretty sure the lanyards were a corporate choice since looking superficially queer-friendly is good for business.

      2. Silver Robin*

        Right, but in your example, the cost was higher (losing business, risking harassment), so the worth was also higher, which is entirely in line with what musical chairs said.

        And as for your first paragraph, again, there was an explicit statement that it was not a bad thing that LW asked! It was a diagnostic! And diagnostics are good. If somebody is thrown by a question or situation that is actually quite basic, it is important for them to know that. It is a good way for them to be able to assess their own competency in the future and their ability to navigate allyship. Instincts can be developed and this is a good reminder for LW that they need to hone those a bit more strongly; that is actionable advice. Musical chairs is not calling LW a bad person for not knowing something, they just said they were unskilled; that is not an insult, it is vital feedback, very very kindly packaged.

      3. GythaOgden*

        Definitely. Our org issued us with lanyards and pins as that kind of ‘safe space’ signal. The rainbow is a powerful symbol of diversity and hope even beyond the Pride movement, but the best show of solidarity ever was a massive Pride flag in the main Anglican church in the town I work in. It was certainly a very strong answer to my prayers when I was questioning my participation in religion and my mum and I have been working on rolling back the prejudice within the local church.

        I’m someone who wouldn’t necessarily want an overt show of neurodivergent allyship, but I’m not going to stop displaying the Pride symbols and supporting efforts to liberate the place I worship from its hidebound history.

    3. Rainbow pins for all*

      I do totally understand your opinion, but as someone living in a conservative area who is of a marginalized sexual orientation, I REALLY appreciate even very small markers like pins/stickers etc. So, as with so many things, YMMV.

  55. CommanderBanana*

    LW#2, I don’t want to be harsh, but having worked for small nonprofits myself, a few things stood out to me.

    Generally, nonprofits have to file documentation at regular intervals (usually annually, depending on what it is and where they are) to maintain their status. It is critical for a nonprofit to retain their status. How is it that no one else was keyed into these critical deadlines?

    Secondly, you said that in total, there were $25,000 worth of checks due to you. For a small nonprofit, (assuming that you, like most small nonprofits, have a small budget) that is a huge amount of money to be outstanding. How did no one else raise an alarm over this? Were these membership fees, donations, or vendor payments?

    I donate regularly to small nonprofits in my community. I would be way less inclined to donate if I were getting requests to reissue checks that I had already written and I would be WAY less inclined to donate if one lost their nonprofit status.

    I think this is a really good opportunity to you to think seriously about how, as the leader of this org, this could be prevented and what sort of processes you need to implement or improve.

    1. April*

      I was once the treasurer for a nonprofit. If I heard that they were asking donors to reissue checks and had lost a significant state status, I would close my wallet and warn my family to do the same.

  56. 1-800-BrownCow*

    #3: Please, please, please don’t say anything!!! It shouldn’t be this way, but it may be the only way they feel safe in there job. I realize you found the information fairly easily, but not everyone else will google this teacher’s name. And even though you say your area is liberal, not everyone will agree with it. Currently at my child’s elementary school, there is a long-term substitute kindergarten teacher that is non-binary and does go by gender-neutral pronouns and asked to be address as “Mx. Smith”. The uproar that has ensued after the Meet the Teacher night a week before school started has been horrible. Several parents came out to the School Board meeting in protest of having this long-term substitute teaching kindergarten and some families have pulled their child out of the kindergarten class. I didn’t learn about this until a couple weeks later (my child is in an upper grade at elementary level and I don’t know too many parents in our community to have heard about it earlier) but it made me sick to my stomach when I listened to the recording from the school board meeting and heard the comments of “grooming children”, “indoctrinating children”, “child abuse”, etc. The school board has stood their ground by citing the law that protects this teacher’s job and that they cannot be fired based on their gender identity. Now, my area is definitely a conservative area, so there is more people who oppose a non-binary teacher and the backlash in an area like yours may not be as bad. But please let this teacher choose how they want to present themselves the school community. It’s great you want to show them support but I agree with Alison, do so in ways that doesn’t out them directly.

  57. UpstateDownstate*

    #4…the fact that they had your job description ready to post says volumes. It doesn’t matter if they made a mistake or not, they had it ready to post.

    Either they are looking to replace you, or they are looking to add to your ‘team.’ I’m sure others have suggested this already but I’d brush up my resume and start casually looking just in case. I’m sorry and good luck!

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Nah. Think about what “ready to post” means in a digital age. It’s not like they have to go into the basement, open up a vault, and grab a boulder with the job description written on it. All the job descriptions are probably just Word documents sitting there in a folder on some HR shared drive.

      It’s very easy for someone to open the wrong document or to mishear a directive in a meeting and or to grab job description #53 when they really meant to grab job description #35. I’ve worked in offices for years and have seen all of these things. The fact that they took it down so quickly means that they probably just made a mistake.

