asking my wife not to attend a work dinner, coworker’s fidget rings are distracting me, and more

by Alison Green on January 7, 2025

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

1. Asking my wife not to attend a work dinner

Am I wrong for not wanting my wife to attend an after hours dinner where I’m excluded?

Probably, yes.

It’s very, very normal to have work dinners where spouses and partners aren’t invited. These are business events, and it would be incredibly odd for someone to decline to attend because their spouse wasn’t included.

If other spouses are invited and you’re the only one who wasn’t, that’s different — although it would depend on the reason. If the reason were, for example, that you got drunk and behaved inappropriately at the last dinner, it would be reasonable for them to exclude you from future ones. If they’re only inviting the top brass’s spouses, that’s not particularly hospitable but it’s not outrageous. If you’re being excluded because they just don’t like you, that’s not okay — but even then, you shouldn’t ask your wife not to attend a work event that she’s expected to go to for her job or feels she would benefit from. In that case the two of you might need to talk about her long-term prospects at a company that’s willing to mistreat her partner, but the answer still wouldn’t be to demand she not attend.

2. The sound of my coworker’s fidget rings is driving me mad

My coworker bought fidget rings and clicks them all day and it’s driving me crazy. No one else seems to notice, but it’s frying my nerves. Is it reasonable to ask her to cut it out or am I being crazy?

Fidget tools are useful when they help the user concentrate, but not when they transfer the problem by distracting other people. Things that make noise or are visually distracting are fair game for speaking up and saying, “I’m sorry to ask, but I have trouble concentrating with the clicking — could you try a quieter tool instead?”

Related:
is it unprofessional to use fidget toys at work?

3. Interviewing when the company’s personality assessment was wrong

I work in the social services sector, and people love their personality assessment tools. Twice recently, I have been asked to complete a personality assessment as part of an interview process and then been asked about the results in my follow-up interview. I don’t buy into these tools, but I accept them, and I understand how to discuss them. However, in my most recent interview, I really disagreed with the results!

In the interview, the interviewer said, “I see from these results, that you’re a real big picture thinker. How do you see that working in this role, which requires a lot of detail work?” I gave an answer that I think was okay about building systems and checking my work, but the thing is, I am a terrible big-picture thinker! I like concrete detail work!

Is there a way to professionally say “Your test is full of beans” without seeming like I don’t have self-awareness or am defensive about feedback? I can see saying, “I’m surprised by that, I consider myself more of a concrete thinker focused on the day-to-day work.” But the role did also call for higher-level strategic thinking, so I wasn’t sure that would be the right call either!

“I was surprised to see that in the results and it made me curious to know how the assessment was measuring it! I really love detail work and consider it one of my strengths — for example, I’ve had very successful results with projects like X and Y. The detail work in this role is one of the things that draws me to it.”

In other words, a pretty matter-of-fact “hmmm, doesn’t match up for me,” followed by evidence of that.

Also, keep in mind that they’re really just using your assessment results as a way to talk about what the job requires and how well you’ll align with that. The test itself is a bit of a red herring, I think — it’s easier to navigate if you see it as similar to if they’d said, “I see a lot of your past jobs have revolved around X; how do you think you’d approach a job with much more focus on Y?” They’re basically saying, “Oh, here’s an area that isn’t an obvious match — talk to us about that” and then throwing the ball to you to give your perspective on it. (That doesn’t mean that the use of personality assessment tools in hiring isn’t wildly flawed; it is.)

Related:
my new employer made me take a personality test and my results were horrible

4. My boss didn’t acknowledge my uncle’s death

My uncle recently passed away, suddenly and unexpectedly. I was out of the office for a week and over Thanksgiving to bury him. I was the person responsible for handling everything.

When it happened, I called my manager right away and explained that I would be in/out but would check messages, email, etc. as I am the only employee.

I returned to work in early December. As I was going through emails sent to me from my manager, I saw that everyone he emailed he acknowledged and wrote, “Happy Thanksgiving.” I did not get that same acknowledgement.

Also he called me today (we are in different locations) and did not acknowledge anything about my uncle, my being back, etc.

I feel hurt that he could not even acknowledge anything about my uncle. I have worked for him and his family for over 20+ years. Should I bring up my disappointment/hurt?

I’m sorry about your uncle.

I suspect your boss didn’t wish you a happy Thanksgiving because he knew it wasn’t a happy Thanksgiving for you, given that you were grieving a fresh loss. He might have felt it would be insensitive to do otherwise.

He should have acknowledged your loss when you returned, and it’s a little odd that he didn’t even acknowledge that you’d been out — but that probably wasn’t personal. Is he by chance someone who’s normally a bit brusque / not super socially skilled? If so, I’d assume it’s entirely about that and nothing else. If he’s normally more thoughtful than that, I’d still assume it’s not anything personal; many, many people are really awkward about death and mourning and don’t know what to say, so they handle it by saying nothing at all. That’s not good, and it doesn’t make it not hurtful, but it’s common enough that in a work context it usually makes sense to try to move past it.

5. Food coop requires one year of membership before you can apply for a job there

I saw this prerequisite for a job at a food coop and I wonder if they can really require it. The prerequisite: Applicants must be current coop members with at least one year of coop membership immediately before application.

Membership involves a $25 joining fee and $100 equity investment for each member of the household who joins. In order to shop there, each person needs to be a member, so one person in a couple can’t join and let their partner use their membership. Plus, there is a work requirement where each member works at the coop for two hours and 45 minutes each work cycle (a work cycle is six weeks long). According to their FAQ, the member work requirement is equivalent to 75% of their labor needs.

Yes, they can require that. It goes to the very nature of (some) coops, which is that they’re owned and operated by their employees and members. They want applicants who are already part of the cooperative community they’ve built.

You can debate whether or not it’s a fair or smart policy, but it’s a legal one.

For what it’s worth, if they’re going to require that employees be members, I think it’s a good thing that they won’t consider people who just recently joined: you don’t want job applicants to feel like they have to pay for membership in order to be considered.

You may also like:
{ 351 comments }

{ 351 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Ginger Cat Lady*

    OP1, yes, you are wrong. Your wife can handle her job activities without you, and you can handle a meal without her.
    This reeks of controlling behavior.

    Reply ↓
    1. GammaGirl1908*

      The guideline that both spouses are included in an invitation holds for social events. This isn’t a social event, it’s a work event. Work events occasionally get dressed up as social events, but they are still work events at heart and held to different standards. Your partner is generally not included in work events.

      Whether LW has control issues (which, possibly) is a separate question.

      Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

        Yeah, the simplest explanation is getting social and professional norms mixed up. Lots of people don’t have a background where out of hours work socialising is the norm. So, the only frame of reference they have is like, weddings or other social occasions where it would be expected to invite a spouse and a bit of a slight if they didn’t. The OP’s use of the word “excluded” points to this misunderstanding. If they know that spouses are just not generally expected to be at work events, this should clear that up.

        Reply ↓
      2. Emmy Noether*

        It doesn’t even hold for all social events. If her soccer club goes out for beer after a match, it’s reasonable to not invite spouses. If she and her siblings go out for dinner between siblings, it’s also reasonable not to invite spouses. Etc. Plenty of events that can be with or without spouses.

        Reply ↓
      3. Nodramalama*

        There are also plenty of social events where it is not necessary to invite along a spouse either. If I’m having a girls’ brunch I would not expect a husband to randomly rock up.

        Reply ↓
        1. knitted feet*

          Right – I’d be just as concerned if LW thought their wife should decline any social event that didn’t include both of them. Being married does not inherently mean that one spouse doesn’t get to go anywhere without the other apart from work.

          Reply ↓
          1. Jack Straw from Wichita*

            “Being married does not inherently mean that one spouse doesn’t get to go anywhere without the other apart from work.”

            And thank god for that! I would never survive in a marriage if we had to be together 100& of the time. Egads!

            Reply ↓
      4. Sans Serif*

        My husband and I would never expect to be invited to all the others’ social events either. We both go out with our friends without the other sometimes. Anyone who thinks a spouse can’t go out without them – especially in a work situation, but really in any situation – definitely is showing controlling behavior. Can’t think of another explanation.

        Reply ↓
        1. MK*

          In general, sure, but in this context, where it’s a dinner party, inviting only one person out of a couple would be unusual for a social occasion.

          Reply ↓
          1. Insert Clever Name Here*

            Maybe, but it would depend on a lot of factors. Is it a dinner party of couples? Do my husband and I know all of the couples? Just because something is a dinner party doesn’t automatically mean my husband is also invited; I’ve gone to more than a few purely social dinner parties where my husband wasn’t invited.

            Reply ↓
      1. Lydia*

        To me, it read like Alison got it exactly right on the OP having been an absolute boor at a previous work event. I keep wondering what this person is leaving out of the letter.

        Reply ↓
        1. Resentful Oreos*

          That’s what I was thinking, too. Especially if it was just the LW who was excluded. I wonder if they were one of the offenders in the “I will confront you by Wednesday” letter!

          Reply ↓
    3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      this one reminds of the letter from the boyfriend who didn’t want his girlfriend meeting with the boss after hours because that was their time, not the company’s.

      OP, this is your wife’s job, stay out of it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        It’s such a short letter that I want to be gracious and assume there’s more context, but even if there is I have trouble coming up with anything beyond “this is your wife’s job, stay out of it”.

        Except maybe “if there’s a problem in your marriage – be it communication, trust, time commitments, so on – address it within your marriage and don’t let it impact your wife’s ability to do her job”.

        Reply ↓
        1. Smithy*

          Yeah – on its face the letter does give a certain tone that makes a number of assumptions more automatic.

          However, whether the workplace is being problematic or not, ultimately this really does boil down to a marriage question. Say the OP is also a woman, and this is a case where all cis-het spouses have been invited, but not the OP. It’s still would come down to the OP’s wife, and how the wife wants to manage that work place reality. And if the OP is upset with the wife’s choice, again – that’s the marriage issue more so than the work issue.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dawn*

            I have to believe that they would have mentioned something discriminatory in the letter if that was the case, as it would be by far the most salient fact about the situation.

            Reply ↓
          2. londonedit*

            I would think that if it was an issue of ‘everyone else is allowed to bring their heterosexual spouses, but my wife was told I can’t attend, and I’m a woman’ then the OP would have mentioned that, as that’s a very specific and overt example of homophobia. You’d think in that case the tone of the letter would be ‘Can a company legally exclude same-sex spouses from work events, if heterosexual couples are allowed to attend together?’

            I may be wrong here, but to me the tone of the letter reads very much in a ‘I’ve made my mind up that this is an outrage; convince me otherwise’ way. It sounds like the OP is saying ‘My wife is being expected to attend after-hours dinners without her spouse being present and I’m not happy about it; convince me that’s normal because I don’t think it should be’. I read it very much as a man asking whether his wife should be expected to socialise with work colleagues ‘unchaperoned’. It reminded me of the previous letters where the OP wanted Alison to adjudicate on whether there was something dodgy going on because his wife’s boss was sending her messages at 6am.

            Reply ↓
            1. Smithy*

              It’s a really short email. My only point was even if the workplace was being openly discriminatory or just generically shitty. Like deciding that only spouses of those at the Director level could come, but not the Manager level – and the OP’s wife is the only married Manager – it’s still the wife’s choice. And a conversation for the spouses.

              The workplace being in the wrong wouldn’t mitigate the OP being in the wrong situation. But it does provide another reason why an OP might be coming in frustrated or angry, but it doesn’t change the answer.

              Reply ↓
          3. Observer*

            It’s still would come down to the OP’s wife, and how the wife wants to manage that work place reality. And if the OP is upset with the wife’s choice, again – that’s the marriage issue more so than the work issue.

            Yes. And Alison does address the possibility that the LW was not invited for reasons that are not OK. And, as you said, she points out that this is a marriage issue that requires more of a conversation than “You should not go to this event”.

            Reply ↓
        2. Venus*

          It’s possible the spouse has behaved badly and given LW doubts, but even if LW is completely justified in worrying there is still absolutely no way that LW should go to a work meal unless it’s clear that all spouses are encouraged.

          Reply ↓
    4. Not on board*

      I think the fact that the OP is even asking the question is troublesome for a number of reasons:
      – could be controlling behaviour
      – does not understand how the professional world works
      – undermining wife’s career
      That’s just for starters – unless it’s the wife posing the question from her spouse’s point of view because her spouse is being unreasonable.

      Reply ↓
      1. HB*

        I agree, but at the same time I think writing in to ask the question is (potentially) a good sign. Ideally the LW wouldn’t have had the question in the first place, but since they did… I’m hoping it’s because they’re willing to entertain the idea that they may have been wrong and that Alison’s response has helped them shift their viewpoint. With such a short letter it’s impossible to know anything, but that’s my wish.

        Reply ↓
    5. Dawn*

      Hah. My first thought was literally, “You know, I don’t want to just start talking about controlling behaviour, but.”

      Reminds me of any number of my exes (and my friends’ exes and even some of their current spouses, sadly) honestly.

      Reply ↓
    6. Bitte Meddler*

      The last time I worked at a company where work dinners included a +1 was in the early 2000’s. After the dot-com crash, and then the banking and housing market crash, big parties became a rarity.

      My current company’s holiday dinners are 2-hour cocktail parties with “small plate” food stations, and are held immediately after work (5:00 PM) within walking distance from the office. Mingling with people from other departments is encouraged. It would be really weird to have +1’s there.

      Reply ↓
  2. MK*

    OP4, people also tend to use degree of relationship as a metric for closeness. Many people/cultures wouldn’t think it appropriate or necessary to offer condolences for an uncle.

    Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

      I see what you mean but that sounds cold to me. I’m in Finland, a culture that’s been very focused on nuclear families for a very long time, and where funeral services are almost exclusively conducted on the weekend so that office workers don’t need to request time off to go to a funeral unless they have to travel far.

      Generally I think it’s better and more empathetic to offer condolences whenever someone’s taken time off to attend a funeral, regardless of the degree of the relationship.

      A few years ago I was shocked to learn that there’s no such thing as bereavement leave here, or at least that name isn’t used. We do have “family emergency leave” that the employer has to grant unless there’s an overwhelming business-related reason not to.

      The family emergency leave’s usually just for a day or two. People who are incapacitated by grief go on sick leave, the diagnosis is generally something like acute situational depression.

      The advantage of this system is that all the doctor cares about is the person’s ability to work, not the degree of the relationship. One coworker took a month off when her mom died after a long illness, another took a week when his adult stepson died. My coworker’s always said he was a stepson because he was an adult who’d moved out by the time my coworker met his then-wife and they’d never lived under the same roof, my coworker was grieving, although he said he would’ve been able to return to work earlier, but he took as much time off as he did to support his then-wife who was understandably completely devastated and needed two months off before she was able to return to work.

