a nudist across from the office, a lease dispute with a former tenant’s manager, and more

by Alison Green on December 2, 2024

I’m on vacation. Here are some past letters that I’m making new again, rather than leaving them to wilt in the archives. And then later today, updates season begins!

1. My former tenant’s “manager” is requesting money for her time spent on a lease dispute

I have been in conflict with a former tenant (Sara) for a few weeks, for various reasons that I am not going to list here but are part of the usual conflicts tenants and landlords can have at the end of a tenancy (cleanliness, state of the garden, etc.). The usual legal process is taking place in order for me to be able to deduct costs I incurred, from her deposit. We are going through a simplified process because the claim is low (less than $1000) and no solicitors are involved.

Sara works for a well-known global company and I have just received an email from someone claiming to be her manager, asking me to pay the equivalent of one week of Sara’s salary for the time she had to take off work to deal with the conflict. The email address seems to be legitimate, using the company’s domain name and I can find the name of the person on LinkedIn as working there but they don’t seem to hold a senior position. The email is not clear as to whom the compensation should be paid and does not detail how the compensation was computed (one week seems a very long time to send a few emails — the process has taken me one hour so far).

Now, I have no problem answering to this person that I do not know who they are and that they need to follow a legal process if they want to claim anything from me. However, I know that such a big global company would never start a litigation like this (no solicitor involved, even in-house, unclear claim) so I suspect Sara to have organized it. And so here is my question: shall I contact the company to inform them of this claim made in their name?

My first idea was to wait to see if I receive a second email, as at the end of the day Sara is very young and I don’t want her to lose her job over this. Now I am not too sure. As a manager, I would want to know this. Apart from this email, I have never been in touch with Sara’s employer, I just saw salary statements before she moved in.

Wow, yeah, I suspect you’re right that this isn’t a genuine request from Sara’s company but instead came from a coworker at her request, for all the reasons you stated. And if I were Sara’s employer, I’d sure as hell want to know that she was doing this. (Although it’s possible that it’s actually Sara’s manager going rogue — it’s possible she has a manager without a particularly senior-sounding title and that person is out of their gourd, rather than it being something Sara herself organized. Who knows.)

In any case, you could certainly alert her employer if you want to, and there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But it’s likely to make things more contentious with Sara and it doesn’t really get you any closer to any of the outcomes you want (which presumably are just to handle the end of her lease with as little hassle as possible). Ultimately I’d get clarity on what you want here (just to settle the lease situation as quickly and easily as possible? to take a stand on principle that this email is messed up and there should be consequences?) and proceed accordingly.

– 2018

Read an update to this letter here.

2. My office window looks right into the apartment of an enthusiastic nudist

My colleagues and I decided to reach out to you with a problem that’s recently developed. Our office is on the seventh floor of a downtown building. Two streets away is a recently completed apartment complex with a penthouse level with two apartments with floor to ceiling windows. One apartment keeps the shades down. The other always has them fully up. The resident routinely walks around during office hours naked or in a bra and underwear. Today she walked out on her balcony undressed.

The apartment is exactly in our line of sight (particularly in my office), and it’s impossible not to notice. This may seem funny or titillating to some, but we find this very distracting and unwelcome. What is the best course of action? Email the management company? Stop by the lobby and say something to the front desk person? Maybe she doesn’t realize just how visible she is.

Well … it’s really up to her what she does in her own apartment. In some jurisdictions the balcony piece of this would violate public decency laws, although it sounds like that may have been a one-time occurrence. If this is mainly about her being in underwear or naked in her own home, that’s not really something you can or should interfere with. It’s more just a reality of city living; people are crammed together and you’re going to see things.

But I certainly understand why it’s distracting when you’re at work! I’d instead look into measures you can take on your own side, like curtains (gauzy ones would let you still have sunlight but would probably make her less noticeable) or changing the angle of your desk.

At the very most, if you can figure out how to get a note directly to her, you could leave a note saying that she may not realize she’s so visible to people across the way — but you don’t really have standing to insist she put on more clothes in her own home.

– 2019

3. I got sent to a conference where I didn’t belong

I was recently sent to an important conference on behalf of my organization, as some higher-ups were unavailable. When I arrived, it became immediately apparent that the conference was more of an intimate meeting of some very important players in my industry. I had been planning on spending a couple of days listening to talks and taking notes. Instead I found myself in discussions where I really had nothing to contribute.

The whole thing was embarrassing. It was obvious to everyone there that I shouldn’t have been sent. I decided to brush the entire experience off and try and learn as much as I could. However, in the next meeting they discussed future conferences and one of the members made a comment, prefaced with “no offense,” that for future meetings it should be made clear what level of employee was required to attend, and if that level employee was not available, “they shouldn’t just send anyone.”

It was very embarrassing and upsetting to be singled out. I wasn’t under any illusions about how out of place I was, but I do know that my attendance was confirmed ahead of time with the conference leaders.

How do I give feedback to my manager about this conference? I want to make it clear that in future it wouldn’t be appropriate to send an employee of my level (my manager is new and wouldn’t have known, this only became clear upon arrival) as I wouldn’t want anyone to experience this, but I also don’t want to appear ungrateful as it was supposed to be a wonderful opportunity. I also don’t know whether to mention this comment that rattled me. Thoughts?

“It turned out the conference was really for high-level players — people there were typically CEOs and second-in-commands (or whatever — describe the roles of the people there). I figured I’d try to learn as much as I could while I was there, but during a planning meeting they made it pretty clear that they didn’t want anyone to send someone at my level again. Obviously neither of us knew this before I went, but I wanted to fill you in for next year.”

I think you can just keep it factual like that and there’s no need to get into the fact that you felt embarrassed and rattled, unless your manager seems to really want to dissect what happened. If she does, you can be straightforward about the the whole thing. But otherwise, I’d keep it just to the parts that are relevant for next time.

By the way, since the conference leaders knew you were attending, it’s possible that the person who made the remark about “not sending just anyone” was an outlier and other people didn’t feel that way. But it also sounds like you basically agreed with that assessment, and it was just the snotty phrasing that bothered you. I’d try to separate your emotions from it as much as possible and see it as just an inartful expression of what you already knew. It makes total sense that it was embarrassing to have that said right in front of you, though! (But I promise you that in a few years, “the time I got sent to a conference where I was completely out of place” will be an amusing story you can tell other people.)

– 2019

4. Applicant made weird demands for interview timeline

In a recent period of hiring I came across plenty of slightly strange (and some more than slightly strange) things that applicants felt the need to include in their resumes or cover letters. None confused me more than the below, which to me reads more like a logic puzzle than a statement of availability. For context, this was at the very bottom of a four-page resume under the heading “Availability for Interview”:

“I would be available for an interview only within a period of let’s say four days and preferably sooner, from the time of receiving the formal shortlisting email notice. This also means that I would not be available for the interview in case the email notice is sent to me earlier than four days prior to the interview date. The time periods include also weekends.”

I just have so many questions! It seems like the applicant wants as short a time as possible to elapse between being shortlisted and being interviewed, but I’m at a loss as to why. And why is four days the magic number? Am I missing something?

Even if it were more of a straightforward statement, I would find such a thing rather presumptuous on a resume. Maybe in a cover letter if your availability will be unusually limited in the weeks following applying for a job, but in a resume like it’s a blanket requirement of yours regardless of the timing of the application? It just seems off, or maybe that is overly rigid of me?

Noooo, this is quite weird. You are not being overly rigid.

I also like that he himself is very rigid but then says “let’s say four days,” as if he’s just thinking up the number on the spot.

He is weirdly demanding and out of touch with the norms of humans, and you should reject him (but only within a period of let’s say four days and preferably sooner).

– 2018

You may also like:
{ 197 comments }

{ 197 comments… read them below }

  1. Not A Manager*

    It’s kind of a sad update to letter #1. In the landlord’s shoes in the original letter, I might have told Sara I was puzzled by the letter from her manager, and that I’d need to speak to Legal or HR in order to really be able to respond to it. And then ask her if she wanted me to contact them immediately, or wait to see if her manager followed up.

