coworkers won’t help me cut expenses, colleague owes me money, and more

by Alison Green on October 4, 2024

I’m off for a few days. Here are some past letters that I’m making new again, rather than leaving them to wilt in the archives.

1. My coworkers won’t help me cut expenses

A few months ago we received an email from the Big Boss (head of our business unit) that we are entering a “cost cutting” exercise due to business needs and they need everyone to make efforts to ensure our costs/expenses are “as close to zero as possible.”

I’m in an internal role that doesn’t deal with contracts, purchases, software licensing, travel, etc. so there’s only a limited amount I can contribute to that cost cutting. But I’ve done what I can — e.g. I walked five miles with heavy equipment rather than take public transport which the others did. I “forgot” to claim for overtime payments that I should/could have claimed (not in U.S. so those laws don’t apply), didn’t claim mileage for driving two hours out of my way multiple times, etc. It’s galling every month the department admin sends out the emails asking for “overtime forms” and “travel expenses” and I know I have a lot I could claim and don’t.

We have to work late a couple of times a month due to client deadlines (the company usually orders food in) and I’ve gone on “hunger strike” conspicuously refusing to eat or order, and working through while others eat the company-paid pizzas, etc. (we know in advance when we’ll have to stay late – why didn’t they bring their own food?!) because I don’t believe that’s a legit business expense. I’ve tried to convince the others but without success.

I’ve now asked to reduce my retirement contributions (matched by the company) which will save them thousands a year. I’ve indicated to HR that I want to opt out of the healthcare insurance at the next renewal date.

I’ve done pretty much everything I can at this point other than asking for a pay cut (which I could — I’m senior, single and have enough money but I realize this could affect my prospects in the future) but I’m becoming more and more resentful of coworkers who haven’t even considered the things I’ve done. They still submit overtime, travel expenses, etc. At some point we all have to pull together but I feel like I’m the only one pulling.

Whoa, you are making way too many sacrifices here. You should not be walking five miles with heavy equipment or not getting paid for time you worked, and conspicuously not having a slice of pizza isn’t going to make any practical difference. As for reducing your retirement contributions and opting out of health insurance (!!) — NO. Is it too late to undo that?

“Help us cut costs” means “watch for extraneous spending and be frugal with business expenses.” It does not mean “take on great personal sacrifice for the benefit of a company someone else owns.” What you are doing is way beyond the realm of anything that would be expected, some of it won’t even matter (the hunger strike), and the rest of it is so extreme as to be entering the realm of the absurd unless this is your own personal business and you get all the profits.

You should of course respect requests to watch expenses, but it’s actually not helpful to do what you’re doing because it creates a false idea of what various projects cost. It’s also going to look incredibly weird to your coworkers, especially when you pressure them to join you, to the point that it could reflect on your judgment long after this is over.

Leave your retirement account and your health care alone. Submit for the money that you’re owed. Quit the hunger strikes. Be responsible with expenses, and leave it there.

– 2019

Read an update to this letter here.

2. Inviting all coworkers except one to a personal party

I’m the manager of a small retail team, there are nine of us including myself, and we mostly get on really well. Recently we were struggling as we were understaffed and couldn’t find anyone suitable, so I took on the best candidate that had applied, let’s call her Sam. Even though she was far from ideal, we were really that desperate.

Although Sam’s performance hasn’t been great and she hasn’t integrated into the team at all, that’s not why I’m writing. Another of my team, Cat, has recently got engaged and is throwing an engagement party with her fiancé. Cat is excellent at her job, is well liked by everyone, and would like to invite the team, except for the fact that she cannot stand Sam and doesn’t want her there. I have a feeling I already know the answer, but is there a way to invite all but one of the team? (This isn’t a work event. It’s a personal event, but she’ll probably give out the invites when she sees us at work.)

Because it’s Cat’s own personal event outside of work, you can’t dictate who she does and doesn’t invite. But inviting everyone but one person is a pretty unkind act, and it has the potential to be a toxic act, by making Sam feel clearly excluded and making others feel that excluding Sam is now a thing that happens.

While Cat can invite anyone she wants to her private event and you can’t control that, you do have standing to point out the problem to her and ask her to consider handling it differently. You could, for example, say something to her like, “Inviting the entire team except one person is exclusionary and is the sort of thing that could impact the team dynamics here in a negative way. It will look like you deliberately singled out Sam, and that’s unkind, even if you don’t intend it that way. I’d ask you to take that into account when deciding how to handle your invitations.” And certainly if she proceeds with her plan, you can tell her she needs to keep it out of the office.

– 2018

3. My rude coworker owes me money and won’t pay me back

A coworker owes me a not insignificant sum of money and won’t pay me back. I realize it’s not wise to lend money to your coworkers but our situation was a little different in that I haven’t technically given her anything directly. Let me explain.

One of our office mates (we share an office with four other people) was celebrating a major professional accomplishment and invited us all over to her house. The Rude Coworker suggested we all spring for a nice gift for her and suggested a sum each of us should pay. I won’t give you the dollar amount since we’re not in the U.S., but it was about a week’s worth of groceries per person. It was quite a lot for my budget but I wanted to be a good friend to my friend, the celebrating coworker, and so I agreed. So the four of us agreed on a gift, and it so happened that it was available in an online store I have an account with, so I was the one who ended up ordering it. The other two coworkers paid me back immediately but the Rude Coworker didn’t. I asked her twice about it. The first time she said she didn’t have any money. I suggested she could pay me back with her next paycheck but we have since been paid, and still nothing. I asked her a second time and she said she didn’t have the money, in a bored and dismissive tone of voice. For context, she is well paid, wearing designer clothes and going on fancy vacations. She also buys takeout coffee every day. We are peers but because she’s so abrasive and at times bully-ish that most of our colleagues walk on tiptoes around her.

How do I get my money back? We do not really have a manager — we are all professionals who technically report to a coordinator but are left alone to do our work 99% of the time. I could really use the money right now, and it makes me really angry to essentially have to beg her to do the right thing.

Ugh, she’s being horrible. It’s possible that you may not get your money back because there’s no way to force her to pay you, but you can up your chances by being even more direct. Instead of just asking her for the money, say something like this: “Jane, that money was a week’s worth of groceries for me. I need you to pay me back as you agreed. Can you Venmo me right now?” If she says she can’t, then say, “I really need the money paid back; I have bills I need to pay. Can you pay it tomorrow?” And then you have this conversation with her every single day until she pays you back. There’s a decent chance that she’ll get sick enough of having to talk about it that she will, in fact, pay you back. (Right now, I think you’re using too light of a touch for the situation. You need to follow up on it every day; make it uncomfortable for her not to pay you back.)

If that doesn’t work, you can also try enlisting your other coworkers in shaming her. If all three of you sit down with her and say, “We agreed to each pay $X for a group gift, and Jane, we still need your contribution — it’s really unfair to stick to Miranda with the bill for your share,” she may be sufficiently shamed to actually pay you.

Jane sucks.

Read an update to this letter here.

– 2018

4. Explaining religious Plain Dress in a job interview

I have a question about interviews and my unusual clothing. I’m a member of a church that practices Plain Dress (think Amish or Old Order Mennonites). However, I’m interviewing for jobs where my clothing stands out. Most people have only seen Plain Dress during the obligatory Amish episode of their favorite TV series, and have a lot of wildly inaccurate ideas regarding people who dress like me.

Because of my beliefs, I won’t be showing up in traditional interview clothing, but my clothing is still businesslike. I’m worried that some will think I’m just dressed down. I also wear a hat, which I don’t remove. Do you have any suggestions for diffusing the situation without coming across as a “religious nutter”?

I’m actually not so concerned about you needing to explain your clothing, which still reads as fairly conservative. It’s the hat that I think you might need to explain, since it will stay on during the interview. For that, I think you could simply say, “I leave my hat on for religious reasons,” and that should be enough. Even if people aren’t familiar with Plain Dress in particular, they’re probably familiar with the idea of religious head coverings, and I think you should be fine from there.

And I don’t think you have to worry about the “religious nutter” thing. People will usually take their cues from you, and if you’re low-key and matter-of-fact about it, it shouldn’t be a big deal.

Read an update to this letter here.

– 2017

You may also like:
{ 266 comments }

{ 266 comments… read them below }

  1. Daria grace*

    I feel sorry for both the OP and their co-coworkers in letter 1. For the coworkers having someone deride them for not making unreasonable and/or unhelpful sacrifices constantly must be exhausting and add to the stress of a workplace that is not healthy. But also for the OP to have come to the point through bad role modelling, questionable advice or whatever else has gone on for them that they feel a required to do things that are harming them financially and even putting their own safety at risk by dragging heavy equipment is really sad.

    1. DJ Abbott*

      Yes, I hope they’re doing better now. That someone could be such a martyr is horrifying.

      1. Momma Bear*

        I remember that one. I hope OP took it to heart that they could be fiscally conservative but reasonable and/or got a different job.

        1. The Rafters*

          I believe OP did get another job, but otherwise sadly didn’t really take in Alison’s advice or any of the comments that people made in her first letter. She still blames former coworkers for not doing more to save the company,

            1. tangerineRose*

              Yeah, but I still feel sorry for the OP. Imagine living like that! Always having to be the martyr.

      2. Princess Sparklepony*

        In the follow up, they found another job but they learned nothing. They were still mad at co-workers for not lighting themselves on fire, they were second guessing what else they could have done to stop the layoffs that happened. They didn’t get laid off but half the department did. But then the work got added to the work the half still there was doing so it was miserable. That’s why they got another job.

    2. T.N.H*

      It seemed like she never realized that the things she was doing wouldn’t work. Even if everyone had refused pizza that would never add up to the equivalent of laying off half the staff.

      1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

        The update indicates s/he did not. When OP survived the first round of layoffs, s/he “controlled the urge to say I told you so.”

      2. ferrina*

        In the update, it sounds like OP knew factually that it wasn’t making a difference, but couldn’t let go of the “every little bit helps” mentality. I agree with other commentors saying that somewhere in their life, someone steered OP very wrong. OP isn’t advocating for their own needs and they aren’t recognizing their own worth (like lowering their retirement contribution to save the company money. Just….no).

        1. sheworkshardforthemoney*

          There may be a people pleaser hidden within her. It can have an insidious effect that may not be apparent for years. I worked for a “we’re all family” business. When my mother passed away I debated taking the time off for her funeral and the related activities. After I returned to work I realized that no one in my office had sent cards or flowers. Not a single person. A new job search began and even when they repeated that I was family and essential I still left. The business is still operating and I vowed never to sacrifice for anyone like that again. No one is going to remember the sacrifices made on the altar of “be a team player”.

      3. CityMouse*

        They were rearranging deck chairs in the Titanic (except potentially causing themselves serious harm in the process).

      4. Potsie*

        Meanwhile accepting the pizza allows the staff to save up for the inevitable layoffs. They did have an “every little bit helps” mindset but they were not trying to prop up an unviable company, they were trying to prepare to weather unemployment.