      Reply ↓
      1. MK*

        No one is intentionally thinking “oh, it’s just sn uncle, no big deal”. It’s just that people aren’t registering the loss as a close one.

        Reply ↓
        1. Siblia*

          That seems odd in a case where someone has taken a week off to handle organising the funeral etc. though. I could see this in a case where they just took a day to attend the funeral, but there are clear indications here that this is not the case. And either way, if someone needed that much time off to arrange a funeral etc., I’d be checking in with them regarding their own wellbeing after dealing with that, however close they were or were not to the deceased.

          Reply ↓
          1. mbs001*

            In my firm and most others, an uncle’s death wouldn’t even qualify for bereavement leave. Not a direct family member.

            Reply ↓
            1. Baunilha*

              Same at my company, but I know they made an exception for a coworker who was raised by her grandmother. (Grandparents aren’t usually covered by bereavement leave here)
              But I’m guessing this LW just took PTO instead of bereavement leave. And I agree with Alison: boss was probably awkward around the subject of death and likely thought it was better to say nothing so not to upset the LW.

              Reply ↓
              1. Texan In Exile*

                I was out for two weeks when my dad died. My VP came by my office after I returned to work to offer his condolences.

                I burst into tears and he said, “Oh I’m sorry were you and your dad close?”

                I want to be gracious and assume the VP, who was in his early 40s, had not experienced this kind of loss (my dad was only 62 when he died) but damn don’t you learn some advanced social graces at some point? Although to his credit, he did at least offer his condolences.

                Reply ↓
                1. Sam I Am*

                  I was asked the same question at two subsequent funerals (grandparents) by the same person! Who was a chaplain! You’d think they would have known better but apparently not. I just don’t understand the purpose of this question, it seems nosy and like it can only make the mourner feel worse, regardless of the answer.

            2. AMH*

              Yeah, I unfortunately lost 2 uncles on the same day (both were surprises and it was separate events and states) — I did not expect it to qualify for bereavement, and a few “Oh, I’m sorry for your losses” was more than enough for me because I understood most people wouldn’t consider it a close loss (it wasn’t, in fact, for one of them, but the other death blew me off my feet. I’m grateful that my work had no issue with me going home and sleeping a day and a half after hearing that news — and that they understood when I was horribly sick after catching something at the reception and had to take 2 more days). But as others here have pointed out, grief takes us away from ourselves and we often aren’t as rational or understanding/forgiving of others when we are grieving, so I get where OP is coming from fully.

              Reply ↓
            3. Lenora Rose*

              Here it’s 1 day (vs 5 for close family in parent/child or sibling range, and 3 for grandparent and similar), and explicitly allows for a shift to a closer category if the relationship was atypically close.

              Reply ↓
          2. Jenesis*

            The only thing odd to me is that OP4 took a week off to handle the funeral, but if it wasn’t made obvious to the manager, he might have assumed that OP4 was taking the week off anyway for Thanksgiving, and the funeral just happened to coincide with that?

            I wouldn’t consider a funeral itself indicative of a desire for condolences – plenty of people go to funerals for people they aren’t particularly close to or don’t even like.

            Reply ↓
          4. Jackalope*

            This is the part that’s more of a sign for me. Taking a week off for a funeral is a sign that you were close to that family member and that it’s likely to be a real source of grief for you that they died. Most people have relatives they’re close to and others they’re not, but this is a significant piece of evidence pointing towards a relationship on the closer side of things.

            Reply ↓
            1. doreen*

              That’s the sort of thing that is really going to depend on your experience – in my experience being the person “in charge” when someone dies is going to to take the better part of a week whether you are close to that person or not. Especially if any travel is involved. And over Thanksgiving week means it was probably only a couple of extra days. When my great aunt died, one of her nephews was in charge of funeral arrangements and dealing with her apartment and belongings etc. He was not particularly close to her , certainly no closer than the other nieces and nephews and in fact she had been talking trash about him and his brother for quite some time. I was actually surprised he took care of things rather than leaving it for someone else.

              Reply ↓
            2. amoeba*

              True, but with Thanksgiving it might not have been so noticeable… might have just read as “added an extra day or two to attend the funeral and then celebrated Thanksgiving”.

              Reply ↓
          5. H3llifIknow*

            Yes, but in this case, the week off was in conjunction with the Thanksgiving holiday so not as … obviously “bereavement” time. I think a lot of it has to do with how the leave was requested. Was the OP very calm and matter of fact when s/he called to ask for the time off and said, “My Uncle has passed and I’m the only one left to make arrangements,” was s/he crying, seem to be grieving, etc…My guess is either the boss is kinda socially clueless, or he took his cue from the attitude of the OP since they are geographically separated and he had no visual cues or proximity to the OP to factor in. *Shrug*. I get feeling a little stung by the lack of comment, but … I’d let it go.

            Reply ↓
        2. Observer*

          It’s just that people aren’t registering the loss as a close one.

          That’s extremely strange, though, when someone is out *for a week*. And also when they tell you that they are the one handling everything relating to the death.

          Reply ↓
      2. Jack Russell Terrier*

        In the US, bereavement leave, I’ve learnt from this blog post is for people to attend to the things you have to organize after someone dies, not for the emotional impact.

        Reply ↓
        1. Some Words*

          ?

          Bereavement is right there in the name. Maybe for some people it’s merely a “take care of family business” leave, but that’s not the primary purpose for most.

          Reply ↓
          1. allathian*

            Generally bereavement leave allows for the time needed to handle at least some of the bureaucracy associated with a death. But don’t expect someone to be “done grieving” when they return to work. But most people can’t take two or three years off work… I haven’t lost anyone that close to me yet, but lots of people I know who’ve lost people close to them say that it takes about two years to get used to the “new normal” whatever that looks like.

            All of my grandparents are dead but I don’t think I truly mourned any of them.

            My maternal grandpa died when I was 5, but he was sick for a long time and took no interest in us kids other than to yell at us to keep the noise down and I remember being scared of him.

            My paternal grandpa died when I was 13 from a severe bout of pneumonia. I was old enough to realize my dad and grandma were grieving but I don’t remember grieving much myself.

            My paternal grandma died when I was 21. She’s the grandparent I was always closest to, but she had dementia and by the end she was a vegetable. At some point she turned her face to the wall and stopped eating and drinking, and her veins were so poor that an IV was out of the question. I mourned the death of her personality for more than two years, and when she finally died all I felt was relief.

            My maternal grandma died when I was an intern in Spain. I couldn’t go to her funeral but I went to church and lit a candle in her memory. I’m not religious but she was, and doing that comforted me.

            Granted, I haven’t had to deal with the bureaucracy of a death yet, and I expect that the death of my parents and in-laws will affect me more profoundly.

            Reply ↓
          2. biobotb*

            Well it’s a euphemistic term to a degree. The point is that the amount of leave you get is more predicated on the idea that you’ll need time to deal with logistics than with how much of an emotional response you’re having. So you’d probably get less bereavement leave for an uncle than a parent, under the assumption that a niece or nephew is less likely to be the person organizing their uncle’s funeral, for example.

            Reply ↓
          3. LL*

            No, Jack Russell Terrier is right. The purpose of offering it is so that someone can take care of practical matters and attend the funeral. It’s not actually to allow grieving, otherwise it wouldn’t be limited to a day or two.

            Reply ↓
          4. DisgruntledPelican*

            Nope, it’s there for admin and funeral attendance. No one thinks you’re over your grief in three days.

            Reply ↓
      1. CityMouse*

        Same. My uncle actually died when I’d been at my first job for a couple months and I didn’t get leave. I don’t think I even mentioned it to my boss.

        Reply ↓
        1. Chocolate Teapot*

          It would be 2 consecutive days leave within 7 days of the date of death here (Luxembourg) as Aunts, Uncles and Grandparents are second degree relatives. However funerals are a bit different here as the burial/cremation has to take place within 72 hours.

          Reply ↓
          1. Been There*

            Aren’t aunts and uncles third degree? You have to go up 2 to get to the grandparents and then down one to get to their kids, your aunt/uncle.

            Reply ↓
            1. JanetM*

              I don’t know how the law calculates it, but I’d perceive aunts / uncles as two degrees: up one to your parent, then sideways one to their sibling. But I could be wrong in how I’m looking at it.

              Reply ↓
            2. doreen*

              A second degree relative is a first degree relative of your first degree relative – so your grandparent or your parent’s sibling or your sibling’s child. You’re thinking of degrees of cousin and removal.

              Reply ↓
      2. JB (not in Houston)*

        That’s probably true for a lot of people, but not because that wouldn’t be considered a close loss or someone whose death is worth condolences. Bereavement leave is designed for handling things related to the death, like the funeral. Although not unheard of, companies don’t normally expect nieces and nephews to be the people handling someone’s funeral or estate matters.

        Reply ↓
        1. Emmy Noether*

          Thinking about it, I’d expect that for people who have no children and who die in old age, a niece or nephew quite often is the next of kin, or at least the nearest relative feeling up to handling this stuff. So it’s probably actually not rare at all.

          Reply ↓
    3. I should really pick a name*

      In most cases I’ve seen, “I’m sorry for your loss” is an automatic response upon learning of a loss.

      Reply ↓
      1. Myrin*

        Yeah, I realise there’s definitely a cultural aspect to this but I personally can’t imagine Alfred telling Bert about a loss and Bert not offering condolences because he doesn’t deem the (assumed) relationship “close enough”; that would read as really oddly if not downright rude, even if it’s something like an old friend or a great-great-aunt. And that’s if Alfred even specified the relationship and didn’t simply say “a loss”.

        Reply ↓
      2. Seashell*

        It’s not clear from the letter if the boss said anything like that when LW called in to report taking time off for the funeral. I would agree that sort of thing would be the appropriate response.

        It seemed to me that the LW was looking for additional discussion of it when she got back, which I would not expect with the loss of an uncle.

        Reply ↓
      3. Snow Globe*

        Yes, but the point of the letter was that the boss didn’t say anything upon the LW’s return to the office (the letter doesn’t say anything about what the boss said upon initially hearing the news). If the boss offered a “sorry for you loss” when the LW first asked for leave, then I can see why the boss might not have said something when the LW returned to the office after the Thanksgiving holiday.

        Reply ↓
        1. MK*

          This is what meant. Of course the immediate response to hearing about someone’s family member dying is condolences. But unless I knew they were particularly close or they seemed griefstricken, I don’t know that I would think to check up with them later; frankly I would be more likely to ask how their patent is taking the loss of their sibling.

          Reply ↓
          1. Yankees fans are awesome*

            I guess everyone’s mileage varies, but if I had an employee who spent time away from their office because of a death relevant to them, whether relative, friend, neighbor etc., when that employee returned I would at least acknowledge that they were absent (“Hope everything is okay,” or what have you).

            It’s just not complicated.

            Reply ↓
            1. mango chiffon*

              My director I work for recently took a month off for a death in the family and I didn’t want to re-hash all her hurt feelings in the office when she returned because when it happened to me, I just cried every time someone gave me condolences. I would feel horrible if I made someone cry by reminding them of their recent death, or feeling like I put them on the spot in the moment. I think friends are different than coworkers in this situation.

              Reply ↓
              1. amoeba*

                Yeah, same here. I mean, I was fine when people acknowledged my mom’s death in passing once I was back, but honestly, the last thing I needed was tons of heartfelt condolences! My immediate sent me those by message when I first let them know, which was really kind, and once I was back, I was more than happy to talk about other things.

                Reply ↓
        2. londonedit*

          I agree – if the boss had said ‘I’m sorry for your loss’ or similar when the OP asked for the time off, I can see why they didn’t feel the need to say it again when the OP returned to the office. They could have gently enquired how the funeral had gone, perhaps, but a lot of people would probably err on the side of not bringing up what’s likely to be a painful subject.

          Reply ↓
        3. CityMouse*

          There’s also an extent that I actually don’t want to talk about that stuff at work. I realize that’s intensely personal but if I’m going about my day at work, I can’t be thinking about the bad thing that happened. So when I’m back I don’t want to talk about it unless the coworker is truly a friend.

          Reply ↓
    4. JMC*

      Which is a horrible way to handle that. Degrees of relationship doesn’t mean squat in some situations. People are raised by their grandparents, siblings, uncles and aunts, etc. Forget about any silly degrees and just give condolences for ANYONE that is in your family.

      Reply ↓
    5. Observer*

      Many people/cultures wouldn’t think it appropriate or necessary to offer condolences for an uncle

      In what culture is an uncle *such* a distant relationship that simply recognizing it as a loss is “inappropriate”?

      Also, even in a culture what a specific relationship is *generally* not considered close, when it’s clear that this is closer than typical – the LW says that they were out for a week and explained the situation as well – it’s normal to acknowledge a loss that’s “unusual”.

      I’m not saying that the boss is a monster – social inept is more likely imo, but I really don’t think that this is about cultural differences.

      Reply ↓
    6. Abogado Avocado*

      If anyone in my office tells me they’re attending the funeral of someone who died, it’s because they were close to them and, therefore, I should acknowledge the effect on my colleague by offering my sympathies. All you have to do is say (or write), “I’m so sorry to hear of ____’s death. You have my sympathies.”

      When I was younger, I didn’t understand all the fuss about condolences and funerals. (“I’m going to have a celebration of my life!”) However, when my father died, I found that simple condolences were immensely comforting and I think it was because the condolences acknowledged the loss I had suffered. As I age, I have come to realize that death rituals are for the living — and that that’s not a bad thing, nor is the kindness of acknowledging a colleague’s loss.

      Reply ↓
  3. KateM*

    “Am I wrong for not wanting my wife to attend an after hours dinner where I’m excluded” is like asking “am I wrong for not wanting my wife to go to work without me tagging along”.

    Reply ↓
    1. MK*

      There is one possibility Alison didn’t mention: that OP might be excluded because of prejudice. Probably not, because I would assume OP would mention it if the reaso for the exclusion was their gender or race, but that is the only case where OP’s question would make sense to me.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nah*

        I would argue there’s a third way to interpret this, in that the wife also works there (and technically a fourth, very odd one where she doesn’t work there and they *only* invited the spouses instead of the workers) and only the wife, either alone or more likely her team/branch/project/whatever was invited to the meal. Alison’s advice still stands, it’s a business meeting and it would be odd for her to refuse said invitation even if LW does with at the same place.

        Reply ↓
        1. Happy*

          When I first read it, I actually did assume it was LW’s work who was only inviting the wife and not LW!

          (Upon further consideration, I agree that’s unlikely.)