      1. iglwif*

        Also LinkedIn has fully jumped on the “help users via AI” bandwagon so it is also quite likely that it “helpfully” filled in a past posting or something. When something is taken down pretty quickly after going up that often means someone went “OH CRAP, I MADE A MISTAKE.”

  58. Kate*

    The one thing I am curious about is how LW2’s mail got mildewed. if we’re talking about a PO box under the jurisdiction of the Post Office, then it does seem like they’d have a case against the post office. However, if it’s a normal mailbox at a property they control, everything that Alison and the commenters have said applies about it being the org’s responsibility.

    2. metadata minion*

      If they’re in a humid climate, it doesn’t take much for mildew to develop in a stack of paper that hasn’t been moved in months. Even an indoor mailbox might end up with damp mail in it due to rain, and outdoor mailboxes are usually not designed to be more than vaguely water-resistant.

    3. CommanderBanana*

      I doubt very much they would have a case because mail that sat for 5 months + “a few weeks” got mildewed.

  59. Sneaky Squirrel*

    LW1 – I don’t think you should apologize to the assistant unless the assistant says something to you directly. Allow yourself to move on from that conversation but take what your boss said to heart. It sounds like you perceive yourself to be the “defender of the right” for yourself and your colleagues, but if your colleagues and boss don’t think that of you and didn’t ask that of you. You’re only going to gain the reputation of being the office jerk that no one wants to deal with if you continue a path of abrasiveness.

  60. Global Cat Herder*

    LW2 – I can’t decide which thing in your letter is most appalling to me.

    1. Your organization trusted its Right to Operate to a snail mail reminder!
    2. … That needed to be physically opened by a problem employee who was on a PIP!
    3. … Who you tried to file criminal charges against for the egregious crime of … not opening the mail!?!
    4. Your organization doesn’t seem to understand who’s accountable for its Right to Operate!
    5. … Or that it’s not the person opening the mail!
    6. … Or that they need to put in place the processes and controls to ensure that!

    For concrete example of actions that you might take, I offer up how my husband’s small business does this. Although it’s not a charity, his business has very specific things things that have to be done on very specific timeframes to protect its Right to Operate. Things like business licenses, estimated taxes, business insurance, renewals for regulatory certifications, etc.

    1. They have a Google Calendar called “Legal / Regulatory / Tax” that is shared with all 3 people in their Tiny Business. If the things on this calendar aren’t done, they risk their Right to Operate. The due dates themselves are entered, but there are also reminder dates for when they need to start action / look out for the thing. September 15th says “Estimated Taxes due”, so today says “Prep Estimated Taxes”, and tomorrow says “File Estimated Taxes”.

    2. They have a Google Calendar called “Cash Flow” that is also shared with everyone. (In a larger company, this would be in their accounting system, but this is Tiny Business and their “accounting system” is a Google Sheet.) It has dates for when invoices should be sent, when payment for those invoices are due, when bills are expected, when those bills are due, etc.

    Your organization’s processes and checks and balances don’t have to be complicated. It can be as simple as a shared calendar. The larger challenge may be in clarifying accountabilities.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      I think this is key. It sounds like a very small organization, so they probably just talked things out and trusted each other. But that has no accountability built into it. You have to document things, and you have to make sure that the people who need access to those documents actually do. You don’t need a complicated system, but you do need a system.

  61. Bigender Rep*

    LW3: I’m bigender (she/he) in a blue state in a welcoming area with a job where I know it would be safe to be out. I still go entirely by my birth gender at work. This is mostly because it’s simpler for me, my gender shifts from day to day and it’s easy enough to just stick with what will be less hassle for everyone (including me). The other reason is because I don’t necessarily want everyone to know that much about my personal life and potentially judge me for it.

    I’m comfortable enough being treated as my birth gender and it would add unwanted hassle to come out, so I just don’t. I’m happy with things as they are and I’d probably be annoyed if someone outed me at work.

  62. overcaffeinatedandqueer*

    #3- the teacher may also have changed their/his mind (how current is the online information?)

    I did use they/them more often before and have not updated my online information to reflect that I no longer really do.

    An exploration of self and gender should also include the chance to go back to or use one’s birth gender. IME, I’m just me before I’m a pronoun, and as I get older they seem less important. (Who says a woman can’t be butch or unusual and still be a woman?)

  63. Gudrid the Well Traveled*

    LW 2: the USPS has a free service called “informed preview” where you get advanced notice of who is sending you mail via email. This could be a great way to keep tabs on a box that doesn’t get much mail.

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

      Actually its called informed delivery and I just checked and bussinesses can sign up just like people can

  64. Pretty as a Princess*

    OP1 got a lot of good feedback but I wanted to throw in: You seem to equate “having direct conversations about difficult subjects” with “being the jerk” – which to me reads as though your default state is combat. Everything you said in your post seems to be from the expectation that every interaction is a *fight* instead of a conversation. You’re talking about “being a jerk” to customers? “Picking a fight” ?