      5. Reality.Bites*

        Pretty sure the pizza wasn’t sent over on consignment after all. ;)

        What they didn’t eat was eaten by someone else or thrown out. Not one cent was saved.

    3. Miette*

      This was my reaction. Someone modeled very poor behavior/workplace attitudes for OP and it is actively harming them.

        2. MM*

          Oh, that would explain the level of magical thinking going on here wherein you exchange suffering and performed submission for reprieve, regardless of whether there’s any functional or logical connection between the two at all.

    4. Ann O'Nemity*

      Sad update. I fear the LW never grasped the lesson. They talked about digging deeper to understand their actions, but then finish with “I’m still disappointed that my coworkers held their hand out for pizza … almost as if they were still planning to take advantage of the company!”

      Years ago I worked at a nonprofit that needed to cut costs after a federal grant ran out. Someone suggested cutting coffee, but the Executive Director strongly disagreed, explaining that the annual cost of coffee was insignificant compared to the shortfall and it wasn’t worth the morale hit. She actually wanted to add more cheap perks to boost morale as we sunset a major program. It was a good lesson for me at the time.

      1. Baska*

        Agreed. At the (relatively small) nonprofit where I work, staffing costs are about 70% of our total expenses. Things like a monthly pizza lunch would barely even be a rounding error.

    5. Lurker*

      I also feel the same way-clearly OP has picked up some terrible advice about how these places should work that I hope they’re able to realize how faulty their way of thinking is (they can’t even let go of the employees accepting free pizza!!)

    6. KayDeeAye*

      I just felt so sorry for her and yet also so annoyed by her! Everything she did – and thought – was pretty much guaranteed to make a bad situation even worse and to make herself even more unhappy. I hope she’s in a better place now, both professionally and emotionally. But I agree that she needs to offload some of those self-harming beliefs, if she hasn’t done so by now. They are truly toxic.

    8. goddessoftransitory*

      Honestly, the song playing in my head reading that letter and her follow up was “Lookin’ For Love (In All the Wrong Places.)”

      This person had devoted an insane amount of her energy and well being into a company that did not–COULD not–love her back that way. It was like reading a modern, business version of Wuthering Height, where she’s Isabella Linton and the company is Heathcliff.

      I have a feeling she thinks there’s some Giant Committee in the sky somewhere recording all her sacrifices and somehow, someday, they’ll see how special and deserving she is. But the sad thing is that she’s already special and already deserving without this self-brutality.

  2. Rose Quartz*

    I want a post-COVID update to LW #1 so badly. So much about the workplace has changed in the last few years and I wonder how they handled it.

    1. allathian*

      Yes, absolutely. The comments to the original post and the update were rather hard on the LW, especially as it seemed that they were still stuck in an unhealthy way of thinking about employee responsiblity for decreasing company costs, so I don’t blame them for possibly not wanting to post another update.

    2. Kiitemso*

      I would honestly be surprised if they were still operating. The situation seemed dire pre-pandemic, the outsourcing they tried didn’t work, some of the work involved carrying equipment on public transport. If it was so dire that even a loyalist like OP got out of there, I think it would stand to reason they went under.

      I mean, I guess they might have saved money if they put all staff in WFH and shipped the equipment instead of staff dragging it around town? But something tells me this business was already dead in the water by 2019.

    3. Michigander*

      Yes, I’m very curious if her attitudes have changed in the last 5 years. She was giving herself way too much responsibility for the company’s future and I wonder if she still feels an overwhelming sense of loyalty and responsibility to her current employer or if she’s come around on the fact that an employer is just an employer and not someone that you need to swear lifelong fealty to.

      1. Antilles*

        Hopefully, OP has taken the time to reflect on this with the benefit of hindsight.
        If the company no longer exists, then OP’s noble sacrifices didn’t mean anything because the company still closed anyways.
        If the company does still exist, then they forgot OP about a month after she left, so all of OP”s noble sacrifices don’t mean anything because nobody remembers them anyways.

    4. ThatGirl*

      They had a new job per the update, as I recall. But yeah, I feel like that original company probably went under.

  3. Annie*

    For #1, the company may be partially to blame if they didn’t give guidance for the cost-cutting, e.g. “As part of this cost-cutting effort, we’re looking for the following types of suggestions: travel that can be scaled back, lower cost alternatives to X and Y used by the company, business process changes to reduce waste and better use company resources, etc.”

    I think LW1 was afraid they’d face adverse consequences for having nothing to show for a company cost-cutting effort and resorted to just doing whatever felt right even if it wouldn’t actually help due to (a) insufficient background knowledge to identify business processes that could be changed to reduce costs; (b) inability to suggest solutions more specific than, “There must be a better way than X”; (c) lack of pull within the company to get the cost-saving solution implemented.

    1. Pam Adams*

      And did we see company leadership cutting down on expenses or their own salaries? Instead, they allowed LW1 to make sacrifices for a business that wasn’t theirs.

      1. BellaStella*

        THIS. ^^^
        I absolutely abhor the lack of fairness in cases like this where crappy overpaid managers never do their parts.

        1. Boss Scaggs*

          But nobody should be doing what OP is doing here – lowest paid workers or mid level managers. I don’t think it’s about fairness in this instance – OP is just misguided in her efforts

          1. My Useless Two Cents*

            Beyond just misguided. Truthfully if I was in any kind of management position and I saw an employee doing what OP did, I would not look favorably. It shows a basic misunderstanding of professional and business norms and lack of boundaries that I personally see as a huge liability for the employer. It does not make you a good employee to martyr yourself for the company. It opens it up to charges of unethical employment practices and possibly even legal repercussions (like unpaid overtime if OP was in the US)

            And the whole walk 5 miles with heavy equipment vrs. taking public transit… I don’t know what OP makes but I can’t imagine that public transit costs more than twice OP’s hourly wage. (assuming it took 2 hours for OP to walk 5 miles, being average walking speed is 2-3 mph) My guess would be that a cost/benefit analysis would show that it cost the company more for OP to finish that task than for co-workers.

            1. Princess Sparklepony*

              You are assuming that she charged the company for the time to transport the equipment. Keep in mind that she wasn’t putting in for expenses or OT. My guess is that she did that on her own time. It would also play to her martyr complex, so it would be a win-win in her mind.

            2. carrot cake*

              “It does not make you a good employee to martyr yourself for the company.”
              —
              +1000000

      2. I should really pick a name*

        Allowed?

        I’d be surprised if they even realized what the LW was doing.

        1. londonedit*

          Agreed – I doubt the OP’s bosses had any idea what was going on. And the thing is, as came out in the update, ultimately it wasn’t the ‘little things’ like pizza that were the issue. The company had to lay off half of its staff. There was nothing the OP could have done on their level that would have mitigated that. And yet they still didn’t seem to understand – they mentioned wanting to say ‘I told you so’ to the people who were laid off, because they still believed that if only their co-workers had cut their own personal expenses like they had, they could have avoided being laid off. As if the bosses would have taken that into account! No amount of personal cost-cutting could possibly save the company enough money to continue to employ you if they literally can’t afford to pay your salary.

        2. ferrina*

          Yeah, no one was in a position to see all the things OP was doing. The benefits people might have noticed that she lowered her retirement contribution (but that’s not a given), but they would have assumed that was due to OP’s personal situation. The coworkers certainly noticed the “hunger strike” and carrying equipment on their own, but coworker has no standing to tell OP to stop.

          This is a case where OP was refusing to recognize or meet their own needs, and no one else could have (or had the responsibility to) stop OP.

        3. NotAnotherManager!*

          Our benefits team would have asked why LW1 was dropping healthcare coverage. I know they are not in the US, so this may not apply, but we can only change our healthcare coverage if there is a qualifying event – choosing to no longer participate is not one of those qualifying events outside the enrollment period. I can’t image, if asked, they have not given their martyr speech about cutting company costs, which would have been a great time for someone rational to intervene.

        1. ecnaseener*

          Did you nest this wrong? Pam didn’t make anything up. LW *did* make sacrifices for a business that wasn’t theirs, with no indication that senior leadership was doing the same.

          1. CTT*

            LW has no insight into what leadership was really doing though. They could have deferred salary or stayed late to work on solutions, or they could have sucked and kept running it into the ground, but to say that they were for sure not making sacrifices is assuming something we have no actual knowledge of.

            1. Boss Scaggs*

              I don’t think it matters though – the LW did not need to do any of this regardless of what management was or wasn’t doing

          2. SHEILA, the co-host*

            She made two assumptions, neither of which there is any evidence for. 1) Senior leadership didn’t do anything. 2) Senior leadership was able to see the sacrifices LW was making and understood why she was making them.

            1. ecnaseener*

              Sure, but we have to make assumptions based on what is and isn’t mentioned in the letter. That’s distinctly not the same thing as making things up.

              1. CTT*

                But that doesn’t change the advice to the LW. She still shouldn’t have been working unpaid overtime and rejecting insurance benefits, even if senior leadership was eating caviar every night while laughing at the employees.

                1. ecnaseener*

                  Okay? I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t help me understand why WellRed asked Pam not to “make up scenarios” when Pam simply did not do that.

      4. Antilles*

        I don’t see it as “allowed” here.
        First off, most of what OP’s doing isn’t even remotely noticeable; anybody who sees OP not eating pizza isn’t going to assume you’re not hungry / trying to cut carbs / whatever. Declining your health insurance is an HR function that runs through them, not through management. And the only thing people see of heavy equipment carrying is you walking in the front door with it; for all I know, you’re just carrying it 50 feet from the parking lot, not five miles across town.
        Second, are we sure that company leadership didn’t cut down on expenses? On a corporate level, “cutting expenses” means not backfilling positions, not purchasing new equipment, and skipping unnecessary travel. Given that OP describes their role as not involved in “contracts, purchasing, licensing, travel, etc”, I suspect that leadership *was* cutting down on these and OP just wasn’t aware of it.
        And third, literally nothing in OP’s email makes me think that they were even expecting employees to zero out their health insurance or refuse payment for overtime or anything like that. When a company says “get our expenses as low as possible”, that means discretionary expenses – not things like salaries and health insurance which are already built into the budget.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          Also, declining insurance doesn’t help the company financially if having a smaller pool of insurees makes the rate per insuree go up. Just take the insurance.

        2. SHEILA, the co-host*

          This. I have a feeling that, outside of OP shaming her co-workers for eating the pizza, that most of her actions went completely unnoticed. HR would have noticed the change in retirement funds, but generally that kind of stuff is considered confidential and names and specifics would not have been shared with leadership.

          1. Hey Now*

            She specifically mentioned in her original letter that she was trying to cajole her co-workers into following her lead by cutting out their benefits. She also complained about that in her update.

    2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      It’s interesting isn’t it, because OP does seem to understand the type of things in business that typically have room for cost cutting (they said “I’m in an internal role that doesn’t deal with contracts, purchases, software licensing, travel, etc. so there’s only a limited amount I can contribute to that cost cutting.”). I’ve worked in companies where huge amounts of money were being wasted on stuff like travel and software licences, e.g. not checking for a more cost-effective hotel (or could you travel back the same day), departments that had purchased their own software but the company actually already has an “enterprise” licence that would cover that department’s usage, etc etc. Mostly this kind of inefficiency can only be tackled “top down” by someone taking a look at the whole picture of patterns and trends on what’s being spent and where.