          Reply ↓
      2. WS*

        Yep, my wife and I are both women and this has happened, particularly earlier in her career. But it was very clear why!

        Reply ↓
        2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Unless the good reason was boorish behavior by the OP, which they would never acknowlege.

          But more likely this is a work event without any spouses. OP is just irked it is after hours and therefore because it impinges on so-called family time should include family.

          Reply ↓
      4. Allonge*

        It’s not spelled out like that but for me this falls under the “but even then, you shouldn’t ask your wife not to attend a work event that she’s expected to go to for her job or feels she would benefit from. In that case the two of you might need to talk about her long-term prospects at a company that’s willing to mistreat her partner, but the answer still wouldn’t be to demand she not attend.” part of the advice.

        I say this because I find it difficult to interpret ‘not invited to a dinner’ as ‘mistreatment’ in just about any scenario that does not include prejudice, whereas if it’s e.g. a homophobic move, that definitely warrants a discussion on longer term plans at the org. But that is a separate thing from attending the dinner. Not attending the dinner is very unlikely to solve any major issues.

        Reply ↓
        1. MK*

          Maybe. But I somewhat disagree, in that I think it would be at least reasonable to raise the issue in the case of prejudice. Not demand that your partner not attend, but ask them to consider if the benefit of attending is worth showing yourself to be accepting of the prejudice.

          Reply ↓
      5. fhqwhgads*

        I think Alison’s “if you’re the only spouse excluded” covers that angle though, even if she didn’t mention it as a possible “why”.

        Reply ↓
      6. Observer*

        There is one possibility Alison didn’t mention: that OP might be excluded because of prejudice

        True, but Alison does call out the possibility that the LW is being excluded because the workplace is garbage. And she still says that the LW can’t expect their spouse to not go. Even though it does make sense for them to have a serious conversation about Wife’s long term future at that company.

        Reply ↓
      7. Ansteve*

        I had that with one of my Staff sergeants. He wanted to take out the marines in my section with wives or girlfriends out to dinner with his wife. He excluded me and my same sex partner. Thankfully my marines called him out so instead he scraped the idea.

        Reply ↓
    2. Lewes Celebrant*

      OP4 When my dad died, I became incredibly upset by people I felt should have acknowledged it, not doing. A couple of decades on, I realise some people are just not emotionally equipped to deal with what to say to someone who has suffered a painful loss. It’s might be too close to home or they feel inadequate /just don’t want to say the wrong thing. Many of us are are not taught how to deal with others who have lost someone well. It’s hurtful but it’s not intentionally disrespecting you. Dealing with the (s)admin around your uncle’s death must have been huge and exhausting. I’m so sorry for your loss.

      Reply ↓
      1. Despachito*

        I think this is tricky, because even those who are emotionally average, can stumble upon: does this person want me to remind them of a painful situation, or would they rather immerse in work and forget? Won’t I just turn the knife in the wound by mentioning it? I reckon this is the reason why a lot of people choose to say nothing rather than put their foot in their mouth.

        Reply ↓
      2. PhyllisB*

        This so much!! My son just passed away in July and I’m still encountering people who don’t know what to say, or wonder if they should say anything at all. It upsets my husband, but I give people a lot of grace because I used to be THAT PERSON when I was younger.

        Reply ↓
      3. Dust Bunny*

        I’m someone who would not want it brought up, but obviously that response isn’t universal. I’ve also had friends who took offense at every response they got and, while I was sorry for their loss (really!), I was also not surprised that their support network evaporated. I understand lashing out some when you’re grieving but they drove everyone away.

        Reply ↓
        1. Bear Expert*

          I have made great use of finding someone else and asking them to both spread the news to the people who need to hear and tell them what I want from them. “Bear had X horrible thing happen, they’ll be back in the office/at book club/whatever on Friday. They’re really looking for people to support them in getting back to normal as soon as possible and don’t want to have to process emotions about Horrible Thing in the office/at book club, so please don’t bring it up, but they wanted to make sure you knew.”

          Or maybe Bear needs some extra hugs and might leave early, or whatever. But getting the communication out is really helpful so that I don’t need to rehash Horrible Thing or keep track of who knows and who doesn’t or even be there when other people have to process their emotions about Horrible Thing. I’m happy to be the town crier for others as well.

          Reply ↓
      4. Bear Expert*

        Ughhhhh… I’m in the middle of this quandary right now.

        I have a health provider who I’ve worked fairly regularly/closely with whose parent died recently and I only know because their office canceled my regular appointment. I have their personal cell number. I haven’t reached out because I don’t want to overstep and have “work” show up while they are obviously busy with personal things, I don’t want them to feel like they need to respond or give me attention or anything. But also, my heart goes out to them and they are very much in my thoughts.

        I’ll drop them a text, I guess, and if they want to ignore it or only focus on their professional face they can, but at least they’ll know I care.

        Reply ↓
        2. Nightengale*

          Maybe my perspective doesn’t apply because I would never give a patient my personal phone number, so your relationship with this provider may be different but. . . I would not have wanted this from a patient when I was out after my father died. A few families did offer condolences at their next (rescheduled) appointment or on the phone if the office had informed them when they called why I would be delayed getting back to them. But I would not have been comfortable with a patient contacting me through personal routes solely to bring up my loss.

          Reply ↓
    3. Hexiv*

      I wasn’t sure how to read the question, because like, I assumed when I read it that like, both the LW and the wife worked at the same company, and LW was excluded from a company dinner that they feel they should have been invited to, and now they want the wife to back them up by refusing to attend. Which, I don’t know if that would be the right call for the LW either, but it seems a little less inexplicable than the other thing. But also, there’s no information in this letter! Is the dinner even work-related?

      Reply ↓
      1. DeliCat*

        ‘Work-related’ can have a fairy broad definition though. It could be a reward for target meeting that the company pays for but it could also just as easily be a social dinner that the staff themselves organise and pay for that traditionally hasn’t included partners. Which would still be completely fine and not something LW1 should be pressed by.

        I agree, the lack of any context whatsoever is annoying. There’s a lot of variables here but I agree with Allison that they most likely are being unreasonable to expect an invite.

        Reply ↓
      2. Allonge*

        That was my first read, too, although as there are not a lot of details, it can go either way. But even if this is the case, there are good reasons for wife to be invited and LW not – dinner is restricted to people who work at a department, worked on a project, are in a specific development programme, are at a certain level etc.

        Of course all the bad reasons are still a possibility too. In any case, it’s really difficult to advise without any detail on what the issue is. Just plain not inviting a spouse to dinner can be completely normal.

        Reply ↓
      3. Totally Minnie*

        Oh, I didn’t read it that way at all. I assumed that LW’s wife is attending an event for her job and they think they should be included even though they don’t work there.

        Reply ↓
  4. Leenie*

    Let’s maybe not do the thing where we construct narratives that make the first letter a reasonable or healthy perspective for a spouse to have. If there were extenuating circumstances that made the question less disturbing, I’m guessing the LW would have included them.

    Reply ↓
    1. Southern Violet*

      Agreed. And by the same token, lets not jump straight to absolutely abusive too. The question absolutely seems entitled but we only have two sentences. Everything from “its a same sex couple and the work is being bigoted” to “they are controlling” could be true and fits the facts.

      I think Alison did a good job acknowledging that in her answer.

      Reply ↓
    2. CityMouse*

      I agree with this, the details are incredibly sparse and we can think up.all sorts of scenarios. With the very bare bones question we have, the answer is that spouse’s not being invited to work dinners is very common (my husband has to do all kinds of meetings and hospitality at dinners, I can come along to a minority of them (even then usually I don’t because it would involve getting a babysitter).

      Rarely, there’s some work dinners where if someone visiting brought their husband/wife/kids they’ll try to bring along a spouse or similar age kid of the employees to make sure they have someone to hang out with if there’s shop talk.

      Reply ↓
    3. knitted feet*

      Yes, please let’s not. If there’s mitigating context here, the LW should have included it. As it is, it reads as deeply controlling (and if LW somehow is a secretly reasonable person with excellent secret reasons, it’s STILL useful for them to know that they came across here as deeply controlling).

      Reply ↓
    4. Cadillac*

      We also don’t need to construct narratives where it’s inherently “disturbing”! There are literally no details.

      Reply ↓
      4. Leenie*

        I haven’t constructed a narrative at all. I find the question, as written, disturbing. Positing that discrimination might be involved, or that they work at the same company are both stretches. Saying that the question that was submitted, absent details, is disturbing is not remotely a stretch. It’s a reaction to the information that was provided, as it was provided.

        Reply ↓
      5. knitted feet*

        Sorry, I do find it disturbing. There is zero inherent reason why one spouse should have to turn down an event just because the other isn’t also invited. Questioning that without a cast-iron reason IS disturbing. Everyone in a relationship should have the basic right to go places without their partner! If there’s background that somehow makes this a reasonable question, then it’s extraordinary background that LW really should have included.

        Reply ↓
      6. Observer*

        We also don’t need to construct narratives where it’s inherently “disturbing”!

        The thing is that the question *is* disturbing, even without adding details. Because there just are not any likely scenarios where the LW is right.

        I’m not denying the possibility that the reason for “exclusion” is deeply problematic, but even then for the most part they still should not be pushing that narrative. And also I do think that it’s highly unlikely that if there were such a really problematic reason for the exclusion (and I can actually think of many forms of bigotry that could theoretically be at play), the LW would have failed to mention it. Yes, the letter is *short*. But it would not have taken much to add “because X bigotry” after “I’m excluded”.

        Reply ↓
    5. Don't Grasp At Straws*

      I almost get the sense the letter was published specifically so that the LW could see feedback in the comments and, one hopes, take them to heart.

      The only thing that might (and it’s a big might) make this seem less concerning is if LW and their wife are very young and/or new to working/professional norms. But even so, one would presume they’d trust their wife on what was expected in this scenario and not seek outside advice or validation.

      Reply ↓
    6. Smithy*

      I think where the narratives that put the workplace in a problematic light as well are helpful is largely to say that it’s ultimately still the wife’s choice on how to manage that. The advice truly isn’t radically different.

      Even in a situation where this would be classic discrimination, the wife would still have to decide to get involved with HR or an employment lawyer – and may think that given their chosen industry and professional goals, they don’t want to do that. While I understand how it’s easy to see this as controlling, I think a lot of us have had family, partners, friends who have seen us in bad if not illegal working situations. And it’s not uncommon for them to want better for us, and voice that strongly. But whether we’ve been that voice, or we’ve been in that bad job – the way out is typically for that person to figure out their own next steps.

      I have a friend in a salaried position who for months on end was working 12+ hour days, 6-7 days a week. And while I could say “that’s unsustainable, that doesn’t seem right” – at some point, it is her job and her choice on how to manage that. And as a good friend, being reminded that at some point people need to be allowed to navigate their situations is necessary.

      So this job could be 10000% in the wrong. And the advice is still to allow the wife to manage their working reality. Be there as a support system if/when it gets hard, but they’re ultimately going to need to choose the way out.

      Reply ↓
  5. The Prettiest Curse*

    #3 – I know we aren’t supposed to pick over word choices, but my fellow British people might find the usage of “full of beans” here really confusing. I recently read a book review that said some Americans think that it means “full of sh*t”. It actually means “full of energy”, so you’d use it to describe a very energetic, upbeat person – it’s a bit of an old-fashioned phrase, but I’ve only ever heard it used to describe people. Divided by a common language again!

    Reply ↓
    2. RT*

      TIL! I definitely learned it as full of s**t. Dictionaries online seem to have 2 definitions, the one meaning “false” specifically as for the US.

      Reply ↓
    3. WS*

      Thank you, I guessed from the context that it didn’t mean “full of energy” which is how I would use it, but I didn’t know this was a divided-by-the-same-language issue.

      Reply ↓
    4. Polyhymnia O’Keefe*

      Canadian here, and my mom often uses “full of beans” to describe mischievous young children. I have no idea about the etymology of the phrase, but as a kid, I always pictured the beans that we were full of as jumping beans.

      Reply ↓
      1. RLC*

        My Canadian mom also used the expression the same way and I also pictured jumping beans bouncing inside my body! Had no idea that there are other meanings to the expression.

        Reply ↓
      2. WeirdChemist*

        As an American, I’ve only ever heard “full of beans” to mean energetic in a child-like way. I assumed that it came from jumping beans as well!

        Reply ↓
        2. run mad; don't faint*

          Same here! On the other hand, ‘full of it’ has the connotation referenced in #3. I wonder if the two phrases were conflated somewhere along the line.

          Reply ↓
      4. Jamjari*

        Same. Canadian and full of jumping beans was always what I thought as well. Though apparently I’m older because I’d still use it if I had kids – there’s just not much cause to uise it without them.

        Reply ↓
      5. Tafadhali*

        I’m American and would use it this way….but I also definitely learned it from Kids in the Hall and nearly always say it in a Bruce McCulloch-as-a-secretary voice.

        Reply ↓
    5. Min*

      Speaking of nitpicking language, it’s not that some Americans “seem to think” it means full of shit. In American vernacular, it is a more polite way of saying full of shit. Link to US dictionary in reply.

      Divided by a common language, indeed!

      Reply ↓
      2. The Prettiest Curse*

        Well, the book review I linked to (link in moderation) says that one of the first recorded usages of the phrase was in 1875 by British PM Benjamin Disraeli. So I think it’s safe to say that it’s a phrase that was coined by the British and is used differently by Americans – and that both of us apparently think that our usage is the only correct one!

        Reply ↓
      3. Person from the Resume*

        I am American. I have never heard “full of beans” and was a tiny bit confused by that phrase.

        I think I wondered if it was supposed to be full of “bees” so to some Americans that phrase means nothing at all and we must guess.

        Reply ↓
      4. Pierrot*

        I’m American, and I was told that it meant energetic,usually referring to a hyper active kid. There was a children’s store called full of beans where I grew up, I think it closed in the very early aughts. That said, I rarely hear this phrase being used for either meaning.

        Reply ↓
      5. A Book about Metals*

        I think it’s more that the British and Europeans typically get much more time off and PTO then Americans, so they have more time to contemplate these sorts of things.

        Reply ↓
    6. Mae Fuller*

      I am also a Brit and was interested in this unfamiliar-to-me usage – but can we not frame it is “actually Americans are wrong”? Apparently the phrase just means something different each side of the Atlantic and that’s cool!

      Reply ↓
      1. The Prettiest Curse*

        Sorry, that’s was poorly worded and is a side-effect of: 1. Typing my original comment very early in the morning and 2. The way my American husband and I tease each other about this type of thing.