    1. Account*

      It sounds like a sad situation but the LW handled it just as I would have. Ignored the first letter, but then once the next letter arrived threatening legal action, let my own lawyer handle it.

      1. duinath*

        Same. At that point she was threatening OP to get money out of them, and action was necessary.

        (Imagine being her boss. Oof.)

      2. James*

        I don’t quite see how this is sad. Young or not, Sara seems pretty awful on top of clueless. I hope she lost her job due to this and learned not to blackmail people in the future (sounds like her parents are wealthy enough to bail her out if she needs real help).

        2. Bilateralrope*

          Sara might not be the only person who lost her job over this. If another employee sent those threats, they are also in trouble.

          The use of solicitor in the update makes me think that the LW is outside the US. Stronger employment protections might make it easier to fire the other employee, because the emails are proof if their unacceptable behaviour, while proof that Sara asked for them is harder to obtain.

          1. Observer*

            Sara might not be the only person who lost her job over this. If another employee sent those threats, they are also in trouble.

            Which would not be bad thing, either. Helping someone to extort money from a third party is bad. Doing it using your position in a company is doubly bad, and the company really *has* to protect itself.

            I hope that if there was another employee involved (rather that Sarah managing to spoof their address), that they also learned a lesson.

          2. Learn ALL the things*

            There could have been another person involved, or there could have been a coworker who was particularly lax about locking their computer and Sara took advantage. If the coworker was actively involved, I’m okay with them being fired over this. Using your position in the company to send threats to people is a fireable offense. If it’s just that somebody had a tendency to leave their computer unlocked, I’d hope it was just a stern talking to about cybersecurity.

        3. learnedthehardway*

          Agreed. I would say this was a much needed life lesson to the tenant: You don’t try to involve your employer in your personal legal disputes, and you don’t try to extort people using your employer’s size/reputation/whatever.

        1. Lilo*

          This is also an incredibly common aspect of scams. If someone is abusing their employment situation like this, who else would they do this too?

          1. Falling Diphthong*

            This.

            “Hey Great Grand Boss! Yeah, I’ve been sending out threatening letters under the company letterhead, falsely claiming the company has initiated criminal proceedings against certain people. But my friend told me these were totally like annoying people that deserved to be scared, so I did it so they wouldn’t keep asking my friend to pay back the money.”

            Great Grand Boss is quite right to want to know this is happening, and to fire any employees involved.

      4. rebelwithmouseyhair*

        I would have mentioned it to Sara, saying that I would contact her manager if this line were to be pursued. Because of course the manager couldn’t have had anything to do with this. Sara would have stopped immediately, I’m sure. It sounds like she has very little idea of how the world works and I wasn’t surprised to read in the update that she was no longer working for the well-known firm.

    2. MK*

      If Sarah did lose her job over this, no, it isn’t sad. This isn’t a young person making a mistake, it’s someone who tried to use the fact that she worked for a global company to intimidate another person she had a dispute with into caving.

        1. Venus*

          Not just that, but “Do you know who my dad is? Because he’s big and is going to hurt you more than you’ve hurt me.” Sara was doing this presumably as a way to recuperate lost costs and get added money from LW.

      2. Lawyer (not a litigator thank God)*

        it’s someone who tried to use the fact that she worked for a global company to intimidate another person she had a dispute with into caving.

        Litigators make grandiose, ballooned-up threats like this all the time in pre-litigation correspondence.

        1. Lilo*

          Yes, but the crucial difference being they have authority to represent the company in said dispute. And someone who makes extreme threats like having someone arrested over something like this would be subject to complaints against their license. We had an example this year of an attorney who was disbarred for making similar threats against his ex wife.

        2. MK*

          I am not sure what you mean and why it’s even relevant. If Sarah thought she was in the right, she could have hired a litigation and take OP to court, ghat us her right. But she tried to pretend her employer, a global company with likely unlimited resources, was going after OP. This was pure intimidation.

        3. Observer*

          Litigators make grandiose, ballooned-up threats like this all the time in pre-litigation correspondence.

          Some do and some don’t. And guess what? Some lawyers do things that are unethical. But in this case it’s not just unethical. Because when a litigation lawyer does that, they do have the authority to make those threats. And when dealing with an ethical lawyer, these tactics are not intended to extort money that is clearly not owed. As for unethical lawyers? There is a reason why lawyer jokes are a thing. But that’s not a reasonable standard by any means.

      3. Cat Tree*

        Yeah, this really crosses a line that I wouldn’t have crossed when I was young, and I had my fair share of naive youthful mistakes. And of all the young people I know, including coworkers and relatives, I’m doubtful any of them would do this. This isn’t just youthful shenanigans.

        1. Learn ALL the things*

          Exactly. This wasn’t caused by Sara being naive and not understanding the ways of the world. It was caused by Sara being self-centered and mean spirited. I was extremely naive in my early 20s, but it would never hav occurred to me to anonymous threats to people, because while I was naive, I was not mean-spirited.

        2. Nah*

          Yeah, this isn’t a “wore a miniskirt to a black tie party in front of the CFO”, this is “threatened legal action while pretending she had the go-ahead from Massive Multinational Business Legal Team”

    3. Leenie*

      Sarah apparently put someone up to threatening the LW with the prospect of sending bailiffs after her, in an effort to extort money, on top of whatever she did to get evicted in the first place. And she has parents who bailed her out financially. With what little we’ve been told of Sarah’s judgment, who even knows if the LW’s actions had anything to do with Sarah losing her job. But if they did, that would be a direct consequence of Sarah’s own actions. Sarah seems to have been making a string of bad choices that hurt other people, as well as herself. Maybe a consequence motivated her to make a needed change.

      1. Leenie*

        Sorry – on a second read, I don’t think Sarah was evicted. But I wouldn’t change anything else in my comment. If the company hearing from the LW’s lawyer was one of the things that led to Sarah losing her job, I think that’s appropriate and nothing that the LW should feel bad about.

      2. AcademiaNut*

        Ignoring the first email gave Sarah a chance to realize that this was a really bad idea and back down. Instead, she doubled down and escalated to threats. At that point, it was lawyer time and hopefully Sarah learned a useful if painful lesson.

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          This. Once might seem like a naive idea to get the person to drop the lawsuit that was going on. Oh hey if they have to pay me more than any money they collect maybe they will stop.

          Instead of going, welp that didn’t work. Or realizing, oh wait, no employer would do this, it looks really dumb, they sent a second letter.

      3. Antilles*

        For your first sentence, I don’t think Sara put anyone up to threatening the LW. To me, it reads like Sara herself wrote the follow-up email saying that the company would send bailiffs if it wasn’t dealt with.

        1. Observer*

          Based on the letter, it seems pretty clear that it was sent from a company email and officially on behalf of the company.

          And the first email definitely had someone else’s email address on it, which means she either put someone up to at least the first part, or hacked someone’s email. Either if which is REALLY bad.

        2. fhqwhgads*

          It reads like the email came from a real email address for a not-Sara employee of the company. OP confirmed such a person was listed in the company’s directory. So if Sara wrote it, she had access to send it from someone else’s email, which is possible, but seems less likely than her involving the other person directly.

          She could have written it and gotten someone to agree to send it from their account, but that’s still putting someone up to it, regardless of who came up with the exact text.

    4. Bilateralrope*

      If you’re thinking about talking to a companies legal department, that means talking to the company lawyers. Would you do that without your lawyer ?

    5. Ellis Bell*

      OP didn’t respond at all to the initial letter, which is a sort of response in a way, of saying “I’m not convinced this is real”. Yet Sara still chose to escalate and push the issue. Making hints that the letter might not be real enough to involve people at Sara’s firm wouldn’t have done anything to change Sara’s basically terrible judgement, or her desire to harass OP some other way. I wouldn’t be surprised if she lost her job for a ton of reasons.