      But OP recognises that they don’t deal with things like software and travel that are ripe for cost saving initiatives, so seems to be casting around for things they can actually influence (maybe doesn’t want to feel like “I stood by and didn’t contribute”?). I presume if they don’t deal with software etc that their immediate colleagues don’t either? so probably the colleagues also don’t have the ‘opportunity’ to pick off cost saving actions in their own roles either. It’s like OP is yelling, by their own actions rather than saying it, “Don’t just stand there – DO SOMETHING!!”.

      I can understand, even if I don’t really agree, OPs frustration and disappointment. I think most of us have some experience in life where we’ve felt like we were the only one doing “enough” and that others are slacking off… if you’ve ever worked with an underperforming team-mate that no one will do anything about, it must be a similar sort of frustration.

      1. Archi-detect*

        Basically the same thing as the recycling guy the other day- they are overwhelmed by a massive problem they can’t directly do anything about so they dolve a little thing that causes a ton of stress for marginal results at best.

      2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        I do blame the company a little bit because it was a company wide email. Like why send it to people who have no control over costs? Sure the company had no way of knowing that OP would go overboard like she did. But still the message was one that should have been conveyed more to department managers who could do something.

        On the other hand, OP went bananapants on this. Even her attempts at so-called help weren’t really help. Carrying the heavy equipment, refusing already paid for pizza. that’s just waste, not savings.

        If you read the update, all OP seemed to learn from it is to not talk about it. When half the department was laid off, she wanted to say I told you that you should have sacrificed more, but didn’t say anything. So she still didn’t realize that the company was always going to outsource as a cost cutting measure no matter what she did.

        1. Michelle Smith*

          I don’t think the company did anything wrong by sending a company wide email. Respectfully, it is just not a normal reaction to do what the LW did in response and they probably didn’t anticipate anyone would do something so irrational. As an employee that has no real purchasing authority, I would still want to know that the company is looking for cost-cutting opportunities. It would help explain to me why, for example, I might not be approved to go to this year’s industry conference or why I might be asked to shoulder a larger percentage of my health insurance premiums. It’s also, of course, relevant information to know so that I’m not waiting until layoffs start to look for a new job.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            That makes sense. I’ve never worked anywhere big enough to have departments so I never thought of it that way.

            I totally agree no one would have anticipated the OP’s absolutely not reasonable response. Like you say, asking if going to a conference is still an option is a reasonable thing. Cutting your own health insurance, walking five miles (!!!!) with heavy equipment rather than take public transport is not.

        2. sheworkshardforthemoney*

          Academia is a different kind of nut. We received a campus wide email about cost-cutting because of budget shortfalls. However, our small department was already cut to the bone and there was nothing that anyone could do to find more cost cutting measures. At this point anything we did was performative and ineffectual. Like carrying heavy equipment 5 miles to save a few bucks on public transit.

          1. daffodil*

            It kind of reminds me of some (likely neurodivergent?) college students I’ve had that I make an in-class announcement that affects some students but not all, and this student has a whole emotional processing thing about how it doesn’t apply to them and what can they do etc. Sometimes I say things to everyone so everyone can hear me say them, not because everyone needs to respond in the same and most dramatic possible way. I think some people have a really hard time processing “I received this message but it isn’t really for me”

        3. Pelikan*

          “ I do blame the company a little bit because it was a company wide email. Like why send it to people who have no control over costs?”

          Eh I don’t think it’s at all unusual to receive that kind of an email, even if you’re at the bottom of the company totem pole. The LW’s neuroses are not the company’s problems to solve, quite frankly. If anything, getting that kind of an email lets your employees know that maybe it’s a good idea to update the ‘ol’ resume and start working your network—because you’re going to need it sooner rather than later.

          That LW was too ignorant and/or naive to realize that isn’t the CEO’s fault.

    3. Czhorat*

      I think this is how LW saw it, but I think that was her issue rather than the company’s.

      I legitimately feel bad for her.

  4. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP1 (cutting expenses – or not) I’m a big believer that people’s behaviour is always “internally” logical and consistent, even if from the outside it doesn’t seem so. OP didn’t really go much into their motivations here, unclear if they don’t really understand themselves, didn’t think it was relevant to the letter, or what. But I remember the original comments on this one, many of the commenters seemed to think it was crazy (in a colloquial sense). So I think – what would drive someone to do this? I think there are 2 possibilities here, OP may or may not know consciously which it is. Either it’s a kind of “performative” cost cutting, they want to show that they’re doing their part and/or show up others (or make others feel bad) for their own, lesser, “contributions” to this cost saving endeavour. Or they genuinely believe that it will make a difference, recognising (as I’ve often said on here) that there isn’t really a “the company” other than the aggregate actions of the people that make up the company. (Or it’s malicious compliance, which I don’t think so from the way OP has written).

    The easy answer, which is incredibly hard to put into practice for most people, is: only do what you can reasonably do. You can’t save the world. The trick is drawing the line of what’s reasonable — perhaps OP should have asked (the manager who sent that email, or their own manager or whatever) what is expected in that regard. It wasn’t stated but it seems to me that OP has a complete distrust of management, seeing things management say and do as a trick/trap/test. It may or may not be true, as we don’t know if the cost cutting succeeded or whether indeed it was so successful that they had multiple rounds of cuts…

    1. Ellis Bell*

      I appreciate that OP did their own reflection and soul searching here, but if I were a friend I would tell them to get some further assistance with that. Not because I think OP is unreasonable (they reached out for help here, and listened), but because I think they need different strategies for dealing with worries. Their reaction was to “feel like they’re doing something” and to sacrifice things (I thought the comparison to recycling was fascinating since we saw a letter about emotional recycling recently). It affected OP so much that it nearly affected others; even though it ultimately didn’t that’s not good for OP’s coping strategies.

      1. AMT*

        I agree (as a therapist who treats anxiety). This can’t be the only realm in their life in which they’re making that “problem exists —> sacrifice self —> I’m helping, good job, everything’s better!” chain of decisions. To get through life and not completely burn yourself out, you need to be able to allow a problem to exist, and let yourself have all the emotions you want about the situation, without doing extreme things to get rid of those feelings.

        2. Goldenrod*

          “To get through life and not completely burn yourself out, you need to be able to allow a problem to exist, and let yourself have all the emotions you want about the situation, without doing extreme things to get rid of those feelings.”

          I love this! So well articulated.

      2. Cj*

        you said they reached out for help and listened. but did they? unless it was a second update that I’m asked, it doesn’t look to me like they learned anything.

        2. Ellis Bell*

          That’s fair actually, I think they did the ruminations but still ended up with the same conclusion.

          1. Princess Sparklepony*

            The first update wasn’t a I realized I shouldn’t light myself my on fire. It was too bad others didn’t light themselves on fire to save the department. They got a little distance but not enough. They still wanted to tell the co-workers I told you so.

            I don’t think there was a second update where the scales fell from their eyes.

    2. Glen*

      I mean, LW1 was refusing to eat pizza that had already been bought and paid for as a “cost cutting measure”, which really doesn’t scream logical and consistent. I know when I get anxious my thoughts processes aren’t always logical and consistent, either.

      1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

        Had it already been bought and paid for? OP said that they were “conspicuously refusing to eat _or order_” (my emphasis) so it sounded to me like it went like this: someone (often it’s a project manager or admin who gets this task in my company) goes round the group who are working late, makes a list of the pizza requirements and then they order it on uber eats, go to pick it up or whatever. So I pictured OP refusing to order and then possibly other people felt sorry for OP and offered them some of their own (the other people’s) pizza, OP refused and said something like “how could you!”…

        1. Ellis Bell*

          In the update they said something like they relented on eating stuff that had already been paid for: ” I did quit the “hunger strikes,” etc. (in the sense that I stopped overtly sitting and rejecting the company-ordered pizza) since, as you said, people were quite resentful about that and said so (explicitly or almost). But I didn’t order anything for myself on the subsequent occasions this happened, and I’m still disappointed…” OMG OP …. It’s just pizza!

      2. All the shortbread*

        Yeah LW kept making references to the other coworkers “holding their hands out for pizza” in both the original letter and the update.” Which is (in my opinion) a weird, adversarial way to look at the very normal practice of your company ordering in food when you’re working late. Even in the update letter, the LW assumes that people who were laid off in the first round were chosen strictly by performance abilities and is annoying smug about it. There is just… *so much* to unpack with the LW’s overall mindset to life.

        Honestly, she and the environmental guy from the other day should work together—that would be less two people to drive other coworkers up a wall in a company.

        1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

          > the LW assumes that people who were laid off in the first round were chosen strictly by performance abilities

          For all the stuff that was ‘crazy’ in the letters, that part doesn’t stand out to me — isn’t it typical that the company would decide who to keep based on performance? So if you have 5 software engineers (my field) for a product and need to reduce it to 2, you’d look at the 5 people you have and make a determination based on who can contribute the most (= perform best) in the post-layoff world, right? In the UK where I am, what would happen in this example is the 5 people would be put “at risk” and informed that there would only be 2 software engineer roles and that 3 of the roles are to be made redundant. Then there would be a selection process for the 2 remaining roles, which could be “you interview for the job” or a matrix/criteria based selection; it has to be “objective” (but of course, if an employer is determined to fiddle things they can massage the criteria appropriately). One of the most important “criteria” is surely how well you are able to do the job — whether or not there’s a formal legal requirement where OP is — what other basis would you decide who to make redundant?

        2. MK*

          What particularly struck me about that part was the mental disconnect that allowed OP to ignore that the company was choosing to continue the perk of paying for the food when employees had to work late. That was obviously an expense that was within the purview or management to cut… and they didn’t.

        3. Darury*

          “Honestly, she and the environmental guy from the other day should work together—that would be less two people to drive other coworkers up a wall in a company.”

          Ok, I admit it.. that made me snort.

        4. Joana*

          Not only did she assume that the laid-off workers were purely or almost purely because they were the lowest performers, she also said that “none of them had gotten new jobs.” Which… I severely doubt! As one commenter said in the update, OP is kind of an unreliable narrator so while we’re supposed to believe and trust the LWs here, I’d take a lot of what she says with a grain of salt.

          1. Hlao-roo*

            In fairness to the letter-writer, she wrote that “Unfortunately most of the laid-off people who I am in contact with still don’t have new jobs to go to” (emphasis is mine). That’s a fair bit different than “none of the 40 or so people who were laid off have new jobs.”

            1. Worldwalker*

              True. The number of ex-employees might be 2 or 3. I don’t think I’m still in contact with anyone from any former job.

      3. Goldenrod*

        They also judged – out loud, verbally – their coworkers for eating the pizza, which isn’t the greatest reaction either. I’d be annoyed if I were one of those coworkers.

