my sister abused my employee discount, employee is too rushed in the morning, and more

by Alison Green on December 5, 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.

1. My sister abused my employee discount

I get a discount at a popular amusement park because I work for its parent company. There are no explicit policies regarding the use of the discount, and it’s not uncommon for employees to let their family visit the park without the employee actually being present. A few weekends ago, I offered to let my sister, her husband, and her three kids come visit me and use my employee discount at the park for the weekend.

However, the next week at work, my boss called me into his office and berated me for letting 25 people use my discount over the weekend. I told him I hadn’t and he showed me proof that there had been 25 weekend passes purchased under my discount! I checked with my sister over my lunch break and she’d apparently decided to invite her parents-in-law and all of her brother’s siblings, their spouses, and their kids along for the trip and let all of them use the discount not only at admissions but also at a couple of restaurants and gift stores around the park, a total of almost $2,000 in savings over the weekend. She and her kids/husband never mentioned the extended family being there while they were staying at my apartment and the only pictures I saw from the trip only had the five of them in it, not this busload of people, so they were either actively lying to me or lying by omission.

I apologized to my boss that there had been more guests visiting than I thought, but he wasn’t impressed and revoked my discount privileges. Is there anything I can do to smooth this over with him? I didn’t explain the particulars of the situation to him because I didn’t want to sound like I was making excuses or pushing the blame onto my sister, but maybe I should have? I look like a total idiot, either for lying to him about the amount of people or for being taken advantage of like this.

Oh my goodness, you should have told him what happened! You don’t want to get into a long saga about it — just a brief “I’m so sorry — I’d given my sister and her husband and three kids permission to use the discount. She apparently gave it to others without my consent. I never would have okayed that, and I’m mortified that it happened.” That’s not making excuses — you’re not saying what happened is okay — just giving him context so that he knows you didn’t just hand out the discount to 25 random people.

It’s not too late now to go back and say something like, “I talked to my sister to figure out what happened, and I wanted to come back and fill you in. I’m really mortified about this; I’ve always tried to be conscientious about the discount, and I’m furious that my sister took advantage of it like this.”

– 2017

2. My employee is too rushed when she shows up for early-morning meetings

I’m the manager of a team of around 20 people at a government agency. Caseworkers meet anywhere from 1-15 clients a week in our offices during scheduled visits, and spend the rest of their time on administrative work connected to their clients. These appointments last a few hours and are booked between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Other than scheduled staff meetings and their booked visits, we have a flexible schedule. It’s not unusual for people to come in around 9 a.m. or leave at 3 p.m. if they don’t have any appointments scheduled, as long as they’re still working their full-time hours for the week.

I have one employee, Mary, who rarely shows up before she absolutely has to. The other caseworkers who have 8 a.m. appointments are there in good time to organize their case files and set up the interview rooms before the start of the day. Mary is rushing in the door at 7:58 and throwing her jacket on her desk before power-walking to reception to be able to greet her client on time, and even then she’s sometimes a minute or two late. I’m not sure how to address this with her, but I feel it’s very unprofessional to show up two minutes before you’re supposed to start working, especially when she’s meeting clients who are waiting for her. She’s otherwise a good worker, and it doesn’t appear that her meetings are affected by her rushed entrance, but it still bugs me to watch this show twice a week. On the days she doesn’t have early bookings, she’s in around 9 and in a much better mood, so I think she’s maybe just not a morning person. How do I get Mary to come in and prep for her day before she absolutely has to?

It’s not really unprofessional to show up two minutes before you’re supposed to start working. By definition, that’s being there before you’re supposed to start working — so I wouldn’t frame it that way. Instead, if the problem is that Mary isn’t arriving early enough to do the needed prep for her appointments, that’s the issue and that’s the way to frame it.

If it’s really true that she needs more prep time, you could say something to her like, “Please make sure that you’re here at least 15 minutes before you have scheduled appointments, so that you have time to organize your case files and set up the interview room, and so that you don’t seem rushed when you’re greeting your first client of the day.” In other words, be clear with her about what you expect and what you’d like her to do differently, rather than just being annoyed that she’s not doing something you haven’t explicitly asked her to do.

But first be sure that she really does need to change what she’s doing. You said that she does good work and her meetings aren’t affected by her rushing in, so it’s not clear that there’s really an issue here, beyond the fact that you don’t like watching it. If there really isn’t an effect on the work, then this is just a matter of different work styles — and that’s not an inherently bad thing.

– 2018

3. Interviewer asked about what I’ve handled poorly in my personal life

I recently had an interview and was asked a behavioral question I wasn’t sure how to answer. It was, “Tell me about a time you made a mistake outside of work and handled it poorly.”

I had practiced a number of behavioral questions, and for all the negative/mistake-focused ones I had prepared examples of how I fixed it or was working on it, etc., but this one didn’t give me that option. It completely threw me off and I couldn’t really think of an answer at all. I think it’s because I couldn’t think of something appropriate to share. What sort of answer might they be looking for here? Specifically because it’s outside of work, if it was at work I think I would have handled it better.

If it helps, it was an interview at a funeral home.

Ick, that’s a terrible question! There are very few instances where it’s appropriate for an interviewer to pry into someone’s life outside of work, and this isn’t one of them. Frankly, a funeral home is a place where it could be appropriate to ask about more personal things than you normally might in an interview, like asking about personal experiences with death in order to make sure you have a comfort level with it, but this question isn’t about that.

They’re also setting people up to have no idea what to say, because things people handled poorly in their personal lives are likely to be about topics that would be inappropriate to discuss in an interview, like dating and relationships, family conflict, and other highly personal areas. (After reading your question, I entertained myself for way too long by imagining inappropriate answers to this question. It’s fun.)

So I don’t know what kind of answer they were looking for because it’s such a bad question. Probably something that demonstrated some degree of self-awareness, maturity, ability to spot learn from mistakes, conflict resolution skills, etc. — but they were out of line to ask it in the first place.

– 2018

4. Will I look like a jerk if I clean my new office’s disgusting kitchen?

I recently started a new job and the office is less than glamorous, which is usually the nature of my job. However, the shared kitchen space is disgusting — and everyone seems ok with that. The microwave isn’t cleaned — like it REALLY isn’t cleaned, there are food crumbs all over an old tablecloth, and the room just smells like dust.

Do I come across as a jerk or someone who thinks they are better than those existing in a gross space by discreetly cleaning out the appliances I intend to use to heat up lunch once in a while? I’ve been trying to tackle small stuff while I heat up lunch when nobody is in there, so I am being discreet so as not to come across as uppity while I am new and forming a reputation.

It’s unlikely that people will think you’re expressing contempt for them through cleaning; if anything, they’re likely to appreciate someone is cleaning, or they might feel mildly embarrassed (sometimes when someone new arrives on the scene, you suddenly realize what your office must look like to a newcomer’s eyes).

I wouldn’t go in there with a mop and cleaning bucket and wipe down all the walls or anything, but wiping out the microwave and sweeping crumbs into the trash aren’t likely to come across as Making A Statement.

– 2019

You may also like:
{ 368 comments }

{ 368 comments… read them below }

  1. Soul Sister*

    Many people find the morning to be an emotionally taxing time. What if that’s the case with your employee, number 2. Couldn’t everyone just wait a little bit, and smell the roses ~ or coffee ~, in an office.

    1. Higher-ed Jessica*

      Yeah, I don’t know how client meetings are scheduled or what constraints Mary has to deal with there, but is there any possibility she could just not have 8 am meetings?

      1. Happy meal with extra happy*

        Why should only Mary get that perk? It seems like the 8am start time is a red herring – the issue is that OP doesn’t like how Mary seems rushed in the morning. But, like Alison says in her answer, as long as it doesn’t affect the actual meeting, who cares?

        It sounds like 8am meetings are a necessary part of the job as they’re with external clients who choosing that slot time.

      2. LaurCha*

        This is the solution in my office. The morning person will take 8:00 meetings. The non-morning people don’t have client appointments that start before 9:00. It’s an easy fix.

        1. Learn ALL the things*

          I don’t see how that can work in a social work/case manager role. Each case manager has their own specific cases. Those are their clients to meet with and the meeting can’t just be taken over by someone else. You also can’t be so rigid when you’re talking about social work appointments. People who are assigned to a case manager are more likely to have things like medical issues that require competing appointments, or have more restrictive jobs that make taking time off more difficult, so you may have clients who can only meet with you if the meeting is early in the day. In a job like this, you really do have to suck it up sometimes and have the early morning meeting.

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

            I’m thinking that unless absolutely necessary people in the office just don’t book appointments with Mary at 8. And if they do book with her they get permision first or talk to her about it. Thats what we do in our office.

            1. Learn ALL the things*

              But does your office deal with cultural populations like the people who have required meetings with a case manager? Social work is an entirely different ball of wax from most other industries and restricting the times when people can meet with their case manager can lead to poor outcomes.

              1. Poppy of Dimwood Forest*

                But, is there really a big difference between setting up 8 am meetings vs. 8:15 am meetings? There may be clients who may prefer to have this 15 minutes. Getting children to school at by 8 am and having an appointment at 8 am, may be adding stress to clients.

        2. BigLawEx*

          This would be my preference and how I worked in the past. Happy to do all the early morning work. I never want anything after 3:00 PM because I’m mentally done by then. If there are no morning people…then I see it being a problem. Though honestly her being harried seemed to be a bigger (nonimportant) issue than the work.

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

        Also why is it such a big deal that the person waits a few minutes? I could see if it was 10 minutes but anything under that is relatively ok and normal. Unless that puts her behind for the next person it shouldn’t be a problem. And if people are being booked back to back they should have buffer time. For example in our office the appointments are booked for 1 hour but they actually are 50-55 minutes. That gives the counselor time to go to the bathroom or get a drink and set up before seeing the next person.

        1. Allonge*

          Eh, I don’t think Mary is doing anything atrocious here (as long as the appointments are not materially affected) but ‘so what if it starts late’ is not a possibility for all jobs.

          People taking the appointments needed to get there on time too, have somewhere to get to afterwards and so on. Once in a while of course it’s fine, consistently – not great.

          1. xylocopa*

            Yeah. Like…agreed, a couple of minutes isn’t a big deal, but honestly, if I were her boss, I too would want her to get in early enough that she wasn’t keeping her first clients waiting.

            If the rest of her work is good, it wouldn’t be a dealbreaker, but I get why OP is frustrated and I really don’t think that “get into the office a few minutes BEFORE your first appointment” is exactly an onerous requirement.

          2. Sara*

            But..is she starting late? If her contracted hours are 8-430 (for example), why should she come in earlier to do work she wouldn’t be paid for? If things have to be put in order before meetings and the day doesn’t start until 8, then the earliest meeting time should be 815-830.

            1. HA2*

              Or, vice versa, the start time should be 7:50 instead of 8, to have that 10 minutes of prep time before meeting start.

              Really depends on how important this 8am start time is. Yes, if it’s not important to start at 8, then the easy solution is to just flex that start time, either formally (start meeting at 8:15) or informally (just be ok with starting a few mins late). But there are some jobs where starting a meeting at an early scheduled time IS important, and handwaving that away with “eh, just don’t bother, a few minutes is fine” will not be a good solution.

            2. Allonge*

              OP writes “It’s not unusual for people to come in around 9 a.m. or leave at 3 p.m. if they don’t have any appointments scheduled, as long as they’re still working their full-time hours for the week.” That tells me the that it’s not a 8-4.30 contracted hours situation.

      4. Baela Targaryen*

        Depends. I work with an international team, sometimes 8am is the only time that works for multiple tricky time zones.

    2. Double A*

      It sounds like this is a scheduled client appointment that starts at 8, so the relaxed approach doesn’t really work on those mornings. When Mary doesn’t have an 8am appointment, she comes in later and presumably has a more relaxed morning.

      For the OP, is it ok if Mary leaves early on days when she has to arrive early? It sounds overall pretty flexible but it couldn’t hurt to tell Mary that for days when she has an 8am appointment, she needs to consider her hours to be 7:45 to 4:15, or to otherwise take that 15 minutes out of her week on another day. There’s often an unspoken expectation especially in salaried jobs that that “getting ready” time is just extra and you’re not afforded flexibility the other way about the time. Sounds like that’s not the case here but that’s why it’ll be helpful to reinforce that.

      1. WeirdChemist*

        Mary is a government employee, who are (typically) hourly, not salaried. If she’s on a flexible work schedule (as described in the letter) any extra time worked is made up for in other ways (leaving early, overtime pay, credit/comp time)

        1. Learn ALL the things*

          It’s not true that government employees are typically hourly rather than salaried. We use the same metrics that other employers do when we’re determining whether staff are exempt/nonexempt from overtime laws, like considering the positions’s responsibilities and salary. I’ve been in government for over 20 years and only the first 5 when I was part time during college and grad school were hourly/nonexempt. Quite a lot of government employees are salaried/exempt, and as long as we’re not in public facing positions where specific hours are absolutely required, we can flex our time like anybody else.

          1. Can’t think of anything clever*

            I worked in government for over 30 years, including about 12 in a salaried job. If I had a meeting that had to be at 8 and it was best not to rush in last minute, for whatever reason, I worked 7:30 to 4:00 that day. I’m not a morning person either but if that’s part of the issue there’s nothing obvious preventing Mary from doing that.

          2. WeirdChemist*

            Huh, so if you don’t end up needing to work a set X hours for a pay period, do you have to take leave to cover it? If you end up working over a set X hours a pay period do you have to get overtime pay or comp/credit time? I’ve personally only worked govt jobs where that was the case (and assumed that that’s what hourly meant… maybe I’m wrong about that?)

            That being said, the LW does say that they can get in late/leave early when they don’t have appointments, which a lot of commenters here seemed to have skipped over…

            1. Bumblebee*

              I am a state employee, and as one of our HR folks said to me when we were dealing with someone who was working perhaps not as often as they should be, “FLSA exempt means you work a minimum of 40 hours!” Our work involves a lot of nights and weekends and so we have more flexibility than, say, an actual offices-of-government employee might, but while you might work 37 hours one week and 42 the next, it’s not like you just get to say “I’m done with my to-do list so I guess I’ll go home.” A good employee goes and finds something else to do!

              1. Lily Potter*

                Yes, Bumblebee. I haven’t worked in government in many years, but I’m here to tell you that if the public got wind that its salaried employees were claiming “my work is done, so I’m going home”, it would NOT have landed well. There’s ALWAYS something that can be done to round out 40 hours in a week. Sometimes it’s stuff you don’t realize needs doing until you have time to kill – filing, continuing education, running down the hall to ask Fergus for an update on something, and spending 20 minutes catching up with him on essential office politics instead.

                The city I worked for would allow for minor hour-flexing when you had to cover an evening meeting – like coming in an hour or two late the next morning when you were at City Hall until 10 the night before. But that was pretty much it. The city council and the general public expected its employees to be in City Hall during business hours unless on PTO.

              2. Learn ALL the things*

                I used to work in public libraries and I framed it as there being two parts of my job. Part one was my to-do list, and part two was being in the building to deal with customers and other issues as they came up. So while I may have finished part one, I still needed to be in the building for around 80 hours each pay period to handle part two.