    Is every interaction in your workplace really combative from a cultural perspective? Because from the way your boss gave you feedback – it does not read as though your workplace cultural norms are this constant dog eat dog combat. I would encourage you to sit back and reflect on why you are always in this combative stance. You don’t need to be a “jerk” that rides off into battle at the drop of a hat in order to be an advocate for your team and your work. In fact, seeing everything as a fight does the exact opposite of what you’ve said is important to you. Why is everyone your opponent?

    I have been in situations where I have had to say to someone that my team needed to push back on a deadline, etc. Instead of saying “I’ll pick that fight” my perspective is “I’ll raise that question” or “I’ll see if we can get some relief on that” or “I’ll meet with Joe about it and I will be accountable for it.” I have had the conversation about “so and so senior leader will be angry about that” – and I respond with “I understand the priorities are in tension, and I’ll own those consequences.” The term “pick a fight” explicitly states that you are *intending to provoke a conflict* rather than *work to solve an issue.*

    OP1 I know you care about your team and I want you to be successful. But it is really time to do some deep reflection – about your overall perspective and what you value. I speak from personal experience working for someone who approached every interaction this way and spoke the same way that you do in your letter. He always positioned himself as “I’m fighting the fights for all of you, everyone’s against us, don’t worry I will defend you, I’ll pick fights with xyz…” and he was really sarcastic and snarky in a lot of interactions. But hey, he “went to the mat for us”, right? It was EXTREMELY toxic and most people in it didn’t realize exactly how bad it was for a long time afterward. Instead of building collaborative relationships to work toward goals, instead of treating other people with respect (both to their faces and behind their backs), he primed EVERYONE in his team to EXPECT a fight. To EXPECT people to be coming at them. And you know what? We couldn’t bring the right expertise to the table to build solutions. Because no one could be trusted. Everyone else did crappy work. If they gave us feedback, they were of course huge jerks whose work sucked. The consequences of stuff like that in the long term are devastating.

    1. Jennifer Strange*

      You seem to equate “having direct conversations about difficult subjects” with “being the jerk”

      THIS! It is very possible to push back on something while still being civil. I’ve found that, when approaching a disagreement, I’m better off approaching if from a place of “These are my concerns, how can we address them/keep them in mind?” rather than a place of “I am right about this and I will PROVE IT TO YOU NOW!”

  65. Lacey*

    LW1, you remind me of one of my mom’s bff’s.

    She’s a lovely, kind woman who always wants to help. And always knows the best way to help.
    And while she often is helpful – she can’t tell the difference between when she is helpful and when she’s trampling other people’s ideas, work, or goals. Or when she’s being funny versus when she’s being insulting.

    And sometimes, people push back on that. Which is devastating to her.
    All she wanted was to help. Why are people angry?

    She may very well cry.
    I’m going to let you know, that just comes across as manipulative and… it sounds like that’s exactly what you intended it to be.

    But it just makes people angry that someone thinks they can push them around and be rude and then ALSO be the person who is hurt by it. You can’t have that.

    And I like this woman. I think she genuinely is well intentioned – but she doesn’t have the capacity to see skill.

    1. Lacey*

      The end got muddled –

      She doesn’t have the capacity to see how she’s affecting others. She’s never learned that skill and I think it will help you if you learn it.

    2. Peanut Hamper*

      The crying comes across as very passive-aggressive. It makes it about the aggressor, rather than the victim.

      I admit I kind of bristled at OP’s first sentence: “Yesterday, I had the rare honor of crying in front of my boss.” That’s not an honor, unfortunately.

      I think OP is probably overworked and needs a break, quite frankly.

      1. RVA Cat*

        This. I feel like there’s a vicious circle of burnout and taking on problems that aren’t theirs. A lot of things can fall into place if your Stay. In. Your. Lane.

      2. bamcheeks*

        I think that’s probably an example of exactly the kind of sarcasm/irony that they think is their natural style– but that’s not necessarily what’s coming across!

  66. Peanut Hamper*

    LW #2: You need to look into poka-yoke. It’s a Japanese term that means “error proofing” and it’s used a lot in manufacturing. I used to be in charge of implementing these at my old job (and wish I were in charge of implementing them in my current job) and it can probably give you some ideas of how to build checks into your system so this kind of thing does not happen again.

    This could be something as simple as a whiteboard with a section for tasks that need to be done weekly. When a task gets done, a magnet gets moved from the “not done” column to the “done” column. Anybody walking by can see which tasks still need to be done for the week.

    At the end of the week, you catch up on anything that hasn’t been done, and then move all the magnets back to the “not done” column.

    Your system doesn’t need to be complicated, but it needs to be something that is easy for people to see and understand.

    1. CommanderBanana*

      Maybe it was wet when it got put in? If it got rained on in transit and then sat in the box, could see it molding.

    2. Peanut Hamper*

      If nobody looked at it for five months, it’s possible it got damaged and never repaired or replaced in that time.