        1. Worldwalker*

          And probably not still in contact with the LW. Given the judgy, holier-than-thou behavior described, I suspect very few are. That’s just not a way to make friends.

    3. bamcheeks*

      It read to me as a control thing— they were anxious about their company and their job and Doing Something gave them a sense of control and power even as they recognised they weren’t in a position to really make a difference. I do think their comparison with recycling in the update is frighteningly accurate!

    4. Hyaline*

      LW may also just be really, really literal combined with a “good soldier” attitude—their confusion about why their coworkers weren’t doing these things seemed genuine. “We were told to cut costs, ok, I’m gonna cut my costs as much as possible. What else would anyone do?”

    5. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      We know the cost cutting failed. So they hired a consulting company (how much did they pay them?) to come in and decide to outsource the department. They cut half the department. The outsourcing didn’t work, so half the department had to do all the work now.

      The company was always going to cut half that department regardless of what OP did or did not do. She really thought if she sacrificied, she would saved. She wasn’t cut and she attributes that solely to her cost cutting efforts. Instead of the company going, hey we found a sucker who will ruin their own life for us, great.

      1. Worldwalker*

        And the job she “saved” wasn’t worth saving.

        Assuming the industry standard for that job was $50k a year….

        Help Wanted: Salary $50k a year, workload about twice normal, no insurance, low retirement matching, mandatory unpaid overtime, all travel expenses to be paid by employee.

        Are you going to jump on that job? Is the LW? Is anyone? Is that really worth suffering for?

      2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

        The way these consulting/outsourcing arrangements work is typically the employer (OP’s company) engages the consulting company, who have a bank of people available (or they recruit them in a “just in time” kind of manner) usually offshore, and the intention is always that the consulting is around how the company can provide business process outsourcing. I’m not sure if OP realised this, or if they thought the consulting was more like an independent adviser who had suggested to the company that they outsource some of the functions of OP’s area. In fact I’m not sure if employees are often aware of this when one of the big “consulting” firms move in on their employers!

        I expect the background to this will have been that the company was in talks with a few different consulting/outsourcing providers and had selected that one, presumably on the basis of biggest cost savings or some other business driver (but probably just cost savings..) – as for why the outsourcing didn’t work out, these arrangements often don’t because there are very specific environments in which they can work successfully, which most companies don’t have. I think that’s the part I found most striking about the update — that even after seeing half their business area made redundant, OP continued to put in all the efforts to try to make things succeed, working extra hours (were the outsourcers in a different time zone so OP had to accommodate their own time zone as well as the outsourcers’?) etc. I could understand, from a point of view of ‘internal consistency’ of OP’s belief that they could influence the outcome, the extreme cost cutting measures they had done in the first place, even if a lot of it was anxiety or magical thinking. But I can’t rationalise why, after the adverse outcome (layoffs etc) happened, they continued trying to make things better – did they think the company was going to re-hire those people after they fired (?) the consulting company? Maybe they were just in so deep at that point that they felt the only thing justifying the sacrifice was that it ultimately should succeed; if it all failed and business goals weren’t met, it would have been for nothing – and perhaps that shakes their fundamental belief or hope that your own actions have an impact on the outcome.

        I do think companies owe more transparency to their employees when these kind of consultant/outsourcing companies are brought in, but that could be a letter in itself!

    6. F.*

      I’m listening to a podcast about World War I, and I heard about German 18-year-olds with no military training being sent to the front lines, excited for the grand adventure which awaited them, honored to be asked to make sacrifices for their Kaiser.

      Of course, what awaited them was abject misery, and few of us would judge the German cause in WWI to be anything worth dying for.

      Sacrifice can feel empowering and be very addictive, if you can convince yourself it’s for the greater good.

  5. Eigenvogel*

    I’m glad LW #4 had a good outcome, but I have to say I’m frequently jealous of the special legal privileges and set-asides that people get for their chosen religious beliefs. As a trans person I get none of that deference, and indeed, those special religious protections are often used as a sword against people like me. It’s like we have a two-tiered system where religious people get more rights than everyone else.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      I think there’s a long way to go to get trans people the protections they need, but I’ve also seen disrespect for people’s dress or headcoverings happen quite a lot too. I certainly wouldn’t want to work anywhere where people were not allowed to have their faith, or their gender identity. It usually means there’ll be sexism and racism to boot. I’m sorry if someone used religion as a weapon against you. That’s despicable. For what it’s worth I don’t think the original OP simply wanted to be treated on her merits and not given special treatment.

      2. Eigenvogel*

        In the US the push to roll back LGBTQ rights is led by religious people. They always have a Bible verse handy to explain why we shouldn’t exist. It’s a big part of why I’m no longer religious — my authentic self just doesn’t belong in a church.

      3. Anon for this*

        There’s no need for the “if”. People in the US are using religion as a weapon against trans people (and other LGBTQ+ people) literally every day. It’s not any less real if it’s not personal.

        That said, protecting people’s faith is important! But that protection should not extend to limiting protections for people who a particular faith dislikes.

        1. Empress Ki*

          Ok to protect people’s faiths. But only as long as their religions don’t contain any homophobic, transphobic, sexist and racist teachings at all.

          1. Ezra*

            By whose standards/interpretation? What if people don’t follow the perceived bigoted belief but still identify as X?

            Asking as a transgender Jew who’s like all aspects of my identity protected, please and thanks.

            1. Czhorat*

              Yeah, I don’t like the way Empress Ki framed that, even if I get her point.

              I’d rather say that your religious traditions and beliefs should be respected so long as your practice of them doesn’t include homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc.

              You can find good and bad interpretations of many faiths, and tons of variations of any religious tradition. I hate to look at one strain of American evangelical Christian and say “all religions (or even all Abrahamic religions) are evil”.

          2. Lenora Rose*

            You can only assess that on the personal level, though, whether that particular believer thinks so. Arguably you can assume a person who goes to a specific church/temple/mosque you know spews bigotry will be bigoted, but you can’t infer from (eg) “Christian” that they are, or from “Protestant” or even from “Baptist”.

            There are churches under all those banners who march in Pride Parades (and otherwise walk the talk), and there are others which are absolutely the exact people making life worse for the LGBTTQIA+ community and enacting laws against them.

            And in the meantime, laws doing things like banning Hijabs or other overt religious wear from the workplace do nothing to make LGBTTQIA+ lives better, and do make lives harder for people who are practicing their own faith without bigotry.

          3. Worldwalker*

            The line is where their teachings affect non-consenting others — either those who choose not to consent or those who are unable to give informed consent, such as children. Basically, the same line we draw for sex.

    2. Glen*

      from the outside looking in, it seems like a certain strain of Christian gets additional rights more than religious people in general.

      1. N C Kiddle*

        Yeah, pretty sure anyone visibly practising a religion other than Christianity is not getting any of that deference.

    3. Kate B.*

      I hope that we can have this conversation without conflating “religious” with “dominant strains of American Christianity.” My experience is that people whose legally protected identities align with those in power (or who are able to be allied with those in power around a particular issue) are most able to use those identities as cudgels. Meanwhile, people whose religious obligations or leadings are “weird,” “inconvenient,” or “unamerican” often have a tough go of it.

      At the same time, I hear you on how desperately we need to expand both legal protections and social advocacy for trans people, and how active some religious groups are in fighting against basic human rights and decency.

      1. ferrina*

        Kate B., this is a great point, and really well articulated. Power finds ways to stay in power, and when a particular religion or flavor of religion has the power, that is often used as a way to justify staying in power. The power distribution is definitely not equal across all religions/subsects of religion.

      2. Cj*

        I’m not sure if it’s a dominant strains of American Christianity, or *loudest* strains of American Christianity.

    4. Shiara*

      I’m sorry that you don’t yet have the legal and social protections that you should.

      I think this letter is an example of how, even with legal protections, minorities will still face push back and have to assert those legal rights, even in otherwise understanding and “best case scenario” companies. Which is exhausting.

      1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        By definition, minorities can’t gain rights on our own. We need allies to do more than say “I’m sorry you don’t have your rights yet”.

        1. Seashell*

          Chastising people who are on your side for not being able to wave a magic wand and fix everything is not helpful.

          1. Lenora Rose*

            Good thing that isn’t what Hastily Blessed Fritos was doing, then.

            It’s a plain truth that any minority pressing for their rights needs allies, and allies who DO something, and it’s also true that there’s a common trend where people who try to be allies have a common habit of expressing support but not being there in the moment.

            This isn’t a criticism of their inability to wave a magic wand; we ALL know the work is long, and hard, and doesn’t easily end, and nobody can do everything.

          2. aqua*

            If you doing more than saying “sorry you don’t have your rights yet”, this comment isn’t about you
            If you’re not doing more than that, then you are not in fact “on my side” in any meaningful way
            Hope this helps!

    5. Czhorat*

      After your first sentence I had a whole paragraph in my head about the value of accepting cultural differences including religion, but you’re right here.

      I’m glad that the LW got her accommodation to allow the dress that conforms to her beliefs and her culture, but I *very much* want you – and all of our trans and non-binary friends – to have the same protections.

      It has been written that the arc of history is long, but bends towards justice. It isn’t going to bend itself, though, and too many people are looking to pull it in the wrong direction. I get why this is painful for you, and I look forward to the day when we do better.

  6. bamcheeks*

    LW1 in the update is so bang-on about how her “cost-cutting” is like environmentalism, but not in the au she thinks: she’s entirely focussed on policing other people for not making changes which will have very little impact and not at all on the people who mismanaged the company in the first place.

    1. Madame Arcati*

      Indeed, and cutting her pension contributions/health insurance is a false economy which could cause material damage to her down the line – the environmentalism equiv being something like, instead of being sparing and responsible with the heating to save energy, she never heats any part of her home meaning she lives miserably and with resulting health problems.

      1. AcademiaNut*

        Or the lack of heat causes the pipes to burst in winter, necessitating complicated repairs.

      2. Flor*

        On the topic of cutting the health insurance, I’m really curious LW1’s country (all they said was it’s not the US) because cancelling your health insurance (and encouraging your colleagues to do the same) is very different somewhere like the UK, where you only might use it if you live in an NHS dentist desert or you end up needing surgery and there’s a long waitlist, versus somewhere like Ontario, where you need it for dentist visits and prescriptions.

        And I suspect that LW1 lives in somewhere more like Ontario than the UK simply because I imagine a UK company embarking on a cost-cutting mission would simply stop offering health insurance, so they could well have been pressuring colleagues with medical conditions to give up a benefit that would leave them spending hundreds of dollars a month on medication.

        1. bamcheeks*

          Possibly, but it’s also something that costs if not quite pennies to offer in the UK, rarely more than a few pounds per person because so few people take it up. It’s on a par with stuff like your EAP, or a benefit like “25% off at ChainGym” — it’s a service the employer buys in from an external supplier and makes a available to all, but the business model is based on fewer than 10% of people using it in any given year and most of those won’t be using more than the equivalent of £50-100. One person giving it up might save the company about £7 a year or something, but it’s more likely that the company pays a flat rate for 300 employees and it makes no difference at all.