          3. doreen*

            To a very great extent, that’s going to depend on which government and which job – I spent over 30 years working for two different governments in three different agencies and in all of them , most employees were hourly/non-exempt even though college degrees were required for all professional jobs in two of them. And most were not able to “flex their time like anybody else” . In one, flexing was limited to one hour – you could choose to come in between 8-9 am or between 9-10 am and leave 8 hours later. In another , flexing was limited to start time for most employees- you could choose to start at 7:30 each day or 9:30 each day but it was a set time. Some employees had more flexibility – but it went both ways. I could normally decide to work whatever hours suited both my personal needs and the demands of my job – but my manager could also tell me that I had to work 4-midnight or on Saturday with the contractually required notice.

            And “Mary” is clearly in a public facing position which does not allow a lot of flexibility on days when she has appointments – apparently, she can’t set her first appointment to be at 9am.

          4. Sara*

            Yeah, I think this is the crux of the issue. The answer of whether she is hourly vs salary is actually very pertinent.

        2. MigraineMonth*

          I’m a US government employee, and I’m full-time exempt. Like many salaried jobs, there’s an expectation that you’re working 40 hours a week, but there’s no clocking in/clocking out or time logging. My role is remote since the beginning of the pandemic and allows a lot of flexing within the 2-week pay period.

          Interestingly, even though I’m exempt, my union contract specifies that I get overtime pay if I’m approved to work more that 80 hours in the 2-week pay period. Getting approved for overtime is very rare, but you’d be amazed how many hard deadlines suddenly become flexible when you point out they’ll need to pay you extra money to get a task done by then.

          1. Sir Nose d'Voidoffunk*

            I’m a state employee (in a knowledge work/email job) and that’s how we operate, too. 40 hours per week, no timesheet or clock. My particular organization is structured as an authority rather than an agency, which I understand means we’re treated differently in some key ways, and maybe this is one of those.

        3. Reluctant Mezzo*

          However, lots of places have you come in early for ‘report’ (nursing being one) which of *course* is never paid. It gets old.

      2. WellRed*

        It says in the letter there is flexibility on arrival and leave times. At any rate, it sounds like 8am appointments aren’t Mary’s cup of tea (they wouldn’t be mine either).

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          I work an 8-4 and if anyone schedules a meeting before 10 I get cranky (I take them, but I prefer to ease into the day by getting my solo stuff done before I have to be pleasant). People have different rhythms throughout the day.

          1. WeirdChemist*

            But it’s also the nature of the job that there’s 8am meetings. It’s a government office and these meetings are there to serve the general public, so it’s unlikely that they can get rid of the 8am appointment times, so Mary does have to live with that… If she’s able to do these meetings effectively by getting in at 7:58, then that’s fine. If she’s not, then that’s on Mary to either find a job that fits her schedule better or get in earlier

            1. Eldritch Office Worker*

              Sure, but LW says in the letter that the quality of the meetings doesn’t seem to be impacted so that sounds like a leap to even have on the table.

              1. LaurCha*

                I suspect LW is one of The Morning People who cannot possibly imagine being a night person and is irritated that we are Not Perky first thing in the morning.

                1. Spencer Hastings*

                  Look, I’m the night-owliest night owl who ever night owled, but even I understand that optics can matter. Especially with external clients, I understand why the LW would want their office to project the vibe that “of course we are ready to receive you” (and not scrambling in at the last minute).

                2. carrot cake*

                  I suspect LW is trying to be practical as well as ensure their work environment doesn’t revolve around the “I haven’t had coffee yet” silliness.

                3. ubotie*

                  That seems like a pretty harsh read. Morning People aren’t being themselves AT Night People anymore than Night People aren’t doing it AT Morning People. And the fact is that many jobs do, out of business necessity, require an 8 AM start–as in, you need to be *on* and *fully ready* at 8 AM, not just rushing in the door at 7:58 AM. Especially when it involves clients and casework. And government jobs. So the LW expecting their report to be a little less “whoopsie doo!” when showing up to work in the morning isn’t really a sign that the LW is a draconian boss with harsh expectations.

                4. fhqwhgads*

                  it doesn’t read like it’s a “not perky” problem. The issue as described is more than the person Mary’s meeting with waits on her a few minutes (not a big deal unless it’s every single time, which seems like it is) and sometimes that Mary seems rushed. It’s an important distinction whether she seems rushed just to OP, or whether the people who have appointments with her can tell.
                  The appointment itself going well doesn’t preclude it being a bad thing if the public’s perception of Mary is “she walked in the door 10 seconds before I did and wasn’t ready”. It reads to me like the latter is what OP wants to prevent.

              2. xylocopa*

                My main concern would be that she’s sometimes late–which clients may feel is disrespectful. We don’t know what the office does but it’s described as casework, so there’s a strong possibility that the clients in some way vulnerable, marginalized, dependent on services that are often sensitive and difficult to navigate. They may be very used to being brushed off, ignored, given a lot of hurry-up-and-wait…but it would be nice for this office not to be part of that pattern, if that’s the pattern that their clients often experience.

                2. Tippy*

                  Exactly and I was reading it the same way. If correct, the onus, quite frankly, needs to be on Mary to be accommodating to her clients and do her best to avoid having them feel like an afterthought or burden.

                3. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

                  This would be totally valid if she was more than a minute or two late, but a minute or two is well within a normal grace period for people.

                4. Allonge*

                  @Radioactive Cyborg Llama – except it cannot be made a policy, especially at a government place. Yes, most people will be ok with a one-two minute delay.

                  That does not mean it’s something a manager should just ‘eh, whatever’ in all circumstances.

                5. Sara*

                  A lot of this hinges on whether this employee is hourly or exempt.

                  I’m curious what the letter writer means by the 8-430. Is the office open during that time frame and appointments start the moment the door opens? If so, to me that reflects poor management. If they are concerned about optics, they shouldn’t schedule appointments right when the door opens. Schedule them starting at 815-830. If the employee is hourly, expecting them to come in early to complete work – unpaid- could have legal ramifications.

              3. WeirdChemist*

                I mean I very much said that if she was able to have these meeting effectively then there’s no problems here…

                I was more responding to your comment about how much you personally would hate having 8am meetings and how some people have different rhythms. If Mary is really struggling with early meetings, then that’s Mary’s problem to solve because it’s the nature of the job and highly unlikely to change. If she’s not, then the LW has no legs to stand on with any of this.

          1. Reluctant Mezzo*

            My former boss kept wanting me to answer hard questions intelligently at 7:30 am. So not going to happen. Then again, by 3 pm she faded like a waterless rose and I just smiled at her…

    3. Upside down Question Mark*

      I remember feeling like LW1’s colleague for a job because in my contract I was being paid for the 45 minute teaching units and not the 15 minute prep time (and barely making ends meet). I remember a colleague asking why I didn’t do more prep like him but I’d been teaching those classes for so many years I certainly didn’t need to do anything more than grab my pack of markers. If the person is producing solid work then yes, LW needs to back down.

      1. Nebula*

        This also crossed my mind – if they’re not being paid for prep time, it sounds like she just doesn’t want to turn up early to do unpaid work, which is completely fair enough. That said, the LW did say they’re flexible about hours, so presumably with the earlier start, she could also leave early. But yes, as Alison said, if it wasn’t actually causing any problems then there wasn’t really an issue there except someone doing something in a way LW dislikes.

        Also quite frankly, if I had an appointment anywhere, someone turning up ‘a minute or two’ late wouldn’t even register, and that goes double for a meeting with someone at a government agency. I say this as someone who has worked in the public sector for almost my entire career, no shade on government workers, that’s just how it goes.

        1. Worldwalker*

          Yeah. If you have a 10:00 appointment with a doctor, you’re lucky if you leave the waiting room before 11, and the doctor will actually see you just before 12.

          1. carrot cake*

            Seriously? An hour in a waiting room isn’t typical. A two-hour wait for an appointment is even less typical.

            1. Wayward Sun*

              My experience is an hour wait is typical in the afternoon. In the morning it’s usually not so bad. Most doctor’s offices start out on schedule and run later and later as the day goes on.

            3. Arrietty*

              I haven’t waited in a waiting room for a doctors appointment in years. But that’s because I haven’t been able to actually get an in-person doctors appointment in years.

        2. daffodil*

          I used to see a medical specialist and often opted for her first appointment of the day. She would frequently come in the door after I was already seated in the waiting area (travel time can be a little unpredictable where I live, so I usually give myself a 10-15 minute buffer in case of trains or traffic or hitting every light wrong). I didn’t think anything of it. However, if an office is mean about patients/clients showing up 2 minutes past their appointment time, then they better be punctual.

      2. Wolf*

        Really depends on the kind of work! If there are clear, countable results, and they are achieved – that’s fine. If it is something like therapy appointments, I’d expect my therapist to be there for the entire time I pay.

        1. Sir Nose d'Voidoffunk*

          Our son’s psychologist routinely starts his appointments 5-10 minutes late. I understand the need for time between appointments and preparation, but we are paying a not-small amount for this, and I’d be lying if I said it didn’t bother me.

          1. Wolf*

            Mine always scheduled 45min sessions, starting each patient at the full hour. That worked very well.

      3. WeirdChemist*

        I mean there’s nothing saying that Mary wouldn’t get paid for her time if she showed up 15 mins early. In fact, given that she’s a govt employee, I have a hard time believing she *wouldnt* get paid for it. That being said, if she’s not having issues with her 8am meetings by not getting there early, then the LW doesn’t really have legs to stand on

      4. Learn ALL the things*

        Also, it’s possible that Mary is doing much of her meeting prep the day before, which is how I typically handle early morning meetings. I dedicate the last half hour or so of the day before going over my notes and making sure I’m prepared so I don’t have to do it early in the morning on the day of.

    4. Katie*

      So from a client perspective, I always choose the earliest slot possible (my kids are disabled so lots of appointments, usually doctors). That usually means 8am times. I do that for many reasons but one of the biggest is that there are no delays from the doctors because their previous appointments ran over/ too many were jammed in there. It’s rude to me if I am expected to wait because they had to smell the roses and drink their coffee.

      1. Katie*

        Also to note, as long as my doctors knows my kids record, I don’t care if she strode in there two minutes before.

        1. Jackalope*

          Maybe this is just my experience, but because of the way clocks work (some running a bit fast, others a bit slow, especially when their batteries are running down, and this is for clocks that were all set to the same time at one point), if I have a doctor (or other person I have an appointment with) who is 1-2 minutes late I assume our clocks are just different.

          1. doreen*

            That’s what I would assume it was just a couple of minutes , assuming I even noticed a couple of minutes – as long as I didn’t see the same person always rushing into the office at 7:58 when I have an 8 am appointment. Because nearly everyplace that gives me an appointment wants me to show up 15 minutes before my appointment time at 7:45, you should be there early enough to call me in at my appointment time.

          2. Insert Clever Name Here*

            Yeah. Right now, the time on my company-issued laptop says 9:35 but the time on my company-issued phone says 9:34. 1-2 minutes doesn’t count as late to me. And if it does count as late to OP (and has a real impact on the work), then that needs to be what is addressed “it is very important from an agency perspective that 8am meetings start promptly at 8am. That means inside the conference room, meeting content beginning at 8am, not walking into reception to greet the client at 8am.”

            I would love an update to this one, if for no other reason than to answer some of the questions that were brought up initially in the comments!

          3. Coverage Associate*

            On clocks, I can definitely confirm that even internet updated clocks can be at least 30 seconds off. I see it all the time with my phone v computer.

            Example: it once took me several seconds to log into a video conference. I don’t remember if I clicked connect when my computer clock said one minute ‘til or at the precise start time, but by the time my computer said one minute past, my client had emailed me and my boss and my boss had gotten out an email just to me asking what the problem was. All of which I think is ridiculous. (The meeting was with more than just the client and the organizer was neither organization. It’s possible I tried to log in a few minutes early and just couldn’t because of the organizer’s settings.)

            Anyway, even online 120 seconds late is hardly late if there’s more than one person as a factor.

        2. Sneaky Squirrel*

          My frustration, usually with doctors, is it’s pretty regular for them to ask me to be there 5-15 minutes early to settle any paperwork issues/not hold the schedule. I expect the same courtesy from my appointment holders but I’ve definitely had appointment holders stroll into the building after me. If I’m expected to be at the building 15 minutes for this appointment holder, I expect them to be in the building as well – why should I have to be here early if you haven’t even shown up yet?

          1. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

            It doesn’t really make sense to require doctors to be in 15 minutes earlier because you have to do paperwork.

              1. Allonge*

                Also, people are asked to show up earlier than they are expected to be seen by the doctor because people are often late – because stuff happens, because some people are not good at being on time or because they are made late by other people who are made late by other people etc.

                Is it cool to have to wait at a doctor? Of course not. But it’s also just very difficult to set up a system where the doctors see enough (in all senses) patients and there is no waiting.

          2. carrot cake*

            Because sometimes the doctor who comes in after you just got done delivering a baby and “strolls in” because they’re, you know, spent, especially if the delivery didn’t go well. Or they’ve had a personal situation or crisis of their own crop up, so, as with any other human being, they’re going to be a bit late.

            All kinds of possible valid reasons, none of which involve the implicated “Just walkin’ along, whistling.”

            1. Coverage Associate*

              Was receptionist for several years for OB-GYN, and, yeah, this. Our doctors had a back entrance so patients usually didn’t see them arrive, but both entrances did go to the same hallway, so they could meet each other there. For some specialties, flexibility with appointments is part of the deal, unless you want to make another appointment and leave.

              I do appreciate providers who have patients complete paperwork in advance, though I know that won’t be perfect as patients will either not fill it out or forget it, or there’s been a recent change. I know it never takes me the standard 15 minutes to fill out new patient paperwork, but I know it takes some people much longer.

      2. Colette*

        Yeah, exactly. If I have an appointment at a particular time, I’m expecting to have the appointment at that time. I can understand a couple of minutes late, but then I want to get into why I’m there so that I can do the next thing I need to do. Mary is being paid to be there, but her clients presumably are not.

            1. Irish Teacher.*

              Yeah, I know other countries probably have better time-keeping than Ireland, but I’m usually surprised if an appointment starts right on time. Up to 10 minutes late, I’d really consider to be “on time” (heck, our rail service, officially counts up to 10 minutes late as being on time and get stats on how many make are on time according to that criteria). For a first appointment in the morning, I’d assume the person has to come in, turn on their computer, take off their coat, etc, so I’d be expecting a short delay.

              And for less than 5 minutes, I’d just think their clock was a little different from mine.

              I know some of this is cultural. I was shocked when I did a webinar course through the Church of England and they were like, “OK, it’s 7pm, but there are still a few people joining. Do you mind if we wait a minute or two?” and literally started 1 or 2 minutes past 7. And even more surprised that they ended dead on 8, even though they took questions for the last ten minutes and it’s hard to tell how long of an answer the last question will require. But even allowing for cultural differences, less than 5 minutes doesn’t sound like a big deal.

        1. Colette*

          If 10 AM was the earliest slot available, I would have planned my day around being there at 10 (whether I liked it or not). The idea of appointments is that you know when to show up and the other person is prepared to meet with you then. Sometimes something unavoidable delays the appointment, but stopping to smell the roses is avoidable.