      1. Two-Faced Big-Haired Food Critic*

        Ah, I see. Was thinking of DH’s and my P.O. box, which is inside a building. If our box got damaged, it would have to be because of fire or flooding or some problem in the building. And then *everyone* who has a box there would lose their mail, not just us!

      1. GythaOgden*

        Mailboxes aren’t watertight. Mail isn’t supposed to be stored in them for very long, because most people would check it every day. (Here in the UK it’s more common to have letterboxes in the front door, meaning everything comes inside immediately, but I know the US mailbox is a venerable institution and since I’m refurbishing the porch at some point, I might get one that attaches beside the door for myself.)

        And mould…don’t get me started. I had to replace a lot of crockery a few weeks ago when I went away for four days in hot, humid weather and forgot to run the dishwasher before I left. I had to run it three times (twice empty with cleaning fluid) before nothing came out mouldy, and I lost a colander that, while not anything posh, had been with me ever since I moved out of my parents’ house ten years ago.

        I also know not to put bread in my parents’ wooden breadbin. Enough stuff has gone there to die that I’m not sure they’ll ever get the spores out; it therefore tastes like soil even if you can’t see anything wrong with it.

        In summary: mailboxes aren’t built for long term storage. Any moisture at all will allow mould to flourish and then it’s a complete nightmare to get rid of.

    5. Coverage Associate*

      I worked a desk job related to construction, and buildings are designed to protect against rain coming from the side in strong winds, but mailboxes aren’t. Ours has a door like a bathroom stall, but of course much smaller, in that wind blown rain could get in around the edges. In an enclosed space, it wouldn’t take much water to wreck the paper inside.

      Also, any notice that the mail was no longer going to be delivered because the mailbox was full would go in the mailbox, so maybe there was both wet mail in the box and dry mail at the post office, which OP didn’t mention because it was safe and easy to pick up and relatively recent.

      No, the post office would probably not have connected a physical address with a PO Box for the same organization, unless it was a very small community.

  68. blood orange*

    OP #1 – I received similar feedback from a boss years ago, and I can honestly say it’s some of the best feedback I’ve received in my career in terms of the positive longterm impact. I haven’t changed who I am, but I have been able to (mostly successfully) become more diplomatic and come across less harshly. I believe it’s made what I say much more impactful.

    I don’t know if what Alison has advised rings true at all for you, but if it does I wanted to reassure you that you can still be a peacemaker (or advocate) if that’s what you want, while making small changes to the delivery.

  69. Margaret Cavendish*

    Oh, ouch – OP2, that’s a tough situation. I can only imagine what you must be feeling right now.

    You found a process that had a single point of failure, and it turned out to be a catastrophic one. So obviously that process needs to be fixed. But I wouldn’t assume that’s the only one! Chances are you have other processes that could cause other problems as well.

    My advice would be to look at everything, end-to-end and top-to-bottom, and see what needs to be fixed. I don’t know what your budget is like, but ideally this should be done by an outside person – I’m sure there are consultants that specialize in this kind of work. Not because you couldn’t do it yourself, but because you’re too close to everything – you need an outsider with fresh eyes, who can see past “we’ve always done it this way and it’s always been fine.”

    Good luck, I hope you can get this all sorted soon!

  70. toolegittoresign*

    LW2 — I lost a job once because I made a huge oversight like this. I was really burnt out, struggling and messed up royally. Just reading your letter made me feel sick with guilt all over again, something that happens any time I think about it. Please know that this will probably haunt J forever, like my screwup haunts me. It doesn’t make anything better for your nonprofit, but if you feel like someone needs to be punished for it, know that J’s guilt and shame over it is likely a life sentence. I’m so sorry this happened.

  71. Peanut Hamper*

    I work with a lot of very young people who are just out of college and for whom many this is their very first job. I go out of my way to avoid any hint of ageist language when I communicate with them. They are grown adults working in a professional role and deserve to be treated as such.

    Saying that you are not a child implies that other people you work with are. I get why the assistant was peeved.

  72. ijustworkhere*

    LW #1 I think you are missing the point here. Your interactions are unprofessional. Stick to the issues–being the “team jerk” or using sarcasm to make a point is not appropriate in a workplace. Sarcasm is never appropriate in a workplace, in my opinion. And it sounds like you inserted yourself into an issue that wasn’t even your business to begin with.

    This kind of behavior can come from feeling insecure, a need for attention, or a need to be right all the time. None of those play out well in a workplace or serve you well professionally. You’re covering up a deeper feeling with this kind of behavior. Do some work on what this behavior is keeping you from feeling or addressing in yourself and it will help you a lot.

    I am speaking from experience here and I truly wish you well.

  73. Ginger Cat Lady*

    Exactly. I’m so OVER the “It was just a JOKE” being used as an excuse for rudeness and bad behavior. OP learn to rein in your “big and sarcastic sense of humor” because I promise you no one thinks you are as funny as you do.

  74. SO Tired*

    LW #1 — you sound TIRED. You sound like you’ve been spackling over the cracks of no team lead/peacemaking/problem-solving for a long time, and some non-work appropriate coping mechanisms are starting to crop up.