          1. Flor*

            Thanks for explaining how it works (my only familiarity with it is I had an employer that offered it once). Yeah, in that case I can see why the company wouldn’t bother removing it as a benefit, because it’s such a small amount of their outgoings.

            Some of the language (using miles rather than kilometres, for instance) did make me initially suspect the LW might be in the UK, which would also make the opting out of pension matching particularly unhinged, because that’s something the employer is legally obligated to provide (with a few caveats, I think) and if you’re voluntarily giving up a legally mandated benefit in the name of cost-cutting you should very much be job hunting!

        2. Reality.Bites*

          I live and worked in Ontario. I don’t think I ever had an option of refusing the company’s supplementary health insurance for prescriptions, dental, etc.

          I looked up recent stats and 77% of Canadian employers pay the entire cost of them anyway.

          The closest you could get to turning them down is co-ordination of benefits, when there were two working adults in a household.

    2. Myrin*

      I thought the same thing – it’s an incredibly apt comparison, but for a very different reason.

    3. Ellis Bell*

      I think this is common – to push either down or at the peer level, because we know what would happen if you did the same with superiors.

    4. Meep*

      I thought it was interesting from a standpoint of cutting your health insurance is actually horrible for the environment. We kill it more by having to treat severe illnesses than treating mild ones up front. Kind of added to the corporate delusion like wasting more company time walking 5 miles with heavy equipment over taking the bus and getting there in less time.

    5. Goldenrod*

      “she’s entirely focused on policing other people for not making changes which will have very little impact”

      Yes, this.

  7. Madame Arcati*

    I read the update to LW#1 and it was quite sad, she didn’t seem to have taken the advice (although she did realise how she’d treated others badly trying to take them along with her). The thing that stuck out to me was, if the company wants to cut costs via things like expenses then they lead on what that means – maybe they don’t order pizza in because any subsistence payable would be cheaper – if they’ve made the order they are saying they can still afford it – all you do is not over-order. Or you have to pre-authorise expenses rather than claiming after as a fait accompli, in case a saving can be made “we can save that train fare if we ask Bob to take that package in the van with the widgets”. And the pension/health costs bit was horrifying!

    I also followed the update to the money lending one and saw another update from 2018 saying the writer had been accepted to teach English in Japan but were going to defer that until March 2020 and I just went, “oh no…”

    1. londonedit*

      Definitely – I think I and a lot of other people said in the original comments that if a company can no longer afford to order pizza or pay for certain employee expenses or offer any other kinds of extra perks, then those will be the first things to go. It’s always the l0w-hanging fruit that goes first when it comes to cost-cutting – the easy stuff like nice coffee or pizza or the Christmas party or allowing drinks to be expensed when people go out for lunch. If the company is still asking employees to send in receipts for reimbursement, and they’re still ordering pizza for people who are working late, it’s because they believe they can still afford to do so. Sitting there like Ebenezer Scrooge refusing a slice of pizza is not going to help. And doing things like lugging equipment on a five-mile walk is just completely ridiculous and serves no purpose except allowing the OP to feel like a martyr.

      1. Colette*

        And sometimes those things are false economy. I worked for a large company that was struggling, and I realized it wasn’t going to recover when they decided not to supply cream for the break rooms anymore, and instead told people who wanted cream to go to the cafeteria.

        It’s easy to measure the cost of cream. It’s not as easy to measure the cost of every engineer in the building spending 10 minutes in line at the cafeteria twice a day.

        1. londonedit*

          Definitely. I said a similar thing further up, but in the OP’s update it turned out that the little things like pizza and the odd taxi expense really weren’t even the issue – the company had to lay off half the staff. Buying pizza a couple of times a month was the least of their problems. And there was nothing the OP or anyone else could have done to cut costs enough to save anyone’s job. In the update the OP mentions wanting to say ‘I told you so’ to the people who didn’t cut their expenses enough (in her judgement) – but that’s so far beside the point that it isn’t even funny. The bosses were not sitting there totting up who had how many slices of pizza.

          1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

            I *think* what OP meant by that was not that people were laid off or not based on their personal cost-cutting, but that she still thought that pizza and bus fare would have made the difference between massive layoffs and not.

            1. Worldwalker*

              Yeah. And how much pizza would it take to equal even one person’s salary, let alone scores?

        2. Czhorat*

          Yes, this.

          I’ll sometimes have a job site to go to. 10 blocks away (a half mile)? I’ll walk. 20 or more? I’ll take public transit, even though I’m in relatively good shape and enjoy the walk. As you said, the company is paying me to do a job, and that job is not strolling through the city. They also want me relatively energetic and engaged when I get back to my desk, not wiped out from carrying stuff around all day.

          1. Filosofickle*

            The “walking 5 miles with heavy equipment” is the one that sends my brain into gridlock. In an office job, no employer expects you to walk 5 miles even without carrying anything heavy! With equipment, we’re getting into a workers comp risk. And the alternative was simply taking transit, which costs a few dollars? *brain grinds*

            Martyrdom is never an attractive trait.

        3. bamcheeks*

          I remember thinking that when me and a manager spent an hour walking back from town instead of getting a taxi. We were both perfectly happy to walk and it was a nice day, but it would have been like £6 to get a taxi and that hour of my manager’s time (never mind of mine!) was probably £40?

          (on the flipside, I was once talking to an Unnamed Search Engine employee about their famous free cafeteria, and he said, “look at this way: everyone goes to the cafeteria every day, and spends a technically unpaid hour going, “Oh hi Jane, how are ya, what’s happening over in Ops at the moment?” For the price of a €15 meal, Unnamed Search Engine is getting €60 worth of meeting and networking time out of me…”)

          1. UKDancer*

            I think it’s fine to walk places if you want to walk. I sometimes do walk from a hotel to the meeting venue when I’m on business but it depends if I have heavy papers and / or luggage with me. If I have to bring a laptop and a suitcase, you bet I am getting a taxi rather than struggling.

            I think the difference is that OP1 does it as some form of punishment / penance where it’s not necessary or when it makes more sense to get some form of transportation.

            1. londonedit*

              Yep – if there’s an event reasonably close to the office (say within half an hour’s walk) and we don’t have anything heavy to carry, we’ll absolutely walk. We’re all fit and healthy and we don’t really have a reason not to, and in London walking is usually the quickest option anyway. But if it’s raining, or if we’re going to an event that requires dressing up, or if we need to bring a box of books with us? Then we’ll get a taxi. It’s about practicality rather than feeling like we can’t get a taxi because it’ll cost money.

            2. bamcheeks*

              It was a lovely walk and we were happy to do it! It was not however costcutting unless your accounting looks at sundry costs and ignores stuff members’ time. :)

          2. Suzanne*

            Also, the reason that they provide free food is that people don’t leave. You don’t leave the office for lunch. Dinner is so good you might as well eat there. Since you are still there you might as well do a couple more hours of work.

          3. Reality.Bites*

            Most employers get the exact same thing at no cost. Who else are people going to lunch with than their fellow employees, whether it’s a subsidized caf, a non-subsidized one, a lunchroom or nearby restaurants?

    2. DawnShadow*

      I saw that same update about teaching English in Japan in March 2020 and thought the same thing!!

      1. ferrina*

        Oh no! I missed that! Poor LW.

        I think we need a round of updates from LWs who had plans in 2020. We’ve seen several this week who said “I’ve got plans to get education/accelerate my career/switch fields/etc in 2020.” I’d love to hear what happened to them all.

    3. Princess Sparklepony*

      But she did get a job as a reporter which was what she wanted. So maybe she’s living that life and is happy with her choice… fingers crossed for her!

    1. Reindeer Hut Hostess*

      I hadn’t seen it before, either. My initial reaction was “This cannot possibly be real.” But alas, it looks like it was. I’m almost speechless.

    2. House On The Rock*

      After reading the original letter as well as the update I felt deeply sad for them and how they see the world. It sounded like a neglected child trying to please an absent/abusive parent and getting mad at their siblings for not doing the same! Which takes the whole “relating to work like you do your family” to a whole other, very depressing, level.

      1. Lurker*

        +1 both the original letter and the update just left me feeling sad for the LW – they clearly are not thinking straight.

      2. Grumpus*

        Yeah makes me wonder what else OP1 does in life to abnegate their own needs. What pleasures or comforts could possibly be allowed if you sacrifice yourself like this for your employer? What a disturbing letter.

  10. Irish Teacher.*

    I suspect the first letter is a “what you can control” thing. Didn’t the update mention layoffs? So my guess is that she was really scared that if the company didn’t make savings she’d be laid off and was trying to find a way to control things so that that wouldn’t happen. Knowing your future is in the control of…well, the markets and your bosses and the clients and…just sheer luck is quite frightening, so I’d guess she was trying to convince herself that “if we all make savings our jobs can be saved” and that that is also why she got so angry with her coworkers. “I’m going to get laid off because they won’t do what is necessary to prevent it.”

    If I remember correctly, she pretty much said in the update that she was correct because layoffs did happen, so I guess she is thinking they would have been prevented if people would just cut back.

    Of course, it’s not that simple and anyway, there is a point at which you’d be better off job-searching because a job where you have to refuse your pension and health insurance and pay for work expenses out of pocket in order to have a chance of not losing is…probably not the ideal job anyway. And a lot of things are market driven so you could still end up being laid off even if everybody does make cuts.

    But I can kind of understand the impulse. “I can’t lose this job. I must do something to prevent it.”

    1. Great Frogs of Literature*

      This is exactly why I chose layoff in 2020 — I’d rather face the job market than get stuck with two people’s worth of work at 90% of my previous salary until the company can afford raises again. (Also, if there was going to be a second round of layoffs, maybe the severance wouldn’t be as good.)

    2. Slow Gin Lizz*

      Yeah, I think the update (which I’d totally forgotten but I remember the original letter vividly) confirms this, especially when the OP says that they didn’t say “I told you so” to her non-cost saving, laid-off coworkers even when she wanted to. And I also think that OP sounds like someone who has had to deal with difficult financial situations in her past…she reminds me of my grandmother, who grew up during the Great Depressions, never bought anything without a coupon, and saved *everything*. OP’s update said she was dealing with a housing issue, so probably was feeling extra anxiety about that as well as her job possibly going away. I can say that in my grandmother’s case, her money worries never quite went away either; I imagine it’s really hard to let go of such worries no matter how financially secure you eventually end up being. OP’s behavior in this situation just screams to me “I’m trying to control a thing that I can control.” No matter how misguided that behavior is, it sounds like it made sense to OP at the time (although not the bullying of the coworkers into also behaving that way, which I think OP realized wasn’t cool and stopped doing).

    3. Tea Monk*

      Yes and job searching is another thing that can feel like a loss of control, so I can see why LW1 got sucked into a weird mindset

    4. N C Kiddle*

      I am a very superstitious person when it comes to football. I know on some level that whether I have coffee on a match day morning doesn’t affect the team’s performance, but on another level I have to keep believing it does, because the performance affects me strongly emotionally and I can’t face the idea I can’t control it. I think LW is doing something similar, except even more intense because it’s her livelihood and not just feeling low for a week. So I can definitely empathise.