    6. Lilo*

      This is not legal advice. When you’re dealing with legal threats, you do refer then to your solicitor if you’re already in a dispute. It doesn’t really matter if you suspect it’s fake or nit.

      FWIW, this is a clear firing offense. Using your company’s name to make threats is a HUGE problem and the company deserved to know about it. Imagine them pulling this on someone less savvy who for frightened and sent the money. People fall for scams like this all the time.

    7. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      It would have been a mistake to get down into the weeds and try to handle such a dishonest – and loopy – person herself.
      The OP was also sensible to let her lawyers talk to the employer’s lawyers rather than attempting this herself e.g. being taken seriously, avoiding the risk of defamation.

      Sara had the chance to back off when the OP ignored the first letter, but instead she escalated with a new invention of bailiffs. If she had ignored the 2nd letter, who knows what the next escalation would have been.

      1. Lilo*

        Having dealt with harassment on professional level, there’s a degree to which calling it out can absolutely escalate the behavior. LW handled this situation appropriately.

    8. RIP Pillowfort*

      The landlord is in a small claims situation with Sara. At no point would it be reasonable for her to engage directly with Sara. Any competent lawyer would tell you to let them handle it.

      When someone threatens you like this, you don’t talk to them like this is a reasonable request. That time has passed.

    9. Roland*

      Speaking with their lawyers, while in a legal dispute with Sara, without OP’s own lawyers, is a tremendously bad idea.

    10. Insert Clever Name Here*

      It’s not sad. Sara tried to threaten LW with a ridiculous claim, Sara doubled down on it, and LW responded as was appropriate if it had been a reasonable claim: allowing her lawyer to take care of it since it was related to the reason LW and Sara were in legal proceedings already.
      Maybe it’s sad in the sense of “wow, Sara made some incredibly dumb choices that had real world consequences, it’s sad that’s what it takes for some people to learn” but I don’t feel bad for Sara at all.

    11. Ginger Cat Lady*

      Sarah and the landlord were *already in a legal dispute* and she was refusing to pay what she owed. She was trying to scam the landlord with these emails.
      That’s not a person you cut any slack. I think landlord handled it perfectly by referring the threatened legal action to his lawyer to handle.
      It’s not sad that Sarah experienced FAFO.

    12. Observer*

      In the landlord’s shoes in the original letter, I might have told Sara I was puzzled by the letter from her manager, and that I’d need to speak to Legal or HR in order to really be able to respond to it.

      And that would have been the worst possible thing to do. Even without the additional context that the LW provided in the comments, when you are dealing with something this out of line, trying to reason with people or essentually “hint” that they are out of line is not useful and has a lot of potential to create problems. *Especially* when you are already in a legal dispute with them.

      And the fact that Sara then escalated to *threats* proves that the LW was correct to be concerned about Sara’s possibly responding in an unhinged manner. And at that point the only way forward was to have their lawyer take it from there.

      And since the email was ostensibly from the employer, they *had* to be informed, regardless. But also it created a situation where the most reasonable action was to confirm with the company on whose behalf this email was supposedly coming whether or not the email was fraudulent or not.

      And there is absolutely nothing sad about someone losing their job because they tried to extort money from someone and used fraudulent means to do so.

    13. Artemesia*

      I would have been on the phone to HR or upper management or legal at her place of business that day. I understand Alison’s advice and it is probably wiser but I would not have been able to resist. It is so clearly not something a company would do.

  2. Daria grace*

    #1 is fascinating. Such a bizarre thing to do, especially while she still had other outstanding issues with the landlord. I’m wondering if she had gained access to another employees email address illegitimately or set up a domain that looks like the company’s one but isn’t because no-one with even the slightest bit of sense would cooperate with her using a very unusual method to extort money from a landlord.

    1. MK*

      My guess is she thought she could get OP to drop her claim by intimidating her with her employer’s stature, not actually get money. She figured OP would be afraid they might become mixed up in litigation with a huge company with big lawyers, and return the deposit immediately to avoid that. After all, it’s common advice that sometimes only a letter from a lawyer can be enough to get people to stop being difficult; she may have thought a letter from Microsoft would have the same effect.

    2. Bilateralrope*

      That’s for the company to figure out. Was Sara the only employee involved or did she convince some other employee to help ?

    3. Person from the Resume*

      There is extremely young cluelessness to think that a company would come after someone who is having a legal dispute with their employee for their employees salary while dealing with the case. Ridiculous!

      That in no way excuses someone who tries a con to get money out of someone. WTH!

  3. Happy meal with extra happy*

    I’m not sure if I really get the scandalous nature of #2. I once had an office that faced apartments with floor to ceiling windows, and I only found it vaguely amusing when, one evening, in two apartments next to each other (with a mirrored floor plan), both kitchens were occupied by a man only in his boxers. It was almost like a play or something, the carbon copy nature of it.

    1. Daria grace*

      I don’t think you have to find it scandalous for naked people to be something you’d prefer to not see while working nor to wonder if the naked person would want to know if they’re visible

      1. Happy meal with extra happy*

        I guess I wouldn’t consider it related to work? Like, it can just be something that happens in a city, and it’s relatively to not look, unless the building is like five feet from your window. Maybe if they were doing more scandalous activities, I’d be more concerned, but otherwise? I dunno, just not something I would care enough about.

        2. KateM*

          According to OP, it is “two streets away” – not that I know how far it would be. If it was in my town, I’d wonder if there were some binoculars in use. :P

          1. D'Arcy*

            Two streets away would generally mean two city blocks, and a penthouse unit would be on the top floor of the other building. This would be a distance of 400-800 feet, so there’s definitely some magnification in play.

            1. Cmdrshprd*

              Not necessarily it could be only one city block.

              OPs office is on the Northside of the building (the building could take up the entire block or half) so you have one street that they are directly on, then another building/ block in-between, then another street, then the residential building and the penthouse is on the Southside of the building. So really there is only one block and two streets of width in between.

          2. Cmdrshprd*

            In a majority of urban downtown areas, two streets away is usually close enough that you could see what software/movie/tv show someone is using without resorting to binoculars, aka using the naked eye (pun 1000% intended).

            1. Allonge*

              What kind of super eyesight do people have? I live in a high(ish) rise, with just one (narrow) road between us and the next building. The closest flat in the next building has a huge tv screen on the opposite wall, so I see it full on – I can tell if it’s football or news playing, but only based on the colour. Two blocks away, it’s just pretty lights.

              1. Emmy Noether*

                Haha, right? The block in front of my building is a park, so now that the trees are bare, I have a direct line of sight to the building two streets away. I just checked, for science. The windows appear barely the size of my fingernail from here – if the lighting was just right, I could probably make out a fleshcolored human figure, but it’d be a miniature. It wouldn’t draw the eye.

              2. Cmdrshprd*

                I don’t think I have super eyesight, I can’t tell details, but I can usually tell a difference between someone working on an excel sheet or working in word etc… I do agree it is usually based on color scheme and maybe people in other offices have multiple big screens 32 inch dual/triple monitors seem common in some offices.

                But I’ve seen people in residential buildings across the street watching Tv on really big 65/75 inch screens and I have been able to see the movies/shows they are watching and can tell if it is Law and Order SVU, Major crimes, or Fast and Furious 1 or #24.

              3. MigraineMonth*

                Detective: So you witnessed the murder?
                Me: Maybe.
                Detective: Maybe?
                Me: There were two person-shaped blob, and then suddenly there was only one person-shaped blob.
                Detective: So my one witness wasn’t weren’t wearing their glasses.
                Me: Buddy, that’s with my glasses on. Without my glasses I would barely have seen the building.

              4. Goldfeesh*

                I know! It’s like, “Put your telescope away already.” Or maybe my eyesight is a lot poorer than I think it is.

            2. Elizabeth West*

              You must have better eyesight than I do. I can barely read a sign one block across the square from my office building and that’s only because it’s in bright lettering.