        Reply ↓
      2. Richard Hershberger*

        My understanding is that the British usage is the older one, which was misinterpreted by Americans. This is not to say that the American usage is wrong. Many usages originated this way. At some point the misinterpretation takes on a life of its own, converting it into a reinterpretation. “Full of beans” clearly long since passed this point.

        Reply ↓
        1. fhqwhgads*

          I wouldn’t call it a “misinterpret” situation. My understanding is it evolved roughly like so:
          Full of beans – energetic because beans are a staple food (used in both UK and US in the 1800s)
          Early 1900s in the US – so energetic that you are prone to exaggeration or embellishment
          Slightly later early 1900s in the US – the exaggeration is sufficient to become a straight up lie
          But both meanings continue to be used in US, even as the negative version picks up steam. At this point use of the phrase in general is generally considered old-timey, tho.

          Reply ↓
    7. Sharpie*

      I wouldn’t say it’s particularly old-fashioned; I’ve both heard and used the phrase myself, mostly to describe overactive kids or animals.

      Reply ↓
    8. bamcheeks*

      Haha, I did NOT know that and I read it as something like “full of bees”— actively malicious rather than just wrong!

      Reply ↓
    9. Michigander*

      I’m an American in Scotland and I describe my 4 year old daughter as “full of beans” all the time, because she is full of non-stop energy.

      Reply ↓
    10. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      I only know it as “full of energy” too, definitely positive.
      I didn’t know it was old-fashioned, but I’m in my late 60s so that’s probably why it’s still current useage for me :)

      Reply ↓
      1. Lokifan*

        I don’t think it is! maybe it’s regional or something. but two of my early-30s friends have nicknamed their baby Beans because she’s so full of energy!

        Reply ↓
      2. Retiring Academic*

        The origin of the phrase is that if you feed a horse with beans (as opposed to hay, grain etc.) it will have a lot of energy, because of the high protein content – maybe too much energy, if you like a quiet ride! I guess that with the replacement of horses by motor-cars as our main means of transport, people are less aware of the effect of beans. And a change in diet might result in the other (US) meaning applying to the horse also!

        Reply ↓
    11. A Simple Narwhal*

      Now that you pointed it out I realize that I use “full of beans” for both meanings! I’ve described my toddler as full of beans when he’s running around full of energy and bouncing off the walls. I’ve also described something/someone as full of beans to mean they’re being ridiculous.

      To me they’re both pretty lighthearted – I don’t think it’s possible to say “you’re full of beans” in a fully serious manner like you might say “you’re full of shit”. But it’s always interested to reevaluate language and hear what others think!

      Reply ↓
      1. BethDH*

        Yes, I have mostly heard it used either in the “full of mischievous energy” way for kids or for an adult who is doing something like telling silly exaggerated stories, or maybe giving fulsome compliments or something like that.

        Reply ↓
      2. PhyllisB*

        Southern here, and we usually say either full of baloney, or just full of it. I knew what she meant in this letter because of context, but the few times I’ve heard the phrase full of beans it meant being energetic.

        Reply ↓
    12. Jay (no, the other one)*

      I’m a lifelong USer and have only used it to mean “full of energy.” I understand the other usage by context and haven’t seen it often.

      Reply ↓
    13. ZSD*

      I’m from the US, and where I come from, it definitely means, “This person is wrong; what they are saying is nonsense.” I grew up using the phrase and was pretty old when I connected it to beans causing flatulence. But beans don’t cause you to defecate (do they?), so I don’t think it’s so much, “Full of sh*t,” as, “Making noises like farts, which is what nonsense might sound like.”
      OTOH, my mother uses the phrase, “Full of prune pits,” and when I was in my twenties and learned that prunes are used as a laxative, I realized that that’s definitely a euphemism for, “Full of sh*t.”

      Reply ↓
      1. londonedit*

        I’m British and today is the first time I’ve ever heard ‘full of beans’ used to mean anything other than ‘bouncing around with exuberant energy’.

        In this context, if we wanted to say something other than ‘full of shit’ (which isn’t a hugely British turn of phrase; I’d definitely think of it as more of an American saying), we’d probably say ‘total bollocks’ or ‘absolute rubbish’ or ‘a load of rubbish’ or something like that.

        Reply ↓
    15. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      Gen X American living in the midwest–I learned it as a way to say someone doesn’t have a lot going on upstairs–as in their head is full of beans.

      Reply ↓
    2. umami*

      Exactly! I have plenty of work dinners I must attend, sometimes because I am representing my organization, and sometimes because we have purchased a table that is filled with other colleagues. One item I have brought up to leadership as an exception is how we seat gala events, because the latest trend is to fill those seats with only employees, but it’s a big ask to have someone get dressed up for a gala and not be able to take their partner.

      Reply ↓
    3. iglwif*

      … and having attended work things with my spouse in past years when his company decided that was something they had the budget for, I personally heave a sigh of relief whenever +1s are NOT invited.

      Because socializing with your spouse’s colleagues is not for everyone and is definitely not for me lol

      Reply ↓
  7. Chocolate Teapot*

    4. We had sad news at work yesterday of 2 recent deaths, one a client who had been seriously ill for some time, the other a co-worker which was sudden and unexpected.

    I think it depends on how well you know the deceased. The client I had some contact with, the co-worker I didn’t know, but some of the people in my team did, so there are levels of condolence.

    Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

      When a coworker or a retired former coworker has died, I offer condolences when I know the person who died and/or their close coworkers. I offer condolences to my coworkers when I’m close enough to them to learn that their loved one has died. I don’t work with external clients so that situation doesn’t come up.

      Death notices/short obituaries of employees and former employees are generally posted on our intranet.

      Reply ↓
  8. FidgetDesign*

    Ugh, most fidget toys give me a headache, make me dizzy, or both. The lights! the colors! the fast movement! and that doesn’t consider the repetitive sounds. I will get physically ill if I have to watch someone using most fidget toys for more than a few seconds. And I can’t not look because they’re just not designed to be unobtrusive.

    Fidgeting is fine. Fidget toys are not. Flip a pen, tear up a piece of paper, doodle, or do something else that’s somewhat unobtrusive and uses objects not designed to grab everyone’s attention.

    Reply ↓
    1. Magpie*

      if you’re talking about fidget *spinners* then I agree with you, they are often obnoxious. however, fidget toys are a very broad category of focus tool, and many are designed specifically to be silent and unobtrusive, whereas many improvised fidgets can be extremely disruptive. If you’re working near me, you do NOT want me in range of a clickable pen (loud), coins (I will drop them) or an elastic band (I will accidentally shoot it across the room). My silent flip-links and magnetic fidget coin fit in the palm of my hand, are silent and non-flashy, and are pretty much indistinguishable from a keychain decoration when not in use. I am MUCH less annoying to be around when I have my purpose-made focus tools with me. I have a loud clicky fidget slug and some tangle toys that I use exclusively at home, too, but that doesn’t come to school or work with me. so there are alternative solutions that this co-worker could investigate without having to paint all fidgets as obnoxious

      Reply ↓
      1. Varthema*

        Yup, agreed, normal office items are definitely going to be more obnoxious in my hands! And the fidget spinners that light up and are colorful are more likely in the category of that toy fad that emerged after fidget spinners as accommodation entered public awareness. Stress balls are fidget toys and have been acceptable in the workplace since the 90s. Mine is a smooth stone with a groove in it that I rub my thumb on. Some do make clicking sounds, which is what the letter is about and Alison’s response is appropriate.

        Reply ↓
        1. Hush42*

          I was once in a meeting with my boss and a co-worker with whom I shared an office. I don’t remember what we were talking about but I do remember being slightly anxious and also focused on trying to find the answers to whatever the issue at hand was (I was researching whatever it was we were talking about). I had a Surface Book at the time where the Pen magneted to the side of the screen. I was sitting there pulling the pen off and letting it click back into place over and over again. I honestly wasn’t even aware that I was doing it until co-worker reached over and put his hand on mine to stop me. We all laughed about it but I do understand that it would be annoying to listen to, I just didn’t realize I was doing it. I know have a few silent fidget toys in my office.

          Reply ↓
      2. Kyrielle*

        Had a coworker once who flipped pens/pencils. It was very distracting, both at the time, and when you realized his usual seat in the conference room had writing implements stuck in the ceiling above it…. He once picked up a pair of scissors and started flipping those – two flips and another coworker took it away and handed him a pen.

        One all-company meeting with food, he instead made a pyramid stack with soda cans on his table.

        I wish he had had any of the options you describe!

        Reply ↓
    2. MarkTrade*

      I don’t think you understand what “fidget toys” are. There are a vast number of types of fidget toy, most of which are indeed intended to be unobtrusive, and most of them do not have lights, colours or fast movement. So I think you may have a rather limited understanding of this issue, and may wish to educate yourself.

      Almost every actual fidget toy is FAR less obtrusive than tearing up paper!

      Reply ↓
      1. mbs001*

        Any of these that are disruptive to any of your coworkers should not be used, period. Doesn’t matter that they’re less noisy than ripping up paper. It’s bothersome to others. If you need to use anything that’s unobtrusive, fine.

        Reply ↓
        1. Irish Teacher.*

          I think MarkTrade’s point is that most are not likely to be disruptive to coworkers whereas ripping up paper could be. There are a lot of fidget toys that nobody would even know you were using.

          Reply ↓
    3. Brain sparkles*

      I think this might be a case of you not noticing unobtrusive fidget toys, only noticing the noisy/bright/loud ones, and therefore thinking all fidgets are noisy/bright/loud… I have three main fidgets for public use – 1 is designed to look like a pen, 1 looks like a keyring, and 1 is literally a shaped brown rock. All silent and unobtrusive. I definitely agree that work fidgets shouldn’t make noise, and the LW can definitely ask their colleague to find something quieter!

      Reply ↓
      2. MigraineMonth*

        Exactly. Everyone I know who uses fidgets is always looking for unobtrusive and silent ones that they can take to work/school/etc.

        Reply ↓
    4. Nina*

      Fidget rings (what LW is complaining about) do not typically have lights, can have fast movement briefly if that’s what the user is doing, and aren’t usually very brightly coloured or large enough that you’d notice them being brightly coloured. Fidget rings are the unobtrusive option (says ze, wearing two fidget and ten ordinary rings).

      They do make a quiet clicking noise (quieter than typing or pen-clicking, and definitely quieter than tearing paper) and if you’re spinning one fast it will make a whispery ball-bearing kind of noise. I’d imagine it would be audible a couple of desks away in an otherwise quiet office, but it’s not loud.

      Most of the people I know who use fidget ‘toys’ in the office go to a lot of effort to find something that satisfies their sensory needs and is as quiet, small, and unobtrusive as possible.

      Reply ↓
    5. Totally Minnie*

      I have an extremely unobtrusive fidget that just two magnet discs with rubber grips on the outside. You slide the magnets against each other than they stick or slide depending on whether or not the poles are lining up. It makes zero noise and I generally use it under the table so I don’t distract people with it.

      Reply ↓
    6. Arrietty*

      I’m confused. My fidget toy is a small grey cube. No lights, no colours, no fast movement, no repetitive sounds unless I use the one small bit that has a clicky noise. It’s absolutely designed to be unobtrusive.

      Reply ↓
      1. Czhorat*

        If you’re talking about begleri or other bead-related fidget toys I can see those being a bit disruptive, depending on how you choose to sling them.

        I have a whole LIST of the fidget stuff I carry with me, but it’s stuck in moderation. Most of it is very quiet and not as obtrusive as tearing up paper (!)

        I think there’s something here in the commenter seeing a “toy” as childish, whereas using a tool like a pen feels more “adult” to them. I don’t subscribe to this kind of thinking

        Reply ↓
    8. Marshmallow*

      My fidget toys of choice are a compression ring (completely silent, no lights, I’ve accidentally flung it before cuz it’s sort of like a spring, but in my work environment no one even notices when that happens) and small hand sized plushie on a key chain (I mostly just hold it like a stress ball, so also no lights or sounds), and sensory stickers (I have two on my laptop and one on the back of my phone).

      As others commented, before you judge too much, maybe learn more about the benefits and types of fidgets. Fidget spinners are kind of annoying. I also get basically no fidgets help from them because for me they are too much of an active toy not a fidget tool. Where I work, fidget toys are welcomed and people are allowed to stand and pace a little in meetings if they need that for focus (and me and a couple others do). But I do highly recommend sensory stickers! They have been a life saver for me! Not only are they quiet and not obvious but they are soothing in a way that other fidgets aren’t for me.

      Reply ↓
      1. Irish Teacher.*

        I feel exactly the same about fidget spinners. They are a reasonably fun toy, but they require too much attention to be much use to me as a fidget. And they were a nightmare in the classroom. I’m all for my students using fidgets if they need them, but spinners were distracting in so many ways and kids regularly dropped them.

        Reply ↓
    9. londonedit*

      A fidget ring isn’t a toy or a spinner or anything with lights. It’s literally a piece of jewellery – a ring – that is designed to have some sort of moving element so that you can fiddle with the bit that moves. Many of them take the form of a simple silver ring with tiny beads that you can move around, or a chunky ring with a loose band around the middle that you can fiddle with, or some of them will have a little spinning element. The idea is that being able to fiddle with a piece of jewellery that’s designed to be fiddled with can help to calm anxiety, and it can also help people who are prone to picking the skin around their thumb/fingernails – you can spin the ring around or fiddle with the beads instead of picking at your fingers.

      I’m sure some of them – like the one the OP describes – do make a noise if you’re tuned into hearing it, and if you’re someone who’s annoyed by repetitive noises like a clicking pen lid or a ring that makes a slight noise when you fiddle with it, I can imagine it would be annoying. But it’s not a light-up toy or a spinner or something that’s designed to make a lot of noise.

      Reply ↓
    10. Czhorat*

      I have no fewer than four fidget toys in my bag and/or pockets at any moment, most of which are dead quiet:

      1) Knuckle roller. A smallish copper object with a narrow middle and wider at the ends. You can, as the name implies, roll it between your knuckles.

      2) contact coin. This one is also copper, and is maybe the diameter of a silver dollar, slightly concave with a smooth polished finish

      3) Tiny minuature dragonstaff. This is a bit ostentatious, but it’s a 3d printed TINY version of the dragon-staff prop you see some people spinning with LED or fire. No fire or lights on the little guy

      4) Pen-spinning baton. Plastic, a bit longer than a pen.

      5) Chetki. A strong of flat beads that you can twirl around your fingers in various patterns. Playing it feels like a cross between begleri and balisong. Chetki is a fidget toy of Russian origin based on a style of flat linear rosary beads.

      6) Begleri. This is a fidget toy of Greek origin consisting of two heavy beads connected by a cord. You again spin them around your fingers in various patterns and combinations.