  11. DawnShadow*

    I skimmed through the first few comments on LW3 and the update and I guess I’m the only one who feels badly for the coworker who wasn’t paying.

    I mean, it read to me like this was an office clique vs. the odd woman out (“we are peers but she’s so abrasive and sometimes bullyish that we all walk on tiptoes around her”) and LW even said that the reason she picked such an expensive present (a week’s worth of groceries per person) was because this was her best friend that they were giving the present to.

    It just made me think, from the odd woman out’s perspective, these women are obviously not her friends, I doubt she enthusiastically agreed to the present (was her silence taken as assent?) and we don’t know her financial situation. She could have more debt than the others, or they might have spouses and she doesn’t. Who knows.

    I just feel sorry for her. It was obviously a lot of money for what they were being paid, since LW said she was hurting for money without the woman’s contribution. I can imagine what it would feel like to not be included in the friendly overtures, but still asked to pay up. Somehow I don’t see anyone in this workplace doing the same thing for this woman if she is ever the one who deserves a celebration.

    1. bamcheeks*

      I think Rude Coworker was the one who suggested the present and set the amount, though? So she’s obviously got enough social clout in the group to take a lead on something like that.

      I mean, the very clear takeaway for me here is “what the HECK, a week’s worth of groceries is at least five times as much as I would spend on a present for a colleague”. I don’t think anyone in the group should have agreed to it in the first place!

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        Rude Coworker was the one who suggested the present and set the amount.
        This is also my understanding. And LW was reluctant, especially once the amount was revealed, but went along because we Fit Into The Norms. And then the other coworker swapped the expectation of everyone fitting into the norms on her.

    2. londonedit*

      I’m not sure this is quite right – it was the Rude Coworker who suggested buying a gift in the first place, and it was the Rude Coworker who suggested the amount everyone should chip in. The OP and the others went along with it because they wanted to be a ‘good friend’ and because it was a special celebration. Then, after the OP had bought the gift using her own online account and everyone else had paid her back, the Rude Coworker refused to give the OP her share, despite the OP having asked several times and asked after pay day etc.

      I do think the OP is a little off-base in saying the stuff about Rude Coworker wearing designer clothes, as we of course can’t know the details of people’s financial situations and it’s not fair to speculate, but the fact is Rude Coworker was the one who suggested spending that much in the first place, and she’s not pulling her weight and paying the OP back. That’s not fair.

    3. Arthenonyma*

      I think you’re misreading – the gift was Rude Coworker’s idea and she was the one who specified the dollar amount.

    4. Ellis Bell*

      “The Rude Coworker suggested we all spring for a nice gift for her and suggested a sum each of us should pay.” If she is planning and suggesting gifts, that really doesn’t sound at all like she is excluded from the ‘clique’- I took the OP’s comment about RC’s bullying tone to mean that even though they are peers with her, they are careful to avoid confrontation with her, not that they do anything to do exclude her.

    5. Aww, coffee, no*

      Ummm… the rude co-worker who wasn’t paying is the one who suggested the gift and the amount. LW wasn’t keen but went along with it and is now out the money from the person who originally suggested the whole thing.

      So no, not much sympathy for rude co-worker from me, nor do I see why she should get any.

    6. Seashell*

      I don’t think any of them should have been giving gifts they couldn’t afford, but I think the one who owed the money to the LW is lucky she didn’t get sued in small claims court. She took money that was intended for a gift for someone else and it didn’t get used that way, so she basically stole it for however long it took to pay LW back.

      1. I should really pick a name*

        I believe you may be misreading the letter.

        The person who owed the LW money didn’t take money from anyone. They didn’t pay the money that they had agreed (and suggested) to pay.

    7. Worldwalker*

      She decided on the gift, and she set the cost, so in no way do I feel sorry for her being asked to do what she required everyone else to do. She was apparently thinking

    8. OP3*

      OP3 here.
      To clarify, the coworker who did not want to pay me back was NOT the odd person out. If anything, I was the odd one out who did not belong to the office clique, and the worst-off financially. The others were constantly talking about their international vacations, wine-tasting courses and the like. The rude coworker took a few international trips per year and she had a very expensive hobby. The person getting the gift was well liked but NOT my best friend – we were friendly/polite but she was close friends with two others in the office. I was really broke at the time and really ashamed of how broke I was, and frustrated about having to ask someone well-off for money that was a smallish sum for her but a big deal for me. Due to how our contracts were written, we all knew how much the others were making.
      Looking back, I realize most of my frustration was caused by being ashamed of my financial situation and not being able (or willing) to just shrug it off. From her perspective, I was pestering her for a small sum that did not really matter, like come on, how petty must I be to not just cover her part. While for me, it was frustrating to be short on a bill and know I am technically owed this amount and her giving it back would make a difference.

      1. Adultiest Adult*

        I’m sorry you ended up in this situation. I remember being early in my career and flat broke with student loans and worrying about situations like this. Luckily most of the time I was able to stick to my limits and not contribute more than I could afford, but I certainly remember the casual assumptions my better-off peers and boss made about money and what should be “easy” for others to afford.

    9. Meep*

      I wouldn’t. Rude Coworker suggested the gift and the item. If they couldn’t afford it, they shouldn’t have brought it up.

  12. Bill and Heather's Excellent Adventure*

    I feel like LW1 definitely needed to work on boundaries and expectations. Walking five miles with heavy equipment instead of taking public transport like a sensible person is not okay. Going without overtime pay is not okay. Resenting your coworkers for daring to accept company provided free food and drink is not okay! Even in the update, she didn’t seem to grasp that her coworkers had behaved normally and it was her POV that was skewed.

  13. WellRed*

    As I was reading about recycler earlier this week, I found myself wanting a I fix them up with the saver from letter 1.

  14. Nathan*

    LW2…oof.

    We don’t really know why Cat dislikes Sam. It could be because Sam is a lower performer and Cat is being especially nasty about it, or because Sam is a newcomer and is altering the group dynamic in a way that Cat doesn’t care for. It could be because Sam was egregiously rude to Cat in a way that’s very much not OK, or because Cat’s life has become more unpleasant having to cover Sam’s slack and Sam is being a jerk about it.

    So while it’s possibly unkind of Cat to be exclusionary, it’s also very possibly (probably?) unkind to guilt Cat into inviting someone she cannot stand (OP’s words) to her party. It’s pretty shady to paint Cat as the problem in this situation without more context.

    1. WellRed*

      Except that OP is the team manager and would likely know if Sam was slacking or rude to this extent.

      1. Ellis Bell*

        I think that point is quite vague, actually, because OP frankly admits they were “desperate” when they hired her and says it hasn’t gone well since. I do think the details there makes quite a lot of difference. It’s significant whether Sam is insufferable in terms of manners and being thoughtful in doing their share, or whether they’re just a bit hapless and inexperienced.

    2. Colette*

      The is one of the issues with having your social circle be your coworkers. Sure, Cat should be able to invite whoever she wants. But inviting everybody except Sam is sending a pretty strong message to Sam, and that’s a work problem.

      And Cat has options – she could decide not to invite anyone from work, or invite only one or two people.

      1. RW*

        yeah I fall on the side of, if you’re inviting only a subset of a particular group where you know people it should be a small enough proportion that the focus is on who *is* included not on who is *not* – usually this means if you’re inviting less than half you are fine go ahead no problem, if it’s half to three quarters you’re on shaky ground, if it’s everyone-but-one-person… that is rude. You can choose to do a rude thing, if that’s really what you want to do. But it is.
        (because this is the internet – there are niche situations where it might not be rude! I can imagine them and I’m sure you can too! But this works pretty well as a rule of thumb)
        (and therefore if you are choosing to invite all but one person the onus is VERY much on you to make sure it doesn’t become obvious to that person that you invited everyone but them)

    3. Clisby*

      But OP definitely should ask Cat not to hand out invites at work unless she’s inviting the whole group. It’s not shady to recognize *that* would be unkind.

    4. Cat Lady, Esq.*

      I tend to agree… this is one of the rare instances that I’ve somewhat disagreed with Alison’s advice.

      It’s her private party, she can invite whoever she wants.

      As manager, I think it would be appropriate for the LW to explain that she can’t pass out invitations at work and should avoid discussing the party afterward in a manner that would make anyone feel excluded, and that should be conveyed very seriously and LW should shut down talk that gets too rowdy etc.

      But it’s her own party!!! LW shouldn’t be pressuring an employee into inviting someone they don’t want to invite to a private social engagement.

      1. Dahlia*

        That’s literally what Alison says.

        The answer literally says: “Because it’s Cat’s own personal event outside of work, you can’t dictate who she does and doesn’t invite.” “Cat can invite anyone she wants to her private event and you can’t control that”.

        You CAN do a lot of things, but SHOULD is another story, because it is creating a very exclusionary environment if you invited everyone from work but one person.

  15. Chad H*

    I’m pretty confident in 1 that exactly none of those actions, if adopted widely, would have changed the layoffs. They were always going to happen.

    If you want me to care as an owner, make me an owner. Until then the idea I’m going to put my health or retirement at risk for company profit is a non starter.

    2. Antilles*

      Especially stuff like the pizza. Even if the department is spending a couple hundred bucks on pizza every single week, we’re talking $10k over the course of the year total.
      By comparison, the savings from laying off 40 workers in a business unit is at least $5 million, probably more like $10 million or more.

  16. Seashell*

    I envisioned LW1 being an elderly man muttering around the office about kids these days and their pizza. It was surprising to read the update and see that it was a woman.

    I guess the takeaway from the update is to start looking for a new job if a business starts talking about cost cutting. And to eat the pizza if the company is fine paying for it.

      1. Joana*

        Unless it has pineapple.

        -ducks the rotten tomatoes inevitably being thrown-

        We don’t know what country LW1 is from other than not the US, but I’ve read that in many European countries, creamed corn is popular on pizza.

        1. londonedit*

          Probably just Sweden. As far as I can tell they’ll put just about anything on a pizza in Sweden.

          1. Flor*

            I’m not sure which is weirder, creamed corn or the tinned sweetcorn you always find on* vegetarian pizzas in Britain.

            *Briefly on, before it tumbles off when you try to eat it.

        2. Lady Lessa*

          While I like ham and pineapple on a pizza, I shudder (earthquake size) about the idea of creamed corn on one. (or even corn in any form).

          But I think that creamed corn is from the netherworld.

          1. Lenora Rose*

            I can see corn (not creamed, just kernels) being a successful add to a mexican themed pizza with a lot of ground beef, but that’s about the only place I could even make a case for it.

            Of course, my favourite pizzas involve bbq sauce instead of marinara, plus chicken, pineapple and feta (and mozza), and my second favourites involve replacing the marinara with white sauce (garlic sauce or alfredo), so I’m about as absolute a pizza philistine as you can get.