          3. Daria grace*

            My city has a lot of rectangular blocks, with the short sides being about 100 metres. This is not a situation I’ve experienced but it seems like at 200 metres you could probably not see the details but potentially sort of see what’s going on.

            1. KateM*

              “I can sort of see that someone 200 metres away is walking around her home naked” seems to me about on par with “should I complain to HR about the person who seems to wear strings under scrubs”.

            2. Beany*

              As someone mentioned upthread, “two streets away” might actually mean only a little over a single block away (say 110 meters in your example): LW’s office -> street 1 -> empty/low-rise block -> street 2 -> nudist’s penthouse.

              1. bamcheeks*

                Honestly, even if it’s that close, the answer is to put film on the window or sit somewhere else. Expecting the world to be distraction-free for a 120m radius around your office window is unreasonable.

                1. Jackalope*

                  Most people (at least in the US) would consider nudity a different category of distraction than, say, a theatre with people practicing inside and lots of moving (distracting) parts, or a flashing billboard.

                2. Allonge*

                  @Jackalope

                  Sure, but if there is at least a block of distance, there should be a way to ignore or cover that small part of the world outside. It’s not ideal, I agree it may be more distracting than other things, but it is what it is.

                3. Socks*

                  Yeah, film on the window would be my first suggestion. Lets light in and you can choose to only cover the relevant parts of the window if you still want to see most of what’s outside

      2. BatManDan*

        The naked person knows they’re visible. Do they not care, or is it part of the thrill? But it is most assuredly the case that they know.

      3. RagingADHD*

        You could always opt for not looking into other people’s windows if you don’t want to see them minding their own business in their own homes.

        Once you know the apartment windows are there, it really isn’t difficult at all to simply refrain from looking in them.

    2. Ellis Bell*

      I didn’t get any sense of anyone feeling scandalised. It was a combination of the set up being so that the person who was “like a play” (really good way of putting it) was more noticeable/distracting from OP’s office, but OP didn’t want to lose their daylight. If it had been anything but nudity, like a billboard or light, or something else distracting, people would have understood it immediately.

      1. Smithy*

        Right now our office is across the street from a hotel – and trust me, it’s just not that difficult to see what folks are doing in their hotel rooms when the blinds are open during the day. And yes, plenty of them walk around in their underpants, and occasionally nude.

        Overall the majority of what we see is wildly mundane if a bit sad. However our approach is that visiting staff are never put in that hotel, and if someone is bothered they can always request their work station to be further from the windows. I do think the fact that it’s not the same person you’re seeing all the time does make it less personal?

        1. Allonge*

          FWIW, I think you are handling this well.

          I would guess there are a lot of people for whom it gets into the ‘background noise’ category after a while, and if someone is really bothered, they can move to another desk = pragmatic solution to something that is unlikely to change.

        2. Ellis Bell*

          I think this is certainly true about different strangers being more anonymous, and therefore having more privacy, interestingly enough.

    3. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      I wouldn’t consider it scandalous in the “privacy” of their own home, but it would likely be embarrassing, even as a fellow nudist – we’re mostly NOT exhibitionists ans I always make sure I don’t flash anyone
      My various offices always had blinds, because of the sun – and on reflection maybe to shut out unwelcome sights

    4. Helvetica*

      I had at one workplace direct view into someone’s living room where a man loved to do push-ups on the windowsill, bare-chested. The distance between our buildings was not great, so he definitely knew he was visible but I guess he didn’t care and ultimately I could ignore it.
      Frankly, I have walked around my place in my underwear and not really cared if anyone could catch glimpses…I am at home, after all.

    5. Ganymede II*

      One can prefer not to see other people’s naked bodies without being scandalized. It’s not excessively prudish, it’s well within the realm of things it’s normal to want to consent to.

      1. Nebula*

        You can prefer not to see naked bodies, but you can’t then use that preference to dictate what someone does in their own home two streets away. The way you deal with that preference is, as Alison suggested, changing something on your side (curtains, blinds, some sort of window film).

        I think the use of ‘consent’ in your comment doesn’t apply here, by phrasing it that way it sounds like you’re implying this woman is somehow sexually harassing people who ‘haven’t consented’ to seeing her by just doing what she feels comfortable with in her own home. Sometimes living in the world means seeing things you’re uncomfortable with, those people aren’t inflicting it on you and they aren’t doing anything wrong just because you (general you) haven’t ‘consented’ to seeing it.

    6. fpg*

      I was a little surprised at the response here. When I moved into a new building, I was told by my super that curtains were absolutely necessary for me to purchase because this issue could arise. Obviously though, every place will have different bylaws.

      1. RagingADHD*

        But that was the bylaws of your own apartment building. It was not dictated by a random office worker two blocks away.

    7. londonedit*

      In sort of the reverse of this situation, there was a whole thing a while back when Tate Modern opened their new outdoor space, which has lovely views across London. Including views of the smart block of flats nearby. Residents there claimed it was a breach of their privacy, because people visiting the Tate would be able to see into their flats, and they claimed it would be unfair if they were forced to put up blinds and obscure their own lovely view of the river if they wanted to stop random tourists nosing into their windows. In the end I think they lost their battle on the grounds that if you buy a flat next door to a major tourist attraction then you can’t really complain that there are lots of people visiting said attraction and possibly being able to see into your flat.

  5. Naked Sign Wars*

    Re #2: this is EXACTLY the time for large posterboard letters (one per window) to spell out a message across all the windows on your floor that face the “uninhibited tenant”.

    It’s highly likely it hasn’t really occurred to her. It’s also quite possible she doesn’t care. But how can you pass a chance like this up? WE CAN SEE YOU NAKED is fine, but YOU’VE NEGLECTED LEG DAY is so much better. lol

    Get a drone and take pics of your building (not of her, pervs!) so you can post the pics of the sign to AAM afterwards, of course.

    1. Happy meal with extra happy*

      Yeah, your company would love that…

      I get this is intended as a humorous, non-serious comment, but why would it even be funny?

      1. Cmdrshprd*

        I think the sign should read something like “YOU SHOULD TRY X COFFEE BRAND/FLAVOR.” OR “X COFFEE IS MICH BETTER TASTING.”

        IMO outlandish/preposterous ideas are generally funny. I think it’s a play on the show “friends” where they have almost this exact situation and end up taking the nudist apartment when he dies.

        1. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

          I’m thinking of the scene early in Meet the Parents, when Ben Stiller’s character is trying to get the girlfriend’s kindergarden students to rearrange the proposal signs they’re holding.

    2. Drag0nfly*

      It might not have occurred to her. There are a surprising number of people who don’t realize that windows are see-through. I still laugh at one of those episodes of Property Brothers where Jonathan has the property buyers stand outside in front of the house while he dances shirtless in a living room to prove to them that they need to hang curtains or blinds in the window. For some reason they thought people outside the house couldn’t see inside. I don’t understand such people, but they exist, and the nudist might be one of them.

        1. Nebula*

          Yeah, if she’s in the penthouse, maybe she doesn’t realise people can see her, figuring she’s that high up, but she went out on her balcony like that. I suspect she doesn’t care, and fair enough, it’s her own home. I don’t generally walk around my flat naked – I live in Scotland for one thing, and it’s rarely warm enough for that – but if I am naked during the day when the curtains are open, I don’t particularly make an effort to hide it. I don’t see why I should have to cover up in my own home for the sake of people looking in my windows. If I lived on the ground floor, maybe that would change the calculus, but if you’re higher up, it’s whatever.

          1. SarahKay*

            Also in Scotland, and have a friend who lives on the second floor (3rd floor for US people) of one of the Edinburgh tenement blocks. Much too high for anyone on the ground to see her, so she was standing near the window and cheerfully changing her clothes without first shutting the curtains.
            Then she looked out of the window and saw the new-erected scaffolding on the building directly opposite where she was…and the builders on the scaffolding.
            Curtains were closed pdq!

            1. Nebula*

              Haha yeah I am actually the same (second floor of a tenement) and I think builders on scaffolding would be one of the things that would change my calculus. I am right opposite another tenement, so someone on the same floor would be able to see me, but other than that it’s not an issue.