    I think you need to apologize to your boss’s assistant but I also think this is a sign that putting in as much effort as you are is burning you out — and possibly preventing your office from facing the consequences of understaffing/constant crises.

    I am talking to myself a little bit here too — but one thing I’ve been doing is, if I get an email or an IM and find myself wanting to have a big sarcastic jokes response, I set a 10-15 minute timer, deliberately do other work, and then aim for my response to be either extremely banal OR just sound exhausted. Exhausted is a better way to sound than sarcastic.

  75. Daisy-dog*

    #2 – I think there can be a lesson learned from the update yesterday. Even though that LW was dealing with a self-proclaimed micromanager and in very bad situation, I think it’s logical that an employee who is not doing well in their job likely has some discomfort with asking for help/admitting they haven’t done things.

  76. Reed Weird (they/them)*

    LW 3 – As a nonbinary person, use the honorific and pronouns that Mr Michael told you to use. We don’t always use the exact same set of pronouns for all audiences. I used they/them in my personal life only until I was sure it would be safe to be out at work, and until then I would have been freaked out and annoyed if one of my coworkers told me they Googled me, would I like them to call me something else? Even if they had the best intentions, if I say yes, I now have to rely on them being able to remember to call me “she” around other people or they accidentally out me to everyone.

    Besides, it can be a personal thing to decide who gets to call you what. You don’t want your coworkers or customers calling you pet names like your partner, right? Or maybe you have a nickname that only your parents and siblings call you, and it would be unpleasant to have someone ask if they can call you that. Heck, in a teaching context, the teacher can choose to go by Mr./Ms./Mx. Lastname or Mr/Ms/Mx L or whatever combination of those.

    1. Bast*

      This is a fair comparison. I not only have a nickname that is only used by close family and childhood friends (nothing too crazy or intimate sounding, but think Katherine being called Kate). I usually introduce myself as Katherine, and if someone takes it upon themself to call me Kate, I am annoyed. I am not Kate to you, which is why I introduced myself as Katherine.

      I am also bisexual, and not everyone knows. It isn’t always relevant everywhere. No one at my current or past job has known, and I’m not sure I’m entirely comfortable with it coming out at work. People assume I am straight because I am married, and I roll with it. If someone really went digging and found that information out somehow, I wouldn’t want them to bring it up at my place of employment.

  77. Overthinking It*

    Regarding the mailbox situation. LW says it was “a few weeks” after J. left that the mailbox was finally opened and the disaster was discovered. WHY wasn’t someone assigned this task immediately upon J’s departure? It sounds like this task was was so low priority that it just slipped off everyone’s radar. The result was a major screw up (with disastrous consquences) true, but it doesn’t seem fair to put it ALL on J. (to the point of trying to have her federally prosecuted!).

    In order to be a good manager (and a good person) you need to examine your conscience and be willing to share the blame with the organization’s culture -at least internally – rather than scapegoating a fired employee.

    And if J. truly LIED about checking the box, rather than just forgetting it, and saying “I haven’t gotten to it yet” when asked, I’d see that as evidence of a thoroughly cowed underling terrified of being scolded by a harsh master. (Or maybe when she said she “checked the mail” she just meant she checked the PO box.)

    Don’r defensively direct all the blame outward. (Though you may need to do that outwardly, in pleading with the authorities )

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

      “it was “a few weeks” after J. left that the mailbox was finally opened and the disaster was discovered. WHY wasn’t someone assigned this task immediately upon J’s departure?”
      I can see a mail box that isn’t a priority not being checked every day, and only checked a few weeks.
      “And if J. truly LIED about checking the box, rather than just forgetting it, and saying “I haven’t gotten to it yet” when asked, I’d see that as evidence of a thoroughly cowed underling terrified of being scolded by a harsh master. ”
      That is a big stretch. A problematic employee is going to lie. There’s no evidence that the OP was harsh or anything. Heck it sounds like she wasn’t harsh enough. Putting her on a PIP but not checking tasks were done (Like checking both mail boxes).

      1. Observer*

        I can see a mail box that isn’t a priority not being checked every day, and only checked a few weeks.

        Not when it’s a mail box used by regulators, government agencies and apparently some donors / funders!

  78. Hedgehug*

    LW2
    That really, really sucks. But, I’m wondering, were those cheques expected? Or just pure donations? Because if they were expected then why was no one in accounting wondering, hey, where’s that money we’re supposed to get, etc. It’s also curious that the issuers of those cheques never once poked you guys to cash them. Anyway, not your fault and like Alison said, you definitely don’t deserve it, but this was a learning experience for sure,

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

      I’m wondering if the problem employee was also the one who would have handled those calls.