            1. Worldwalker*

              Now I want to have a Mexican pizza. Lost my cotija cheese in the Helene blackout, though, and I doubt if anywhere around here has restocked to the point of having any for sale.

              Seasoned beef, cotija cheese, other cheese, roasted corn, some lime juice … what sauce should it have? BBQ?

              1. Hlao-roo*

                what sauce should it have?

                Salsa! (mostly joking, but if that sounds good to anyone, have at it!)

              2. AFac*

                Some sort of chipotle red sauce? Or maybe salsa verde?

                I do have cotija but have it earmarked for a elote-style mac-n-cheese.

                1. Worldwalker*

                  Salsa verde on a whole pizza? My hair would catch fire!

                  I have a prefab pizza crust on standby; I need to figure this out! (And source the cheese)

            2. WantonSeedStitch*

              Fresh sweet corn cut from the cob, bacon, and thinly sliced jalapeños is a fantastic combo on pizza.

            3. Orv*

              Mexican street corn is a trendy topping for a lot of things in Southern California right now. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone’s putting it on pizza.

        3. General von Klinkerhoffen*

          Not creamed corn, but corn, yes.

          A classic “American” style pizza in the UK is made with BBQ sauce, chicken, bacon and corn. It’s delicious but it isn’t very American!

    2. Czhorat*

      If you’re on a sinking ship you need to either plug the leak or look for life preservers. The first step is to see if the leak is fixable, or if you’ve hit an iceberg.

      Even if it was enough to make a difference (it isn’t) strict austerity of the kind LW was practicing is not a sustainable practice. I’ll abandon the ship metaphor for a moment and talk about dieting; if you want to lose weight, you can either go with an extreme change (grapefruit diet! No carbs! No grains! Smoothies only!) or a more moderate caloric reduction/adjustment. If the latter is something sustainable – a way you can eat for the foreseeable future – you’re more likely to be successful than if you make yourself miserable and invariably crash or give up. Not paying for a bus ticket is a crash diet (and poor cost savings anyway – the company isn’t paying you to go on a several mile hike, and would rather you get back sooner to do your actual job).

      The leak in the ship is something bigger – the gross money in versus money out. Is it on the razor’s edge because of something short term? Something fixable? Or is there something wrong systemmically with the business? A low-level employee probably doesn’t have the information to know this, so I agree – it’s time to head for the life rafts.

    3. Olive*

      I would have been shocked if the LW hadn’t been a woman, but my view is colored by having two female managers who were “good soldiers” – bending over backward to defend corporate and always the first to advocate that workers make sacrifices for the company. In hindsight, I think it might have been an unhealthy overflow of the need for women to be twice as good and not complain in order to have a career. (I’ve especially seen this in Gen X coworkers in a male-dominated STEM field).

      I’d have been a lot more sympathetic if I hadn’t been downstream from it (I’m also a woman) – they were a big reason why I left that job.

    4. GenX, PhD, Enters the Chat*

      I mean, the pizza is already paid for! How is not eating it going to make a bit of difference?

  17. It Ain't Me Babe*

    #2 I was in the same situation as Sam, except my manager was a member of the clique. Everyone else, including them, got invited to a weekend at a mountain cabin owned by another coworker. I was not invited because, it was explained to me, I would “not have had any fun because I was older then my coworkers.”

    1. London Calling*

      Manager being one of the leaders of the clique was a huge factor in me leaving exjob. The one time I tried to raise my exclusion she tried to swerve the issue by blaming ME for something else that apparently wasn’t important enough to raise before, just so she could deflect from what I was talking about. Oh, and ask me ‘do you know how much it hurts me to hear this?’

      Luckily I could see the games and didn’t fall for them. I had little respect for her before that, but zero afterwards.

  18. 2eyessquared*

    L4 is such an interesting situation. I think it would be helpful for Allison to do a post about how to explain religious exemptions (can’t think of the right word or phrase) at work or before interviews. I’m not religious myself but I like learning about things like this.

    1. Religious Nutter*

      LW 4 here.

      It’s a really thorny topic in the US. The exemptions for religion are broad, which gives you a double-edged problem from a hiring perspective.

      On the one hand, it’s weirdly easy for people to sweep bigotry and sexism under the religion rug, and then get it protected from real consequences. “I won’t meet alone with women. Sorry, it’s just my religion”, or “I won’t physically touch women (like, shake their hands) because of my religion.” and on and on (both of those are actually from AAM letters!)

      On the other hand, the stereotype/assumption about obviously religious people is that we’re going to show up in your workplace and make our religion everyone else’s problem. As such, while no sane hiring manager will ever _say_ “You were the strongest candidate, but given how you’re dressed, we’re passing you over for someone who’s less likely to cause us all headaches.”, nonetheless this is a thing that happens.

      And it doesn’t just happen to folks like me. I’m (unfairly) fortunate in that I’m both white and male, so I get a lot of inbuilt biases landing in my favor, but this exact same fear also applies to women in hijabs, or Sikh in headwraps.

      1. Mentally Spicy*

        it’s extremely interesting that you expect people to respect your religious requirements but you are incredibly intolerant of other people’s religious requirements.

        Both the “being alone with a woman” and “refusing to touch a woman” are required by very orthodox and strict followers of Judaism and Islam. The fact that you think those things are motivated by “bigotry and sexism” speaks volumes to me.

        1. Religious Nutter*

          “I get to treat this group of people differently because I subscribe to a belief system that says I can” is… not great.

          What about a worshiper of Hindu who refuses to promote members of the Unteachable caste? Should they be allowed to do that?

          Should a member of a religion that believes “women are subservient to men” be allowed to deny promotions to women?

          A member of Islam (conservative or liberal) should be given breaks to pray and a safe place to do so. A member of Judaism deserves some consideration regarding Kosher foods, but no member of any religion gets to decide that a group of people is afforded less or more opportunities or access in a professional space. Refusing to meet with women alone, or insisting that women be treated fundamentally different from men absolutely does this.

          And if all that is “very telling” to you. Good.

  19. YesPhoebeWould*

    LOL. At a previous job, we had a rather sketchy person (Kate) who borrowed a not insubstantial sum (I think it was about $300 – supposedly for rent) from a sweet newish coworker (Jen – who didn’t know how sketchy she was). She simply refused to return the money, or lied about paying it the next week. When everyone else found out. We were pretty unhappy with her. She came up with every excuse in the book. This went on for a couple of months. We all subtly let Kate know we were unhappy with her, but she didn’t seem to care.

    I still don’t know who (I suspect and it made me like them even more), but Kate walked away from her cube for a few minutes, and her purse disappeared (with her wallet taken out and left on the desk), replaced with a printed note that Jen really needed her money back, and that Kate should really go to the ATM in the lobby and give Jen her money back if she wanted her purse (and keys, etc).

    Kate was *furious* and was yelling at her manager and threatening to call the police, to which the manager responded that that would be convenience because then Jen could tell the police about the “loan”, and then since this was becoming a problem that he’d need to bring HR into this, since “we can’t have dishonest people on our team – dishonest in ANY form.”

    Kate fumed about it, but nobody cared. After a couple of hours, Kate went downstairs, got the money from the ATM and angrily paid back Jen. She then got an anonymous email telling her were the purse was. She was SOOOO angry, and the fact that we were all laughing about it made her more so.

    2. I Have RBF*

      Is it bad that my fanfic of this says it was sweet Jen who arranged to hold Kate’s purse for ransom? Or maybe her manager…

  20. Sunflower*

    #1 I remember that letter and remember thinking “Woah. There’s cutting costs and there’s being a martyr.” I, myself, reuse the other side of printed paper as scratch paper, but turning down a slice of pizza that the company already approved and paid for? Work overtime for free? Carrying heavy equipment instead of even paying her own bus fare or barrowing a cart?

    I’m afraid my impression is the OP looks down on those who claim their basic rights and comfort*, and that she’s better than them due to her little sacrifices that the company didn’t even ask her to make.

    *If the company can’t or won’t pay for food or travel expenses, they can say so or turn down the expense submissions. However, they *should* pay for overtime work.

    1. londonedit*

      I have to say I agree with your impression. I think I made the same comment on the original letter, but OP1 reminds me a lot of someone I used to know (I won’t call them a friend as I’m afraid I had to stop following them on social media a few years ago because they were just unbearable, and I haven’t seen them in person since before the pandemic). Let’s call her Frances. I can absolutely imagine Frances doing the same as the OP. She seems to take a bizarre pleasure in making life as difficult as possible, because she refuses to accept the conveniences of modern life. She relates it all back to her childhood – no, no, mustn’t buy soup from the supermarket for dinner, because I am working-class and poor and we must make our own soup out of last week’s crumbs. That sort of thing. During the Covid lockdowns when people were getting supermarket deliveries so they wouldn’t have to go to the shops, she expressed utter horror at the idea of having shopping brought to your house and therefore continued to trudge to Tesco in her mask, mainly so she could then tell everyone she was doing so and also complain about people not wearing masks. She simply has to martyr herself at every turn. And you can guarantee she lets everyone know about it. She’s always posting stuff on Facebook being performatively horrified by things like frozen vegetables, because when she was a child her family would never have dreamed of having a freezer and her parents grew all their own veg in the back garden. Which is absolute rubbish, by the way – she was not poor growing up, and even if she was, she now has a fistful of qualifications and a perfectly good job. But if there’s a hair shirt that can be donned, you can guarantee she’s all over it.

      1. Worldwalker*

        Having a freezer is a necessity if you grow vegetables, unless you want to throw a lot of them away during the summer and have none during the winter. Not everything can be canned. So that’s bogus on the face of it.

        (though canning tomatoes is totally worth it; when you put those tomatoes in your mid-winter chili, it’s like opening a jar of summer)

        1. londonedit*

          Oh yeah, it’s all absolute bollocks, but still she persists in trying to create this image of herself as a poor downtrodden martyr.

        2. Orv*

          Yeah, when I was a kid we had an enormous chest freezer *because* we were poor. It’s a lot cheaper to buy food when you can buy a lot of it at one time and store it.

    2. Worldwalker*

      Exactly. The LW being upset that other people were turning in expense and overtime forms and she wasn’t makes it obvious that the company — the ones who were asking for cost-cutting — considered those expenses to be justified. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have sent out the forms.

      So the LW is actually telling her co-workers that she knows more about the company’s financial position, its ability to pay its obligations, and where and how it budgets money, than the company itself does. I can see that level of arrogance rubbing some people very much the wrong way.

      1. Antilles*

        Exactly. The company kept sending out the forms and reminders every month. If they really had an issue with people expensing travel, those monthly emails would instead be reminding you about the freeze on company travel, that all expenses must be pre-approved by a Department Manager, blah blah blah.