            2. Jackalope*

              In our current place we have a neighboring house with a window at a similar level to our bedroom window. I housesat for them once and one of the first things I did was go into the room and see if I could see into our room. Reader, I might as well have been peering right in with my face pressed against the glass. Good to know; I’ve always been super careful since then to make sure that window has the curtains pulled for anything I want to keep private.

          2. londonedit*

            Yeah I would assume that she just isn’t thinking about whether people can see in. I live on the ground floor, so I’m very aware that people can see into my flat (I have thin voile curtains, which work in the daytime, but of course in the evening when the lights are on you can still see in) but if I was at the top of a tall block then I don’t think I’d pay much attention! I certainly wouldn’t think about people in an office block seeing in – office blocks tend to look very impersonal and often the windows have a dark or a reflective coating, and if you can’t see in then it’s hard to imagine other people are sitting there looking out and seeing everything you’re up to.

        2. Smithy*

          Yeah – I think a lot of people are confusing not caring with assumptions of generic “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

          Basically, if I don’t ask my neighbors how much they can see through my windows, and they don’t tell me – then neither of us need to address the issue.

      3. LBD*

        I had conversation along similar lines with a neighbour, who point blank told me that no, I couldn’t actually see into her bathroom window from my living room. I briefly thought of asking her how she liked ‘X’ brand shampoo, but shrugged and dropped the subject. I also chose not to tell her about her partner drinking milk straight out of the carton and then returning it to the fridge. Happily, shrubs and trees along the fence have grown up more over the years!

        1. Ellis Bell*

          There were some comments in the original letter along the lines of “she doesn’t care, but she would care if you told her you could see her, so don’t harass her and make her feel paranoid by giving her the heads up”. Which I just thought was a really strange take on reality. If I am wrong about something, I want to know, not be left with a happy little delusion.

      4. Falling Diphthong*

        I agree on windows being see through. I think people often assume that if they are seeing a reflection, people on the other side of the glass are also seeing a reflection.

      5. Lemons*

        Nah, she 100% knows people can see and either wants that or doesn’t care. She can see into their office windows too, I’m sure! People in dense living situations like city downtowns are well aware they are visible at all times. The fact she went out onto the balcony really cements this for me.

      6. fhqwhgads*

        I think some people assume they have reflective privacy film, when in fact, if they did not apply any, they do not.

    3. I Would Rather Be Eating Dumplings*

      That strikes me as a bit creepy and bullying rather than funny, FWIW.

      I’d just make sure that a polite note was sent her way so that she was aware.

    4. Workerbee*

      “You’ve neglected leg day?” Cripes. Nothing like doubling down on forcibly making a person feel small, amirite? /ire

    6. xyz*

      Haha. When I was in my early twenties my bedroom window faced the bathroom window of the house next door, but it was frosted glass so I never worried much about privacy. But there was a 2-inch bit of regular glass at the very top of the window, high enough that someone would have to stand on a stool to peek through. On two different occasions, friends changing clothes in my bedroom suddenly screamed and ran into the hall because the man next door had his eyes pressed to the gap and was creepily watching them. I hung a huge sign in my window that said, “STOP WATCHING ME CHANGE!” (and also closed the curtains from then on)

    7. Bernice’s hand bag*

      “ But how can you pass a chance like this up?”

      …you do because you remember that you’re an actual adult who is actually capable of NOT staring at their neighbor in the privacy of her own home all day??????

    8. KateM*

      You do understand that with her being two streets away, she probably will not realize it is directed at her if she even notices it? Instead, the ones who is living right across the street will think it’s them. Also, everyone living or not living within your poster’s visibility who sees it will know that your office employes a bunch of creepy peeping toms.

  6. Hastings*

    At least #3 didn’t surreptitiously sign herself up for the high-level conference and get fired over it!

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      It does illustrate how at a conference for TPTB someone of much lower rank is totally out of place and gains nothing except embarassment.

      1. Coin_Operated*

        I disagree. This is manufactured embarrassment. Even if the LW couldn’t “contribute” much to the discussions, there is no actual, real harm by them attending the conference. At most, everyone else there “should” be competent enough to just move on and adapt while the LW just takes notes and listens.

        The fact that they felt the need to “call it out” to me, just speaks of their lack of emotional intelligence and perpetuating hierarchal B.S. systems out of tradition.

        1. The Conference Bored*

          I made some of the most valuable contacts of my life early in my career by going to higher-level conferences. Would I advise a junior employee to attend a conference they’ve expressly been forbidden from attending? No, but if the company is silent, you register on your own, don’t list your company affiliation, etc. it is a great way of meeting people. At one of those conferences I met my co-founder and we have established a highly successful company.

          You can ask yourself: would you rather follow the example of Elon Musk (who would go to the conference) or HR people.

    3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      At least at this one they let her participate. In that other letter, she was banned from the conference. The difference being, that the company sent her here and in the other the person used the guise of helping the company organizer to insert herself on the list.

  7. Myrin*

    I somehow missed #4 when it first came out but OP is quite right that this reads more like a logic puzzle than anything else.

    It’s also interesting to me that this candidate would be okay with being contacted the day before an interview but not a week before which I would think is the more common situation; I can see someone saying “I’m the sole caregiver for my parents so would need at least a week in advance to have time to arrange something” but this person is basically saying “What? And interview in a week’s time? I won’t be available on principle!” which is quite peculiar.

    1. Irish Teacher.*

      The only thing I can think is that it’s one of those “this secret trick they don’t want you to know” typed thing and that the idea is to make the employer feel they have only one chance to get this person. “I am available for 4 days only and you have to snap me up in that window or you will lose the chance.”

      Yeah, it still makes no sense as even then (and it would be a stupid idea anyway), you would think they’d do “I am available for interview only for the next two weeks only” or something like that rather than “four days after you contact me,” but the best I can think is that it’s some attempt to work on the premise that “people will see you as having more value if you make it look like it is difficult to attain you and that they have to work for you rather than the other way around.”

      The “let’s say” also makes me think this as that sounds like they are making the effort to make it difficult and trying to think up hoops for the employer to jump through.

      1. amoeba*

        I guess… but then it’s four days *after they have been shortlisted* and no actual time limit before that? So, like, if they take four weeks to get back to the applicant but then offer an interview tomorrow, that’s fine, but if they e-mail after three days and offer an interview the week after, it’s not? It’s so baffling.

        1. amoeba*

          Possibly somebody who wants to be rejected for unemployment reasons or whatever? It’s so bizarre that that’s basically the only idea I can come up with.

        2. Irish Teacher.*

          Yeah, it makes absolutely zero sense. The only logic I could come up with was “make things difficult for the interviewer and it will make them feel you are ‘hard to get’ and that will make them want you more,” but yeah, having to prove they applied for a certain number of jobs for social welfare would make sense too. I think there are some countries where they require people to apply for a certain number of jobs per week or month to get benefits, so that might fit?

          1. amoeba*

            They do here, yes! Although I figure there must be easier ways to bomb an application on purpose, but who knows.

        3. fhqwhgads*

          Before I even got to the logic-puzzle aspect of this I was like “wait you assume there’s some sort of shortlisting process?” Like, this dude is making a lot of assumptions about how things work and they’re all wild.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        “I am available for 4 days only.”
        “Which 4 days?”
        “Huh. Okay, it’s the 4 days that starts when you short-list me. Week-ends included, so if you short-list me Thursday that interview needs to happen on Friday. Or it won’t happen at all.”

        I do absolutely see this flowing out of an attempt by a person or group to make a plan and consider contingencies, and utterly failing. (And of course the correct lesson to take from the requirement is “This person would be exhausting to work with.”)

        1. RC*

          And it’s such a backwards 4 days! If anything I’d understand more “I won’t be available until at least 4 days *after* you contact me [because that’s when my current job’s work schedule posted so I wouldn’t be able to request time off sooner]” but it still makes zero sense either way to tie it to this arbitrary “when shortlisted” benchmark.