        2. Katie*

          I would be frustrated honestly for my other thousand reasons – especially if knew that office opened at 8 but my doctor never saw my kids before 10.

          1. LaurCha*

            Really? Every doctor I have has hours that do not coincide with their office hours. Some don’t work on Wednesdays, or Friday afternoons, or only do surgery on Tuesdays, or whatever. Surely they’re entitled to carve out some non-patient time to do office work?

            1. KateM*

              My doctor used to do home visits, for example (but I think she nowadays only goes to babies and elderly).

            2. doreen*

              I think that might be a reference to group practices. I might be annoyed if my doctor’s first appointment was at 10am but the other providers in the same office had appointments starting at 8 – but I’d probably just switch doctors if that was the case. If my doctor shows up at 8 but the first appointment is at 10, I wouldn’t even know what time the doctor got to the office.

            3. Amy*

              I chose my pediatrician based on their available hours. They open at 7am three days a week / 8am two days a week and have Saturday hours.

              I’d never go to a pediatrician that didn’t see kids before 10am.

        3. Learn ALL the things*

          I wouldn’t. The context here is that I work about an hour away from my home and most of my care providers are near my home. I work early hours mostly so I can end my day before the worst of the rush hour traffic so it won’t take me 90 minutes to drive home. An 8:00 appointment means I show up early to work for a couple of days to make up for it. A 10:00 appointment means I have a much more time I have to account for so I have to choose between the nightmare traffic and using up my limited sick leave.

          There are valid reasons why people need to schedule early morning appointments. I get that some people find mornings harder than others, but that doesn’t mean we eliminate all early morning appointments. It means that people develop coping strategies for their job requirements, just like every other job.

          1. Happy meal with extra happy*

            They’re saying that they should no longer offer early morning meetings to clients because clients would just deal with it, all so Mary doesn’t have to look like she’s rushing to 8am meetings.

            1. Margaret Cavendish*

              I don’t think anybody is saying that! What they’re saying is, if it’s possible to avoid scheduling Mary for 8am meetings, that might be an easy solution here.

              It may not be possible, for any number of reasons. But maybe there’s someone in the office who would happily take 8am meetings if it meant they never had to do the ones that start at 4pm, then maybe it’s possible to arrange the schedule that way.

              1. Learn ALL the things*

                In case management, I really don’t think that can work. Typically, each case manager has their list of clients, and they are the only case manager who meets with those clients. The client typically doesn’t get to choose who they are assigned to. These people are generally in a vulnerable period of their lives and may have many other conflicting requirements on their time. Limiting when they can meet with their assigned case manager to later in the day may cause them additional hardships and lead to poor outcomes.

          2. KateM*

            That the client’s persepective in Kate’s case is not “I want to be seen at 8am”, but “I want to be the earliest patient”. (Just an example – on Tuesdays my GP’s earliest slot is 4pm.)

      4. Funko Pops Day*

        Depends on what kind of practice you’re going to, but in many cases doctors are rounding on patients in the hospital before they come to the office for outpatient appointments. So a pediatrician being late for an 8 am appointment may be because there were more sick kids/more complicated conversations than they had planned at the hospital from 6-7:45, not just smelling the roses.

        1. doreen*

          Sure , but the original comment said

          Couldn’t everyone just wait a little bit, and smell the roses ~ or coffee ~, in an office.

          That’s very different from someone starting work at a different location before the first appointment.

    5. RIP Pillowfort*

      Well, it’s a gov’t agency which most likely has a set of posted core hours for the appointments. It’s unclear if the employee is setting up the schedule themselves or not.

      My mom was a social worker at an agency and didn’t schedule her own appointments. Clerical did and there were designated time slots. There were 8 am slots and if someone was scheduled it is your job to be there at 8 am to meet them. There were no same day appointments. So prep work could be done the day before or in the morning.

      You really can’t always say “I’m not going to do appointments before 9 am” if your agency gives the people they serve the option of an 8 am appointment. That will become an issue.

      1. Curious*

        I think it depends on circumstances. It sounds like it would be better — if possible — to have other employees take the 8am appointments (and fewer of the late afternoon appointments) and folks like Mary take the late afternoon appointments (and fewer of the 8am). That is, play to employees’ strengths/preferences, to the extent that those strengths/preferences and the needs of the business (or, here, the agency and it’s clients) permit.

        1. Happy meal with extra happy*

          What if none of the employees, or a smaller percentage, want 8am meetings? What if Mary’s clients want 8am meetings? There’s being accommodating when possible and then there’s just needing to recognize jobs will often have specific hours.

        2. Insert Clever Name Here*

          it doesn’t appear that her meetings are affected by her rushed entrance, but it still bugs me to watch this show twice a week.

          Emphasis mine. OP admits that the meetings don’t seem to suffer from Mary arriving at 7:58, and that OP just doesn’t like it that twice a week Mary drops her jacket at her desk and power walks to reception. I’d be pissed if a coworker stopped getting assigned 8am appointments (that she completed just fine) just because my boss didn’t like that the coworker didn’t come in “early enough” to walk to reception at a leisurely pace.

          1. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

            This is how I see this also. The LW doesn’t like it that Mary doesn’t do things exactly the way she would. She needs to get over that.

          2. varied*

            It would bug me, too, frankly, in this particular work context. Two minutes is a close call – especially if meetings are expected to begin on time – as there is no room for error.

        3. doreen*

          If Mary is a caseworker, it’s very likely that she has a specific caseload and it’s really not fair to the clients if they can never get an 8am appointment because their caseworker starts at 10 even though official hours start at 8. There are a variety of ways in which clients get assigned to staff depending on the agency ( first letter of last name, last digit of case number , a rotation based on when the case was opened, different catchment area/zones are ones I’ve seen) It’s never going to be that client A wants a specific appointment time and that’s how we decide who their caseworker is.

    7. MassMatt*

      Many other people, including clients at this agency, have crowded schedules and the 8AM time slot may be the only way they can meet while juggling jobs, kids, or other appointments. Are you suggesting the clients just sit there waiting while this employee smells their coffee because mornings are too “emotionally taxing”? That is astonishingly entitled.

    8. Nancy*

      I don’t think clients should have wait a little bit and ‘smell the roses’ because their caseworker can’t manage to show up on time.

    9. Margaret Cavendish*

      It’s me, I’m Mary. The way my particular circadian rhythm works, my preference is to get to the office around 9:30-9:45, and I will happily stay until 6:00 if necessary.

      I can do 9:00 meetings grudgingly, if I absolutely have to. 8:00 meetings require a heroic effort – I’d absolutely be the one racing in at 7:58 and going straight into the meeting. And then I’d be wiped out for the rest of the day. It has nothing to do with what time I go to bed, or how organized I am in the mornings – it really just comes down to the fact that different people function in different ways.

      LW says Mary’s work isn’t affected by her arrival time, other than the handful of occasions that she gets in at 8:02 instead of 7:58. In which case this sounds like an LW problem, not a Mary problem.

      1. varied*

        Then perhaps a caseworker job that brings with it early-morning meetings isn’t a good fit for people who function better later in the day. The meetings are supposed to be client-centered, not caseworker’s circadian rhythm-centered.

        Mary’s approach might not impact work tasks, but she’s putting that non-impact at risk, making LW’s concern valid. These are people waiting for life help, not tax returns or photocopies or to renew driver licenses or what have you.

      2. Arrietty*

        I’m not capable of 8am meetings. I can just barely make my fortnightly 9am video call, and really that tends to start at 9.10. I never schedule work I can control before 10am. I’d happily work til 7pm if I didn’t have a child to wrangle through bedtime. Due to a combination of night owlness and medical condition, I simply can’t function that early any more. I used to work shifts that could start at 7am and I can’t fathom how I coped (actually I didn’t, hence the medical condition now).

    10. varied*

      “Couldn’t everyone just wait a little bit, and smell the roses ~ or coffee ~, in an office.”
      ——————-

      Yeah, no. If I’m seeing a caseworker, I very likely don’t have that luxury.

    11. Someone Online*

      I am a government employee and getting a little disgruntled by this conversation. My job is to provide services to the public. If my personal preferences prevent me from being able to provide services to the public in my particular job, I need to either suck it up or find a different job. We hold enormous influence over people’s lives. We can determine whether parents get to keep their kids or people have houses to live in. This is important. I can wake up 2 minutes earlier to savor coffee so someone can keep their house.

    12. HA2*

      If they’re external and client-facing, setting a meeting time and then not starting on time is a bad look. Wait a little bit and smell the coffee is for when you DON’T have clients waiting. (After all, the clients also had to get in there and drive in by 8am, and probably aren’t happy to be kept waiting by someone “smelling the roses.”)

      If it’s not important that the meetings start at 8, don’t schedule them for 8, do like 8:30 or 9. If it IS important that they’re at 8, then whoever’s running them should be ready to start the meeting at 8.

  2. katertot*

    IDK, I’m less disapproving of the sister in #1 than I think I would have been when the letter was originally posted. Sure, the sister seems like she’s deliberately obscuring how many people came along on the trip— but the manager’s reaction seems way out of proportion! If you want the discount to be limited, you should put some explicit limitations on it.

    1. Jill Swinburne*

      I agree with your last sentence, but 25 people is taking the piss. Fair use of that policy would be for employees’ immediate family, and unless their surname happens to be Duggar, clearly that was abused. The sister was way out of line here and I can see why the manager was angry, but I really hope the OP clarified and sorted out the situation (and had some very stern words with the sister).

      1. Worldwalker*

        Apparently even the immediate family is a bit of a flex. I can totally see why the manager is angry! Something meant for an employee, and allowed for an employee’s spouse and children, is used by 25 assorted people, some of whom the employee might not even know???

        I have no sympathy for the sister at all. She abused the discount, and she deliberately deceived the LW about that. I would find it hard to speak to the sister for quite a long time!

        1. Learn ALL the things*

          Yeah, if my sister had lied to me, taken advantage of me, and got me in trouble at work? We would have a very long period of no communication. There’s no justification in the world that can make that okay.

      2. el l*

        Exhibit #369, in photographic art collection entitled, “This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things.” Like employee discounts for families.

        I mean, seriously, it’s already generous that it’s immediate family. It’s pretty obvious that you can’t include 20 very-tangential on top of that. If that has to be spelled out, then management will be reasonably tempted to cut the benefit altogether. They’re not obligated to provide this.

    2. Needs More Cookies*

      I agree that there ought to be explicit rules. That said, 25 people is a whole lot of people for Sis to have been coordinating a trip with while somehow maintaining total secrecy from LW1. I’m wondering if the discount code (or whatever) was actually leaked online or stolen, and used by strangers.

      1. jtr*

        Honestly, I can’t imagine who would think that many people is reasonable, or needed to be told that was too many.

        Plus, Sister was STAYING WITH LW?!?! And didn’t happen to mention the OTHER 20 relatives who were staying nearby and enjoying the park on LW’s discount? Wow, that is just incredibly rude and frankly actively dishonest. I don’t think LW should just let this slide, sister should be called out for her behavior.

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          I would have reamed my sister out when I found out what she did. Not sure if paying back the discount was an option but if it was I would sure expect my sister to pay it.

          I can understand the boss revoking the privilege, without knowing the full story. Hopefully OP did go back with the full story and she got her privileges back. With the proviso she has to be present for its use in the future.

          1. Meep*

            Yeah, I was surprised there was no mention of paying back the discount by LW or Alison. It was the first thing I thought of to make it right. You can shake down your sister and her family after.

          2. Allonge*

            About paying back – that would for me fall under the ’employee mistakes are company costs’, and totally unreasonable to expect.

            If the discount is set up so it can be shared and used without active permission of the employees AND using it for an unreasonably high number of people does not trigger some kind of alarm, that is also on the employer.

        2. Ann O'Nemity*

          I was wondering how duplicitous the sister actually was. Was she like, “Hey hubby, let’s invite YOUR WHOLE FAMILY and hope no one notices?”

          Or maybe the invitations just snowballed with the in-laws and once word got out the party surged from 5 to 25.

          2. Yvette*

            Then the sister puts her foot down and says “NO”. This is not her perk to give away. OP was doing her a favor.

          3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Considering there was no mention to OP of the alleged snowball and the sister took great pains to show pictures only of the 5 of them, I would say its unlikely it just got out of hand.

            The more likely scenario is that sister went, hey we got this discount, let’s invite everyone, no one will know and there’s no harm because its a Big Corporation who can take the loss.

            1. Resentful Oreos*

              “Sticking it to The Man” as the saying goes. Unfortunately, like shoplifting, shenanigans like inviting 25 entire extra people to use an employee discount (that’s almost a whole classroom size!), just sticks it to the poor low-level employee, in this case LW1, who is seen as responsible somehow. Or more easily blamed.

              Sister was way way way out of line. I gaped when I read that she invited 25 people! Husband and kids, sure, but this sounds like she invited the neighborhood.

      2. magic*

        The letter states her sister confirmed “her parents-in-law and all of her brother’s siblings, their spouses, and their kids along.” So there was not any possibly of that at all.

    3. MK*

      I am not disapproving of the sister for not abiding by an unwritten policy/rule of OP’s employer. I think it’s crappy of her to use a perk her sister gave her not in the spirit it was intented.

      1. duinath*

        I am mad about both.

        LW did their sister a favor, and she took advantage in such a huge way I wouldn’t have been surprised if LW lost their job over it. I wouldn’t have been surprised if LW was left on the hook for the money the business lost because the sister took advantage.

        LW’s manager took the gentlest of all roads and took away a really nice perk LW probably enjoyed. And that is sister’s fault.

        I would be incredibly pissed if I were LW.

        1. Resentful Oreos*

          I would be as well. I would be angry because I trusted Sister not to abuse the privilege, and she went and abused it in such a way that I got fired or written up.

          I think LW told Sister she could use the discount just assuming that she’d use it for herself, husband and kids. Sister took blatant advantage without caring what happened to the LW or her job. I’d be furious.

    4. Disagree*

      To use this discount for 25 people without checking in with OP is beyond common sense, especially as it is not even sister’s own perk! This is not ok and I honestly do not understand why egotistical and limit pushing behaviour would be more ok just because it was not explicitely ruled out. If management were required to put rules to it, there is a much higher chance that people with bigger families, who used the discount in a sensible way before, might not qualify for the discount any longer.

      On an additional note, we have a program with company perks too. But we have to sign to not share codes, otherwise access would be revoked. OP was lucky that this is accepted with their employer, but this is not standard.

      1. Dog momma*

        I’m surprised the boss didn’t want LW to pay back the $ 2 grand! What else could he do but revoke her employee discount..why punish the rest of the employees if they get rid of the perk?
        Hopefully there was a mandatory meeting about this so its now clear .
        and I want an update!

        1. Kes*

          Yeah I suspect the boss felt OP had gotten their worth of the discount for several years to come, hence the revocation. There may not have been a clear line drawn as a policy, but it sounds like it was well understood that it was intended for one person or family. Regardless of exactly where the line is, 25 people is clearly over it.
          Unfortunately since this letter is 7 years old we’re unlikely to get an update now, although it would be fun

        2. Wilbur*

          Why on earth would LW need to pay anything back? There was no policy regarding the discount and it’s apparently not uncommon for it to be used (for small groups) when the employee is not present. LW thought she was using it within the acceptable parameters, it was her sister that went overboard. LW should get a warning, management should write a policy for discounts and move on.