    3. Ellis Bell*

      Interesting how different our impressions were here. I saw it as more as a negative, self-punishing feeling about one’s self. If you think you should go without transport when carrying heavy things, or without getting paid for the work you do, how much can you actually value yourself? Though I agree with you that the OP feels martyrdom is a way to increase your self worth somewhat…. but how sad is that? The idea that you have to make yourself smaller, and your needs lesser in order to be valued; that’s not a positive self image at all. I think the frustration at other coworkers is a mixed bag; on the one hand I agree with you that they are looked down on and the OP gets satisfaction about being able to outdo them in this way, but on the other I think she’s frustrated by recognising their actions denote a healthy self worth. Not only does that make her feel more alone, but it highlights how futile her solo efforts are: “you need the accumulation of everyone’s efforts to have any effect.”

    4. Jackalope*

      I’ve never seen a form of public transportation (bus, etc.) that cost more than $10/trip. Instead of walking with heavy equipment, just paying for her own bus ride would have been so much cheaper in terms of being paid for a couple of hours to walk (assuming it was during the day – I know she was refusing to ask for OT pay) vs paying a tiny bit for a bus, or just paying it herself since she was fine with doing that in so many areas.

  21. And so it is and so it shall be*

    Just want to say I so appreciate that the majority of the letters Alison is posting this week have updates. The instant gratification is the serotonin hit I didn’t know I needed. You and your family are in my thoughts and prayers, Alison.

    1. Religious Nutter*

      I’ve been reading AAM long enough that my favorite posts have become:
      1 – Letters with follow ups
      2 – Where the follow up is NOT “I left for a place more sane” or “Things are still exactly as wonky as they were when I wrote”

      1. Sweet Fancy Pancakes*

        I agree. The drama llama in me is always disappointed when the only update is “well, I got another job”.

        1. Religious Nutter*

          I just like hearing stories of people who solved a problem. Not so much “Drama” as “I got this nonsense thing fixed!”.

          Most of the time, you can’t fix it, or it’s easier to leave than to fix it… but I want to believe in a world where people can solve the kinds of problems written about in AAM.

  22. Indoor_Kitty*

    #1: My mom said to me once, “Never bankroll the company with your own money.” Also, that book title comes to mind: “Work Won’t Love You Back.”

    2. Ellis Bell*

      Do you think this attitude comes with experience? I think it’s easy when you’re new to the workplace to fall for the scam of working for free, or just being vulnerable to the power dynamics. I’m not saying OP’s workplace was like that, but it seems like a former workplace could have programmed this into her. Or you can just pick it up as bad advice from anxious relatives, even.

    3. Perfectly Cromulent Name*

      OMG yes. Work will NOT love you back, and OP #1 was screwing over their future self by doing things like reducing her retirement contribution so the company did not have to match it. How much compound interest did she miss out on in the long term for something that was not going to make much of a difference to the company, and was not really her problem to solve? And DROPPING HER HEALTH INSURANCE? OMG. I noted that she was not in the US, so perhaps it was some kind of supplemental plan and not the absolutely necessary to avoid bankruptcy type we have here in the United States, but my jaw was ON THE FLOOR. I hope that she has since gotten the help that she clearly needs to value herself and her security over her employer. I would also love another update, as her first update did not make it seem like she’d learned anything.

  23. Falling Diphthong*

    I want to pass on some general advice re dealing with trolls:

    If someone shows up with the handle “The Earth IS Flat” and starts promoting flat eartherism as controlled by the shape-shifting lizard people, then they have made this central to their identity. They are not abandoning the belief central to their identity because you make an excellent model of how ships vanish over the horizon and explain the metabolic issues with shape shifting. It’s just another variation on someone standing out in the middle of the sewage yelling “wade out here and debate me!”

    1. WOOLFAN*

      I’m truly curious about whether there is more trolling today because people who want to act terribly know they can take advantage of Alison this week, or if we are seeing a typical baseline level that usually gets deleted before it is seen or escalates.

    2. Hlao-roo*

      This is great advice. To add on to it:

      If someone is breaking commenting rules, there is a method to report them (described in the commenting rules). It’s less work to moderate away one comment than it is to delete that comment plus all of the replies debating the original commenter.

    3. Orv*

      In general it’s been shown that fact-checking people on their personal beliefs just makes them believe in them more strongly.

    4. Lenora Rose*

      Well, in this case, “Debate me!” seems to have been removed.

      There was a reason the only reply I did to them was a link to be flagged for moderation.

      1. Czhorat*

        I feel very torn on this; at this stage in my life I am (usually) smart enough not to get into squabbles with halfwits and bigots on the internet. That said, I DO see value in signaling to people on the receiving end of such bigotry that they aren’t alone, and that more of us stand with them than against.

        Overall, you took the wiser and more thoughtful course.

        1. Lenora Rose*

          Oh, there are places I *will* get into it with the bigots. There are places like this where I don’t trust the moderators to take out the trash instead, and there are places *so* toxic that the trash is all there is (eg. X) where there’s no point in pushing back. But there are a fair number of places in the middle.

          And as you say, a chief reason is not to convince bigots, but to make sure it’s not only (eg) trans people defending trans people and stuck all alone.

          1. Lenora Rose*

            ACK!

            There are places like this where I DO trust the moderators to take out the trash instead.

        2. Falling Diphthong*

          I think one thing that happens is we read the bare remark, fume, respond, hit post… and it turns out a dozen other people were doing the same thing, so now rather than 1-2 “Shoo. This is not the audience for your hate”–and then the subthread wilting as everyone ignores it until it can be pruned–it’s gone exponential.

    5. Worldwalker*

      Nobody expects to convince a troll of anything. It’s all about the lurkers. They’re the people we’re really refuting the troll for.

    6. Worldwalker*

      Nobody expects to convince them — we’re refuting their points for the benefit of the lurkers.

  24. SusieQQ*

    My jaw is on the floor after reading LW1 and the update. Does this person seriously think they were spared being laid off because they skipped eating a slice of pizza?

  25. Serious Silly Putty*

    Oof… reading LW1 and the update was painful. LW doesn’t understand what cost cutting is. The things done didn’t cut costs, they cut the collection of those costs.
    The few things that would have been cost-cutting initiatives needed to happen at a higher level. Eg “due to austerity measures we will no longer be providing food on late nights” or “we will now be capping retirement matching at $X.”
    Cost cutting is, like, printing less and not using color, not buying new office equipment, zooming instead of traveling for meetings.

  26. Religious Nutter*

    LW #4 here. Still at the job discussed in this letter and it’s follow-up. Longest job I’ve ever held! I wish I could comment on the thread started by Eigenvogel, but it looks like some kind of shenanigans happened with trolls and now replies are banned.

    All I’ll say about it is that I’m with them on the topic of religion often being used as a bludgeon against marginalized groups. There’s been tons of letters on AAM to that effect over the years. It’s a complicated topic that can’t be easily surmised in a comment thread, but my (and my faith’s) take on it has always been that religion should govern how YOU behave, not how other people do.

    Nonetheless, it can be pretty tough getting a job when you’re wearing religious dress. Religious people can make other people nervous (gee, I wonder why?) and navigating that minefield can be really complicated.

    That was the heart of my letter, really. How do you signal to a hiring manager “Yeah, I’m religious. No I’m not about to make your workplace into a living hell of drama and HR complaints.”

    The comments section on the initial post had some lively discussions around that topic. It’s helped me a lot int he time since.

    2. Prudence and Wakeen Snooter Theatre for the Performing Oats*

      I’m so glad you wrote in! After the pushback you wrote about in the update, has anything else come up in regards to your manner of dress?

      1. Religious Nutter*

        After the initial pushback, I didn’t get any further questions or requests regarding my clothing. In fact, the opposite kind of happened. During my first few years working here, the dress code kept getting revised to be more casual, until the whole suit/tie thing basically got dropped. These days that level of formality only happens when execs meet with the Board of Directors.

        No one has directly said anything to me about it, but I strongly suspect there were a few rounds of “But if Religious Nutter can dress the way they do, why do the rest of us have to follow this strict dress code?”. A few people made jokes or comments to that effect, though never in a way that made me feel called out.

        While I’m honestly grateful I was kept out of those discussions, I’m also kind of tickled that my presence threw some light on the whole Traditional Buisness Formal Is What We Do Here thing.

        It might sound funny coming from someone with a “uniform”, but I really hate it when people in power insist that the people below them have to dress a particular way. Whether we’re talking logo polos, suits and ties, or high heels and stockings, it nearly always boils down to “I like to look at an office full of people who dress the way I want to dress”.

        1. cactus lady*

          I do wonder if that initial pushback stemmed from genuine cluelessness. I have encountered some pretty clueless HR folks over the years and I could definitely imagine some of them thinking, “I wonder how strict this plain dress thing actually is? There’s probably some wiggle room right? I should ask about that.” and not seeing anything wrong with that. Hopefully that’s a conversation they only had once before they learned!

        2. tangerineRose*

          I’m glad they let people dress more casually. I think wearing comfortable clothes makes it easier for me to get my job done.

          I think part of how you feel about this is that you chose to wear what you wear, and you like that other people have more options too.

    4. Meep*

      Glad you are doing well!

      I wouldn’t worry about Eigenvogel and the posts below it. Frankly, they were out of line from the jump. It is important to build up awareness of a platform you care about without the need to punch in any direction to bring others to your cause.

      1. Religious Nutter*

        I would advocate for empathy for Eigenvogel. They’re justifiably angry about the direction of modern discourse, and I agree with their core point. I don’t think religions should get a free behavioral pass that no one else gets, and I’d like to live in a world where trans folks get the same level of consideration and legal protection as I get for my faith.

  27. Pounce de Lion*

    I once attended a daylong financial seminar in which we were guided to explore our deep-seated beliefs and emotions about money. It was very beneficial. I wish had done it much earlier in my adult life. And I wonder what OP1’s story would be, because that coping mechanism is intense.

  30. Susannah*

    Oh, the LW who thought colleagues should be sacrificing their livelihoods for the company…. I forgot that in the updates, LW had actually doubled down on on the insane idea that workers are basically shareholders without profit-sharing.

    I hope LW has ultimately realized that of a company can’t pay its bills – including reasonable expenses and overtime (and hiring enough people so they’re not always relying on OT), then it’s not a viable business. The failures here are not the people who got laid off for not volunteering to work for free and to subsidize business expenses with their own money. It’s the business leaders, for not funding a way (if there was one) to run said business.

    Oh – if the company thought the 401K match was making the difference between surviving or not, they would have gotten rid of that benefit entirely. And when people are asked to work OT, it’s pretty normal to provide them with a meal – since it’s a meal they normally could cook at home, were they not asked to work.

    I mean this sincerely – I hope LW got therapy, because the letter was written by someone who zero sense of self-worth.

  31. Summer*

    LW1 is wild. I will never understand that mentality, of martyring yourself on the corporate altar to save the company a few bucks. And then doubling down in the update and saying they had to hold back from telling their coworkers who were getting laid off “I told you so” (!!) is nutty to me. This person will never get it and that is so sad.

  32. Literally a Cat*

    I wonder if OP1 grew up in an abusive household. I still catch myself thinking and sometimes even conditioned to act this way, because I’m ingrained to believe that I’m worth nothing.

Comments are closed.