  79. Head Sheep Counter*

    LW#1 – I have so much empathy. I am willing to confront when forced and sarcastic. It feels good to fight a good fight for what we perceive as the good thing. And chances are you have stuck up for the underdog and they did appreciate it. However, it can’t be an every day every interaction default position. That it might be speaks to the dysfunction in your organization. Lay that fight down. Step away. Its time for the organization to figure its self out and frankly that may mean changes that don’t reward you and feel in fact like “punishment” for all the work you did in the gap. Next time, fill less of the gap. Its ok. Either the gap will become untenable and they will fix it or fail or someone else will step up. The reason I suggest this… is because work needs to matter less to you. Currently, it matters more to you than it does to your work (thus the gap).

    I hate feedback that lands on something that feels like my personality. Even if I need it. It hurts. It feels unrecoverable, because… its you… your personality (or at least a piece of it). I’m going through this right now. I feel bruised and super self-conscious. But I needed the feedback and in the future I need to make space for further feedback (I’ve a double dose of sarcasm and an inappropriate sense of humor). You can recover. You can acknowledge your mis-steps.

    1. Ceanothus*

      You’re absolutely right about feedback on something that feels like your personality — it’s extremely painful to hear, and difficult to take neutrally.

      You’re also right about the organization needing to figure itself out — if there’s a problem, the scope of the problem needs to become apparent for it to be effectively addressed.

  80. Ex-prof*

    #3– The school may be open-minded as an organization, but some of the parents undoubtedly aren’t. Mr. Michael has decided they prefer to go about their business without getting into fights with parents about their identity. Or having the parents complain to administration and making it even more of a hassle, with local tv news camped out on the playground etc etc.

  81. carrot cake*

    #2: “Among the junk were some significant pieces of mail, including checks due to us totaling $25,000+. We are trying to get those reissued. Worse, there were multiple letters from our state’s charitable registration office requesting documentation. When we did not reply, our state charitable status was revoked and we cannot legally solicit funds as a charity until we are reinstated. We have sent in the documents and are in the process of re-registering for charitable status. We don’t know if this will take weeks or months, and I have not been able to reach anyone at the registering office who can tell us. As a nonprofit relying on donations, this is potentially devastating.”
    ——-

    If the stakes are this high should things go wrong, why not put the responsibility on a manager or higher up?

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

      I thought this too but re reading the letter the OP runs the non profit. They are the ones with the responsibility and there is no one higher up.

  82. e271828*

    LW1, you seem to be bringing an exhausting level of emotional involvement and personal baggage to work. Is it leading you to over-identify with the workplace and see yourself as the only savior there?

    Do you have a lot of anxiety in other areas? Have you sought counseling for that or considered doing so?

    Step back and grey-rock at work for a while. Go to work, do your assigned job well, and go home. Do not anoint yourself team leader pro tem. Do not throw yourself on real or imaginary grenades. Do not assume you need to manage conflict for anyone else. Do not assume the company’s problems are your responsibility to solve. This is not a movie, you are not the main character, you don’t have to rush around monitoring and intervening everywhere.

  83. H.Regalis*

    LW1, what the heck is going on that you even need your boss to do damage control?

    Did your coworker want you to push back on the deadline? Did he tell you that he thought it was arbitrary and unfair? Did the two of you even talk about this at all before you went off on the assistant about it?

  84. Jay (no, the other one)*

    It also depends on cultural context. I’m Jewish and I grew up in the NYC area and sarcasm is my first language. When I moved to CA, I had a really hard time until I realized that it wasn’t how people out there related to each other. People thought I was just flat-out mean.

    Now I live in eastern PA and it’s a sort of in-between culture. I can be sarcastic with some people some of the time. I am very careful at work because I’ve gotten the same feedback as the OP. And I’m a cis woman which makes it worse – men can get away with more of it.

  85. Springer*

    LW1 comes off to me as a very arrogant, attention seeking person who gets off on feeling superior to others (including management) and perceives themselves as the big tough guy hero on their team who wants recognition and credit for solving problems that may not even be their business in the first place. To pride yourself on being a jerk who seemingly relishes initiating conflict to solve problems but then can’t take feedback from your boss without crying is quite a contradiction and makes you seem manipulative and lacking in self awareness. If you really care so much about helping your team, stop making it all about you and your ego and do the right thing by listening to your boss and learning to respect other people’s positions and boundaries.

  86. Sarah Canofcoke*

    #3: I think the answer is in your question: this is a Preschool teacher, so the kids are 3ish to 5ish. They’re starting to learn pronouns and how to use them “she said,” versus “her said” etc… and I think it shows good insight on “Mr. Michael’s” part to not confuse them while learning they = more than 1 friend/whatever. Learning that “they” means non-binary can be learned through time and experience as they’re a little older and get that words aren’t always just one thing–just like people! Let Mr. Michael be Mr. Michael and just be kind.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      I agree with the spirit of your comment, but this is just not the case. It’s not about learning to define genders (which little kids are generally fuzzy about anyway), but about learning to describe people the way they want to be described, and that is something that small children are definitely capable of learning.

      Definitely agree with your last sentence, though!