      There are a TON more available. With chetki or begleri there will be noise as the beads clink against each other; the other ones are very quiet, with the knuckle bones and contact coin being the most discrete. If my pants have a watch pocket I keep the coin in it.

      The point is that you can find fidget items that are not noisy or disruptive.

      Reply ↓
    11. Nightengale*

      There is a huge range now of fidget items out there. I collect them for my patients to try out in the office, although I don’t get anything that lights up or actual fidget spinners.

      I divide the fidgets into 2 basic groups: “can use in class” and “don’t try to use in class.” (I have also brought some of the “can use in class” ones to share at a professional conference. For example, a marble in a casing that can be squeezed back and forth, silicone squeezable things, a telephone coil design bracelet. These don’t typically make noise, and as a bonus they stay put if dropped (unlike some stress balls I could mention.)

      –fidget curator

      Reply ↓
    12. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      There are LOADS of fidget tools (not toys) that are unobtrusive. I have a ring made of three interlocking bands, I can roll that up and down my finger, twisting the rings, and no one is the wiser. It makes no noise at all.

      Based on your comment, it might behoove you to try and understand how and why they are used. True fidget tools don’t have bells, whistles, and lights.

      Reply ↓
    13. Lenora Rose*

      You think ripping up paper is not disruptive? I have a coworker who shreds by hand (even though it all goes in the shredder afterwards) and let’s just say i definitely notice when she’s doing that.

      Meanwhile, my husband has a silent spinner ring I hardly ever even noticed was in motion if I wasn’t looking right at his hands.

      Fidget spinners are awful as fidget toys, as they are virtually all noisy and bright and disruptive; despite their fame, they’re actually the least used as actual fidget tools.

      Reply ↓
      1. Czhorat*

        I’m waiting for the letter “my coworker keeps ripping up paper and it’s driving me crazy!”

        At least all of these are better than the guy with the knife from last year.

        Reply ↓
    14. JSPA*

      Ascertainment bias: your mental sample is likely based on “fidget toys I have noticed,” which clearly selects against “stealth fidgets tools designed so nobody will notice them.”

      Unfortunately, given viral marketing (and perhaps their appeal to people who might not otherwise even have much stim urge?) flashy toys have seen quite a boom.

      But unless the sound is an integral part of their stim need, most people will be able to find a quiet and non- flashy stim tool.

      And if the LW is at all misophonic or otherwise particularly aware of repeated sounds, pen clicks are unlikely to be more welcome.

      Reply ↓
    15. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

      They’re not “designed to grab everyone’s attention,” they’re designed to fidget with. You being bothered by them is fine but is just as much a you thing as using a fidget toy is a you thing for someone else. Also, most fidgets don’t have lights (?). My favorite fidget is a stretchy foot-long rubbery rope. And fidget rings ARE designed to be unobtrusive.

      Reply ↓
    16. Observer*

      And I can’t not look because they’re just not designed to be unobtrusive.

      Factually incorrect. Especially if people are not sitting around a table or that type of set up.

      Like if you are sitting are your desk, with a computer and some documents, and a coworker at another desk is spinning their (quiet) spinner, there is no reason for you to “have” to look. If you were even sitting near that person around a conference table, it should not be that hard to ignore either, unless there are flashers or something like that. Now, if you are across the table from them, that could be different, because then you need to actively look away.

      If you personally feel like you can’t look away, that’s a “you” thing, and I think you need to figure out how to deal with it.

      Generally, most fidget toys are actually designed to *not* be noisy or flashy.

      Reply ↓
    17. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

      I think you’re conflating things that are actually meant to be toys (like, for children) with fidget gadgets that are aimed at working adults.

      There are kids’ toys that are probably called “fidget toys” because they don’t DO anything. They’re not building blocks; they’re not toy cars; they’re just little gizmos that have moving parts. And they’re not the same as the fidget gadgets like that clicking ring the LW is complaining about.

      Reply ↓
    18. iglwif*

      I have at least a dozen fidget toys and none of them has lights or fast movement (I will cop to the colours in some cases). Most of them make zero noise and all of them make less noise than flipping a pen or tearing up a piece of paper.

      I think we might have different definitions of “fidget toy” because what you’re describing sounds like the really bananapants novelty dreidel we acquired when my kiddo was in elementary school and get out one day a year to enjoy for 5 seconds, not like a fidget toy.

      Reply ↓
  9. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

    2. Actually thank you for this! I’ve just checked my fidget ring and oh, it does click occasionally. If it was brought simply to my attention like Alison suggests I’d definitely be thankful.

    (Now where’s me WD40 gone..)

    Reply ↓
      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        Then the question doesn’t apply to you, rock on.

        But I hope if a coworker told you that something you were doing was distracting or aggravating them, particularly something easily fixed, this wouldn’t be your response.

        Reply ↓
      2. Admin of Sys*

        Competing needs – if someone has misophonia about a clicking ring, it’s not any more fair to ask them to get over it than it is to ask the person who needs a fidget toy to stop using one. The goal is therefore for the op to find a fidget toy that doesn’t annoy other folks.

        Reply ↓
      3. MassMatt*

        What a dismissive attitude. How’d you feel is someone told you to “get over” your need for fidget toys?

        If someone needs something to help them concentrate, it should not come at the expense of someone else’s concentration, especially not at work.

        Many comments here are pointing out that there are many fidget toys that are unobtrusive. Well, the one the LW’s coworker is using clearly isn’t one of them. The person with the fidget toy isn’t writing in asking for suggestions on examples of unobtrusive ones. The letter is from someone being driven nuts by the clicking noise of the person using one. Pointing out quiet fidget toys is not helping them.

        Reply ↓
        1. Kyrielle*

          It might, in that it might give them confidence to ask as Alison suggests, or give them a response if their coworker asks ‘like what’. But yeah, knowing they exist is good, knowing what they are is useful only if you need them.

          Reply ↓
        2. Observer*

          Pointing out quiet fidget toys is not helping them.

          Most people are pointing out the quiet toys as a response to the claims that fidget toys “are” obtrusive.

          Also, it’s worthwhile for the LW to realize that it’s quite possible that if they ask nicely their coworker will be happy to accommodate because it generally does not have to a a major issue. Since there are a lot of quiet fidget toys, it’s probable that they can find something.

          It’s like if someone has an allergy to dogs, asking their blind coworker to get rid of the guide dog is pretty much a non-starter. But asking that the annual team dinner not be held at a local pet cafe is no big deal because there are lots of options. Obviously this is a much more extreme example but I think the concept holds.

          Reply ↓
      5. GreySuit*

        Uh, what? I own a fidget ring that gets a little squeaky sometimes, and the sound drives me mad, much less other people around me. It’s no trouble to apply a bit of grease so we can all concentrate.

        Reply ↓
      6. Starbuck*

        Hey, as a point of agreement – if the level of noise isn’t any more intense than a mouse click or keyboard typing or any other typical office noise I’d probably feel the same.

        Reply ↓
  10. Nodramalama*

    LW1 the lack of detail in the letter suggests to me that there is not some glaringly outrageous reason why you’re not invited, so yes, it is inappropriate for you to expect to be invited.

    Reply ↓
  11. Sun*

    Re: fidgets, I had to adjust my usage of my beloved zipper fidget when someone approached me and politely described how distracting they found it. I had done volume tests with the two people sitting in the desks closest to me who couldn’t hear it at all, but hadn’t considered it would get under the skin of someone two desks away.

    It was an easy enough adjustment to use an alternative fidget whenever they were at their desk.

    Reply ↓
    1. knitted feet*

      As someone dealing with audio sensory bs, I really appreciate your willingness to be flexible about it! I don’t want to stop anyone using a fidget if it helps them, but a repetitive noise can absolutely ruin me even if it’s not very loud to other people.

      Reply ↓
    2. Eldritch Office Worker*

      Zipper sounds specifically hit a pitch that is a real sensory nightmare for me if it’s repetitive. I also get that it’s a really satisfying stim, I’m sorry you had to stop! If we worked together I’d hope we could work out a compromise (I wear earphones more often, you do it more when I’m not around, something fair) but competing sensory needs can be difficult to solve.

      Reply ↓
    3. LizB*

      My husband got me a small pop-it fidget, but then told me a few days later that the popping noise was driving him nuts when I used it while we watched TV at night. I promptly moved that one to live in my home workspace, where nobody else is around to hear it, and swapped in something silent for TV time. Us fidget users should be receptive to feedback from those around them! Our need to concentrate doesn’t outweigh everyone else’s, so you may need some trial and error.

      Reply ↓
  12. londonedit*

    For what it’s worth, I’ve never in my 20+ year career worked anywhere where spouses/partners/any other sort of plus-one would be invited to work events. I’m sure it happens in other industries/areas of the country/cultures but in my experience it’s just not a thing at all, so it would be very very weird if someone’s spouse had a problem with them going to a work event solo. Our work events are either book launches, which are for the author’s friends/family/professional contacts and we’re just there as representatives from the publishing company, or they’re things like the company-wide Christmas party, which is only for employees. We don’t have random dinners or family picnics or anything like that – a work party is a work party and it’s for people who work at the company.

    So from that perspective I find it odd that OP1 has a problem with not being invited, but I also think it’s generally problematic that they feel ‘excluded’ and that they don’t want their wife to go if they can’t also attend. That feels like a very strange and OTT reaction to me. People, women, etc are perfectly within their rights and perfectly capable of attending events on their own. Especially in a professional capacity.

    Reply ↓
    1. EvilQueenRegina*

      I did have one job where partners would be invited to things like leaving dinners and the Christmas party, but after I left that one (2011) anything like that has usually been work people only and it’s not been a thing since.

      Reply ↓
      1. knitted feet*

        Yes, in 2008/9 I worked at a small company where we could bring a +1 to the Christmas party. My spouse came to those two Christmas dinners, and hasn’t been to a single work event with me since.

        Reply ↓
      2. Ellis Bell*

        Yeah, I’ve known partners to be invited to social events in some workplaces, but for it to be seen as extremely strange in others. Once when I was working in a brand new school there was much confusion as to whether we wanted to invite partners or not to the first Christmas party, as people had come from both cultures. The organisers landed on ‘bring a partner if you want to pay for them’ as a compromise. People who were not accustomed to that came solo, a handful of people brought their partners who joined in cheerfully, one senior teacher got into a huge row with her husband in the foyer of the event; he stormed off, she went off crying and never actually made it to the party. Next year it was employees only.

        Reply ↓
      3. ReallyBadPerson*

        I was only given a plus one a few times for work functions, but my husband frequently got to include me. This may have been due to a difference in status (at the time, I was a tech writer; he was a senior VP) but it may have been industry-related.

        Reply ↓
    2. Emmy Noether*

      My current company does a summer party where spouses and children are invited, once a year. In my experience, this kind of thing mostly still happens in small companies (that try to create a more personal connection to employees in order to foster loyalty), and in places that attract a lot of expats (where a lot of the social life of both employee and spouse relies on colleagues).

      Reply ↓
    3. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Me too. I had the occasional after-work event, but it was always very casual and just getting together after work, strictly for employees only.

      The only events where families – not just spouses – were invited were the annual summer barbecue and the summer hike, both totally informal.

      Reply ↓
      1. What_the_What*

        Interesting. My office (govt program with lots of contractors, including me) has a “Happy Hour” every Wednesday. They pick a new craft brewery, Bourbon bar, etc… and the entire office is invited, and significant others are also encouraged to attend if they so choose. Most of have been working either fully remote or hybrid for ~5 years now, so it’s a way to connect with people we otherwise wouldn’t. My company also holds a summer picnic at a local entertainment center (mini golf, playgrounds, batting cages, etc..) to which the entire family is invited and spouses also are invited to the Christmas parties thrown by both the company and the govt. program office. The only thing our program doesn’t invite them to that I can think of, are our Friday “burger burns” in the summer, where leadership provides and grills burgers (including turkey and veggie before anyone loses their minds) for everyone. So, it is definitely an “office by office” cultural thing, I think.

        Reply ↓
    4. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

      Not common in my industry in the UK either – which involves a lot of travel where you’d think people would actually be asking if they could bring their partner along.

      There’s two types of out of office get together/booze ups here: the annual all IT departments meeting (we’re geographically scattered, it lasts a week, people are rotated so there’s work coverage and it gets well lairy at night) and the annual end of year bash (which is not funded by the company at all). Neither of which include non staff.

      Reply ↓
      1. MotherofaPickle*

        That’s the second time in 24 hours I’ve run across “lairy”. Guess I’m going to have to go look it up!

        Reply ↓
        1. linger*

          lairy originated as a Cockney variant form of leery “wary, cautious”
          meaning (of a person) “cunning”
          and also (of things) “deserving caution”, hence “dangerous”.

          Reply ↓
    5. Antilles*

      That’s a YMMV situation, because I’ve found it’s quite common for a plus-one to be included on things like holiday parties or barbecues or other “social focused” events, particularly if those events occur outside of work hours. Or if they’re small-scale unofficial things like grabbing drinks after work, where it’s closer to “hanging out as friends” than anything else, it’d be totally normal to just casually invite a partner.
      But I suspect that isn’t the case here, because “other spouses are going to be there” feels like the kind of detail that absolutely would have been mentioned.

      Reply ↓
    6. Lady Danbury*

      It varies in my location, but company-wide holiday/summer parties, as well as long service awards, often include a plus one (can be anyone, not just a spouse). Smaller team events do not. I know that my company views the larger social events as a reward to the employees, not just team building and therefore want them to bring someone who helps enhance the experience. Particularly in the case of romantic partners, they also want to acknowledge that family support often plays a role in being successful at work and therefore the hope is that the partners also enjoys themselves. I know that my partner always has a good time! We also have a separate children’s holiday party, which is specifically for the children/grandchildren of employees.

      Reply ↓
    7. Dawn*

      I must say, it is slightly out of sync with norms not to invite spouses to a Christmas party specifically, but hardly unheard of, either.

      Reply ↓
      1. amoeba*

        Eh, as people have said, depends on the field and size of company (I guess?) – I’ve never worked anywhere where +1s were a thing for any kind of official work function. The only times I’ve met my boyfriend’s colleagues and vice versa was at private events organised by colleagues.

        Reply ↓
        1. Freya*

          Yeah, I haven’t either. I’ve always checked if partners were invited (with the explicit comment that my partner probably wouldn’t want to come, but if they *were* invited I’d feel awful if I didn’t give them the opportunity to choose for themself)

          Reply ↓
      2. Irish Teacher.*

        I think this is very field and culture based. I have never worked anywhere where spouses were invited to staff Christmas parties.