    5. londonedit*

      It’s one of those ‘this is why we can’t have nice things’ ones, really. The policy was absolutely fine until the OP’s sister decided to take the piss and invite 25 people along. There probably wasn’t an explicit policy against it because it had never come up and no one had ever thought it was an acceptable thing to do. Classic example of one person ruining it – certainly for the OP, but possibly for everyone else as well. I’m really not surprised that the manager revoked the OP’s discount – I definitely think the OP should have explained that she thought it was just her sister and family using it, and she’d never have agreed if she thought 25 people were going to turn up, but still, it’s clearly an abuse of something that’s meant to be a nice perk for everyone.

      1. AngryOctopus*

        Yep. I will say that if my boss had said “25 people used this discount!!!” I’d have said “wait what? I told my sister she could use it for her husband and 3 kids!”. And I would have gone back and said “yeah she invited her husbands whole family without telling me, and I’m really sorry about that. I did not tell her it was OK.” Just so he knew!

      2. Kivrin*

        Yes, this is like that scene in Superstore where District Manager Jeff calls a meeting about inappropriate social media use and says “there is no policy because we didn’t expect we needed to explicitly say ‘don’t fart into cups and post it on the internet’.”

    6. English Teacher*

      Yes 25 is wild…but I’m trying to see from the sister’s perspective, and as a working-class person from a working-class family…I sort of get it. “Everyone I know has always wanted to take their kids to this park but it’s out of our budget–until now! We have the golden ticket!”

      And did the LW say anything to the sister about some vague unspoken understanding that there was a limit on who/how many people could use it? I’m guessing no, since they don’t even mention that in the question! Not everyone has worked in a job with these kind of perks: to them, a discount code is just a discount code.

      During college, we passed around a code that let you get a large pizza for $8 for being in the USO. Who was originally in the USO? No idea. Was it a problem with their employer? Apparently not, because the code worked for years.

      1. Cardboard Marmalade*

        I’m with you on this. I’ve worked a lot of retail and food service and if employers had expectations about how many free ice cream cones you could give out per day, they said so, and there was no problem. It’s on the employer to set expectations and not just assume that everyone (especially folks who don’t work there) will understand that 5 people using the discount multiple times over the course of a season is fine but inviting 25 all at once for a special occasion isn’t.

        1. Colette*

          It sounds like the employer may have done that – the OP certainly didn’t approve 25 people using the discount! The sister was out of line. If the OP had said “while you’re in town, I want to take you out for dinner”, she would have been understandably upset if the sister had brought another 20 people along; this is the same thing. The OP offered something to her sister, and her sister abused it.

          1. Colette*

            And, in fact, it sounds like the sister was aware she should only use it for her family, because she went out of her way to hide that she’d invited more people.

            1. Ali + Nino*

              This is the answer. She knew she was wrong and she just didn’t care and did it anyway. I feel sorry for the OP, this was a really unfair thing for the sister to do.

            2. Emmy Noether*

              I agree – if the sister had thought this was above board, she wouldn’t have taken steps to keep it secret.

              Although, giving the benefit of the doubt, I bet that the sister didn’t realize that this was a personal code and that it could/would be tracked. She probably didn’t think it could get LW in trouble.

            3. Meep*

              This. I really do not understand people defending the sister. (Especially since some of them seem to be the ones criticizing Alice yesterday for shoplifting. lol)

              Sticking it to a big company is all well and good, but what matters here is LW’s sister hurt them and had enough hindsight to KNOW she was actively going out of her way to do something harmful to her sibling.

              1. Resentful Oreos*

                Sister didn’t stick it to The Man, she wound up sticking it to her sibling and the other employees of the park. Shame on her. She was way way out of line as far as I am concerned.

              2. Allonge*

                I would not defend the sister! But a company like this can also ensure that the discount codes have some limitations if they want to.

                So while sister was totally out of line (towards OP, mainly), there is a systemic failure here also.

            4. Irish Teacher.*

              Yes, that’s what really bothers me. Otherwise, I might think she misunderstood, assuming that if her sister could give it to her and she could use it for her husband and kids, it was fine to use it for anybody, but…in that case, I think she would either have clarified first, “hey, are there any limits on this because I’d like to bring X, Y, Z, etc if I can” or at least would have thanked the LW afterwards and mentioned how many people had enjoyed the perk. Saying nothing and only showing photos with the five of them in it indicates she knew full well this wasn’t OK and was deliberately taking advantage of the LW.

          2. londonedit*

            The sister is definitely out of line, and I also think the boss is well within their rights to be annoyed about it. These things tend to operate on the basis of trust, with the unspoken rule being ‘technically this discount is for employees only, but we don’t mind if you occasionally use it for friends and family within reason’. Possibly if the OP themselves had gone to their boss and said ‘I have a whole ton of family members coming to town for my dad’s 70th birthday; would it be OK, as a one-off, if I used my employee discount to get them all tickets?’ then it might have been different. But a) the OP gave their discount code to their sister to use, which is already stretching that trust a bit, and b) the sister totally abused the perk.

            As an example from my own working life – most publishers I’ve worked for will offer either free or discounted books to employees. There are usually a few very basic rules around it, like you’re not meant to pass the code on to non-employees, and you’re meant to only have books delivered to your home address, etc. Just to stop people abusing the discount. And of course, in practice, it’s fine for people to bend those rules occasionally – say my sister wants a load of children’s books for her daughter’s birthday, and I order them and send them to her house instead of mine. No one’s going to mind that every once in a while. But if I gave my sister the staff discount code, and she then proceeded to place multiple orders and send them to multiple friends of hers all over the world? I’d absolutely be pulled up on that and would probably get into trouble. It’s the same here – it’s fine for employees to occasionally extend their discount to friends and family, but it’s not OK to just give out the code and let people use it willy-nilly.

            1. Arrietty*

              When I worked at a place with a staff discount, I had to be the one making the transaction for it to be applied. I could use it for stuff for other people, as long as I was actually there. It was goods rather than services but the same thing could still apply for services.

        2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Reasonable people know you don’t abuse the system. If SIL had asked if she could bring 2 more people, she might have gotten an okay. But any reasonable person knows that first, you ask before adding to an invite and two, 25 extra people – that you actively concealed — is way beyond any reasonable use.

          And don’t give me the working class family excuse either. Most of them know you don’t do this. they know right from wrong.

          1. doreen*

            I really hate that working class family excuse – I grew up in a working class family and none of them would have asked my husband to use his discount to buy appliances for everyone on their holiday shopping list. For themselves, yes. Not for 20 other people. Not even if he just gave them a code.

          2. Irish Teacher.*

            Yes, I grew up “working class,” on benefits. No way would I or anybody in my family think this remotely OK. I really dislike this idea that “working class” people “don’t understand” social norms. Like sure, there are social rules that are specific to a particular group or situation and yes, there are things that people who grow up wealthy take for granted that people who grew up on lower incomes don’t, but those things are generally about situations that working class people are less likely to encounter, like the norms of a 5 star restaurant; they aren’t things like “don’t take advantage of somebody giving you a perk and then hide from them that you did” and also, it cuts both ways. People from wealthier backgrounds are just as likely to misunderstand social norms that they haven’t had much experience of.

            And if anything, I’d nearly say a wealthy person might have more justification for saying they didn’t understand here. Not that they didn’t understand that it wasn’t OK to share the perk but that they didn’t understand the trouble the LW could get in because working class people are more likely to be in precarious jobs that they can lose more easily for things like this. I’d more easily buy somebody upper-middle class saying “it never occurred to me that the LW could get into trouble. Everybody I know is free to use their judgement with regard to perks and nobody ever checks up on them” than a working class person saying the same thing.

        3. Antilles*

          I’ve worked a lot of retail and food service and if employers had expectations about how many free ice cream cones you could give out per day, they said so, and there was no problem.
          You think that if their rules didn’t have a specific expectation, that they would have been totally okay with you, say, giving away free ice cream cones to the entire high school football team? Or simply deciding to give the family/friends discount to literally everybody who entered your store?
          As someone who’s worked plenty of food service myself, I seriously doubt that would have been “no problem”. And they certainly wouldn’t buy the rules-lawyer argument of “it’s on the employer to set rules”, they’d roll their eyes and tell you that you know damn well that’s not a reasonable use of the discount.

        5. fhqwhgads*

          I’d be wicked pissed at the sister. That said, I’ve been on the work-end of configuring those discounts in various systems for 20 years. If “5 per day on 5 different days is fine” but “25 in one day isn’t” the code should simply not have worked. Like, yes absolutely the sister abused what was given to her in good faith and obviously knew it was wrong since she bothered to conceal it. But also, eff that employer for getting all pissy at OP about it after the fact instead of just configuring the system to limit it the way they want it limited. This is just shitty planning on their part.

      2. Jackalope*

        The thing that makes it an issue to me is that the sister clearly knew, or at least suspected, that this wouldn’t be okay. She didn’t mention to the OP that she was bringing more people, she carefully showed the OP only pictures of herself and her immediate family, etc. She should have at least mentioned this to the OP and cleared it beforehand instead of deceiving her about it.

      3. bye*

        Getting a pizza for $8 and saving thousands of dollars are very different things. Working class people still know if they’re scamming something – LW’s sister didn’t have to deal with the repercussions of it, LW did!

      5. Nonsense*

        Dude what??? Abusing a discount has nothing to do with being working-class or not – but what a way to admit you’re a thief and consider your fellows to be as well. Holy internalized classism, Batman.

        And I grew up on the poverty line, so I’m very familiar with wanting something nice and knowing I couldn’t have it. I still never would have abused someone’s discount like that.

        1. Emmy Noether*

          Agreed.

          In my experience, those people who most appreciate a discount (because it makes a meaningful difference to the budget) are least likely to abuse it. Because they’d really like to keep the perk.

          Internalized classism indeed.

        2. Decidedly Me*

          Same! Grew up very poor and would never think to do this. I know people that would (across different classes) and it’s because they have entitlement issues, not that they are working class.

          1. Resentful Oreos*

            Same here! I know working class people who would never think of abusing a perk like this, and affluent upper-middles who would take advantage of it left, right and center, because they have a colossal sense of entitlement.

            It’s not a class thing. It’s a sense of entitlement and impunity, combined with selfishness and a willingness to take advantage of someone who you think cannot cut you off because they are faaaamily.

      6. Meep*

        I am on the fence about it.

        On one hand, it is just basic manners that you do not invite 20 other people to take advantage of someone else’s discount without checking first. That is egregious no matter how you look at it and try to justify it.

        On the other hand, I sort of get the mindset even if I dislike it. My in-laws view my family as “wealthy” because my parents have very different priorities than them (think prioritizing travel, retiring early, etc vs smoking, gamblings, and drinking). Heck, the two vacations my husband remember growing up that didn’t involve a kid’s room in a Las Vegas Casino was Disneyland where they spent 90 minutes before his parents dropped him and his sister in the room to go to the bar (he was 5 at the time, his mom was pregnant with his brother) and a teenage trip to San Diego where they ended up at the bar before 2PM where all three of the kids were underage.

        It translated over to my brother-in-law being very jealous of his brother’s “lifestyle” because my parents are active parts of our lives. Which in turn as actually lead to my BIL taking advantage and stealing from his brother to “achieve” that lifestyle. Or a version of it. My husband is very frugal. His brother is cheap on necessities, but blows money on gotcha pulls.

        It really grinded my gears when my husband was explaining that my dad wants to take my husband and my sister’s fiance on a trip for his 60th birthday and BIL had the nerve to say verbatim “I wish I had a patron like [Dad] who would sponsor me on lavished trips.” Dude makes six figures, owns his own home, has two roommates (one of which is his sister and does his freaking laundry, and the other one cooks for him!), owns his car outright, and has no student loan debt.

        He can afford to travel. He just refuses to make it a priority, because spending money on action figures to clutter is dang kitchen is more important!

      7. But Of Course*

        So how do you account for the fact that the sister actively lied by curating the photos and never once mentioning that twenty more people she’s related to were staying nearby, in your generous assumption that the LW’s sister is a working-class pig with no common sense at all and it was all a hilarious mixup?

      8. Lizard Lady*

        I come from a working class background, and I have some relatives who would have done this, too. They’re always trying to game systems and get as much as they can because they are sick of feeling deprived. I understand the impetus, but you know what? Try as they will to justify it (“no one said not to”) it’s still wrong. They only half realize (and care even less) that everyone around them resents them for taking more than they ought to, and that no one can trust them to not cause problems. The only magic words seem to be “if you mess this up I could lose my job.”

        The sister who gave everyone permission to use the discount didn’t just overstep, she abused her sister’s and the company’s generosity.

    7. Curious*

      Be careful what you ask for, lest you get it. A policy with explicit limitations is likely to be narrower than a less explicit policy interpreted with *reasonable* flexibility.

      1. Antilles*

        And not only will it likely be narrower in terms of the tickets, there’s a good chance that they also impose other restrictions as well.
        For example, deciding that the employee must be present when tickets are purchased so there’s never any question of whether the employee knew it was going on. Or maybe even something completely unrelated such as realizing that the park is always packed on certain holidays so when they policy gets formalized they also add blackout dates.

    8. HonorBox*

      I think your last sentence is something to really focus on. The boss’s reaction is over the top if there are no explicit limits. Plus, the $2,000 is almost a fake number. Yes, the additional people got in for a lower price, but did the park have to turn away additional people because of those who got in with the discount? Probably not. I’d have probably told OP that going forward, there is a limit. Or even told the OP that given the situation, they weren’t allowed to offer their discount to anyone else.

      But even with that, the sister took it too far and was very much in the wrong. She didn’t have the right to invite so many additional people. And she actively hid that from the OP. No mention of others while staying with OP? Only sharing photos of those who were in her immediate family? That’s hiding important details.

      If we looked at this from the perspective of a retail shop versus an amusement park, I think you’d be more disapproving. If OP was at a book store and was able to extend a discount to family and sister brought in 20 people and everyone got to use the discount because she paid for everyone, that wouldn’t be any different and I think the perspective would be far different too

      1. Colette*

        They did in fact use the discount code at restaurants and gift shops – so there was a very real cost to it.

    9. Emmy Noether*

      My husband has access to sports facilities through his work, and there are very specific and complex rules* about bringing guests. The policy is generous, so I’m not complaining, but I have to re-read the rules every time because they’re so complicated. And this type of occurrence is why they exist.

      * Depending on if it’s summer/winter, whether the guests are adults or children, the relationship to the employee, the total number over the year, and the number at one time, and specifies who counts towards the limits, who has to be accompanied, if it has to be reserved in advance, etc.

    10. Caramel & Cheddar*

      Honestly, I’m kind of shocked they don’t have explicit limitations on it. My workplace is part of a broader network of places people can get discounts as employees (i.e. if you work at A, you can get a discount at B, and employees at B can get a discount at A) and every single one of them comes with clear stipulations about how that works, and they’re all much lower stakes than an amusement park! A lot of them also require showing ID or calling a box office directly, etc. so that an actual human has to process the thing you’re getting a discount on.