          At least they’re telling on themselves with how exhausting they’d be as an employee.

      3. Another Hiring Manager*

        “this secret trick they don’t want you to know”

        I was thinking something similar. It struck me as something a recruiter would say vs a direct applicant, thinking it was a business strategy to show the candidate was in demand.

        Strange. I wouldn’t contact them for an interview. I don’t have time to manage someone that full of themselves.

    2. periwinkle*

      I was getting Sally Albright vibes from this:

      “But I’d like the pie heated, and I don’t want the ice cream on top, I want it on the side, and I’d like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it. If not, then no ice cream, just whipped cream but only if it’s real. If it’s out of a can, then nothing.”

      “Not even the pie?”

      “No, just the pie, but then not heated.”

    3. Seconds*

      The only reason I can think of is that if they have anxiety when they are anticipating an interview, and think that four days is as long as they could stand the anxiety.

      But even so, they could say, “Please give me no more than four days notice before an interview,” and although that would be odd, at least it would communicate clearly.

      Or —another idea — are they trying to impose their personal beliefs about appropriate hiring timelines onto this company?

      No matter what, passing on this candidate sounds like the best idea.

    4. Princess Scrivener*

      Can you imagine trying to slog through a 4-page resume from someone who wrote that? That’s the reason the request for a specific interview doesn’t make sense–it’s just bad communication.

      1. Nah*

        Yes, if it weren’t for the original date I would have sworn this was some convoluted AI nonsense. On the other hand, I think their advanced enough nowadays to at least not read like…. this… So perhaps it was from an earlier edition ;p /jkjk

  8. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    #1 Sara is an extreme example of how being skeevy / “a cunning plan” can turn a fixable, comparatively minor problem into a major career disaster – losing her job, burning that reference and likely struggling to find another.
    Astonishing immaturity to not realise the potential for disaster. I wonder if she had always been indulged for foolish actions and never faced consequences.

    1. Lawyer (not a litigator thank God)*

      While it may be a reasonable inference that Sarah was involved with the letters, we don’t know that for a fact. All we know is that Sarah was (as of 2020) no longer working for the original company; we don’t know the reason for that.

      1. Lilo*

        Res ipsa loquitur? (I’m mostly kidding but while it’s possible a colleague decided to do this entirely on their own, it’s not terribly likely, and they would have had to somehow obtain the landlord’s contact info).

        While, sure, not sufficient for a legal case, for purposes of posting on a forum it’s a pretty reasonable inference to make.

        2. Antilles*

          Yeah, it feels incredibly unlikely that without Sara’s knowledge, a co-worker somehow (a) knows the dispute in detail, (b) decided to take matters into their own hands, (c) knows who Sara’s landlord is, (d) bothers to track down OP’s contact info, and (e) cares enough to stay involved after the first email was involved.

          Also, just for the record, it actually might be sufficient for a legal case (at least in the US). This is a civil dispute, where the standard of evidence is *not* proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The typical standard of evidence in this sort of business dispute is “preponderance of evidence”, i.e., more likely than not. And I’m really not sure what argument you can make/evidence you can show that would be more reasonable than Sara knowing.

          1. Bilateralrope*

            The civil dispute is between Sara and the LW over the deposit.

            The threatening letter is a separate issue. The only dispute there is between the company and the employees involved, and the standard there is “Are we able to fire them over this ?”

            In an ‘at will’ jurisdiction, both employees are easily fired. Elsewhere it’s going to depend on local law, what IT finds in the logs and what each of them say when questioned.

    2. DawnShadow*

      Considering that according to the update Sara’s mom eventually paid LW, I’d say you hit the nail on the head!

  9. Cath*

    #4 simply wants a prompt interview instead of being left hanging for weeks. It’s no more unusual than the rules businesses have for their job applications and interview expectations. Certainly not weirdly demanding or out of touch, unless that same judgment is to be applied to businesses that likewise expect people to be ready to interview shortly after receiving notice.

    1. not like a regular teacher*

      It’s out of touch because it misses the power dynamic. The reality is that the employer decides when/if an interview will take place, not lw4.

      1. So they all cheap-ass rolled over and one fell out*

        I have also never heard of a “formal shortlisting email” so they are trying to impose a lot of rules on an interaction they only control half of.

    2. Meanwhile in RL*

      They may certainly want that, but framing it this way in an application does indeed make them look ridiculous, out of touch and overly demanding. That is simply the reality of how this will come across to the majority of hiring managers. You may wish to argue that it should not be that way, but you would be doing the person in question and others a grave disservice to pretend that this sort of statement does not come across extremely poorly and harm their candidacy.

      You can dislike reality all you want, but that doesn’t change a thing.

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      Well, I think employers who call people for interview at really short notice are somewhat out of touch, though I suspect a lot of the ones that call people with less than 48 hours notice either already know who they want to hire and are only doing the interviews to say fill a requirement or are interviewing so many people that they are hoping some won’t be able to attend and don’t really care because they aren’t yet invested in any of the candidates.

      But job interviews aren’t on equal terms. In an ideal world, they would be. It would be a case of “I want a job, they want somebody to fill a position; we each need something from each other and are trying to see if our needs match,” but in reality, people need jobs to live and while a company may need somebody to fill a position, they often have dozens or hundreds of applicants and generally have a bit more leeway than somebody who is unemployed and running out of their savings or somebody in a toxic work environment and desperate to get out.

      And also, there’s the fact that this just seems like creating hoops for no good reason. If the letter said, “I will only be available for interview for the next two weeks,” I’d still say it was a bad idea because most employers aren’t going to change their interview plans unless maybe the candidate is outstanding; they are going to think, “OK, not available for interview. We’ll go with somebody else,” but I could see a point. “I will be available for interview at any time in the future so long as you only e-mail me 4 days or less beforehand, but if you e-mail me any longer before that, I won’t be available” just sounds like trying to set rules for the sake of it. And yeah, I suspect if a company said, “you must confirm your attendance at interview no more than 4 days before. If you confirm any earlier than this, your interview will be cancelled,” people would think it bizarre and possibly withdraw their applications too, because it just seems like a red flag for control.

      1. Emmy Noether*

        This, completely. I would discard this applicant for lack of logic, and playing games. What would put me off the most is that it’s really poorly thought through.

        He already knows he’ll be available within 4 days from an unknown future date, but not after? So if I email him in 6 months for an interview the next day, that’s ok within those parameters? But if I email him the day I received the application for an interview the next week that’s not. Except if I delay send on that email until Sunday, then the exact same days will be fine. And he never travels or is unavailable 4 days in a row himself at any point.

        If someone bluffed and said “within X weeks” of sending their application, that may still kick them out of the running if the timing doesn’t work, but at least it would be logical.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        For the last paragraph, I think the first version is fine if you sincerely mean it. You are getting this application out, in two weeks you embark on a hike into an area without cell phone reception, and you are just letting them know a constraint on your end for the interview. It’s being confident that you will have several other options equivalent to this one–which oftentimes is true, and is just the applicant being realistic about how in-demand their skill set is locally.

        1. HonorBox*

          I think you’re right. Also if you have something that creates some constraints on your availability, saying something early at least gives the employer an opportunity to know that.

          In this case, it seems like this is really early on in the process, so this next part doesn’t apply here. But I just sent out invites to candidates for two different roles. I sent along a calendar link so they could pick their times. But I also noted that if there are conflicts with the times presented, to let me know. Clearly, we have recognized that these are people we’d like to talk to, so I’m more than willing to adjust if someone needs it. But if an applicant who hadn’t even been reviewed/invited to interview threw up a puzzle for me to solve to determine what their availability is, I’d move right past them.