        Reply ↓
      3. Jenesis*

        My husband’s company splits the difference, I think. There is one party a year where spouses/partners (but not the whole family) are invited and the rest of the work events are employees-only. I usually don’t even know about them until the day before when Husband tells me I’ll be on my own for dinner tomorrow.

        Reply ↓
  13. bettyboop*

    LW2. I find it interesting that you’ve said fidget rings. If they are the jewellery kind they tend to be spinners that are very quiet often to the point of making no noise. There are also sensory spiky rings that make no noise. If they are the magnetic kind that click together then that would be loud and I would ask them to stop if needed. However if they are the jewellery ones I don’t think theres much you can do. Maybe discuss other types of fidgets but apart from that the jewellery is really as minimal a fidget as you can get.

    Reply ↓
      1. bettyboop*

        yes as I said however it would be useful to know what type of fidget ring it is as they are different and the basic anxiety ring wearable jewellery does not click and is very unobtrusive. Those ones are a wearable jewellery fidget and it may be difficult to tell someone they can’t wear certain jewellery in the office whereas if its the magnetic ring fidget toys (a different type which a set of magnetic rings) that do click audibly and loud then that would be very frustrating and worth asking them to fidget with something else.

        Reply ↓
          1. knitted feet*

            (Also, I agree asking someone not to wear specific items is probably out of bounds, but you could still ask them to stop making a distracting noise with said item no matter what it was.)

            Reply ↓
        3. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Some styles click audibly. Someone using them may also be clicking them together or tapping them on the desk or anything else that causes noise.

          OP likely doesn’t have specific knowledge of exactly what the coworker is doing with their hands. The noise is the issue, whatever the cause.

          Reply ↓
        5. Dido*

          I don’t understand the purpose of this comment. Why are you trying to argue with the LW about whether or not the ring clicks? HE is the one who has actually heard it and he says it does.

          Reply ↓
        6. fhqwhgads*

          I get that fidget rings are designs to be unobtrusive – in general – but it is possible (I’d say probable) that the OP’s coworker happens to have a poorly designed one, that is perhaps louder than you’d expect/want these things to be. It’s not really the OP’s place or business to know the specifics of the coworker’s ring. All OP knows is they can hear it and that’s bothersome.

          Reply ↓
        7. MassMatt*

          “it may be difficult to tell someone they can’t wear certain jewellery in the office”

          It’s not about policing someone’s jewelry, it’s about not disrupting a coworker’s ability to concentrate. Focus on the noise/disruption.

          Reply ↓
        8. Raida*

          I don’t think it is useful – OP needs to know if it’s okay to ask them to stop.

          OP doesn’t need to define the type of spinner to ask if that’s okay – us on the internet who *cannot* hear it are *not* going to make better responses than Alison’s by being able to judge if *we* would find it noisy or annoying.

          Reply ↓
    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Any gadget to help someone’s concentration should NOT damage the concentration or environment of anyone else.
      So nothing with noise, light, visible light, perfume etc

      Reply ↓
      2. Joana*

        Eh, I have ones that click. Some are supposed to, because that’s part of the sensory experience. But I would argue that yes, ones that make noises should not be used in a working environment where others could be distracted by it.

        Reply ↓
    3. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

      I’ve just tested my fidget ring and I confess it does make a clicking noise when I touch it because the outer ring clicks against the inner ring and then again when I release it. Maybe this is because it’s a cheap one. So I can kind of see how that could get annoying because it sounds remarkably like pen clicking.

      What to do about it aside from some WD40 though, I dunno.

      Reply ↓
      1. Allonge*

        I don’t think you need to do anything about it in general, but if someone brings it up, may be an idea to look into a different fidget (for the times the other person is nearby).

        Reply ↓
        1. Joana*

          This is pretty much where I fall, yeah. So many people here seem to think that only ‘low quality’ fidgets make noise, but that’s not true. Often noises like clicks are part of the sensory experience. And that’s fine for someone like me, who works in fast food and am often sequestered away from my coworkers (my restaurant has two drive thru windows, one for cash and one for pick-up, and I’m often in the cash window in the back of the store) or for someone who works alone or has their own office. But if you work around people, using different ones is just good manners.

          Reply ↓
    4. Ceramic Sun*

      I bought a set of cheap set fidget rings on Amazon and the spinning ones definitely make noise if I spin them too fast instead of just rubbing it

      Reply ↓
  14. Irish Teacher.*

    LW1, do you mean a work dinner where partners aren’t invited? Or a staff party? In those cases, you aren’t being excluded if you are not an employee.

    Now, if this is a case where spouses are included but you have been left out for discriminatory reasons like you are a woman and they don’t consider same-sex relationships valid or you are a blue collar worker and most of her workmates’ partners are white collar or something like that…well, I still don’t think you should ask her not to attend, but it is more of a problem.

    But it’s not exclusion if no partners are invited. That’s normal. Many events are just for employees.

    LW2, as somebody who probably has sensory processing disorder and fidgets constantly, it’s absolutely fine to say that you find a particular fidget distracting. Just don’t act like fidgeting is inherently wrong (and I assume you wouldn’t because the people who act like fidgeting is done deliberately to upset them or something don’t tend to ask if it’s OK to comment).

    Reply ↓
  15. Irish Teacher.*

    LW3, I think you can point out the test didn’t work for you without saying it’s a stupid test. Just, “oh, it’s strange I got that result. I’m actually better with detail than big picture stuff.”

    I agree those tests are pretty worthless but even if one was valid, there would still be outliers and people who got odd results.

    Reply ↓
  16. LW 5*

    LW 5 here.

    Thanks for answering my question, Alison.

    I learn something new about jobs everyday. I’m not a member of the coop so I don’t qualify haha. Even if I did meet the membership requirement, the specific role didn’t offer competitive pay for where I live. The job was for a Web Developer and it offered annual compensation just above $119k in NYC. I think it might have been a hybrid role and not fully remote, not counting the coop membership work requirement. Though, the coop did list a defined benefit pension (!) and no payroll deductions for health/dental insurance as some of their benefits.

    While it’s not an illegal requirement, IMO it might exclude a lot of potentially great candidates. It might also cut down on a bunch of not great candidates.

    I won’t be able to interact with a lot of comments today, so apologies if anyone was looking for that.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dawn*

      Heh, it’s a little beyond my comprehension that $120k would be uncompetitive in a tech role today, with all the layoffs going on. But there you go; I’ve never lived in NYC either.

      Sounds to me like they probably will have a hard time finding someone qualified, but maybe we’ll both be proven wrong.

      Reply ↓
      1. LaminarFlow*

        I work in Big Tech. My annual stock grant last year was just under 119k. It’s taken a while to get to that point, but I can’t imagine taking that job, unless it’s just basic website maintenance that can be performed remotely.

        119k total comp is pretty low for this role in any major U.S. city.

        Reply ↓
    2. Dust Bunny*

      This isn’t quite the same, but I feel like churches sometimes have a similar problem: New members join and start joining committees and taking on responsibilities with great enthusiasm but before they know the feel and internal workings of the community well, and then leave everyone in the lurch when it doesn’t turn out to be the spiritual utopia they expected (my parents’ congregation isn’t dysfunctional, but it has the usual issues that you get with a group of people trying to do things together). So I think it’s very reasonable to ask people to demonstrate some level of commitment and give them a chance to know the true feel of the place before hiring them. My experience with food co-ops is decades old but the one of which my parents were members was definitely staffed with crunchy idealists and the conflicts of ideology that come with them.

      Reply ↓
    3. Coop-er*

      I was a member of the coop you’re talking about. You have to be a very particular person to join the staff, since everyone – including web developers – is dealing with the membership constantly. It makes sense to me to require people to join the coop before they can apply for a job – it ensures that people who are on staff are also committed to the mission of cooperative living.

      Also, FWIW, those fees are sliding scale for people who need it.

      Reply ↓
    5. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

      The question is whether that requirement would still include enough potentially great candidates. Coop-members-only is less arbitrary than a lot of ways people filter job applicant pools, like who applied first.

      Reply ↓
    6. Also Coop-er*

      The PSFC is a reaaaallly specific place, so this requirement absolutely makes sense when you know what you’re dealing with. It’s *not* a normal workplace and having experience being a member is crucial, I think. Their insurance and other benefits are really top quality, from what I understand as a longtime member.

      Reply ↓
      1. AnotherSarah*

        This is what I also thought. I was a member for a long time and I almost applied for a job there once. I can’t imagine any of the employees not having deep experience in the PSFC first.

        Reply ↓
    7. Observer*

      annual compensation just above $119k in NYC.

      It’s possible to live on that in NYC. And if you are getting decent medical insurance with no premiums, that’s effectively another at least another $15K that you are not getting taxed on.

      If it doesn’t work for you, it doesn’t. But it is certainly worth thinking about the worth of benefits when evaluating jobs going forward, in any case.

      Reply ↓
  17. CityMouse*

    I had a former boss who.was really into these personality tests and we had a period where I had to do a bunch of them. After a while I realized these things went better if I could just guess what answers would just get me out of the review session more quickly and would take the test to get that. I loathe these things and can’t believe they’d use them in hiring decisions given how easy they generally are to manipulate to a certain answer.

    Reply ↓
    3. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

      I absolutely love manipulating them. To me a proper personality assessment is the kind I get from the psychiatric team (which is LONG btw) and even then you’re not pigeonholed at the end (it’s more of a guide to possible avenues of treatment).

      But the corporate ones? I always lie. Whatever gets me the ‘suitable for work’ rating is what I’ll aim toward. Although the company that asked me to pick out a favourite Magic the Gathering card and explain why was at least interesting.

      Reply ↓
    4. Falling Diphthong*

      Given how easy they generally are to manipulate to a certain answer.

      This is what stands out to me with these things–it’s almost an expected skill of modern adulthood that, if being a triangle will get you out of the thing you don’t want, you can answer the questions so as to indicate you are a triangle.

      Like we’ve invented a little ritual that goes “Left hand up, pivot 90° on right heel, right elbow back, and HOP while saying ‘gesundheit'” and even though it doesn’t actually do anything, the bureaucracy requires it and everyone accepts that it’s easier to do the ritual and get on with the day, rather than try to argue.

      Reply ↓
      1. CityMouse*

        The advice they gube is so condescending too. “Try tailoring your communication to your trainee’s style” and “Understand some people will need different tactics to learn”.

        At the time they put us through all these personality tests, I’d be training for years. They’d also do this personality test stuff instead of more practical requirements like “How do we write their monthly reports” and “how does the tracking spreadsheet work”.

        Reply ↓
        1. Artemesia*

          And unless you are tutoring it is useless information for trainers. Part of design of training is to use different modalities so that everyone has the opportunity to acquire information and skills in a way that works for them. In any group some people will be more comfortable with this and others with that, so training includes this and that.

          Reply ↓
      2. Emmy Noether*

        It’s interesting to consider what the tests actually measure. People who have high social intelligence and a willigness to manipulate* will score whatever they aim to score. So it ends up measuring those things.

        *I don’t mean this in a negative way. Manipulating corporate BS to move on with your day as painlessly as possible is fair play.

        Reply ↓
    5. Nonsense*

      I took one at work about 6 months that apparently had a way of scoring how seriously you took the test? Like at the end of the results it said something along the lines of “we are XX% confident in [Name’s] results based on how they answered compared to our years of data.” I scored 48% the first time I took it, and 61% the second time. The rep was not happy me at all.

      Reply ↓
    6. Nightengale*

      My medical school gave us an empathy test every year which I thought was alarmingly easy to manipulate to a certain answer

      Interestingly, though, they had data showing that empathy scores declined over training.

      Which either means people were taking the test honestly, or over time most people stopped caring enough to try to manipulate it. (Which I guess in itself may be a decrease of empathy or at least a decrease of something relevant.)

      Reply ↓
      1. bamcheeks*

        Or that most people weren’t trying to manipulate it, and training either made them less empathetic or less competent in how empathetic they were? I can actually see LOTS of possible explanations for this, which all sound potentially interesting!

        Reply ↓
        1. Temp anon*

          Yes, maybe they started off full of empathy and idealism in their new field and long hours and experience in school ground that right out of them. And then they had to complete a residency, which in many places is a years-long hazing ritual with little sleep.

          Reply ↓
        2. Nightengale*

          They actually had just enough insight to recognize there was something in the “hidden curriculum” of training that was decreasing empathy. They – at the time 20 years ago – weren’t quite sure what. I was pretty sure then and am even more now – a whole slew of isms including paternalism. I am doing work now to dismantle the ableism factor.

          I was still surprised people didn’t try to choose the clearly right empathetic answer, no matter how they actually felt.

          Reply ↓
          1. bamcheeks*

            That sounds really interesting!

            I used to deliver soft skills training to newly qualified doctors in the UK about choosing and applying to specialty training, and what soft skills they had to demonstrate. For the first two years I would always point out that surgery was the only specialty that didn’t require “Empathy and Sensitivity”, but in the third year I was in that job they decided that surgeons needed it too. I did have some genuinely interesting conversations with surgeons about that change– on the one hand, surgeons still need to be able to communicate with patients, lead and work within teams, manage services etc, all of which require empathy, but I also had some surgeons who said that when your job is literally cutting into people’s bodies — maybe even small children’s bodies — NOT being able to empathise is actually a genuinely important quality.

            Reply ↓
            1. Nightengale*

              The whole hidden curriculum stuff is really interesting. As is examining all the prejudices and power imbalances baked into health care.

              Surgery is certainly a less relationship based field than mine. I work with neurodivergent kids, oh and I’m neurodivergent myself which means I often have more empathy for my patients than for my fellow health care providers. So most of my work is in talking and listening.

              But surgeons need some of it too, or at least some skills interacting with awake patients and family members. If for no other reason than it saves time in the long run. I had the privilege of training under some very caring surgeons who took time to answer questions and explain what to expect. And then there was the time the patient asked “can I go home today?” and the surgeon said “we need to optimize every physiologic parameter” and walked out of the room. Which then took longer for one of the junior doctors on the team to chase him down and get an actual answer!

              Reply ↓
    7. Totally Minnie*

      I’m a personality test person in the same way that other people are astrology people. I find them a helpful framework for my own self knowledge. But I don’t want personality tests to be used in my workplace any more than I’d want astrology to be used in my workplace.

      The point is not supposed to be that you take the test and then everyone at work files you away into a category that you’re stuck in forever. The point is supposed to be that you read the personality description and see the ways in which it does or doesn’t align with how you see yourself, which can sometimes help you to learn new things about why you behave certain ways in certain situations.

      I’ve seen personality tests be used effectively in a work setting exactly one time. It was a staff training where our topic was communicating with people who see things differently than you do, so our personality assessment was mostly to point out that we all come to conversations with different perspectives that can help us make stronger group decisions. But most uses of personality tests in the workplace are not that.