      The sister was clearly taking advantage here, but I’m side-eying the amusement park a lot. If you’re not okay with a discount code circulating beyond its intended audience, don’t give out a discount code for something like this!

      1. Phony Genius*

        Yes. One of my coworkers has a family member who worked at a major theme park. They had a fixed number of discount tickets they could buy every year. (It might have been 1 or 2 free ones, and a discount for more up to a limit.) But they definitely not only tracked it use, but had a system to limit it within the rules.

        1. Elsa*

          A fixed number of discount tickets per year seems like the simplest way to address this. After all, 25 people all at once seems completely crazy, but what if an employee is married with four kids and uses the discount for her family four times in a year? It’s about the same amount of tickets but would we see it as equally egregious? It would be helpful to everyone to put a number on this.

          1. Robin*

            The amusement park I worked at gave employees physical paper tickets for free admission. There may have been some way to get people in free if you were physically there to show your employee ID (it’s been several years and I honestly don’t remember), but if you weren’t with the group when they went through the gate, you were limited to the number of paper tickets you had. This also meant management really didn’t care as long as we weren’t selling them – they understandably did not want us selling “any park in the chain, no blackout dates, no capacity rejections” tickets on Ebay, but if you wanted to save (or trade with co-workers, which was allowed) to get 25 of them and invite your entire extended family over, that was fine. Much easier that way!

      2. londonedit*

        It sounds like one of those things where it’s all fine until someone decides to abuse it. If it’s worked on trust for years, and no one’s taken the piss, then I expect they just didn’t think they’d need to impose a formal limit. Now, obviously, I’m sure they will!

      3. Dust Bunny*

        I worked at a water park many years ago (mid-1990s) and they made it clear it was for us and a guest or immediate family within limits. We also got two free day passes with our paychecks.

    11. Dust Bunny*

      Twenty-five people? The sister knew exactly what she was doing. That’s why she made sure not to post pictures of them.

      I’ve worked at a water park, actually, that had an employee discount and no reasonable adult would think that it applied to anyone beyond very close family, and definitely not a whole family reunion.

      1. AngryOctopus*

        Yep. If you want to spread around the discount you got for the 5 that were asked for, you pool $$ and everyone gets a small discount, since you spread around that discount for the 5.

        1. Insert Clever Name Here*

          Yup. My brother used to work for an animation company that has an extremely popular theme park and he got 2 free day passes a month (or something like that) that he could gift. I went with 5 people once and we split the cost of the 3 day passes we had to purchase between the 5 of us.

    12. SunnyShine*

      I’m an avid theme park goer. What her sister did is bonkers. The manager isn’t wrong for closing her discount code.

    13. Meep*

      Honestly, I don’t think anyone thought someone would have the gall to do it without a heads up. I mean I know common sense isn’t that common. I have a brother-in-law who would do something similar without a thought to who he was hurting. (He scammed his own freaking brother over their father’s birthday present.) But it is still out there.

    14. boof*

      No, I still think if someone offers you an invite, the onus is on the guest to check in before quintupling the amount of people said offer is extended to. I think it’s pretty obvious that should be done and anyone in the “better to beg forgiveness than ask permission!” camp on taking advantage of a kindness is probably not someone one wants to offer anything to.

    15. Artemesia*

      No one in the world doesn’t know that inviting 25 people on someone else’s discount should be cleared first. The fact that she hid it on her photos makes clear she knew. I can’t believe the OP didn’t lay out what happened. And I hope she made it clear to her sister that the sister’s behavior had not only cost her her discount but also probably ruined any prospects for future promotion on her job.

      I hope she did go back and tell the boss what happened and apologized again.

  3. Kmoo*

    It sounds like maybe Mary has other things that she has to do in the morning before work (maybe see a child off to school?) and perhaps someone needs to take that into account and stop scheduling Mary for 8 am client appointments.

      1. KateM*

        Not guesses by employee’s boss without even consulting the employee, that for sure. But if an employee prefers to start their day a bit later, and there are no clients who absolutely need to have their meetings with her at 8 a.m, then why not to not have those 8 a.m. meetings and have later slots available instead?

          1. LaurCha*

            Really the issue is LW’s problem. She’s just irritated by having to see Mary fast-walk. She needs to get over it.

            1. Learn ALL the things*

              This is my take. Mary is generally on time for meetings and occasionally a minute or two late, but her clients don’t seem to be complaining about it and her general work seems to be good. This is a situation where the employee does good work, but is doing it in a way their supervisor wouldn’t choose to do it, but that’s not actually a problem for anyone but the LW.

            2. varied*

              LW manages Mary. As such, LW has every right to be concerned by Mary’s last-minute here I am! habit. To say LW is “just irritated” and “needs to get over it” is pretty unkind.

              1. Learn ALL the things*

                LW doesn’t mention whether Mary does any preparation for her early morning meetings the day before. If we found out she was doing that, would that change your opinion of this at all?

              2. Kevin Sours*

                LW needs to articulate a problem beyond “I don’t like” before they have a right to be concerned though.

            3. Poppy of Dimwood Forest*

              This is what struck me. If Mary is prepared, doing a good job, and has no other issues, this is all on the LW.

              I worked at one place where our start time was 8 am. We would have a weekly staff meeting at 8 am. It was always stressful because Manager would be upset if someone was arriving at 7:55 am. She made us all stressed. The next manager started the weekly meetings at 8:15 am. It made a huge difference in our work day and we didn’t blather on for another 15 minutes because we had people to see at 9 am.

              At the same work place I would try to arrive 15 minutes early so I could have a leisurely set-up for my day. The manager would suck up that time with useless talk or tasks. So, I stopped arriving 15 minutes early.

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

            But Mary doesn’t know that there is a problem. It doesn’t sound like the OP had talked to Mary about why she comes in when she does. And honestly, I think the OP might be projecting a bit that she is rushing.

    2. Anima*

      So childless people have to work at 8 am, got it. People with children are exempt from that.
      *Sarcasm off*. I get it, I really do, and I try to help my child having colleagues where I can, but I won’t tolerate a perk like this just because they procreated.

      1. Nebula*

        There is a balance that can be struck where everyone gets flexibility, and it actually sounds like that workplace has that flexibility. It’s not fair if people who have kids get special treatment, but good workplaces will accommodate stuff like that for people who have kids and people who don’t. And ensure that it’s not always the same people stuck doing the same things if they don’t want it. But who knows, maybe there’s someone who would love to only have 8am appointments and finish early. It doesn’t have to be a zero sum game, though I realise in many places that’s how it works out.

      2. Emmy Noether*

        No one said childless people “have to” work at 8, that’s a strawman entirely of your making. Children were just given as an example of an obligation that sometimes makes it impossible to arrive before a certain time. Also, pople who start later have to complete their hours by working later, so it’s not like they get to work less.

        Flexibility is a nice perk for everyone. There are all kinds of constraints and preferences hat mean someone would prefer to work later – or earlier. If it is possible (and it may not be!) to distribute earlier/later appointments according to employee’s needs, that’s good for everyone.

        1. KateM*

          In a job long time ago, I had a boss who liked to start his days at 7 am so as to beat the rush hour traffic.

          2. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

            I worked the 7-4 shift to avoid traffic. The 6-3 was because my first deadline was 8 am and there was at least 90 minutes of work to do to meet it.

            Highways can be eerie at 5:30 am, but it’s a good eerie.

          3. Clisby*

            I worked for years at a job where I started between 6 and 7 am most days. Traffic had nothing to do with it; I liked getting in an hour or so before most people arrived. There was a rule that, barring an outright emergency, meetings couldn’t be scheduled later than 3 pm because a number of people left at 3:30 pm on the dot.

            1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

              Starting at 7 am in a company where everyone rolls in between 8-8:30 am (or 10 am like my last job) is like a superpower. I got so much done before the offices would get noisy–easily half or more of my actual daily productivity.

              2:30-11pm was a similar situation, except 50+% of my productivity came after everyone else went home for the evening.

        2. Varthema*

          And it’s a good example because it’s a very hard limit – small children simply cannot get themselves places, schools do not offer any flex, and the idea that there’s someone willing to babysit/chauffeur your child every day from 7:15-8:00 is a myth, or best case scenario, a unicorn. kind of like that mythical “emergency childcare” for sick kids – idk about where everyone else lives, but there’s no childcare I know of other than grandparents (which we don’t have), who are willing to care for sick children.

          sorry, rant over. Other possibilities is that her commute increases exponentially when she has to be there by 8 (mine definitely can), or perhaps she has another care situation for an elderly or ailing relative, which is basically the same as the childcare situation. in any case, I agree that there may be a lot more here than ‘not a morning person.’

          1. Amy*

            On the other hand, plenty of parents I know (including me) prefer a schedule that starts early and ends early. I will always prefer 8-4pm or 7:30-3:30pm over 9-5pm. Days with little kids start early and 9am feels like practically mid-day to me.

            1. KateM*

              I can very easily imagine that half of the parents would prefer to start and end early (so that they could get their kids out of school) and the other half would prefer to start and end late (so that they could drive the kids to school). If a family could make their shift match so that one can alwayd drive to and another always from, I’m sure they would be very happy.

              1. Meaningful hats*

                This is what my husband and I do. He prefers to work 7:30-3:30 (easier because he works from home), pick the kids up from school, and take them to the park or library. I prefer to do the morning routine and drop-off, work 9:30-5:30, and get home for dinner and a little playtime before bed. The kids have about 45 minutes of after school care but it beats them having to be at school from 7:30 am till 5:30 pm with before and after care.

          2. Seeking Second Childhood*

            re: commute time
            When using rail, I had a limited number I’d express trains that took 50 minutes — and got me to the office 2-5 minutes before the hour. The local trains took over 90 minutes.

            I power-walked to that express train, believe me! And on days when I had to be in at 15 before an hour, I left my house an hour early–which i could do because i had no dependents or pets at that time.

          3. Candace Tomas*

            Just adding to the rant here – several years ago in my area, elementary school times moved up 15 minutes earlier in the morning, requiring teachers to be there at 7:15. Schools lost many good teachers with young children because no childcare facility is open before 7am.

      3. Nina*

        It was an example. If a non-child-having person had an inflexible caring commitment (have to drop partner at work? working around elderly parent’s morning routine?) it would be reasonable to expect a workplace to adjust to that.
        Unfortunately, ‘I am not a morning person’ doesn’t usually cut it as a reason to always start work later than your colleagues in cases where work does need to be done early.
        – signed, another non-child-having not-a-morning-person.

        1. LaurCha*

          “I am not a morning person” should absolutely be a reason to give people grace or a slightly altered schedule if the job allows a little flexibility. The 8-5 schedule was invented by factory owners, it wasn’t written on stone tablets and brought down the mountain by Moses.

          1. varied*

            “I am not a morning person” is the one and only reason to not have a job as a caseworker at an agency where early-morning meetings are standard. The focus should be on the clients, not on employees’ whims. Also, I don’t understand how the history lesson applies here. Mary’s caseloads are people, not autos or clothing or Amazon.

      4. bamcheeks*

        But not everyone thinks starting later is a perk! For every person like me who was terrible at mornings before having children and is still terrible at mornings now I have children, there is a parent who is delighted to be out of the house and at work by 7.15am because it’s a bit of peace and quiet, or because it means they can leave earlier. (Not just dads! I know plenty of mums who like an early start too, .) Everything doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game, you know?

        1. londonedit*

          Yep, I don’t have children but when I’m in the office I like to get there early so that I can leave early. Firstly, living and working in London, if I get on the tube earlier I can avoid the rush hour at either end of the day, and secondly I prefer to finish work at say 4 or 4:30 so I have more of the evening to myself. Even when I’m working from home, I prefer to start and finish early – my view is that I’m not going to be doing anything interesting before work, but having more time after work means I can do interesting things if I want to! Or just have more time to sit on the sofa or cook a meal or whatever. But I have friends who think I’m absolutely crazy, because the idea of getting themselves up in time to be on the train before 7:30am sounds like hell.

          We have flexible hours where I work, as long as you generally work the same pattern, and I have colleagues who do 7am-3pm and colleagues who do 10am-6pm, because that’s what fits their particular needs. Of course in this case it isn’t fair if Mary not doing 8am appointments means someone else always has to do them, but if there’s a way for Mary to say look, my commute just does not work with a before-8am start, is there any way we can work things so that my first appointment of the day is at 8:15, I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

        2. acek*

          Yeah, this must be someone wanting to make a statement. Parents who prefer starting early are so incredibly common. I am pretty certain if the question were reversed (Mary always rushes out of the door at 4PM even after appointments and the boss for some reason thinks that that looks unprofessional) and the comments would be to see if it was an option to not give late afternoon appointments to Mary and let her handle the early morning ones, leaving earlier would be seen as a “perk”. Flexibility is usually not a zero sum game.

        3. Jackalope*

          Yeah, I’ve worked at jobs where everyone had to show up at the same time for operational needs, and jobs where everyone had flexibility and could show up whenever, as long as they were there at core hours. In the latter situations, it worked out that we had a range of people who wanted different things. Some wanted to be there early for whatever reasons, such as kids, elder care, commute, or wanting their afternoons free. Others wanted to be there later, for the same kids/elder/care/commute issues, or they just weren’t morning people, or liked leisurely mornings, or whatever. We were fortunate in that we had enough people in both groups that everyone just sort of naturally drifted to the times they liked and we had full coverage. (Appointments were all set during core hours when everyone had to be there, but if you were a later in the day kind of person you might take more of the long appointments at the end.) Obviously that won’t always work out, but in a big enough group it did in my experience. I only had a handful of times I had to show up early or leave late for something specific, and it was usually something like everyone had the flu and we needed emergency coverage, or there was an important mtg with higher ups who could only be there at a specific time.

          (Important in this is that there wasn’t any of the sniping I’ve heard of from other people on this site about people getting groused at for coming in “late” or leaving “early” when in fact they’d worked their full shift. Maybe because everyone had this flexibility, no one felt like sniping about it?)

      5. Dog momma*

        Agree, I was in that situation where I had to close..every. digle.day..bc my co-worker had kid activities, including summer. I had a hard time making my own Dr appts or meeting with the wedding planner bc I never got out before 5pm. Didn’t happen before our manager retired.
        I had to give 30 days notice and my vaca was approved many months prior, so my last day was right after I returned. This gal asked what was going to happen while I was gone.. I told her to ask the covering manager.. bc..not my problem. If they hadn’t allowed the vacation, I would have left sooner, but I wanted that paid vaca time ( 10 days), it was part of my benefit, & I worked damn hard to get it

    3. Somehow I Manage*

      I’m sorry, but I’m exhausted by the notion that people are unable to plan accordingly based on their work schedule and the rest of their lives. First, Mary presumably knew going in to the role that she might have an occasional 8:00 meeting. Second, many people are able to balance lots of things that happen in the mornings and can still show up on time. I understand that there are occasions in which sh*t happens and you’re running late. But this is a regular occurrence for Mary. And if there’s an issue – she’s the only one who can drop off her child and drop-off is at 7:45 no earlier – she needs to be the one to bring it up. Taking her off of 8:00 appointments and assigning them to someone else is unfair all around. If she has an 8:00 appointment, she needs to be there in enough time to be ready to start that meeting on time and run it appropriately.

      1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

        I don’t think we can assume that Mary knew she would have 8 am meetings – I know office’s my core hours have changed over the years and I’ve just had to roll with it. Even if she did know, it may well have been framed as “sometimes you’ll need to be in by 8 for an early meeting”, which is a standard she’s currently hitting just fine. If she needs to be in at least 15 minutes before her first meeting, that’s something that needs to be explicitly stated – and her boss needs to be prepared that 7:55 really was the earliest Mary could arrive, for whatever reason.

        1. Wayward Sun*

          My office has core hours of 9 am to 4 pm. For a while we had a morning meeting at 7:30 am “so we could get it over before the office opened.” I did not know this going in and wasn’t thrilled.

  4. Artemesia*

    As a new female employee in an office setting, the last thing I would do is provide maid service. Baking cookies is a bad idea for a new female employee — but cleaning the kitchen seems much worse.

    1. Denny O.*

      Maybe it’s just an employee wanting to use a clean kitchen. Providing maid services for free is not good. Providing maid services in general, is not a bad thing.

      1. Mutually supportive*

        I think you’re missing the point.

        If the OP is a woman and starts cleaning the kitchen at her new job, she will forever be The Woman Who Is Expected To Clean The Kitchen.

        People will view that as part of her role and it will be more difficult to be known for being an excellent, competent professional and to get good opportunities and promotions etc.

        Sad, but true.

        1. Wolf*

          Came here to write exactly this – she’ll end up as “the one who cleans the kitchen” because everyone else has an estalished expectation of never cleaning it.

        2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Yep. It will not inspire others to clean up after themselves. They will just expect OP to do it now.

        3. varied*

          lol, not everyone will; I’d wager most people wouldn’t. The work force is getting younger and more open-minded. Some employees are coming from multi-gendered homes. I don’t know that it would occur to most to see the OP cleaning up as a gendered thing. It’s just another employee taking the time to clean. If anything, I have faith that it would be taken as “Oh, hm, someone is cleaning. Maybe I should be neater in my habits so no one has to clean.”

          1. Irish Teacher.*

            I don’t think it’s really a conscious thing. It’s not so much that they think of it as being gendered as that when a woman cleans, it is more likely to be seen as part of her role whereas if a man does it, people are more likely to think he is doing something extra-good and feel guilty about not doing it themselves.

            They aren’t consciously thinking, “well, she’s a woman so we’ll pigeonhole her based on her cleaning” or “he’s a man so he shouldn’t have to clean. I’ll get up and help him.” It’s just that somehow…that’s how they end up responding.

            I don’t think it would necessarily reduce her chances for promotions or mean she isn’t known for doing good work, but…I do think it is likely that it would make others less likely to clean the kitchen and start assuming it’s her job. Not in a conscious way but more in a “yeah, I’ll just leave this here. She’ll be cleaning up anyway and one more item won’t make much difference to her.”

            And if that did happen and somebody was called on it, they’d probably insist (and truly believe) that it wasn’t in any way gendered; she just seemed to like tidying up and “had a system” and they felt they’d only get in the way/mess up the system if they took over or they’d say they just hadn’t thought of doing it because it always seems to be done and heck, nobody else helps out or perhaps if they were paying a lot of attention, they might say that they saw how she got stuck with it and they didn’t want to help out because they didn’t want people to start expecting it from them,

            But if it was a man, the reactions would be likely to be very different and again, nobody would realise it was gendered. They would truly believe that “of course I’d help out if anybody started cleaning. I just didn’t want to get stuck doing it on my own. Once somebody else started, of course I’d join in. It wouldn’t be fair to just leave it to one person.”

    2. niknik*

      Yeah, call me a cynic, but i’d expect the reaction to be neither appreciation nor embarrassment (nor contempt, for that matter). People that leave a shared space dirty usually know exactly what their doing in my experience, and they just do not care. “Hah, found a sucker that cleans up.” would be my guess what the reaction will be.

      1. bamcheeks*

        That’s actually the opposite of my experience — I’ve mostly seen people just dramatically under-estimating how much *their* personal mess adds up when there are twenty-plus people using the same small kitchen. “Oh, it’s only a couple of crumbs/splashes”, only by the end of the day it’s 50+ crumbs and splashes and by the end of the week, it’s 300+. As soon as someone starts cleaning, lots of other people go, “oh, gosh, don’t do that alone, let me help…”

        1. londonedit*

          Totally agree, and I think you see this sort of pattern in all sorts of settings. People think ‘it’s OK, it’s just me doing XYZ’ and they don’t consider the fact that if 20 people think ‘it’s OK, it’s just me’ it all adds up into a problem. People don’t think it’s an issue if they’re leaving a few crumbs or a little spill in the microwave, because they’re not thinking about the fact that if everyone does that, it’ll end up being a mess. They probably even think ‘why is this kitchen always a mess?? Does no one clean up after themselves??’ Because of course they only make a tiny mess that isn’t worth cleaning.

      2. Meep*

        I worked for a start-up where except for a very misogynistic old bat, I was the only woman for awhile. She expected me to clean up after my male coworkers and take out their trash.

        Fortunately, a couple of my male coworkers weren’t in the Stone Age and would throw out the trash themselves if they saw it was full. But there was one guy who despite being exactly a year older than me shared her archaic belief. His trash piled 2x the height of his personal trash can and was tumbling over before she finally made him pick it up.

        Never again. I would ~maybe~ clean the microwave for my sanity but that is about it.

    3. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      Yes, strongly agree. Do not make “cleaning the kitchen” part of your job description by accident.

    4. bamcheeks*

      This really depends on the kind of environment you work in. My colleagues are 80% women, and you don’t have to worry about getting labelled as “the woman who…” because most of us are women so it doesn’t stand out. I can see that might be more of a concern in a male-dominated area though.

      1. ScruffyInternHerder*

        Its a huge concern when you’re one of about 8% of the workplace that is female, and then on top of that, you’re one of under ten women total that isn’t “administrative support” to boot. We actually HAVE cleaning staff, but some of the not quite C-suite like to try to convince me to make coffee and keep the cafe clean.

        Nope.

        1. bamcheeks*

          I totally recognise that stereotype threat is real in some environments! But if she doesn’t work somewhere where she’s minoritised, then the only thing she gains by not cleaning the kitchen is a dirtier kitchen.

          1. Artemesia*

            I’d bring my coffee from home in an insulated mug before I cleaned up a filthy kitchen. Glad to do my share — never going to get typecast as the office drudge or worse yet, office Mom.

          2. Sir Nose d'Voidoffunk*

            I’m a unique case, but I am minoritized – as a guy who works directly with almost all women. Which is one reason why I make it a point to do more than my share of day-to-day kitchen maintenance when I have the chance. I’m not at any risk of being labeled as the cleaner, and it’s the right thing to do.

    5. Seeking Second Childhood*

      I’m surprised Alison didn’t suggest asking if there’s a budget to have a cleaning service — even if not weekly, one deep clean annually restores baseline hygiene.

    6. Daisy-dog*

      I think it could be worth cleaning the microwave to be a usable standard for OP. And then if it’s trashed again in a few days, never do it again. Find an alternative way to have hot food.

    1. None*

      For “overusing” a discount that had no set limitations?
      If the company doesn’t want it overused it should set a policy and specify limitations. Without those, the employee has done nothing wrong (and wouldn’t have even if she knew how many people were going).

      1. magic*

        It sounds like the discount is meant to be used in the employee’s presence, but that that’s just not usually enforced.

      2. nope*

        There’s common sense to these things. OP’s sister is the reason they make rules cause she abused them.

        This is an old post would love an update.

        1. None*

          I agree that 25 was too much, but firing the employee for an unwritten rule would be much more excessive than supposed “abuse” of the discount.

        2. Hlao-roo*

          I would also like an update on this post. The OP did leave a comment on the original post:

          Thank you for answering my question, Alison, and thank you to everyone who gave input in the comments!

          I took your advice (and totally stole some of your wording!) and spoke with my boss again this afternoon. I explained the situation with my sister and that I’d been hesitant to give the full situation during our last talk. He still wasn’t happy, but he did thank me for explaining and mentioned that it’s possible that it’s possible he’ll be able to reinstate my discount sometime in the future, maybe, depending on my performance, which is much more than I was hoping for!

          As for my sister, she hasn’t apologized and has doubled down on her excuse that i should have told her if i didn’t want her inviting everyone​ else. So, at least for the time being we’re not speaking. Later on when I’m less angry I’ll get in touch with her extended family and ask them not to try to use my discount again.

          Thank you all again!

          I wonder if the OP’s discount was reinstated, and if they started talking to their sister again.

          1. Daisy-dog*

            Yep, definitely curious what happened with the sister! I hope OP did explain the situation to the rest of the family and they were all apologetic and possibly shame sister into feeling bad about what she did.

          2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Oh so the sister totally did this on purpose. It wasn’t a well, if we invite Aunt Jane and her kids, we have to include Uncle John and his kids situation. It was totally taking advantage.

            Then turn around and say well you didn’t explicitly say I couldn’t do what common sense says is not reasonable, so its really your fault.

            I wouldn’t just go low contact after that, I would go full on no contact.

      3. Worldwalker*

        That’s like saying “If you don’t want your house burglarized, you should get a Brand XYZ burglar alarm.”

        People are expected not to break into houses even if there isn’t a burglar alarm. People are expected not to share a discount intended for an employee and possibly their immediate family with 25 different people.

        Thinking that anything not explicitly prohibited (and possibly physically blocked) is perfectly fine is the way a toddler thinks, not a civilized adult. It’s the kind of thinking that leads to zero-tolerance policies and a page of small print on everything.

      4. Worldwalker*

        So you think the company wants it overused? You really said that?

        Instead of, y’know, assuming their employees are reasonable people?

        1. They knew and they let it happen*

          Of course, but a one time instance of overuse shouldn’t lead to a firing imo, which is what i think None is commenting on

      5. Phony Genius*

        This comment may be about how some theme park companies are notorious for treating their employees badly. If this is one of those companies, Vashti is right.

    2. Pam Adams*

      My job is 8 to 5, and I have set client appointments- which start at 830. This allows me time to turn on my computer, check messages and get ready for appointments. Expecting me to get to work early to do prep work for free is unrealistic.

      1. Sign of the Anteater*

        And what is your actionable advice to the OP? Or did you just come to be superior at them?

        1. Lexi Vipond*

          The OP is the boss with the power to change the start time of either the day or the meetings, so the actionable advice is exactly what Pam Adams said – stop expecting your employees to arrive early and do prep work for free.

          Or did you just come to be superior at people who give advice you don’t like?

          1. Happy meal with extra happy*

            These are external client meetings at a government agency – it’s highly unlikely the OP can just stop offering that time slot.

          2. WeirdChemist*

            -The LW likely has no power over what time slots are made available, it’s probably set at the agency directorate level 1000 levels above their head. They may have some power over who specifically gets scheduled for which time slots, which may or may not be an appropriate thing to be changing here
            -There is absolutely no indication that Mary wouldn’t get paid for her time by getting in early. She’s a government employee on a flex schedule, I have a hard time believing she *wouldnt* get compensated for it, either in getting to leave earlier, getting overtime pay, or getting credit/comp time. If Mary is a US fed, it would in fact be illegal to make Mary work for free (unless she’s in a few very specific job paths)

      2. Magpie*

        It doesn’t say she’s expected to do work for free. This also doesn’t sound like a typical 8-5 job where showing up before 8 would be outside typical expectations. It sounds like the hours are varied depending on the person and the day they have scheduled so expecting someone to work 7:30 to 4:30 when they have an 8:00 client meeting wouldn’t necessarily be considered abnormal, and other days they might work 10-7.

        1. Tea Monk*

          Yea, maybe OP should just tell her to show up a little early. If I was Mary, and I was getting good work done and the clients didn’t complain I probably wouldn’t have even noticed I was a single minute late. Clear communication works for all even people who dont have a good internal sense if time

      3. Nancy*

        No one is saying OP would work for free. Spending time getting ready before a meeting is a regular part of a job.

    4. Lisa*

      My brother worked retail and they could use their discount to buy things they were giving as gifts but could not buy things on someone’s behalf or buy things to resell. Lending someone your discount card so they could use it was Right Out and would get you fired.

      LW1 learned a couple hard lessons, both that Sister cannot be trusted and why you DO NOT give out your discount info to anyone.

  6. supeisedcanuk*

    25 people is a lot. It could look like she is selling discounted tickets. Plus denying it was 25 looks shady.

    1. jtr*

      Unless there had been other issues with her, it would look to me like what happened – her sister took advantage of her. She should also explicitly tell the boss that her sister, BIL, and 3 nieblings were staying with her and that’s all that she invited, and that her sister had invited a bunch more without her knowledge or permission.

      I don’t think LW did anything wrong or fireable, but I don’t understand why she is hesitant to tell her boss exactly what happened. I don’t think it would make her look stupid or naive, either – who in their right mind would expect your sibling to do something like that?

      1. Worldwalker*

        Someone who has known said sibling all their life? I expect this isn’t the first time the sister has taken advantage of the LW in some way.

        1. KateM*

          Still, OP could have felt that surely for the sister being able to use OP’s discount is already taking advantage enough.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Which is why she didn’t want to explain. Oh sister did it again and I got in trouble for it. Well, that’s life.

            Besides reaming sister out, I would distance myself from my sister. It’s clear she can’t trust her sister given the lengths the sister went to hide the extra people. Even if there wasn’t a history of this, it’s time to go low contact. If there is a history, then OP needs to accept sister isn’t going to change and its past time to go low contact.

        3. Meep*

          TBF, my BIL is a real jerk to my husband and is always taking advantage of him. Because it has been all their life, my husband really didn’t notice until I point out to him that some of BIL’s behaviors are not normal.

          1. Irish Teacher.*

            Yeah and it does happen in families often that the most “difficult” person is appeased and the “well-behaved” sibling is the one who gets in trouble if they don’t go along with things. I remember a classmate who had a sister just under two years younger than her telling us when we were about 16 or 17, that she wasn’t allowed to go to certain events “because your sister is too young to go and if I let you, she’ll want to go too” and basically, the sister was difficult (I had been in classes with both of them since I skipped the optional 4th year here and the older girl was responsible and well-behaved and the younger usually the class troublemaker) and it was easier to refuse the older girl than the younger.

            If the LW has grown up in a situation where her sister was labelled the “difficult one” and expected to be the “responsible one,” then she might actually see this as her fault. It’s not uncommon for parents to deal with situations like this in childhood with “well, you should have had more sense than to give her the card. You’re supposed to be the responsible one. You know she doesn’t think. She doesn’t know any better, but you do, so this is really your fault.”

            Obviously, I don’t know if this was true in the LW’s family or in your husband’s, but it can happen.

      2. Irish Teacher.*

        I think a lot of people would feel that saying “I didn’t know” sounds like making an excuse and wouldn’t be believed. In reality, if the LW has a good reputation, it probably would be but I can easily imagine feeling awkward about saying, “it was my sister. She did it behind my back” for fear it might sound like a kid saying, “it was her, Mum. She did it, not me.”

      3. londonedit*

        If the OP is used to covering for their sister, they might feel embarrassed that they’re having to do so in front of their boss – or they might feel embarrassed because they know they made an error of judgement in giving their sister the discount code to use as she wished, or they might feel silly for having been screwed over by their sister. All of which would make them feel too ashamed to own up to the boss.

        I totally agree that a reasonable boss would accept ‘I’m really sorry – I let my sister use my code on the understanding that it was for her, her husband and my two nephews. I had absolutely no idea she was going to invite half her extended family as well – I never would have given her the code if I’d known. I’m furious with her and this won’t happen again – I’ve told her she won’t be able to use the discount in future’. That would be the OP owning up to what happened, acknowledging that it was unacceptable, and letting the boss know that it definitely won’t happen again.

      4. Jennifer*

        Having frozen in the crosshairs often in my life (doesn’t help that I’m on the spectrum) I can totally see not having an answer for a blindsiding like that, on the spur of the moment. I can even see not thinking to say, “That doesn’t sound right. Can I talk to my sister and get back to you?” And then the longer it takes to go back and try to clear up the bad impression, the more it sinks in and the harder it gets to fix.

        I too would love a follow-up; the OP’s comment on the original only whets the appetite and I hope her relationship with her employer recovered.

  7. Literally a Cat*

    #4 I totally get your desire of not using a filthy kitchen, and I too would have the same desire to impulsively clean. I was in a flatting situation like this, being the only non-white person in the house, very quickly the expectation is Cat the Coloured Maid needs to clean for the princesses. The mess got worse and worse, and when I stopped doing it a year down the line, the people who rode off my free labour made an attempt of excel me out of the social group for being a lazy maid who didn’t know their place. Keep in mind that I was also paying their bills because it’s just easier than living in a house with all utilities cut as they prefer to spend theirs on weed, so this maid isn’t even paid.

    So I’d strongly recommend not make a start on this.

    1. Sharpie*

      That’s ridiculous, I’m so sorry you ended up in that situation and I hope you got out of that as soon as you could. *hugs* from an internet stranger – if you like hugs, otherwise *fistbump*

    2. LifebeforeCorona*

      I agree with you completely. Personally, I would do one deep clean of the microwave and then wipe it down after using it because you don’t want to start out as the default kitchen cleaner. I worked in a kitchen with a co-worker who always left the dishes for me because she “knew I enjoyed doing them.” I did not.

      1. Artemesia*

        I’d put them on her desk with ‘I needed the sink and these were there, I know you’ll want to take care of them.’

    3. Be the Change*

      Wow, that is *awful*. I hope you got out of there as quickly as possible and found a WAY better social group. And that they’ve grown up since then, but that’s probably a hope too far. So sorry, Cat.

    4. JMC*

      Good lord I am so sorry you had to deal with people like that. This is why potheads make me so mad, they would much rather spend money on weed than pay bills, and smoke weed instead of doing what needs to be done like responsible adults.

      2. hohumdrum*

        I mean yeah, I’m more of an ex-pothead but absolutely I’d rather spend money on weed than pay bills. A lot more fun, can’t imagine anyone arguing on that front.

        Though personally I always found chores easier with weed, so I don’t get the mutual exclusion you present there. TBH my house is much dirtier now that I’m sober, having to be fully mentally present while vacuuming has really dampened my enthusiasm for the task.

        Haven’t seen an anti-pothead screed in years, thanks for the chuckle!

    5. MassMatt*

      My concern with #4 is not that LW would be seen as “uppity” but that they would be pegged as the Office Cleaner and this would be an expectation in addition to or even in place of the regular job duties. This is especially an issue for women in the workplace.

  8. Zaphod Beeblebrox*

    LW2 seems to be asking “how can I make my employee start work before she’s supposed to?”.

    Answer is – you don’t. If her start time is 8:00, you assign her duties that allow for that start time.

    1. Literally a Cat*

      Same. If she’s paid to start at 8am, it’s good idea to make the first appointment at 8.15. Otherwise it really feels like trying to squeeze out unpaid overtime.

      1. WeirdChemist*

        There’s nothing saying that the employee wouldn’t be paid at 7:45 if that’s when they got to work.
        In my previous experience in a govt agency with a flexible work schedule (the scenario described in the letter), I have a hard time believing she *wouldn’t* get paid for that time, she’d just leave 15 mins earlier (or earn overtime/credit time/comp time). Working for free is a *big* no-no (at least at the US fed level… not sure if it works differently at the state/city/etc level?)
        Also it reads to me that the employee isn’t being assigned a start time by the LW, they’re being assigned appointment times, and are expected to flex their own schedule around that. To reiterate what Alison said in her response, if the employee isn’t actually having issues with their appointments by getting there just before they start then it’s not really the LWs place to say anything. If there are performance issues involved, then focus on that more so than specific times

      2. HonorBox*

        But the LW says that people can wrap up early or start later if there aren’t appointments and they have their work done. This is a situation in which the employee is paid, and some days there are appointments at 8. If that means being there a few minutes early to ensure that she can run that appointment well, she needs to be there a few minutes early. Then she can leave early that day. It doesn’t sound at all like there’s a push for unpaid overtime. It is more about ensuring that the client is getting the best outcome no matter when they’re scheduled.

      3. Nancy*

        They have a flexible work schedule, but if a meeting is at 8 then they need to be there for the meeting. So they can come in at 7:45 that day and leave earlier another day. Same number of hours, no rushing and being late for clients.

    2. scandi*

      it doesn’t sound like that’s the situation at all. appointments can be scheduled between 8 and 4.30, but the employees have flexible working hours as long as they work around scheduled appointments. if there are no appointments at 8 she can be in later, but if there are appointments at 8, she obviously has to be at work and prepared for the meeting at 8 sharp, which means arriving before 8 on those days.

      1. Nina*

        Or doing her prep work the evening before and having it ready to go when she walks in in the morning. Which she could well be doing, as OP said there were no issues with her actual work.

        1. Person from the Resume*

          Prep work is great, but she still needs to not be a minute or two late somewhat regularly.

    3. Roland*

      This feels like a very bad faith reading of the situation. Appointments are between 8 and 4:30 – that does not mean that employees have a start time of 8. OP clearly says they also come in later and leave earlier when it works with their schedule, no one is nickle and diming times here

      1. Seeking Second Childhood*

        The assumptions throughout here make me grateful for all the letter writers who specify hourly vs. salaried.

    4. Person from the Resume*

      I think she’s asking “what can I say to my employee about being sure she’s here and prepared for her 8am meetings when she has 8am meetings scheduled?”

      She’s rushing in at the last minute and even then she’s sometimes a minute or two late to meet with clients.

      If she doesn’t want 8am meetings, don’t schedule them. If she has them on her schedule, she needs to be on time and not get them off to a late start because she always cuts it so close that she’s sometimes late. And this is not meant to be unpaid time; she uses her flex time and can leave 5, 10, 15 minutes early sometime later that week.

  9. Elyse Grasso*

    For #2: before making a fuss, possibly check whether your employee has children who need to be dealt with, or uses public transportation or a ride-share, etc. to get to work, with resulting scheduling complications.

    The logistics of commuting in a private auto right at the peak of rush hour can also be tricky. I have had some commutes where arriving at work one hour earlier could mean leaving the house nearly two hours earlier (or more), depending on where the arrival times fell in the rush hour period.

    1. Wolf*

      Shouldn’t the employee speak up, then? In many jobs, a conversation like “Starting at 8 is difficult for me, can we do 8.15 please?” goes a long way.

      1. Sharpie*

        Not everyone feels able to speak up, or knows how, or even knows that this is a thing they can do, as evidenced by the numerous letters posted to this very blog asking for Alison’s advice.

      2. Bilateralrope*

        Only if the employee knows about a problem. It sounds like Mary has figured out how to get everything working. She doesn’t know that the LW disagrees.

    2. yvve*

      Or, alternately, just tell the employee why its a problem, then if she has some complication she can be the one to mention it. (if you’re concerned, you can ask if she has any reason why its difficult to get in at that time. But you dont have to figure it out before you bring it up)

      1. D C F*

        Right. That’s why Alison so often recommends clearly naming the problem, then asking something like, “What’s going on?” That at least lets the other person know you’re open to hearing if there are genuine issues behind it.

    3. HonorBox*

      Maybe there are complications with transportation or children, but it seems like the employee knows what their schedule is before they walk in the door. Having dealt with transportation and children, I know that if I need to be at work for a specific meeting at a specific time, I adjust. That might mean getting out the door a bit earlier. That might mean arranging for someone to drop off a child.

      This seems like a regular issue and not just a one-off. And from what LW says, there is flexibility so that someone could come in later on days where there aren’t appointments. This is part of the job and while I’m all for giving people a little grace because life happens, if you have an appointment or a meeting, you need to do what you need to do in order to be there.

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

      Thats what I was wondering, Does she have some other obligations that could make it harder to get to the office at 7:45. Like maybe daycare doesn’t start taking kids until 7:30. So she has to wait to drop kids off and then travel 15 minutes to work,

      Another thought is if she uses public transit and the schedule just doesn’t work. For example when I started my start time was 7:45am. I use public transit and the bus drops off at my work at 7:15 and 7:50 and I have to walk across campus, about a block, to my building. And the nature of my work meant that I would be sitting waiting for 20 minutes. Then at the end of the day I would have to wait 20+ minutes for the bus.
      I talked with my manager and we agreed that I could shift my time to start at 8

      1. varied*

        But that’s the thing: you spoke with your manager, and presumably initiated the conversation. If Mary is in a bind, she should do the same.

  10. Tangerine steak*

    For LW2 I’d be checking what your work hours actually are. If staff need to arrive in advance of scheduled meetings (say 15min) and if appointments last 30min, and staff need 15 min after to wrap up admin /whatever – then your work day is 7.45-5.15. That’s more than a typical day (assuming 5 day weeks and standard FT hours of between 37-40 hours/week).

    If staff need to fit their work hours into that without any regularity I’m not surprised there’s hiccups for people. My in person hours are technically between 8am-10pm (so we can be required to be in front of clients between those hours). But we have to be able to do our week in standard hours AND we have 3 month long blocks of known “in front of people” hours. When I worked retail it was 5am-10pm with rules around min shift breaks and max hours – and high turnover when managers jumped people’s hours around so you had no pattern to your work.

    How much notice do staff get of their required hours? Do they have regular patterns that allow them to schedule regular medical appointments /fitness classes /hobbies / childcare / whatever they have on in their lives outside work? Or is it hit and miss and today I find out what I’m working tomorrow?

    If you need staff early that’s fine to make it a job requirement, but you have to pay them. If you just might need them early – then their pay should reflect the on call or random schedule nature of the position. If they have early do they also get late finishes? Once again fine, so long as they are paid.

    But simply expecting staff to block out early starts and late finishes and keep it open for when you need them not ok.

    Sounds like employee is available from 8, which if that’s her start time is sufficient.

    1. KateM*

      My impression was that it’s like scheduling a doctor visit – you will know when you are booked full, but you can’t really know that you will NOT be booked tomorrow at 8 a.m. before today’s appointment-scheduling is over.

      And OP said the appointments last for a few hours so it may be just one early-morning appointment slot that starts at 8, the next is maybe at 10. Or maybe there are no predefined slots, the person doing the scheduling just looks at an outlook calendar and says “hey it looks like I can fit you here”. Employee may even be the one doing that scheduling herself.

    2. WeirdChemist*

      Given that Mary is a government employee on a flexible work schedule:
      -She does not have a predefined work schedule. She has the expectation that she will be at work and prepared for certain tasks/events (in this case meetings), and can work whatever hours she wants as long as she’s at the correct total hours at the end of a pay period (likely 80 hrs/2 weeks)
      -Any time worked over her total should be subject to overtime/comp time/credit time
      -I don’t know the exact nature of LWs work, but I have a feeling decisions about what time slots are made available to the general public to meet are set at the director-of-agency level, wayyyyyyyyyy above the heads of either Mary or LW
      -Given how backed up most govt agencies are, I have a hard time believing these meetings aren’t scheduled pretty far in advance. I also have a hard time believing that the employees are expected to be “on call” willy-nilly as well. But granted I don’t know the exact nature of LWs work so maybe?

      At the end of the day, if Mary is able to accomplish what needs to be done at these 8am meetings by getting there just before, then the LW doesn’t have ground to stand on. If Mary is dropping the ball, then the LW could say something

      1. KateM*

        If their schedule was packed full, OP would not have written “caseworkers meet anywhere from 1-15 clients a week in our offices during scheduled visits”. That to me sounds like the meetings do not need to be schedule long in advance at all if there is a possibility to have only ONE client meeting in a week!

        1. WeirdChemist*

          In my personal experience on both the govt employee side and the general-public-trying-to-make-an-appointment side, I have never seen an appointment between the two that didn’t have to be scheduled weeks in advance lol

          But granted, I have no idea what specific work Mary does. From my reading of the letter, this doesn’t appear to be medical-type appointments, which I could envision more last-minute schedules being made?

          2. doreen*

            That really depends. My last government job involved staff setting appointments for clients anywhere from one week to six months in advance – some people were seen weekly and some were seen twice a year so I might give someone I see today an appointment for next Thursday or it might be on a Thursday in April or anywhere in between. The only constant would be that it was a Thursday because we had one day a week we saw people in the office. It would be unlikely that I would see only one person on a particular day , but it could happen if , for example, there were five Thursdays in a particular month ( It was easier to schedule based on a four week month).

  11. LifebeforeCorona*

    LW#1 I remember reading the original letter and hoping for an update. The sister deserves a strong tongue lashing for her deliberate actions, because how can 25 extra people accidently slip by? Hopefully the LW will make it clear to the family that the discount was revoked because of her sister’s actions.

    1. ScruffyInternHerder*

      There’s enough sibling misbehavior on the part of my younger ones that I would have gone absolutely nuclear in a family gathering over something like this.

  12. Expectations*

    The folks I know with employee discounts would get the side eye for using it beyond immediate family members living with them or a very small, very occasional set of close family members. My limited experience with this at attractions (2x) required the employee to accompany the visitors and restricted use to non-busy times (usually weekdays during the day, not holidays, not peak summer (presumably insert budy season here if there is one). It really was you can take advantage of this at times it will least disadvantage other full paying guests.

    That said, these rules were known by the employees and we don’t know what rules were laid out for the OP. However, sister was beyond obnoxious regardless and I would be telling her she put my job in jeopardy because she did (even if that wasn’t explicitly stated).

  13. They knew and they let it happen*

    For #2, to me the main point is where LW says Mary does good work and her appointments don’t seem to be affected by her arrival time….. So is there even an issue here that needs correcting?

    1. Seeking Second Childhood*

      LW3’s interview question is the kind that makes me think they are working to avoid rehiring someone with a problem they’d had with a previous employee.

      We all know people who let personal problems spill over into office time or relationships.

  14. trust me, i read a book once.*

    the 758am rushing worker – need some more info. what time does she start to get paid? because that’s when she should arrive. if her paid time starts at 8am, the simple solution would be to stop scheduling client visits until 815am. Surely you’re not proposing she should arrive early and begin working earlier than you begin paying her? adjust her hours to start at 745am if you must begin scheduling at 8am. simple solution.

    1. Magpie*

      It sounds like there are no set hours in this job. People might work 7:30 to 4:30 or 10:00 to 7:00 or any other shift in that time period depending on their schedules meetings. They just need their week to add up to a certain number of hours. They have flexibility which means there isn’t really a question of whether they’re being paid to be there early.

    2. Amy*

      In a well-run organization where employees are salaried, flexibility should go both ways.

      Sometimes you need to be in a bit earlier, sometimes you come in later, sometimes you leave earlier etc.

      I’d much rather have flexibility and be able to use my judgment than work off a rigid time clock set by someone else. Coming in at 7:45am on a day where my first meeting doesn’t start until 10am isn’t going make sense for everyone.

      1. WeirdChemist*

        If Mary is a govt employee, then she’s likely hourly, not salaried. And the LW explicitly says that they work shorter hours on days they don’t have appointments to make up the time

        1. Insert Clever Name Here*

          I really don’t think you can make that generalization. While there are many government workers that are hourly, there are also many that are salaried.

          1. WeirdChemist*

            But very very few can work for free! (But you’re right that I shouldn’t generalize, I have personally only worked/seen government jobs that were more akin to hourly work)

            Also if Mary has a flexible schedule (as described in the letter), then she’s not being given a set work schedule and she’s not being asked to come in early for the heck of it which is what Amy mentioned in their comment. It’s explicitly stated that people come in later/leave earlier when they don’t have appointments.

        2. A Manager in Government*

          You’ve said this many times throughout the thread and it’s entirely untrue. I’ve worked in or adjacent to local and federal government in different cities for all of my career and it’s wholly 50/50 based on locale and/or department. The trend I’ve noticed is that more “white collar” jobs are typically salaried, but YMMV.

          1. Wayward Sun*

            From what I’ve seen, most government agencies seem to follow similar rules to how private employees decide if someone is hourly or salaried.

  15. Falling Diphthong*

    OP1 updated at the end of the comments on the original post:

    Thank you for answering my question, Alison, and thank you to everyone who gave input in the comments!

    I took your advice (and totally stole some of your wording!) and spoke with my boss again this afternoon. I explained the situation with my sister and that I’d been hesitant to give the full situation during our last talk. He still wasn’t happy, but he did thank me for explaining and mentioned that it’s possible that it’s possible he’ll be able to reinstate my discount sometime in the future, maybe, depending on my performance, which is much more than I was hoping for!

    As for my sister, she hasn’t apologized and has doubled down on her excuse that i should have told her if i didn’t want her inviting everyone​ else. So, at least for the time being we’re not speaking. Later on when I’m less angry I’ll get in touch with her extended family and ask them not to try to use my discount again.

    Thank you all again!

    2. Ann O'Nemity*

      Thanks for adding this!

      I’m glad the LW went back and gave the manager more context. It may not have immediately fixed the situation, but I still think it helps.

      Regarding the sister, ugh. I cannot believe she doubled down instead of apologizing profusely. What an AH.

    3. Lizard Lady*

      Thank you for posting the update here. I was trying so hard to hope this was an accident- like the others said “Hey, we’re with them, will that work for us too?” and a minimum wage park employee shrugged and tried it and said “Looks like it does.”

      But explicitly inviting all those other people to use your sister’s employee discount? No, no, and no.

  16. Kristin*

    I cleaned out the museum’s gross microwave – we’re talking food stalactites! – and everyone thanked me. And this was a place where, unfortunately, people sniped at each other and stole each other’s food. Once I cleaned itc, I found it never got quite that gross again.

  17. HonorBox*

    Regarding letter 2: We don’t know exactly what the pay looks like (hourly vs. salary) but there is flexibility for people to come in later or leave earlier, so either way it shouldn’t matter that much.

    You owe it to the client/customer to be prepared and able to handle the meeting smoothly. Perhaps before having a conversation about arrival time, it would have been good for the LW to sit in on a few meetings with all members of the staff. If you do it with everyone you’re not singling one person out. But if you sit in with her during a 1:00 and during an 8:00, I’d note any differences in how she handles those. If the 1:00 runs better because she’s better prepared, you can note that when you talk about the arrival time. A client shouldn’t get a lesser appointment based on the time of day. You really owe it to clients to be at your best no matter when you’re meeting.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      This feels incredibly micromanaging to me. OP has no evidence there’s any problems except the optics of when this employee arrives. She says in the letter it doesn’t seem like the meetings are impacted. There’s really no reason to put this much energy into a non-issue.

    2. I should really pick a name*

      I don’t think anything needs to be done because the LW admits their employee is getting the job done, but if there WAS a rel issue, what’s the point in sitting in with everyone when you know the issue is one person?

      It’s fine to single someone out if they’re the only one with an issue.

  18. Retired Lady*

    I worked in retail all my life and the rules were strictly laid out. The employee discount was to be used only by your immediate family, and only for items for their use or to give as gifts. An example was given that if a group of people were chipping in for a gift, every person paying had to be an employee (like for a shower gift for a coworker), but the employee couldn’t use their discount to pay for a gift where non-employees were also contributing.

    1. NotRealAnonForThis*

      When I worked in retail, there were typically very clear and written policies.

      Now that I’m in the professional world and occasionally there are perks like “theme park discounts” that are available to me, the rules and usage of said are really very vague. Literally a line that says “you are eligible for a 7% discount on your purchase of single day tickets for attraction for your party” or something similarly vague.

      This does not excuse the sister’s behavior, by the way. I’m not sure how anyone would consider “25 people total, which is 20 more than I told my sister would use it” would be considered reasonable, or at least “hey maybe I should check that this is okay first”. The fact that the sister hid, or at least didn’t share pictures of the whole group or tell the LW about it til well after the fact…means the sister knows she was an arse.

      1. londonedit*

        Yeah, in my non-retail experience the rules around these things are often really quite vague. I mentioned further up, but most publishers will give employees either free or heavily discounted books, and usually what happens is an email goes round periodically reminding people of the discount code or the procedure for ordering, and it’ll just say ‘A reminder that employees should not share this code with anyone outside the company. Employees should avoid making multiple orders where they could be combined into one, to save on postage, and books should only be delivered to the employee’s home address’. In practice, of course, sometimes everyone will do a sneaky order to their sister’s address because it’s easier, or whatever. But there’s a big difference between that and doing something like allowing a family member to have the code and rack up hundreds of pounds’ worth of orders.

      2. tes vitrines infinies, tes horizons dorees, je veux m'en passer*

        Yeah, I find myself in a similar situation – the “rules” are generally “Make good use of [the perk], and don’t be a dumbass about it”. 25 people would fall afoul of this rule, quite obviously.

    2. Can't Sit Still*

      My employer sells some products at cost to employees, which is a substantial discount off retail pricing. The employee discount site went from some purchase limits and a checkbox that we wouldn’t abuse the discount to a multi-page T&C.

      Apparently, some clever folks thought they could get around “no resale allowed” by bartering instead. So now products are for employee and immediate family personal use only, no resale or trading for goods or services, and may not be used in lieu of cash, e.g. for tips. They’ve left whether or not products may be given as gifts vague, probably because they are still hoping employees will be reasonable about it.

    3. N C Kiddle*

      I think my discount only applies if I’m accompanying the purchaser, but I don’t know of any other restrictions. Except that we’re not allowed to apply the discount ourselves, someone else has to put it through the system. That feels like a patch for some kind of abuse in the past, but I haven’t heard the story behind it.

  19. EngGirl*

    My sister used to work in the hospitality industry and I was lucky enough to take advantage of her friends and family code a couple of times. The use of this code came with a TON of restrictions/rules. Before giving me the code my sister had to provide physical paperwork to me that I had to show when checking in. She also impressed upon me that I needed to be an ideal guest because any issues that I caused would have potential ramifications for her ranging from light disciplinary action, to the removal of her discount privileges, to her termination. She was in no way actually worried about me doing anything that would reflect back on her, but I was practically tiptoeing around just in case.

    Either OPs job had no such restrictions, OP did not properly inform her sister of the restrictions, or OP’s sister sucks and ignored them. My guess is it was some combination of all three.

  20. query*

    Apologies if someone already raised this, but why doesn’t the amusement park cap the benefit (e.g. 6 discounted tickets or days / year)? That’s generous for a family and would allow an employee to give multiple smaller groups the benefit (e.g. a family of 2 and a few friends). It would also prevent abuses like that described (by unscrupulous family or friend).

    1. Ann O'Nemity*

      Yes, a specified number of discounted tickets would be easier to manage.

      A lot of the comments here are critical that the company is not more explicit in their rules. But I can imagine that any attempts to define “immediate family” would result in some employees thinking the policy is unfair because they don’t have immediate family and would prefer to bring a parent, sibling, significant other, or friend. It’s a good thing the company is offering some flexibility, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t the expectation that employees shouldn’t take advantage and let 25 people rack up $2k in discounts in a single day.

    2. Not your typical admin*

      This. It’s so much easier to have clear expectations when it comes to freebies. A set number of tickets would remove any questions about how many is too many.

    3. RagingADHD*

      Probably because people at different levels get different amounts of leeway on how much they use it, and the company doesn’t want to put that in writing.

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

    #1 I wouldn’t be surprised that the company changes the policy so that the employee has to be the one to buy the tickets. I would be furious at the sister for doing this and would have a long conversation explaining that she put my job at risk.

    #2 My office has similar set up where 8-4:30 is our offical open hours but staff’s start time is 7:45. this gives a built in set up time. Maybe if this is a problem something like that would be a solution.

    1. MassMatt*

      #1 the sister gave other people the discount, which was not hers to give. It sucks that LW is suffering the repercussions, it would have been better had she explained what happened at the time though it might not have made much difference—$2,000 of discounts and free admissions for 20+ people is a lot.

      Very surprising this park allows pretty much anyone to just claim unlimited use on this discount based on a stranger’s say so.

  22. Frankie Mermaids*

    LW 2- I think because Mary’s appointments are at the very start of the day, it is more highly visible to you if she is rushing. However, a staff member could be 1-2 minutes late or scrambling to get their notes together at 10:58 for an 11 am meeting just as easily. You just wouldn’t necessarily know that by looking at them. You say Mary’s performance is otherwise good and her client interactions during the meeting don’t suggest a lack of preparation. If you want to establish an office policy that EVERYONE has their meeting room ready and be in the reception area 5 minutes before an appointment, that’s fine. But you can’t mandate that for ONE person just because it is the most noticeable to you if she’s running behind without it seeming punitive.

  23. Sally Forth*

    Re the kitchen cleaning… I was fortunate enough to work at a not for profit advocating for neurodiversity. My need to clean the kitchen when I was trying to work out a problem was not seen as the issue it might have been at other places. I often found when I was overwhelmed with workload or the complexity of a work problem that repetitive chores with quick payoffs would help me to think better.
    So, the smell of a cleaner or wipes just signalled to co-workers that I was in the midst of a conundrum. That helped a lot when I sometimes had to cover for our receptionist, whose desktop was covered with food and coffee spills. She was not at all offended by my wipe downs.

  24. WillowSunstar*

    #3 The only thing I could think of using is if you volunteer and made a mistake while volunteering, then you could say what you learned from it. But not everyone does volunteering. You could also if you had a side hobby or if you do any sports outside of work, mention something you did while still learning it and that you have since improved. But again, not everyone has side hobbies.

    I guess I’d use an example from Toastmasters where I got stage fright while giving a speech in front of the club, and then say I’ve since been doing Toastmasters and rarely have stage fright anymore.

    1. Elsewhere1010*

      “In the past, when being asked an extremely inappropriate question about my private life, I’ve actually attempted to answer that question. That action showed poor judgment on my part.

      Now I’ve grown a polite spine and will ask the questioner why they think it’s any of there business.

  25. on the couch, with the cat*

    For #3, I wonder if they’re trying to avoid a problem like the one I ran into with a funeral home employee after my father died unexpectedly. Dad hadn’t pre-planned anything and my mom was a mess, unsurprisingly. We’re Jewish and practically the first thing we said was that my father would have wanted everything simple.

    The funeral home employee, who looked like a cliche movie gangster (dark pinstripe suit, slicked-back hair, permatan, heavy rings) and had an unctuous manner, kept trying to upsell my mother in terms of casket choices and other services.

    The icing on the cake was him trying to convince me that my father didn’t really want his cremains put into a coffee can, that he must have been joking. My father had been saying this for more than 40 years and had shown me the coffee can he had set aside for the purpose, in his closet, more than once. (I found out later than coffee can is one of the most popular containers for cremains, or was at the time, this was 20 years ago now.)

    He left such a bad taste in our mouths that I called the head of the funeral home and told him to make sure that this man was nowhere near me or any of my family ever again, not for the service, not later when I went back to pick up the cremains.

    I understand the upselling, a bit, but after the first “no” he should have stopped, and the coffee can thing was just offensive. My father had died less than 24 hours earlier and this man’s insensitivity was breathtaking and horrible.

  26. Nancy*

    The interviewer question makes sense for a funeral home. Grief can make people act in all sorts of ways, and the funeral home needs employees who can handle that with sensitivity. There are lots of ways to answer that without becoming too personal: being rude to a retail worker, snapping at a customer service rep doing their job, etc. Something could have happened during class, volunteering, hobbies, anywhere, really.

  27. Coverage Associate*

    On morning arrival, early in the pandemic, the advice was to try first to log into video calls 15 minutes early, to make sure you understood the software, had a good connection, etc. Early in the pandemic, it was also difficult to work while logged into a video call. Connections were slow, blurred backgrounds weren’t always available. I probably stopped logging in way early later than most people, but when I stopped setting aside 15 extra minutes for every video call, there was still a lot of boilerplate going out with meeting invites to allocate that time.

    Now, of course, no one is logging into video calls 15 minutes early, and I have stopped logging in even 5 minutes early because it makes my boss feel she has to log in early too.

    My point is that sometimes on time is late, but not always. I do think it’s a bad look for clients to watch their caseworker power walk in and drop her coat. I understand there can be an appearance of being flustered even when someone is not. My solution would be an entrance for staff that is not visible from reception, but I understand that may be beyond one manager’s ability to implement.

    But, in my experience of government appointments, often buildings or reception opens up to 30 minutes before appointments start. And certainly some people arrive 30 minutes before appointments. You’re not going to prevent clients seeing a caseworker arrive after the client unless you make the caseworker arrive before the building opens to the public (or have separate entrances). Which, ok, make that explicit instead of implicit, and pay for that time. Or if you just want the employee there 10 minutes before appointments or whatever, make that explicit.

    But I hate 10 minute blocks of admin time. Those would be mostly wasted minutes with me. It’s too short to accomplish most of my types of work. So weigh that against the importance of optics.

  28. Addison DeWitt*

    “Tell me about a time you made a mistake outside of work and handled it poorly.”
    “You first.”

    1. Kevin Sours*

      Yeah. It stood out to me that it wasn’t made clear if Mary was going to get paid for the time before that 8am appointment.

Comments are closed.