  87. Hawk*

    LW3: If you want to indicate your support for trans and queer people, one good way to do it would be to purchase children’s books about LGBTQ people and donate them to your child’s classroom. There are so many wonderful children’s books about LGBTQ people, and these books are one of the first targets of book bans. Ask Mr. Michael first if he accepts book donations and then bring a few in. This has the added benefit of being helpful to any LGBTQ kids in the class, or kids from LGBTQ families who might want to read a book with a family that looks like their own!

  88. Sarah Canofcoke*

    For number 2: As long as the checks are still legible, they should be cashable for 6-12 months. 180 days is standard but some places will permit up to a year. I am surprised though that nobody called to say “Did you recieve my check? I’m balancing my accounts and it hasn’t cleared in 3 months.” Also, not to beat up on you anymore than you already feel, it sounds like you guys considered that a “junk” mail box/throwaway stuff, but if your reaccreditation information and checks are going there, it needs to be reframed as an IMPORTANT THING TO CHECK daily on a checklist. AND have 2 people doing it, or some other sort of check/balance. Ugh what a hard lesson to learn. I’m so sorry you went through this.

    1. CityMouse*

      If the organization was specifically asked and declined to reissue check, responding by cashing the original is going to be a really bad idea.

      1. Sarah Canofcoke*

        I think you missed my point which was that there’s no need to ask them to re-issue the checks if they are still legible and within that 180 day or so limit. I am in no way ever said if they refuse to send you another one try and cash the first one.

        1. CityMouse*

          It sounds like LW had lost checks and asked for them to be reissued and then found them later? But at this point LW definitely shouldn’t be cashing checks.

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

      I process the checks at my job and most if not all have a 180 day limit. I can imagine checks for donations or groups would too,

      1. Peanut Hamper*

        I used to work at a bank and the rule was that unless the check said otherwise, checks were good either 1) forever, or 2) 180 days max. I can’t remember which.

        But LW says this box wasn’t checked for five months, which would be right around 153 days. If legible, they should still be able to be deposited.

  89. Take advantage of a thank you email*

    For #5, on the email that you were CCd on, I would send a “Thank you, I’ve submitted my application through X and if there is anything else needed please let me know.”
    The reason is it sounds like they think you have the action item and are waiting for the application. You don’t where this person falls in the process and if you have already been screened out, they may think you haven’t applied yet. This let’s them know they should see your application and if they don’t then something is wrong and follow up is required. It also establishes some contact with you and makes them feel more connected.

  90. NotARealManager*

    LW1,

    If you were my employee, child, or student, my first thought would be “something is going on with LW1, I hope they’re okay.” It sounds like you’ve been holding on to a lot for a while and it’s coming out in non-productive ways. Your boss is right to point out your comments and behavior are rubbing people the wrong way, so you need to address that. But you also need to address what’s causing the sarcasm and pushback to be your default stance. Most work does not need this level of confrontation.

  91. Brain the Brian*

    I sincerely hope LW2’s organization has directors’ and operators’ insurance (many small nonprofits skip this at their own peril). If they don’t make payroll or are unable to fulfill contract / grant responsibilities due to cashflow problems, they may be held personally liable in court for failing to manage the organization effectively — and only D&O insurance would protect against their personal assets being seized to make employees or clients financial whole again. I’m almost stunned at how bad a situation this is.

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Oh no, you’re the first to mention this, so I hope OP2 is still reading.
      If they do have insurance, check that the renewal notice isn’t one of the forgotten letters in the postbox, like the registration notice!

  92. Tricia Barnes*

    LW 1: Your boss told you this was a larger problem than one person, but you’re ignoring that because it just has to be his assistant. He told you to change the behavior and not apologize, but you’re going to apologize because that just has to fix it. It sounds like you have problems all the way around with recognizing authority and proper work ethics.

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

    #2 can your office sign up for informed delivery with USPS? I’m not sure if business addresses can sign up but home addresses can sign up and you get emails or texts with what is in your mailbox. If you can set it up to send emails to let you know theres important information.

    Also, is there a way you can make sure those important entities know to send documents to the other address.

  94. JPalmer*

    LW#2: This totally sucks and I’m sorry you’re going through it.

    I think there is maybe a broader learning lesson there about workers who get placed on PIPs deserve more oversight into what critical duties they are performing. Like if they are failing enough you need to discuss improvements and consequences, they’re failing enough to be a threat to the business. The mail doesn’t seem that important, but that’s probably because it has never been a failing function before.

    I’d also consider if the mailbox is leaking/in need of improvement if the mail got damaged in the (long) duration it was in there.

  95. Coverage Associate*

    As a donor to a lot of small non profits, 2 things.

    First, thanks for confirming my obsession watching my donor advised fund grants. From the time I recommend a grant to the time the donation check clears is usually 4 weeks. I have definitely been in situations where I am about to contact the fund manager or the non profit because it looks like a check is sitting in a mailbox.
    So I will stay on top of that.

    Second, can you not solicit, or can you just not provide tax benefits to donors? Itemization by individual donors is down following the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Even my high earner friends with mortgages often don’t itemize anymore. So many of your individual donors may be willing to provide bridge funding.

  96. Jamesy*

    #3, I absolutely agree you shouldn’t talk to the teacher or out them, but maybe this discovery sparks something in you to push for trans-inclusivity in the school?

    There are a few straightforward ways to advocate for this – e.g. if you’re comfortable with it including pronouns in your signature if you ever email someone at the school, suggesting there be sanitary bins in the men’s bathroom (which would also help trans students), seeing if the uniform policy if there is one is unisex, and if not advocating for it to be so, various things like that all make it easier for trans people to be out at work.

    And just to be clear, this isn’t for the purpose of making this particular teacher come out, but just to make the school a better place for trans people. It’s also worth thinking through how you talk about this stuff with your own kids— do they know that some people identify as different genders?

  97. Anonyone*

    If it actually came to a court case, (which I doubt), Jane is likely to say that she was not aware of that second mailbox, or wasn’t trained appropriately, or didn’t know she had access to it, or wasn’t aware it was part of her job descriptions.

    How are you going to refute that in court? Can you actually prove she was trained? Knew she had access? Was aware it was her job?

    Or what if she just said she forgot it was her job?

    You’ve already fired her, what does she have to lose? You and your office are going to look incredibly incompetent publicly by pursuing this. And for good reason.

  98. Rincewind*

    Re: Mr. Michael. TL;DR – just leave it alone and keep referring to him the way he’s asked you to. I’m sure he has his reasons, or it’s just for convenience and that’s okay too.

    Longer response:
    I identify as non-binary trans masculine. I use they/them and he/him interchangeably socially. My wife calls me her “partner” rather than “husband” and I prefer it. However, I have never and likely will never bring that up with extended family, my parents, or my employer. It’s not worth it to me. My presentation is generally masculine with a twist (bright colors and patterns, earrings + goatee, dyed hair, that sort of thing) and most people just default to male pronouns. Having to out myself in every conversation with a new person (which is all the time, there’s hundreds of people in my office) sounds EXHAUSTING.
    Plus, being referred to with male pronouns/honorifics doesn’t bother me, but being referred to with the female version would hurt. And since it’s not uncommon for people to mentally label female-assigned non-binary people as “women lite” or “women but”, I have serious concerns that identifying at work as non-binary will result in people forgetting the “masculine” part.

    English doesn’t have a good gender-neutral honorific. Mx. Michael is awkward and would require frequent explanations, and draws attention to the situation. I suppose if you wanted to make a change, school-wide they could use “Teacher” instead of Mr/Ms/Mrs but that would require a full shift by everyone involved. I’m sure Mr. Michael has chosen the title that works best for him/them.

  99. Moose*

    I’m late to the party but LW1 if you’re still here, this is what stood out to me: once you found out the deadlines were coming from your boss, instead of immediately politely ending the conversation and going directly to the source, you turned your sarcasm on the person with the least amount of power in the situation. Once the boss has set the deadlines, there’s nothing the assistant can do. It’s not their decision. But you turned your admittedly abrasive “sense of humor” on them anyway.

    That’s honestly a pretty big problem and takes you out of “defending your team” territory and potentially makes you a bully. If this doesn’t sound like the person you want to be, maybe it’s time to really dig in deep and figure out where your often sarcastic words are coming from. It doesn’t sound like you’re operating on this team in a healthy and functional manner and it may be time to do some introspection into why.

  101. Paisley*

    Regarding the teacher at school, I agree with everyone else to follow what they use at the school already. But this brought up a question in my mind. I know the non-gendered pronouns they/them, but I realized that I don’t know what the non-gendered version of Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss is? In a formal situation where they are using last names like Mr. Smith or Ms. Johnson, does anyone know what the non-gendered version would be?

  102. bug*

    Oh hey on #3 I’m also a nonbinary teacher that uses they/them personally and he/him and Mr. professionally. The “I am a cisgender man” is just kinda part of the Mr Teacher persona at this point and it’d feel weird to have that challenged, even if it’s well meaning. Politically it’s also kinda a scary time to be trans in childcare/education

  103. Also at a small nonprofit*

    #2 OP, some of these comments are wild. Obviously you know there are things you need to put in place. But the fact that you’re a small nonprofit and actually aware of and concerned about being in compliance with charitable solicitation registrations…this is more than a lot of other small organizations can say so kudos for that.
    I would call (and document it) or email the offices, explain the situation, and take care of it. In addition to a better mail checking system, put in systems where if any kind of expected renewal letter isn’t received/scanned by a certain date then a flag goes up (in my experience they sometimes don’t even mail a request for additional info, they just wait for you to notice the renewal never happened). I consulted with a few people when my org was trying to navigate all the state laws to determine where and when we needed to register, and they all said that as long as you’re operating in good faith and take steps to correct a mistake, you’ll be fine. You might have to pay a late fee.
    Good luck!!

Comments are closed.