      Reply ↓
    8. Allonge*

      The only way I have found them useful was that (some, at least) provide a framework in which to discuss personal preferences for some things and how they impact working together.

      So e.g. an MBTI test done in a team-building or training setup gave a non-judgmental wording to use for explaining, say, that some people need a moment to think before they answer a question while others will ‘think out loud’, and neither of these is a bad thing as such, and that it does not mean that the person with the ‘other’ preference is not paying attention / is smarter / is dumber. And of course this part is true regardless of the (non)validity of MBTI or any other personality test.

      Certainly to me all tests seem to lead to the conclusion that people are different, have different preferences and habits. And when you put it like that, it’s obvious and you say ‘no kidding’. But lots of people don’t have the (self)awareness to think about how people are different and what that means, so providing some frameworks to discuss it can be helpful.

      Just to be clear – I don’t think they should be used for hiring (or in any serious way, really)! And I do wish there was a reasonable alternative to demonstrate what I describe above.

      Reply ↓
    9. Happily Retired*

      I always enjoyed taking a Myers Briggs because it was fun watching the administrator blanch when they saw my score (INTP.) It saved me from serving on a lot of teams.

      Reply ↓
    10. MigraineMonth*

      I knew a woman who got the same (or very similar) Myers-Briggs result as her boss. She convinced her boss that their personality type would be uniquely successful in the role and launched a campaign to get her boss to promote her and *fire everyone in the department* who didn’t have the same personality type.

      Apparently she was uniquely efficient, since she’d secretly outsourced all of her work to multiple people she’d contracted in Malaysia.

      Reply ↓
  18. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

    1. My advice, from someone with a LOT of experience in doing the wrong thing, is when you’re feeling a strong negative toward something (especially if it’s minor) is to ask yourself what you WANT the outcome to be if you voice it. Then really dig into how likely that outcome IS.

    (Btw this gets a lot harder when it’s speaking out against bigotry etc so it’s not a universal)

    A lot of my paranoia comes down to ‘but what if there’s a dangerous person/object out there?’ and while the workplace does have a vested interest in health and safety of the people there you also have to accept that trying to eliminate all risks is utterly impossible without adding in major discrimination.

    It’s okay to have feelings. But it’s a real benefit in work and life if you can question them.

    Reply ↓
  19. Kisa*

    For LW4.

    I get the impression, that this is a small company? LW being the only employee.
    I do get why they are feeling hurt and if this is indeed a small company, I do think a good manager would aknowlidge that their employee has been out for dealing with funeral arrangements and at least ask how they are doing. (Arranging funerals can be a pain in the ass for multitude of reasons and death of anyone can arouse difficult feelings that take a toll on you.) I think this falls to the same category as in if someone told you “i got engaged” you would say “congratulations”.

    I would probably be hurt too, but I dont think I would bring it up.

    Plus I know this is an Unpopular Opinion, but sometimes I do “fish” the reaction I would like to have. In this case I might say in passing how draining it was to arrange the funeral to the uncle/someone I cared. And _hopefullu get the “how are you bytheway?” in return. PERSONALLY I have found it helpful, even though I know its not “sencere” in a sence it would be if the person said it unprompted.

    Reply ↓
    1. bamcheeks*

      I do not think this is unpopular! People giving you cues to whether this is a “oh gosh I’m sorry” or “what a pain” or “congratulations!” moment is v helpful! People have different levels of skill at reading those cues, of course, but it’s generally good communication skills to communicate the emotion you feel about [fact] helps and it helps people know how to repond. It’s not insincere because they’re not guessing whether “I’m pregnant” is good news or bad news!

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Yeah, enough people *don’t* want to talk about sad/stressful things that are going on outside of work, that’s it’s actually helpful to signal if you *do.* And hopefully people will pick up on it.

        Reply ↓
    2. this-is-fine.jpeg*

      Hijacking this comment to say what do you expect someone to say?

      I have an employee who was out yesterday for a cousin or aunt’s funeral. At the time this employee notified me of needing leave, I said “sorry for your loss / my condolences”.

      Now the employee is back today and we have a meeting this morning. I was not necessarily planning to acknowledge but now this letter is making me think twice?

      Reply ↓
      1. bamcheeks*

        I would probably just acknowledge that they were out, and either say I hope it went smoothly or ask how it went. But if you already offered condolences in an email, and they seemed in a reasonably positive and business-focussed mood and you ended up going straight into the meeting without doing that, I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

        Reply ↓
      2. A Simple Narwhal*

        I think the issue was that the employer didn’t acknowledge the uncle’s death at all. You acknowledged your employee’s loss and offered condolences, so you’re already ahead of LW4’s boss.

        Fwiw I don’t think it would hurt to ask how your employee is doing with everything. It might be nice to also ask if they need anything – just because the funeral is over doesn’t mean your employee is back to normal and not still grieving. They might appreciate a bit of leeway. Or not! But it’s nice to offer.

        Reply ↓
        1. H3llifIknow*

          “I think the issue was that the employer didn’t acknowledge the uncle’s death at all.”

          Well, we don’t know that. We know the employer who is located elsewhere,* didn’t say anything upon OP’s return. We do not know if he said anything when OP called to say s/he would be out for a funeral. It’s possible boss DID say “sorry to hear that; how long do you think you’ll need” etc… and then felt he didn’t need to say it again.

          *I think it’s very different if you’re sitting together in the same office, versus communicating, apparently, largely thru email where your emotions aren’t as clear. Just my two cents.

          Reply ↓
          1. A Simple Narwhal*

            That’s fair, there’s a chance that LW4 is only referring to the boss not saying anything while they were gone or when they returned. My interpretation from the title (“My boss didn’t acknowledge my uncle’s death”) and the other things they mentioned (“he called me today and did not acknowledge anything about my uncle…”, “I feel hurt that he could not even acknowledge anything about my uncle…”) is that nothing was ever said.

            If when LW4 said they had to take time off to handle everything for the funeral and the boss had said something like “oh my goodness I’m so sorry, please take all the time you need, let me know if there’s anything we can do, don’t worry about work just take care of yourself, etc” then I don’t think LW4 would be as hurt to not get a small acknowledgement later.

            And maybe they did! After all we’ve seen people get more upset about smaller and sillier things than not receiving a second acknowledgement of bereavement (see: pettily re-sorting recycling, ordering guac is wasteful, mad that others not giving up their 401k or pizza to “save” the company, etc).

            Maybe I’m reading into something that’s not there, but whether or not the boss ever said “sorry about your uncle”, maybe LW4 is actually upset that they went through a really rough time and still checked emails and took phone calls for their employer, and then received zero acknowledgement for that struggle and sacrifice.

            Reply ↓
      3. londonedit*

        I think the most I’d say is ‘How are you doing? I hope it all went smoothly’ or similar. But even then I’d make sure I did it in a private context – either as a private message or one-to-one in person – just in case the person became upset.

        Reply ↓
      4. Kisa*

        Little late for you, but asking “How are you doing” in a symphatetic voice would be my go to. it lets the other person decide what to share.

        Reply ↓
    3. Making yourself visible in the dark (Bike Walk Barb)*

      The fishing approach is a great solution here. Since we all handle death differently, raising it yourself as the person who experienced the loss points people toward what would be most supportive and helpful to hear.

      I don’t think it’s too late either. At some opportune moment, not heading straight into a focused meeting but maybe via chat or appended to an email where it makes some sense, something along the lines of “Losing my uncle was really hard on me. I’m doing my best to deal and ask for understanding [or whatever might fit here] if I seem a little off at times for [time frame].” That’s a wide-open door for the employer of over 20 years to say, “I’m so sorry. Thanks for telling me.”

      Reply ↓
    4. MigraineMonth*

      One way to look at talking about the funeral is “fishing for the reaction you want, even though it isn’t sincere”.

      Another way is “opening up about the topic, so others know you’re okay talking about it and how they can best support you.”

      Reply ↓
  20. I should really pick a name*

    I don’t think #4’s question was actually answered.

    They wanted to know if they should bring up their disappointment/hurt.

    In general, I’d say no, just make a mental note of the fact that your boss might not be great at social graces.

    In this case, where the LW is the only employee and has been there for 20+ years, I think there’s room to say something, though perhaps not framing it as disappointment/hurt.

    Reply ↓
    1. Magpie*

      The question was answered. In the last sentence, she said “in a work context it usually makes sense to try to move past it”.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Yes, I don’t know that it’s going to be super productive to go to your boss and tell him you were hurt by him not asking about this. That’s a conversation I might have with a close friend, family member or romantic partner, but not my employer.

        Reply ↓
  21. A Book about Metals*

    Some people are awkward around death, but I do think it’s at least a little odd that LW has known the boss for 20+ years and they didn’t say *anything* ?

    Reply ↓
  22. E*

    LW 5- of all the potential controversies at the Park Slope Food Coop, this one really doesn’t make the cut! I sadly moved away after 11 yrs of membership but miss that whacky, wonderful place (the food and prices really are superb)

    Reply ↓
    1. Falling Diphthong*

      I believe it’s the origin of the observation that mushrooms are more closely related to chickens than to carrots, so it didn’t make sense to count them as produce. Which I can’t now dislodge.

      Reply ↓
    3. Sloanicota*

      The error in #5 I think was to widely post the job (or at least enough so that LW, who is apparently not a member, encountered it). If you are only interested in a list of 40 applicants, email that list or post the job in the coop itself, rather than seemingly to be trying to convince people to join your coop just for this purpose. It comes off as slimy otherwise.

      Reply ↓
    4. East Coast Transplant*

      Oh- Park Slope Food Coop vibes immediately. I am surprised there hasn’t been a sitcom based on the over-the-top goings on there.

      Reply ↓
    5. AnotherSarah*

      Same, I moved and I miss it so much! I still follow them on Insta. Site of so many glorious conversations and “overhead in” situations.

      Reply ↓
  23. Can’t think of anything clever*

    I’m an INTJ and have been every time I’ve taken the MBTI. Exactly where I am on the scale has varied somewhat each time. The jobs I’ve worked in the 40 years since college have routinely been in an industry that never appears on recommended for INTJs job lists. I’ve always done well, had great evaluations, etc. One consultant told me if you like a job you can easily compensate for those “extroverts tend to do better at” rules.

    I had a boss who latched onto any of these trends. We had both the Strength Finders book and workbook, both of which included a code to take the test. After he moved on to another trend a coworker and I gathered up all the unused codes and took the test a bunch of times. It wasn’t that hard to figure out how to eliminate the strengths that he thought were bad to have in our field.

    Reply ↓
      1. Starbuck*

        At least one of the people who created it was influenced by eugenics and racial determination of type and abilities so yeah… wild to me that it has not fallen more out of favor. Maybe this is a tired topic of debate here already but it’s not hard to find out more if you want to look beyond the Wikipedia pages on them.

        Reply ↓
      2. MigraineMonth*

        I knew a woman who took it very seriously, and convinced her boss that since they had the same MB type, she was obviously extremely qualified and deserved a promotion/favorite status. Last I heard she was trying to convince said boss to fire everyone in the department with a different MB type, since obviously they weren’t suited for the role. I don’t know how she would possibly know, since rather than doing her work she’d contracted several people in Malaysia to do it for her while she worked a different full-time job.

        Is “scheming backstabber” one of the MB types?

        Reply ↓
  24. Guest*

    LW1, tell us you have jealousy issues without telling us you have jealousy issues. If you’re just insecure, that’s yours to work on; if your wife has cheated in the past, that’s more complicated. Still, if these events are important at her company, she will need to attend them. Lots of workplaces have staff-only events. Of course, if you’re being excluded due to something else (other have mentioned racism, homophobia, and classism) it’s time for a talk about why your wife stays there.

    Reply ↓
    1. A Book about Metals*

      “Am I wrong for not wanting my wife to attend an after hours dinner where I’m excluded?”

      Originally I was going to say yes, of course your wife can attend a work dinner without you – it’s very common!

      Then I noticed it’s an “after hours” dinner. That could mean many things, but if the LW has seen Martin Scorcese’s “After Hours” he might be worried about things that can happen at that late hour especially in a big city

      Reply ↓
        1. fhqwhgads*

          Yeah. It’s not common for a dinner to start at 11pm (or whatever), so no reason to suspect these work dinners start super late. They just start after work.

          Reply ↓
      3. umami*

        I don’t know that it is necessarily ‘late’. I have gone to many work dinners/events that are over before it’s even dark, especially if it starts right after work. Rarely have I gone to an event where I was out past maybe 9 pm that wasn’t something that included a +1.

        Reply ↓
      4. Emmy Noether*

        From my experience with work dinners in big cities, what will happen is boring speeches, small talk, and running in heels to catch whatever public transport to finally get out of there. At most one will strain an eye muscle rolling them at a colleague that drank too much. Work dinners generally do not take place in locations where anything interesting happens (past stories on this site notwithstanding).

        Reply ↓
      5. londonedit*

        I’m not really sure what ‘an after-hours dinner’ could mean other than ‘an after-work dinner’! And dinners wouldn’t usually happen during work hours. I mean, I know ‘after-hours’ can have connotations of the risque, but I can’t see that being the case in a work context!

        In my company/industry/experience we don’t have things like company dinners, but the closest thing I can imagine is an awards do – we have a few of those in publishing, with varying degrees of swankiness. Most are extremely dull and corporate once you get there. It also costs the company a fair whack of money to pay for a table, and seats at the table are going to be taken firstly by authors nominated for awards, secondly by the senior editor(s)/commissioning editor/publisher who worked on the book, and thirdly if there’s any seats left then perhaps by an author’s plus-one or another staff member from Publicity or Sales or similar. I’d never expect to have a plus-one invitation.

        I think the only scenario where it wouldn’t be weird for a partner to be there would be something very informal like after-work drinks, but even then it’d have to be something like ‘My husband’s in town this afternoon and he’s asked if he can come and meet us at the pub – I’ll stay for a couple and then we’ll head off to get some dinner’.

        Reply ↓
      6. A Book about Metals*

        Yes, looking again it just means after normal work hours as in when they would typically have dinner anyway

        Reply ↓
      7. Curiouser and Curiouser*

        I mean…that movie came out 40 years ago. Even if it was realistic, I think it’s not wise to take advice from an 80s movie in 2025.

        Reply ↓
      8. Observer*

        but if the LW has seen Martin Scorcese’s “After Hours” he might be worried about things that can happen at that late hour especially in a big city

        I’m trying to figure out if this is a serious comment or snarky. Because the idea that someone saw a “black comedy” film and is now getting bent out of shape over an “after hours” work event is simply bizarre. It certainly does not make the question any more reasonable, for sure.