    4. Blackbeard*

      They are available for an interview only within a timeframe of 4 days… and their resume was 4 pages long… and this was letter #4. I sense a pattern here! Perhaps this job applicant’s life is ruled by the number four? :)

    5. Sparky*

      I think wording your desire for a prompt interview like it’s a logic puzzle is already pretty out of touch, and having a strict requirement of four days (including weekends!) is more than just wanting a prompt interview. A five-day turnaround, especially if two of those days were over the weekend, would be an incredibly prompt interview, but it violates the overly specific demands of the interviewee.

    6. hbc*

      It is by *definition* weirdly demanding, because people who have done a lot of hiring have never seen a demand like this before. It is also phrased very badly, especially if you’re trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and he’s worried about “weeks” of delays–he’s giving them as little as two business days in some situations.

      And I have to say, even if I usually short-list on a Monday and start interviewing final candidates on Wednesday, I wouldn’t want to commit to that up front. All it takes is a stakeholder with a medical emergency on Tuesday for plans to get rearranged.

    7. ecnaseener*

      But they could still be left hanging for weeks following these instructions. There’s no deadline to notify them they’re being shortlisted, just a restriction on the interview date once that notification is sent. Not even an option to promptly set an interview date for more than a few days away (not even business days — weekends included!). It’s inane.

    8. HonorBox*

      The person writing that might want a prompt interview, but the candidate generally doesn’t get to make the call about when the interviews happen. There’s so much they don’t know about people’s calendars, other responsibilities, events, etc. that all go into determining the schedule for interviews.

      I don’t disagree with the idea that having candidates waiting for long periods of time is bad. But generally the candidate doesn’t get to make the demand about when they’re interviewed. This is different than noting that they’ll be on vacation, traveling for work, etc. and have a more limited window. This is setting parameters that both make them seem demanding and may make it impossible for the company to interview them.

    9. metadata minion*

      It’s out of touch in that unless they’re a *stunningly* qualified candidate in a very sparse field, the applicant has no power to demand an interview within any particular time frame. If you make demands without any ability to enforce them, you just look silly.

      Of course candidates want to be interviewed promptly — that’s kind of assumed. And once you get to final-interview stages, it makes a bit more sense to say “I’m considering other offers and need to know by X date if you’re going to move forward with my application” or similar. The power imbalance between employer and employee is unfair and I can go on all day about the need for a better system. But you’re not going to push back against that imbalance by saying “if you don’t follow my specific timeframe, you can’t hire me!” when that’s overwhelmingly likely to result in the employer saying “erm…ok; I won’t hire you”.

      1. HonorBox*

        Especially when it doesn’t even sound like interviews have been offered yet. I noted elsewhere that when I’m offering interview times to candidates, I give them the chance to let me know that OUR schedule might not work for THEIR schedule and we can work on an alternative, if possible. But that’s when we’re offering them a chance to interview. They’re someone we want to talk to so it is worth it to be as flexible as we can be. But if someone is putting demands out there at the application stage, I’m going to be far less likely to work with them.

    10. Colette*

      If an employer put something in the job description that said “if we contact you for an interview, you must be willing to interview within 4 days of that contact. The 4 days includes weekends, but we only interview on weekdays”, I’d think that was pretty unreasonable, too. I’d also think the employer was bad at hiring. Maybe they’ll end up interviewing everyone in 4 days, but maybe a great candidate isn’t available for 6 days. Maybe a candidate – or interviewer – will get sick and it’ll take 12 days.

      This candidate is screening for employers who are willing to play this game, at the expense of ruling out employers who might have great jobs he’d be a great fit for.

    11. Annony*

      I think the same judgement is applied to businesses. If the job ad said “applicant must be willing to interview within 4 days of receiving the invitation. Those 4 days include weekends” they would be ridiculed.

    12. learnedthehardway*

      From my perspective as a recruiter, that’s a candidate I would not touch.

      I can (and do) respect people’s availability for interviews. If someone says, “I’m only available for interviews on Thursdays, and will be on vacation for 2 weeks as of Dec 17th,” I will do what I can to accommodate the person. If they tell me they are expecting an offer next week, I’ll let them know whether or not I can accelerate the process (probably not).

      However, making demands of how soon after I receive their resume I should reach out to them, how the interview process should go, how long they are willing to be considered!??! – No. That’s a red flag that this person is going to be a difficult individual to work with and manage, if they are hired. So I’m not going to bother putting up with their nonsense during the hiring process.

      1. Allonge*

        It’s also weird in the sense that the candidate can apply these ‘rules’ (not sure why they would want to, but they can) without letting the hiring team know.

        You are only willing to go to an interview if invited X days/hours/milliseconds after you sent your application / before the interview? If the interview takes place at midnight on the full moon? Go for it! Decline interviews scheduled otherwise.

        But spelling this out in the resume shows you have absolutely no idea on how hiring works. That’s usually not a good sign.

        Just to be clear – it’s perfectly fine to indicate that you have limitations on when you can interview. It may be an issue, but if it’s not movable, it’s not movable.

    13. Salty Caramel*

      There’s a world of difference between, “I’m usually available between 1:00 and 5:00,” or “I will be out of town from the 5th to the 10th,” and “You have four days to contact me.”

      1. honeygrim*

        Expressed like this, it sounds more like some sort of curse. “If, on the 4th night at 11:59 I am not contacted, I shall turn back into a frog.”

        Or Samara from The Ring is applying for a job.

    14. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

      They put their requirement at the very end of a 4-page resume. Four pages (when it’s not a CV) already shows that they are out of touch. Putting something at the very end of that shows that they don’t know how people tend to work in the real world (eg: most people skim and don’t finish long docs). Putting it into the resume rather than a cover letter is also unrealistic.

  10. bamcheeks*

    I have worked with people who needed to schedule things with shorter notice because they had moving shifts — they could say, “I’m free this week on tuesday morning, all day Wednesday, and Friday afternoon”, but they couldn’t say “a fortnight on Tuesday at 10am” because if the shift schedule came out and they were working a fortnight on Tuesday, that had to take precedence. So I don’t think the PRINCIPLE is all that weird. But if you do have that kind of restriction, it’s much more helpful to explain the reasoning: “My shift patterns mean that it is usually easier for me to schedule something with the next few days rather than more than a week in advance. If that can be accommodated, I would be grateful.”

    1. MissMeghan*

      Yeah I wouldn’t be bothered by a simple line saying mornings are preferred, x days’ prior notice is needed with my current schedule, or whatever it is. That seems akin to saying email is the best way to be reached. #4 felt more like some weird power play than expressing a legitimate need to me based on the way it was worded.

    2. commensally*

      Yeah, in theory this seems like someone who has some kind of situation where they can’t schedule things far in advance – people who work steady 9-5 jobs often prefer more notice, but that’s not the case for everyone. But if that’s the actual situation it’s very poorly worded. (Those kinds of jobs are more likely to be low-status, low-pay, though, so I wonder if this guy picked up some kind of part-time retail to tide him over while career-track jobhunting and is afraid it will reflect badly on him with hiring managers if he is clear about i.)

  11. Sarah*

    If the “nudist” is two streets away, how clearly can you see her? You must have excellent eyesight!

  12. Not your typical admin*

    Number 2 reminds me of the time when was an RA in college and had to let one of the girls on my floor know that people could see her when she changed. The girl had grown up in a rural area with no neighbors and wasn’t used to people being able to see in through windows. She was mortified when I told her.

    1. Retiring Academic*

      It reminds me of when I was in college and a rather over-self-confident young woman in my year had a room in the then brand-new, modern residential building with big plate-glass windows. The very formidable history tutor was heard to say to her words to the effect of ‘Miss X, I suggest you conduct your private life in private.’

    2. Wayward Sun*

      I lived in the middle of nowhere until about age 6, and had to be informed that in town you don’t simply take a whiz in the backyard.

  13. Hiring Mgr*

    #2 – I’d stay completely out of it. Have you ever seen Brian DePalma’s Body Double? No good can come from getting involved with this

  15. Amy*

    Don’t feel embarrassed about the conference!

    I organize a small annual conference for the C- suite level. We’re extremely clear about this and invite attendees by name. (So not 2 invites to the org but to specific individuals) About 25% of the time, we receive a request to sub in someone else. We decline if it’s not a title that matches up with our approved conference titles.

    This mistake was on the conference.

    2. Astor*

      Yes, and I think it’s plausible that that’s what the person who spoke was (awkwardly) trying to get across: that the mistake was clearly the conference’s responsibility and that nobody thought it reflected on the LW or even her manager for the mix-up.

  16. HonorBox*

    Regarding the first letter, while I think the LW handled this perfectly, I do find it really … odd, I guess is the right word … that Sara believed that her employer had leverage over her former landlord. If I was in the LW’s shoes, I’d have probably laughed when I got the first letter. Because if Sara is using time at work to deal with her self-inflicted mess, that’s only between her and her employer. How on earth would a company be able to claw back money for Sara’s lack of productivity or even formal time off? If she needed to take time to deal with a legal issue, she can either take some time to make a few calls while on the clock, take PTO and do it, or take unpaid time. Again, that’s only between her and the employer.

    1. Sparkles McFadden*

      The LW added more info in the comments regarding Sara’s unpredictable behavior as a tenant, and said that if anyone complained about Sara, Sara would retaliate by making false complaints. The LW said “She does not reason like you and me, it is very weird. If she says something it becomes a fact.” That is definitely someone who would do something ridiculous like sending those emails.

      Some people just live in Crazyland (as we have daily proof.)

      1. HonorBox*

        Ahhh… Sara facts versus reality and fact facts.

        I still think I’d have gotten a good chuckle if a tenant’s (crazy or not) employer reached out trying to recoup their employee’s time.

  17. jane's nemesis*

    I would love an update from LW3! How did they end up addressing this with their manager? Did anyone attend the conference since?

  18. Jam on Toast*

    In terms of #2, my husband is a tower crane operator. Many of his job sites are in dense urban areas. Yet people in the surrounding building seem to *constantly* forget that just because you’re ten stories up, there are still other people at that height who can see you.

    Over the years, he’s been an unwilling witness to all sorts of shenanigans through undraped windows ranging from inadvertent walking-back-from-the-bathroom nudity right through seeing rendezvous with call girls and affair partners to an actual exhibitionist, who lived in the condo next door and made a point of timing her…outdoor display…to the site’s morning break.

    I’d get some frosted privacy film that can be applied with water and a squeegee and put it across the lower half of the window and then pretend that you never saw anything anyways.

  19. Nonsense*

    Similar to OP2, my office building is located in a new mixed-use development area, which means the building south of us is a hotel and the building west of us is an apartment, all roughly the same height. It has become quite apparent that some residents in either building do not realize we have a pretty clear view into their rooms – our windows are opaque on the outside so they probably think it’s the same inside. Casual home nudity doesn’t even register anymore compared to some of things I’ve seen.

    It was a hell of an adjustment at first, but now I consider it one of the side effects of city living. When everything is squashed together to fit as many people as possible, we’ll, you’re gonna see some things. Believe me, you learn real quick when someone’s intentionally an exhibitionist.

    1. Delta Delta*

      I often appear in a courthouse that is directly across the street from a fairly nice hotel. A courtroom I’m sometimes in has big windows that look directly into the rooms across the way. sometimes we see people changing their clothes. We just… don’t look.

      1. Elizabeth West*

        I remember being on a school trip once — we were driving home on the highway at night and passed a hotel. I glanced out the bus window just in time to see a shirtless man in one of the windows zipping up his pants. My friends didn’t catch it, but I told them and we giggled about it for a little while.

    2. The Rural Juror*

      My office recently moved to a new location across the street from a hotel. We’re on Level 18 and can look down on the hotel’s pool deck, which is probably their Level 16. That’s entertaining but being able to see into some of the hotel rooms… not so much! Luckily, I’m not on that side of the office, but my colleagues over there have seen more than they care to in some of the hotel room windows. Yikes!

    3. Bee*

      Yeah, I think people usually judge by what they can see – if they can’t see into your windows they probably assume you can’t see into theirs!

  20. Alan*

    Re #1, this is a classic example of FAFO. I would not want to be anywhere in the vicinity of our corporate lawyers if they found out someone was sending demands for money as a representative of the company. Their heads might literally explode. There would be yelling for sure. Sarah would have left their presence not only without a job but with several new excretory orifices.

  21. el l*

    OP4:
    Remember, job hunters, a job interview is also your chance to interview them.

    But it’s definitely possible to take that idea to extremes. This guy did!

  22. Cinnamon Stick*

    Re #2:

    Some buildings do not provide blinds as a standard when you move in. Since windows come in all sizes, it can get really expensive to buy custom blinds.

    Still, if you live in a city with a lot of skyscrapers, odds are really good that you either have a naked neighbor or you are a naked neighbor. Me, I shrug it off.

    1. Observer*

      Since windows come in all sizes, it can get really expensive to buy custom blinds.

      You don’t need custom blinds, though. Basic curtains are inexpensive and allow for many sizes and shapes. Curtain rods are also not expensive. Even if your landlord does not allow you to screw anything into the wall, tension rods are also not all that expensive.

  23. Hiring Mgr*

    #3 doesn’t sound like a huge deal in the end, but I think it’s a little strange that nobody else at your company was aware of the mismatch.

    If it’s an important conference as LW says and they were being sent as a replacement, there would typically be some kind of coordination with LW and their bosses about what they were going to do at the conference, who they should meet with etc.. That would have likely clued them in that LW shouldn’t be going, and it’s a good practice to do that kind of prep anyway

  24. Peripheral to Unexpected Museum Beef*

    LR3’s story is reminding me of when I (very junior, just out of my PhD) went to an all-day meeting at a major museum about Important New Finds, accompanying a senior colleague who wanted to research said finds with me as the prospective postdoc. It was all very pleasant for the morning, we got fed a nice lunch from the museum cafeteria, I stayed quiet for most of the time but offered some Look I’m Thinking contributions a couple of times, all nice. However, in the afternoon it all fell apart – the various curators and academics all started fighting about what things meant, who would research what, etc – and (while I was staying very quiet, rather shocked) one of the museum heads turned to me and yelled ‘excuse me, WHO ARE YOU AND WHY ARE YOU HERE’. After which things broke up rather definitively and I decided I probably didn’t want to do research in the museum sector after all.

  25. aett*

    #4 reminded me of an applicant I recently encountered. I’ve been scheduling interviews for my office for over a decade. We do it entirely over email, as it is easier for everyone involved and there’s no phone tag. But this one guy replied to my initial email just saying “Call me to schedule the interview” – very blunt and rude.

    I call him up and he’s clearly in the middle of doing something else. He, again, rudely asks “What are the available times?” I tell him that the times are on the next Thursday, Friday, and Monday. He cuts me off to say “Can’t do Friday. I’ve got the kids that day.” The phone call continued like that until we found a time that worked for him, and I was sure to let the interview panel know about it.

    They ended up interviewing him anyway, because apparently he had applied several times before over the years, but never made it to the interview level because it was clear he wasn’t qualified (even before knowing what his personality was like). After the interview, when I sent him a “thanks but no thanks” email, he replied with “I agree. It wouldn’t be a good fit” as if it were a mutual decision.

  26. Ridger*

    #3 : “if that level employee was not available, “they shouldn’t just send anyone.””

    Wow. That comment was so outrageous my brain edited it to “just not send anyone”, and I had to go back and reread it when Alison quoted it.

  27. BlockYourWindows*

    LW2 has the power to deal with this by blocking her windows. Easy peasy. That is the only thing she can – or should – do.

    As I’ve gotten older and also acquired more medical issues I’ve stopped caring about stuff like will someone catch a glimpse of my body and caring more about what’s going to minimize my discomfort or pain. Sometimes that involves being naked inside my living space. You can kinda sorta see into parts of my apartment from parts of the garage, but I don’t care – I’d prefer not to be seen, but while I’m inside my own living space I get to be as comfortable as possible.

Comments are closed.