        Reply ↓
  25. JK*

    For #1 I read it as the LW was being excluded from their own work dinner, and that they were using “excluded” to mean “ostracized”! Alison’s response was therefore very confusing at first read.

    Reply ↓
  26. Beth Jacobs*

    OP # 5 I think you’re looking at this like a job applicant. Ie: is it ok that a job requires me to sign up to their coop for a year and fulfill all these wacky requirements just to get a job?
    But that’s the wrong lense to look at it. It’s not meant to get job applicants to join the coop. Instead, it’s recruiting from the coop community. It’s not a business like any other, hence the name cooperative.

    Reply ↓
    1. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

      Exactly. “We want to have super-user members”, not “We want to extract $ from you before we’ll offer you a job”.

      It’s in the same vein as that “I have to attend an expensive writer’s workshop before they’ll hire me”, except the intent is clear and reasonable.

      Reply ↓
    2. Dust Bunny*

      My food co-op memories are straight out of the 1970s but if I remember correctly, the one of which my parents were members required staff to be members, too, because that was the cooperative part of “food cooperative”. I don’t know if it had a length-of-membership requirement–I was a kid–but honestly prioritizing members who have already demonstrated a commitment doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

      Reply ↓
      1. Camillia*

        Thanks for this comment, simply because I couldn’t figure out what a ‘coop’ was in this context, since I only know that term as part of ‘chicken coop’. Then it dawned on me that it might be what we call a ‘co-op’, so I came to the comments to see if that was right. [sigh] It’s been a long day…

        Reply ↓
  28. HonorBox*

    LW1 – Barring some detail(s) that would change the dinner in question (you work at the same company, it is a holiday get together and other spouses are included, the dinner requires her jumping on a private jet and flying across the country, etc.) you need to stand down. WAY DOWN. A work dinner can have a very specific purpose. It can be part of a planning session. It can be a celebration of a work success. It can be for someone’s retirement. Or it can just be the boss wanting to take the team out. And often, spouses don’t get that invitation. And you absolutely should not suggest your spouse not go.

    Reply ↓
    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      Or that they’re so convinced they’re not in the wrong that they don’t think any context is necessary. Neither is a good approach when you want advice.

      Reply ↓
    2. Czhorat*

      While my first assumption is jealousy (as many others here have sayd) there is a slightly kinder explanation that LW1 has never worked in the type of job or industry in which there *are* these kinds of after-hours events, and wants a sanity-check as to whether or not this is a normal thing.

      If the spouse’s boss wanted to take her to a one-on-one dinner at an upscale restaurant that would certainly seem less appropriate than, say, the whole group heading out for dinner after a sales presentation.

      Reply ↓
      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        The former is still perfectly normal in many professions. You’ve gotta trust your spouse, or if you don’t address that with the spouse and leave the job out of it.

        Reply ↓
        1. Czhorat*

          To me it isn’t about not trusting your spouse, but about the spouse being put in an uncomfrtable position.

          If the LW were an employee whose manager took her on after hours “meetings” that looked like dates then the advice here would be to push back; that’s what I was thinking of.

          Reply ↓
          1. Eldritch Office Worker*

            But that would be the advice *if the spouse was actually uncomfortable*, not simply if the OP was.

            Reply ↓
          2. learnedthehardway*

            It’s up to the employee to determine whether or not this is an uncomfortable situation. NOT their spouse.

            For example, my work means sometimes I meet people one on one (quite frequently, in fact) – and often over dinner or for lunch, if I’m not meeting them in their offices. It’s business development, work update meetings, or interviews. Sometimes, these meetings happen at hotels (which have restaurants, lobbies, and meeting rooms, as well as bedrooms).

            It’s my business how I manage this. I would be very angry if my spouse was so disrespectful of me to object to my taking business meetings. I am more than capable of knowing what is and is not business appropriate.

            Reply ↓
  30. umami*

    I am having trouble understanding this: ‘As I was going through emails sent to me from my manager, I saw that everyone he emailed he acknowledged and wrote, “Happy Thanksgiving.” I did not get that same acknowledgement.’

    If OP is going through their own emails, how are they seeing everyone else he emailed and what he wrote? I feel like I am missing something here. But to the OP’s point, it seems like the first communication was a phone call, so if the boss acknowledged the loss at that point, they might not feel comfortable bringing it back up if you didn’t mention it. I have a staffer who lost her MIL just before the holidays, and I acknowledged the loss beforehand, but it hadn’t occurred to me to bring it up again. I’m wondering if I should (today is our first day back in the office), but my instinct is to follow her lead to see if she even brings it up. So I hope that perspective might help in not being hurt if the boss doesn’t bring it up.

    Reply ↓
    1. mango chiffon*

      I commented below, but I am someone who wouldn’t want people to acknowledge a loss of mine more than once. It’s unclear if the boss said anything when OP first told them, but if I had already said something, I would be hesitant to say more because I would feel like it would bring back the painful emotions like it would for me.

      Reply ↓
      1. umami*

        Yes, I feel the same way. I happened to be visiting home when my dad died, so I told my boss over the phone. Apparently he shared the news with our leadership team, and it was really hard to have people come visit me to offer condolences when I got back. I appreciated it, but also I wish I hadn’t had to deal with it at work.

        Reply ↓
      2. fhqwhgads*

        Yeah. I’ve got no beef with the boss here because in my experience it’s about 50/50 whether someone will be hurt at not getting a verbal acknowledgement of the loss vs whether they’d rather not discuss it At All at work other than when notifying of the need to be out. Since humans aren’t mind readers, there’s sort of no winning here.

        Reply ↓
    2. I.T. Phone Home*

      If OP is going through their own emails, how are they seeing everyone else he emailed and what he wrote?

      I assume LW’s boss copies LW on a lot of emails to 3rd parties

      Reply ↓
      1. Persephone Mulberry*

        Or even just forwarded the emails after the fact so that the LW was in the loop on stuff that happened while they were out.

        Reply ↓
  31. NotBatman*

    OP3, I let out a scream of sympathetic rage while reading your letter. There are so many absolute garbage personality assessments on the market — MBTI being the blockbuster, but 99% of other measures too — that we are rapidly heading for a state where the most convincing liars get the most jobs. Most of those tests are no more accurate than coin flips at determining retention.

    I hope that Alison is right about the test being only a conversation starter in this case, but the reality is that they are used in hiring decisions all the time. Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests is an excellent documentary about how these snake oil metrics get used to screen applicants on the basis of nonsense at best and whiteness/neurotypicality at worst.

    Reply ↓
  32. mango chiffon*

    LW4: Slightly different situation, but my grandfather died in January 2021 in India during the peak of the first wave of COVID after several weeks of being in the hospital and because of the travel restrictions, I wasn’t able to travel. I did take a day off for my own mental health, but anyone who sent their condolences (virtually via text, not in person) in the following days just resulted in me breaking down further. If it was in person, I’m not sure I would have been able to be very present at the office. Maybe it’s because of my own issues, but I am very hesitant to say something like “I’m sorry for your loss” more than once because I don’t want to keep bringing up something that could be hurtful. Even now, typing out about my grandfather makes me cry and I would feel horrible if giving more condolences would result in someone crying.

    Reply ↓
    1. Colette*

      Yes, some people want the acknowledgement of their loss, others want work to be a place where they’re not constantly reminded of their grief. The boss in this case made the wrong call, but for someone else, it would have been the right call.

      Reply ↓
  33. Another Kristin*

    LW4, when you are grieving, your emotions are really hair-trigger and your perspective can get a bit skewed. I remember losing it at a fellow shopper in a store when I was buying a coat to wear to a loved one’s funeral. She moved my purse to get at something behind it and it made me so incredibly angry that I actually yelled at a complete stranger in public! She was a bit RUDE about it, but my reaction was over-the-top because I was already hurting.

    Your boss may be kind of a cold person, or feel awkward around giving condolences, or may have genuinely forgotten why you were out for the week before Thanksgiving. I would try to let it go.

    Reply ↓
  34. Fsp3*

    LW2:

    The best fidget tools are ones that are not noticeable to others. Ones that make noise virtually never fall into that category. My spouse was a special education teacher during that boom of fidget spinners (2016-2017?) and was so annoyed that those became so popular because it made it much harder to find “good” tools. They’re so loud! Her preferred tools for elementary-aged children were large rubber resistance bands that fit across the front two legs of the chairs they could bounce their legs and feet against. It’s a lot easier (generally) to block visually than noise, especially below the desk.

    Not to put the onus on you, but I would look up what other fidget tools are out there that may be amenable for your work environment and make a passing suggestion when discussing how their tool is disruptive to you.

    Reply ↓
    1. Irish Teacher.*

      I’m also a teacher and while I was teaching mainstream at that point, I felt very like your husband. There was a real assumption outside teaching (and probably other professions that actually use this stuff) that fidget spinners were the fidget tool and I think a lot of people assumed there was some kind of science behind them and that therefore, supporting schools that banned fidget spinners meant you were opposed to allowing any fidgeting. And vice versa, that acknowledging the benefit of fidgets meant you advocated fidget spinners.

      I had a lot of difficulty trying to get people to understand that yes, I thought fidgets were beneficial but no, I did not think spinners were the best choice and no, that did not mean I was going against any kind of research.

      Reply ↓
  35. Crencestre*

    OP1, do NOT pressure your wife to decline invitations which don’t include you! Both she AND her colleagues and supervisor(s) could very well see this stance as overcontrolling and wonder why you don’t trust her to go to a normal work-related dinner alone (you DO trust her, don’t you?) If you don’t want concerned co-workers to start leaving little pamphlets about domestic violence and resources for abused spouses on her desk, zip your lip and don’t try to prevent her from going to those dinners!

    Reply ↓
  36. Jack Straw from Wichita*

    LW 5 – Speaking as someone who worked in an INCREDIBLY niche industry several years, sometimes it does make sense to require some level of previous involvement. The two people (of 10 total) we brought in without experience quit fairly quickly because there was too much to know that the rest of us inherently knew from being involved in the activity we supported for years as participants before we became employees.

    Reply ↓
  37. Any Given Fergus*

    OP4 I’m really sorry, that’s incredibly hurtful. My dad went on hospice and died just before Thanksgiving 2023 and I was out for a month. I came back to find that my boss did not arrange any kind of coverage for my work, as well as absolutely no acknowledgement for my loss (when the entire department took up a collection two months prior for a coworker who lost his father-in-law). It was so upsetting and I lost a lot of respect for my boss and coworkers that will never be restored. I’ve moved past it in the sense that I figured out how to still work there and treat everyone kindly, but I no longer go above and beyond for anyone, and the hurt and disappointment is still there, if dulled a bit. I’m sorry for your loss and I hope you are able to figure out how to move forward for your own benefit. Please take care of yourself.

    Reply ↓
  38. Former Lab Rat*

    LW1: Yes, you are wrong. After hours dinner could be to meet with clients, or brain storm with the team. It’s not a Roman orgy. Don’t torpedo her career with your insecurities.

    When I was working we would have seminar speakers come in and the norm was to go out to dinner the night before. That was for lab staff only. LOL – my spouse would have been bored to tears and beyond with a 3 hour dinner of scientific talk.

    Reply ↓
  39. Dinwar*

    It’s disturbing to me how quickly people jump, from a one-sentence question, to “Your partner is super-controlling and dangerous!!” It is, after all, entirely possible that this is an honest question, stemming from ignorance of office norms.

    I’d say 99% of the time that I’ve had after-hours meals with coworkers not only would spouses be unwelcome, but they’d be an active detriment. Most of the time we’ve discussed work, which raises two problems. First, there’s information involved that we need to be somewhat careful about spreading. Second, our spouses would have been bored out of their minds. To us a discussion of whether to use Interim Sampling Methodology, 500-square-foot composites, or grab samples on a grid is a fascinating question with many downstream implications; for anyone else it makes watching paint dry seme fascinating. Even if it’s not the point, let’s face it, most of the time the only reason you associate with your coworkers is the job, so the job is an inevitable topic of conversation. And what is the spouse going to do during that time? Now as the meeting coordinator not only do I need to manage the folks who have a vested interest in the topic at hand, but also a bunch of people who don’t.

    That said, different organizations have different norms. At the school where my wife works it’s taken as an insult if one’s spouse DOESN’T show up. It implies that one’s spouse doesn’t support you, that they are not interested in your career. Which can be annoying, because….well, while pedagogy and state standardized tests are, I’m sure, fascinating for teachers, I’d rather watch paint dry.

    Reply ↓
    1. knitted feet*

      I get what you’re saying, but the question wasn’t ‘Is this rude? Shouldn’t I be invited too?’

      It was specifically ‘Am I wrong for not wanting my wife to go?’ And the answer is yes, because you don’t get to veto things like that in a relationship.

      Reply ↓
    2. Observer*

      It is, after all, entirely possible that this is an honest question, stemming from ignorance of office norms.

      True. And the question is still bonkers. If the LW had asked “Is this normal?” or “Should I be having a conversation with my wife about this?” those would be reasonable responses to encountering totally new norms. But “She should not attend” is a very significant jump. And one that is not explained by this being something they have never encountered. Because “I’ve never seen this before” is not a really good reason to think you have a veto.

      Reply ↓
  41. Former Gremlin Herder*

    I’m not LW2, but I do have a fidget ring that’s main function is to click-oops! As others have said, it’s fine to politely ask someone to cut down on the noise. I try to be aware of how much noise mine is making for that exact reason.

    A related and funny story that is not at all directed at LW2-a few years back, I was in an all-day training with lots of people from different departments that I didn’t know. I had a different fidget that did make some amount of noise that was helping me stay sane through all the monotonous videos. Two people across the room from me were dealing with the boredom by having loud-whisper conversations CONSTANTLY. This room was not large, and it was very audible to everyone. I have a very low tolerance for overlapping conversational noise, and I was trying so hard not to glare at them from across the room. Before I worked up the courage to politely ask them to keep it the eff down, one of them started commenting “What’s that clicking noise? It’s so annoying!” and lo and behold, it was my fidget. Years later, I still feel a little irrational rage that I didn’t do the same thing and ask them to keep it down!

    Reply ↓
  42. I AM a Lawyer*

    My dad passed away unexpectedly in November. My boss has never once checked on me or even asked how I’m doing. It’s really soured my experience and I’m in the market for another job.

    Reply ↓
  43. Who Plays Backgammon?*

    op 1: more and more i see people are using the word “Excluded” in a way that sounds as if they believe they’ve been shunned, ostracized, or denied something that is rightfully theirs. come on–sometimes you just plain aren’t invited. Sometimes the attendees aren’t allowed to bring a plus-1.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS