our office banned couches, axe-throwing at the company holiday party, and more

by Alison Green on January 6, 2025

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

1. We can’t have couches anymore

I work as a staff member at a college. The other day, the HR director told us he is getting rid of all of the couches around administrative offices and lobbies. When asked why, he said, “Title IX. We want people to remain upright.”

I have no idea what this means. I have never had a student or colleague try to lay down on these 3.5-foot couches. I looked briefly at Title IX documentation, but could not find anything on seating. These campus-approved couches are utilitarian at best: uncomfortable, wrapped in ugly, fire-retardant patterns and just long enough to fit two people reasonably without touching. They are in glass-walled, visible offices and public waiting areas. We were told the two-person couches would be replaced with two chairs instead. Which would be right next to each other.

I am not sure what could happen on a couch — hanky panky? Or unwanted touching? Do you have any thoughts on whether “Title IX” is a reason to remove couches? I don’t really care what people sit on while they are waiting to meet with administrators, I just want to know if this absurd reason is actually real.

Title IX is the law that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, which can include sexual harassment and sexual coercion. Your HR director is saying, “We don’t want to make it easy for sexual contact to occur in our work settings, and we think the presence of couches may do that.”

It’s a bit silly to think that someone who wants to have sex in an office would require a couch to do it, but that’s what he’s referencing. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there was An Incident that led to the change — but if there was, it’s pretty likely that it would have happened with or without the presence of a couch.

2. Coworker offered to use food stamps for our holiday party

During the lead-up to our holiday party, a younger coworker offered to use their extra food stamps to get food for the team. They explained that they weren’t planning to use the stamps for themselves and wanted to contribute to the celebration. They went around and asked everyone for their requests.

While their offer was generous and clearly well-intentioned, it made some of my coworkers uncomfortable. No one knew quite how to navigate this. Some were unsure if it was appropriate to accept, given the purpose of food stamps. Others didn’t want to hurt the coworker’s feelings by declining.

It was a one-time occurrence, and I’d love your thoughts on how you would have navigated this as a coworker. It doesn’t feel right to escalate it to HR and even saying something to this employee, I believe, would cause them to feel a ton of shame and embarrassment.

You’re right that it wouldn’t be appropriate to use food stamps to fund a company party — and it would violate the terms of the benefit.

So: “You’re kind to offer, but we couldn’t accept that.” Or, “You’re kind to offer, but I don’t think they’re allowed to be transferred so we couldn’t accept that.”

3. We can’t use holiday party leave to do axe-throwing as a group

My manager is a good guy but a bit of a pushover. We are at an office with very few perks, but every year at the holidays we are allowed half a day of leave to attend an office holiday party.

This year my boss asked us if we would be interested in going to a local axe-throwing place (and paying our own way) during the workday as an office party. It is not mandatory, but we would be allowed to charge our “holiday party leave” time to attend. A sufficient number of people were interested so the party was booked.

Now my boss’s boss has told us we can still attend the party but we would have to charge PTO as we are going someplace with “weapons” involved. As far as I know, this isn’t an office-wide policy, she just made it up this year for this particular event. She also complained that she wouldn’t be able to attend the party anyway because someone has to be in the office.

We are all pretty bummed, but the bigger implication is she is just arbitrarily taking away our job benefits and we don’t think it’s fair. Do we have any recourse here? Should we throw axes in defiance of her edict?

Eh. I see why it grates, but it’s also not inherently outrageous to say that the office won’t sponsor parties centered around weapons. And while you’re paying your own way, they’d be sponsoring it in the sense of giving you party leave to attend … which might be making her worried about issues of liability if something goes wrong. (Of course, something could just as easily go wrong if you went zip-lining or any number of the other off-site activities some offices choose. Axe-throwing just makes the risk feel more obvious.)

You can certainly try to push back as a group on this type of thing, but ultimately it’s her call to make.

4. How to end a conversation after giving negative feedback

I just gave some negative feedback to one of my direct reports, but I struggled with how to end the conversation. Basically, she failed to do a follow-up task as per procedure because she was too busy, and that resulted with some employees not getting a recognition in due time and in our org, those recognitions are very important. I told her it was unacceptable and to ask for help if she is overloaded. I was able to use an example of someone close to her to drive home the importance of not letting such things slip.

She apologized and accepted the feedback and after that I had no idea how to close the conversation. Yes, I was not happy but it was not a life-or-death situation and other then her agreeing not to do it again in the future, there was no reason for me to prolong the conversation beyond that. The exchange was happening on a Teams chat. I had to pull away for a few moments to deal with an email, but after that I was able to come up with this: “I understand that you’ve been very busy while Varys is absent, but I cannot take action to help you out if I am not aware of what is going on. What is important going forward is that this doesn’t happen again. I will send the scrolls to the Wall via Raven.”

Is there a general script that I can use to close such conversations? I didn’t want to harp on the issue but I didn’t want to close it by softening the message after she apologized with an “It’s ok” as I would if it was a minor issue.

You’re overthinking it! It’s enough to just say, “Thank you.”

When you’re delivering critical feedback, once it’s clear the person gets it (and, if relevant, is taking whatever action you need them to take), you don’t need to reiterate the message again … and in some cases, doing that can come across as berating them. In your mind you’re summing up the main takeaways, but to the person being criticized, hearing it repeated can feel like you’re hammering it in when they’ve already made it clear that they get it.

That’s not a hard and fast rule; sometimes something is so serious that reiterating it in a summary at the end makes sense. But in this case, it sounds like you were really just looking for a way to close the conversation, and “thank you” (or “I appreciate it” or “I think we’re on the same page now, so thank you” or “sounds good, thank you” or similar) is a perfectly fine (and lower key) way to do that.

Related:
how to criticize someone’s work without making it awkward

5. Why did this rejection bother to say the job was already slated for someone else?

I’ve been casually looking for a new job for the past year or more, and I encountered this line in what was otherwise a fairly standard “we’ll keep your info on file, please search our site for other positions” email response: “This role was specifically intended for transitioning one of our temporary contract employees into a full-time position at Company.”

Is there a reason they would need to send this? I hadn’t interviewed or anything so it felt odd that they went into detail like that. I’ve certainly gotten enough “thanks, we’re going a different direction” messages that this one stuck out.

Transparency! They didn’t have to offer it, but they did. They’re letting you know that the rejection wasn’t about your qualifications, but simply that they’d already selected someone for the position. (And yes, it’s a problem that they even bothered to post the job if people didn’t have a real shot at it, but some companies’ internal rules require them to do that … even though this is very much not in the spirit of said rule.)

You may also like:
{ 413 comments }

{ 413 comments… read them below or add one }

    1. Professor Plum*

      Thanks you also for a very satisfying update season.

      At the same time, it is good to get back to our regular routine with new letters about workplace situations. Eager to see what new circumstances arise in 2025!

      Reply ↓
  2. Sandy*

    Regarding #1. I wonder if it is because some people might feel harassed by a person sitting too close or leaning onto them on the sofa? This might happen unintentionally if a person is large, or is sitting in the middle of the couch not realizing there is another person wanting to sit down. I sometimes see this situation in public transport, and know larger men who avoid sitting next to women for this reason.

    Reply ↓
    2. RIP Pillowfort*

      Still not okay because the terms of the SNAP program are you are using the food for yourself and the household exclusively. You can’t buy for people outside your household. If that gets reported, you would be suspended from the program for a period of time.

      I know about many well-intentioned people that have run afoul of this. Specifically buying food for people that definitely needed help but weren’t in their household. Heck you are supposed to keep your food separate (both storage and prep) from anyone you’re living with that isn’t eligible for the benefits.

      Reply ↓
    3. NotBatman*

      Sandy may be right — I work in higher ed too, and what came to mind were two issues. One was a male coworker who’d sit next to me and other women on the couch, and pat our knee or upper leg any time he made a point. Classic boundary-pushing behavior. The other was a horrible incident where a young woman was found lying naked and very drunk on a couch in the atrium; I don’t know exactly what brought her there, but can make a guess.

      That said, neither of those would have been resolved by removing the couches. OP1 might be right that this is an excuse to cover up “They’re too annoying to keep clean” or something.

      Reply ↓
      1. Johnny Slick*

        Yeah I don’t know, this still makes it feel more sinister, like it’s “there was an incident” but with an added layer of “we wouldn’t have to worry about this except for stupid Title IX and hiring wooooomen”. I do get that a lot of the time public organizations can be less inclined to punish a single bad actor and instead install some sweeping protocol but again that’s not a Title IX issue, that’s a creepy guy issue (in your case).

        Too often it’s my experience that these responses are in fact delivered in order to poison the well. Granted, Title IX has been around forever which makes it even more weird that that would be the policy they blame, but… I’m skeptical that all this was was “oh there was an incident with a gross dude and/or naked drunken lady”.

        Reply ↓
    4. CityMouse*

      Having worked in a lab in college and so been in the buildings late at night, my firm guess is college students were having sex on the couches.

      Reply ↓
      1. Smithy*

        Given the title IX answer – I totally agree.

        However, also from the collegiate experience, fabric sofas are great homes for bedbugs and if you have a lice prone campus – could also see removing those as supporting that.

        My office – where I genuinely assume no one is doing anything wild after hours – has some fabric couch/seat things in the kitchen area and honestly, it’s just so obvious those could benefit from a massive deep clean.

        Reply ↓
        1. Ann Onymous*

          Although a lot of waiting area chairs are also at least partially upholstered, so switching to those from couches wouldn’t really mitigate bedbugs or lice.

          Reply ↓
      2. Kelly L.*

        Yes. I would bet actual US dollars that there was, in fact, An Incident.

        Possibly the sex encounter itself was the issue, or possibly a mess left behind that someone else then had to deal with.

        Reply ↓
          1. Sloanicota*

            there is a whole field of “hostile architecture” – park benches that don’t work to sleep on, coffee shop tables that don’t invite someone to spread out there and work all day. OP enjoy the new waiting chairs with pigeon spikes on top :P

            Reply ↓
        2. Observer*

          or possibly a mess left behind that someone else then had to deal with.

          If there was an issue of students using couches that way, I would bet that it was the cleanup that caused this change. Mostly because there is a cost involved, but also the reference to Title IX. Consensual encounters are not a violation. But if a student is the one who gets stuck encountering or being asked to clean up the mess? Yeah, that could be seen as a potential violation.

          Reply ↓
        3. AnotherOne*

          my supervisor and i joke anytime we get an email about something not being allowed that something happened or that is weirdly specific.

          colleges and universities have historically been a hot bed of poor choices. (i have a lot of colleagues that were grad students in the early 2000s and prior- the stories are insane. when we here about lawsuits- we just assume they’re true.)

          Reply ↓
      5. Rainy*

        Yup. At my last institution, my unit’s leadership floated what they thought was a great idea to make our suite “more friendly and accessible to students” by letting students book individual staff members’ offices for “quiet study time” if the staffer was out of the office. I pointed out that what they were basically doing was offering students the opportunity to have sex in our offices, because, uh, humans gonna hume, and after a moment of horrified reflection, the plan was quietly scrapped, but I am still somewhat croggled by how a group of people who work with students could think that was a good idea. The actual bookable study/meeting/conference rooms around campus all have at the very least glass doors (and usually at least one wall that is all glass) *for a reason*.

        Reply ↓
        1. Skytext*

          Also, who wants strangers, especially students who are known for not always making good choices, alone in your office space? I can see so many other things going wrong: snooping, stealing your office supplies, moving stuff around, spilling drinks, eating and leaving a mess, damaging stuff, poor hygiene that stinks up your office, etc.

          Reply ↓
          1. Rainy*

            I can see how the constant pressure from the division to do more and to create visibility without actually providing more resources to do that with ends up creating a desperation for new ways to use what you do have, but it’s just such an incredibly stupid idea–for so many reasons, as you say! The thing that I remain shocked by is how that idea made it far enough to be pitched to the team as a whole with no one pointing out that the emperor is naked. That was very much a feature of that office, though. Lots of “no bad idea” brainstorming that made it way too far toward implementation because no one wanted to be the meanie who told someone their idea was bad, actually.

            Reply ↓
    6. Artemesia*

      It is just ridiculous to not have comfortable seating and to go to the effort of throwing away comfortable seating because someone somewhere might sit too close to somebody or make out after hours or whatever.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hey, I'm wohrkin heah*

        Yup. And people wonder why iGen is choosing trade school. Next up, removing chairs in the dining hall because one time it screeched on the floor and hurt someone’s ears.

        Reply ↓
    7. Elsewhere1010*

      Many years ago I worked for a law firm that had the most luxe offices I’d ever scene. Think polished wood paneling, mahogany conference tables, Chesterfield couches, etc.

      Late one night THE senior partner walks by one of the conference rooms. The door is open and he can see a female partner and a male associate in the throes of passion on one of those mahagony tables. The senior partner walks into the conference room, and the partner and associate freeze. The senior partner says only, “I spent eight thousand dollars on sofas” and walks out of the room.

      Reply ↓
  3. Msd*

    I think OP 2 was offering to buy food for the party with their food stamps not give the stamps to someone else to use to purchase food.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      I think Alison does mean it on that sense, transferring the benefit to the company. She points that this is easier to say “no, the company can’t accept the benefit” Because it’s 1) true; 2) removing the personal. It’s different from coworker saying, I’ll cook a meal and bring lunch for myself and you, my two friend—coworkers tomorrow, btw, I’m using food stamps, saying, “no, I don’t want you to use your food stamps on me.”

      Reply ↓
    2. higheredalumna*

      SNAP benefits are intended for, and recipients are directed to, use those benefits for their household. Yes, benefits get used to contribute to potlucks and other gatherings or to feed the neighbor kid, but don’t go announcing you’re misusing the benefit. While I would never report such a use, you never know who amongst your coworkers would feel “compelled” to lodge a fraud report.

      Reply ↓
      1. doreen*

        That’s what I don’t get – they aren’t actual stamps anymore, so you can’t just hand someone a book of them. You’d have to give them your card so I would assume that this person was going to purchase the food, especially since they were going to ask for requests. The only thing that sort of makes sense to me is that it wasn’t a potluck sort of event with everyone contributing but rather that the company/boss was paying for the party and this one person wanted to contribute and explained about the “extra” food stamps so people wouldn’t treat it like she was offering to pay for food especially for the party but more like she said ” I have some (soda/beer/chips) left over from Thanksgiving that I’m never going to use , I’ll bring it for the party”

        Reply ↓
        1. fhqwhgads*

          I think it’s pretty clear they were saying they were going to do the shopping themselves and then bring the stuff in. I can’t tell if part of the awkward was “this isn’t even a potluck” – which is how I first read it, or if maybe it is a potluck and the offerer was just being unnecessarily specific. Either way, the transparency from this person is potentially putting their benefit at risk, so it’s odd they announced it.

          Reply ↓
          1. Jack Straw from Wichita*

            Yeah, since they were offering to buy items I assumed that meant they were asking others what their preferences were to go shop for the party themselves. They weren’t offering to accompany the person to the store to use the benefit.

            Reply ↓
    3. JSPA*

      Unless you’re feeding a guest in your house, it’s still food stamp fraud (a criminal act that opens the food stamp recipient–not the food eaters–to prosecution). “That’s a kind urge, but we can’t encourage you to do something criminal to be able to participate, you’re totally welcome to eat without bringing anything, this time” is probably how I’d handle it, if it’s a borderline pot-luck. Leave out the second part if it’s a random bizarre offer. (And do not ever exchange money for food-stamp food, as this is criminal on your part as well, and federal money laundering is way more than one should take on to “be polite.”)

      Reply ↓
    4. RIP Pillowfort*

      That’s still against the rules of the program. The rules are strict. You can’t buy for people outside of eligible household members that live with you. If you have ineligible people living with you, there’s “prep and store your food bought with food stamps separately” guidance.

      OP’s coworker is putting their program eligibility in danger by doing this.

      Reply ↓
      1. JSPA*

        I just checked the rules, and occasional / incidental visitors are OK, so long as the food is shared at your house, and there’s no question of them being part of the household (by living there, by frequency, or what-have-you). Bringing food to others elsewhere isn’t an acceptable use, and while it’s not highly likely to get reported…it’s still a federal crime. Literally, its theoretically more legally problematic than shoplifting. And thus, REALLY not something you want to talk about at work, just as you would obviously not offer to shoplift some fancy chocolates for the party.

        Reply ↓
        1. Turanga Leela*

          Do you have a source/link for bringing food elsewhere being a federal crime? I’ve never seen incidental use of SNAP for a party or potluck treated as fraud. I agree that you can’t go around asking people what you should buy them with your SNAP benefits, but if you buy food with SNAP and then bring something you bought to a work potluck, that wouldn’t strike me as fraud. (I used to do hunger policy work, so I’m not saying my instincts are perfect, but I’ve spent a lot of time dealing with federal nutrition regulations.)

          Reply ↓
          1. JSPA*

            Hmmm…reading more closely what I found at https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Can-I-use-food-bought-with-Supplemental-Nutrition-Assistance-Program-benefits
            they only answer the question about preparing food for guests in the house, and the point is to compare “guests” vs “paying customers” vs “additional unlisted household members.”

            But while they could easily have added “or guests outside the house,” they don’t include that (and I tried searching for variants without luck).

            Then there’s SNAP facts (the most basic layer of info) at https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/facts which says,

            “Spending Your SNAP Benefits
            SNAP benefits can only be used for food and for plants and seeds to grow food for your household to eat.”

            (Though that seems to be focused on food and seeds vs other household needs.)

            and under Responsibilities,

            “Do not sell, trade, or give away your SNAP benefits, or any SNAP cards or documents.”

            You’d have to argue that only money is a SNAP benefit (and the food isn’t) and/or that bringing food to a potluck isn’t “giving [it] away.”

            I have not heard of someone being charged or even threatened, unless they were already in other legal trouble, and the police were looking for ways to mess with them. But in theory, once you hit $100 (which is both “actually quite a lot” and “maybe not more than we’re talking about, in this scenario), and you’re intentionally violating the rules of the program? Then at least on paper, it can be treated as a felony.

            Once you’re poor, it’s really really easy to come up with additional legal problems, whether from peeing on a tree, or ignoring a summons or fine sent to a past address.

            So yeah, if you can toe the line on the food stamp rules (barring edge cases where doing so is putting yourself in direct physical risk or risk of sudden eviction) it really makes sense to be careful. Because prosecution is at their discretion, and (ugh) some people really are that vindictive.

            Reply ↓
      2. Mockingjay*

        There’s a larger point that hasn’t been addressed: affordability of company events. If an employee is receiving benefits, a party/potluck contribution can severely impact their budget. (Whether they should be paid more for their role is a separate thread.)

        I think the young employee’s statement was an attempt to bring this point up. It’s a very awkward thing to discuss, especially around coworkers who earn a great deal more in comparison.

        Suggestion: while outside of what OP2 asked, perhaps they could have a quiet word with HR or management about funding future events with corporate funds to avoid strain on any employee’s budget.

        Reply ↓
        1. RIP Pillowfort*

          Oh, I completely agree.

          But the reality of it is the employee does have them, they probably very much need them, and they absolutely should not be putting their program eligibility at risk. The discussion of adequate pay should be had but having been in pure survival mode eating beans and rice for weeks on end? Don’t mess up your lifelines. My concern is purely for the employee because what they did is a reportable offence and could get them banned from the program.

          Reply ↓
        2. Not on board*

          Yeah, all I can think about is the fact that the employee earns little enough to qualify for food stamps. This seems somewhat outrageous. Outside of extreme situations like the employee earns okay money but has 8 kids and is a single parent, companies should be paying people enough that they don’t need food stamps. Walmart is particularly bad for this – always record profits but employees using food stamps. Which means that their profits are taxpayer subisdized – absolute madness.

          Reply ↓
          2. Massive Dynamic*

            I hate this too – in an ideal world, those running these companies would feel actual shame at having employees on food stamps.

            For this employee in question, I hope that they end up using their extra for pantry staples like pasta, beans, etc.

            Reply ↓
          3. megaboo*

            A similar situation happened to a friend of mine. She works for a government entity and donations of food were for employees of the entity…maybe the salaries need to be raised?

            Reply ↓
          4. JSPA*

            Or they did qualify before, and now are newly employed and no longer do qualify moving forward, but they still have some rollover benefits???

            Reply ↓
          5. Rainy*

            At my last institution, all of our temporary staff (roles that require a master’s degree!) were paid so little that they qualified for Medicaid and food stamps and had multiple other jobs. Most of the permanent employees have two jobs, or more.

            Reply ↓
        3. Observer*

          I think the young employee’s statement was an attempt to bring this point up. It’s a very awkward thing to discuss, especially around coworkers who earn a great deal more in comparison.

          I’d be extremely surprised. Sure, there could easily be an affordability issue for the CW, and you are also right that this is generally something that companies and organizations need to be *very* careful and cognizant of. But using this offer as a way to bring up the issue is way too roundabout, indirect and subtle. *Especially* for people who would never in a million years think of the issue on their own.

          Reply ↓
          1. RagingADHD*

            I think if anyone in the office is on food stamps, it’s not a matter of “there could easily be.” We already know for sure there is an affordability issue. Because they literally can’t afford to feed themselves on their salary, much less contribute to a party.

            Reply ↓
        4. AnotherOne*

          yeah, this came up recently on a reddit thread. someone mentioned that they had so little money that when their job had a holiday potluck, they told their manager that they weren’t participating cuz they had brought lunch so they were eating in their car.

          the reality was they just didn’t have money for lunch let alone to bring in a dish for everyone.

          Reply ↓
        5. Chirpy*

          THIS. If the company pays so little that someone is on food stamps, at the very least the company should be providing food for events, and not doing potlucks (and they absolutely need to take a look at their pay structure for raises)

          Reply ↓
      3. Observer*

        If you have ineligible people living with you, there’s “prep and store your food bought with food stamps separately” guidance.

        Talk about performative nonsense. The idea that people are officially told to do that is beyond ridiculous.

        But it does mean that if some self-righteous busybody gets on their high horse or someone decides that they want to get anyone involved in trouble, they apparently have hook.

        Reply ↓
        1. Union Rep*

          It is a national disgrace that this even has to be the very first comment chain for this question. Draconian means-testing is a blight on society.

          Reply ↓
      4. H3llifIknow*

        But if they hadn’t announced that they were using food stamps and just said “I’ll bring in cookies” nobody would have known.

        IMHO the more important question the OP and her colleagues should be asking themselves is “why is one of our gainfully employed staff reduced to using food stamps to get by?”

        Reply ↓
        1. Worldwalker*

          A state legislator a few years ago (before he got arrested for DV) wanted to require SNAP recipients to buy only store-brand food.

          This wasn’t really to make them save money, though he pretended it was; if you watch the sales and BOGOs, you can get name-brand food cheaper than store brand. Sometimes by a lot. It was solely to shame the SNAP recipients.

          The next four years, we’re going to see a lot of that.

          Reply ↓
        2. Yankees fans are awesome*

          Or, “Why is employee announcing the food stamps angle?”

          I mean, just bring food. Or don’t.

          Reply ↓
    5. ecnaseener*

      Regardless, imagine the PR nightmare if it got out that this company was taking [the food from] their employee’s food stamps. However much they insist that she volunteered it willingly, that’s SUCH a bad look. Whether it’s technically allowed or not, they can’t knowingly accept it.

      Reply ↓
    6. LaminarFlow*

      LW was definitely offering to buy food for the party with their SNAP benefits.

      This is a passive-aggressive, yet nicely played move from this employee. Offering to use their SNAP benefits to provide for the party can signal to management (in a pretty alarming way) that this person doesn’t make enough money at their job to buy groceries.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lexie*

        Maybe, maybe not. The employee said they had food stamps they weren’t intending to use. So, I’m wondering if this is a new employee who had been receiving benefits but no longer needs them because they have a new job but still has some of their last disbursement left.

        Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          This happened to me. When I got a job after several months of unemployment, I suddenly had both an income and some leftover SNAP money that I no longer depended on. In my case I left the SNAP money in the account assuming that it would eventually be recouped, but I can see someone else thinking of it as a gift certificate that was about to expire and deciding to share their bounty.

          Reply ↓
        2. Susan*

          It could also be that her kids go to a high poverty, 100% free lunch district. My kids do, and sometimes every family with kids in the district gets a surprise SNAP card with, say, $200 on it during the summer when free lunch and breakfast are difficult to access. We do not otherwise qualify for SNAP, so I – and other families like mine – will use the cards to purchase food for the school food pantry, but the use is not monitored.

          But also – because my kids go to school in a high-poverty district, I sadly know lots of families with one or more adults in the family who work full-time, and they still qualify for SNAP. So this one could go either way.

          Reply ↓
      2. SopranoH*

        Kind of dangerous way to play that. I’ve seen it more than once in my working life. There’s always going to be one coworker who hears this that will gleefully report any perceived misuse of SNAP benefits.

        Reply ↓
      3. Lydia*

        Please don’t attribute some sort of sneaky sideways move when for all we know the person was offering out of sincerely wanting to help. It could have been they were attempting to highlight they don’t make enough money, but it’s just as likely they wanted to pitch in.

        Reply ↓
      4. Annony*

        I don’t think it was nicely played. They risked loosing their food stamps if caught making the illegal offer. It also put their coworkers in a very uncomfortable spot which I don’t think was fair.

        Reply ↓
  4. Brad Deltan*

    FWIW, I can also guarantee LW1 that their college’s HR is MASSIVELY misinterpreting Title IX here. There’s a reason so many colleges hire Title IX experts. Also a reason why people cycle in and out of those jobs so frequently: it’s a hellish position and it frequently results in the expert being a scapegoat while having no authority to implement policies that might ACTUALLY help…unlikely this idiotic “no couches” idea.

    https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/sex-discrimination/Title-IX-and-Sex-Discrimination

    If your college has a Title IX office, and they likely do, go talk to them. Or call. Do not write or email; there are so, so, so many legal issues/lawsuits around Title IX that you really have to CYA at all times whenever you even get close to it. But it’s likely your HR is either being unintentional boneheads desperately trying to comply with an impossible mandate…or they’re just being jerks.

    Reply ↓
      1. Emmy Noether*

        Very possible, but I think that’s actually worse. The couch was surely not the cause or perpetrator of whatever incident, and removing it won’t make anything better. In German we call this “Aktionismus” – doing something entirely useless for the sake of feeling one has done something.

        Reply ↓
        2. Incarnadine*

          It isn’t the cause or the perpetrator, but bad seating situations can definitely make an already-bad situation worse by forcing you to sit in arm’s reach. (see also: Group photos)

          While I’m not convinced it’s a Title IX issue, I’m definitely +1 for chairs. It’s a space for waiting with other people that you have professional business with, not for sprawling out and getting comfortable.

          Reply ↓
          1. Observer*

            It isn’t the cause or the perpetrator, but bad seating situations can definitely make an already-bad situation worse by forcing you to sit in arm’s reach

            Agreed. I’ve seen plenty of situations where chairs (especially ones with arms a couple of inches away from each other) would have been quite useful. And it also tends to help out with situations where someone takes up a whole couch because of how they are sprawled out.

            Reply ↓
      2. linger*

        The scorched-earth reaction further suggests:
        You’re not allowed to know exactly what happened. You may not want to know.
        And if you did know what happened in this couch, you might not want to keep it.

        Reply ↓
      3. Jackalope*

        I disagree with this interpretation. If something happened then there are steps that can be taken to deal with that, but getting rid of all of the couches won’t make it so that whatever happened doesn’t happen anymore. It will just make it so there’s less of the comfortable furniture for sitting on, but jerks will still be jerks.

        Reply ↓
        1. Antilles*

          You’re missing the bureaucracy here. The reason you’d removing all couches after the Couch Incident is *not* because administration thinks couches are the problem. It’s because the administration wants to be seen doing something and removing all the couches serves as a highly visible symbol that yes we are taking the Couch Incident seriously, are working to address the concern, etc.
          It’s about appearances, not efficacy.

          Reply ↓
          1. Brad Deltan*

            Yes! YES! This says it much better than I was saying it. Thank you, Antilles!

            This is what I meant by it’s a massive misinterpretation of Title IX. Getting rid of couches has NOTHING TO DO WITH TITLE IX. And, in fact, it just makes things worse because it makes Title IX seem like a bad joke.

            But it is, however, all about stupid higher ed bureaucracy that feels it must “do something” publicly but privately knows they must “do something that does nothing.”

            Reply ↓
        2. Falling Diphthong*

          Getting rid of all of the couches won’t make it so that whatever happened doesn’t happen anymore.
          This. If there was An Incident, then it was not the presence of a small couch that made it possible. Removing the couches would just shift the same behavior to be not-on-a-couch.

          I shall thus launch into AAM fanfic: Someone hid the hard drive with all the spy information in a campus couch, but they can’t remember which couch, and so collecting all the couches is the solution someone hit on. The brilliance is to blame this on the bureaucracy and a regulation, because people expect those to be impenetrable and not make practical sense.

          Reply ↓
        3. Great Frogs of Literature*

          I don’t think that TheBunny is saying that it’s a moral imperative that the couches should go, just that that’s the way the org operates. I’ve known a number of institutions that reacted to unwelcome developments by instituting policies that did not always feel like a reasonable or proportionate response, but something bad happened, so Someone Must Do Something, and in this case it’s the couches that are the scapegoat.

          Reply ↓
        4. fhqwhgads*

          Except the couches weren’t even comfortable, the letter says. So it doesn’t matter.
          I think it’s much more likely there was An Incident and someone decided the couches needed to go, and then came up with whatever they thought was the most plausible-don’t-ask-questions type of answer to give when asked about why the couches were going.
          I don’t think anyone in the situation genuinely believes the couch-removal is fixing a problem, or that it’s actually required by Title IX. It’s just the line they’ve decided to use in order to not get into detail.

          Reply ↓
        5. Observer*

          but getting rid of all of the couches won’t make it so that whatever happened doesn’t happen anymore.

          It depends on what happened. Sure, there is no one thing that can make people behave themselves. But there are definitely things that can nudge people away from some problematic behavior, especially when the idea is to try to keep the behavior from happening in a particular place.

          Reply ↓
      4. Lenora Rose*

        Whether or not this is true, blaming the removal on the wrong policy is liable to cause other issues.

        They can decide the couches have to go due to An Incident without pulling in an extremely weird and probably wrong blame on a serious legal process. Just like you could fire someone who stole from the company without claiming it was to avoid an audit; whatever happened was probably wrong regardless of whether or not it would actually lead to an audit.

        Reply ↓
      5. Annony*

        Or someone hated the ugly couches and is using “Title IX” as an excuse to shut down any pushback from the couch lovers while knowing darn well that Title IX is irrelevant.

        Reply ↓
    2. These Boots*

      (Content warning: SA) I work in Title IX and can guarantee that the removal of the couches was absolutely tied to something bad that happened. It could be that the person who experienced harm asked that one particular couch be removed so it wasn’t a constant reminder of what happened to them, and that the school then made a decision to remove *all couches to prevent similar situations. Who knows? The bottom line is that HR should not have even hinted that the removal of the couches was tied to Title IX, and the LW doesnt get to know any other specifics unless they were directly involved in the incident. Bad HR! Also, please consider what this feels like for the person who was harmed, asked for one couch to be removed, and now has to listen to their coworkers/classmates complain about the institution’s reaction. (FWIW, in case it drives the point home, the person who experienced harm could be male).

      Reply ↓
      1. Lydia*

        As a public institution, why does it matter if it comes out there was something related to Title IX as long as no other details were given? Seems like an incident where something was investigated as a Title IX violation would be a matter of public record, at the very last that it happened without any specific details.

        Reply ↓
      1. ecnaseener*

        I agree, that seems unlikely. At most they might say “hey, HR director, we don’t think this is necessary to comply with title IX” but I doubt that’ll change anything — it doesn’t have to be strictly necessary for him to think it’s worth doing.

        Reply ↓
      2. Dr. Hyphen did her PhD on SV prevention*

        It’s not about saving the couches, it is more that this is such a gross misunderstanding of Title IX that the Title IX office should be aware because it probably means the couch-banning office needs a refresher on Title IX, as the next misunderstanding might not be as harmless.

        But also, I think most people would want to know if someone was blaming a policy that was within the purview of their office for a particular decision when it has nothing to do with the actual policy.

        Reply ↓
    4. Dr. Hyphen did her PhD on SV prevention*

      As the username suggests, I did my dissertation on sexual violence prevention and briefly considered a career in Title IX- until I noticed that just about every time there was a high profile case of sv on campus, the campus always responded to the outrage with “we fired our Title IX director” even though it was glaringly obvious from the coverage of the case that the issue was not the Title IX director, but that no one told the Title IX director what happened.

      Reply ↓
    5. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

      They are also controlling whatever they can control.

      They don’t know if the tenured professor is hitting on students, or vice versa, but they can be damned sure there are no couches.

      Reply ↓
    6. JSPA*

      Title IX is not only about sports parity.

      If someone walked in and saw people either getting mutually frisky or (ahem) receiving sexual services on the couch, I’m pretty sure they could indeed insist that the college reduce the risk of further sexual exposure by making the space less inviting.

      Doing something that inconveniences the majority of people to reduce the use of spaces for sexual goings-on has a long history. (When I was a student they took the doors off the bathroom stalls in a campus building that included publically- accessible space as well as a large library, because of activity in the stalls.) If the complaint was filed on general Title IX grounds (rather than exposing the miscreants for public indecency), this could indeed be (formally) a Title IX thing.

      Reply ↓
    7. Observer*

      If your college has a Title IX office, and they likely do, go talk to them.

      Why?

      It could be that this is actually a Title X issue. Or it could be something that someone thinks could be a Title X issue. Or it could be the manager being an idiot. But the Title X office is not going to do anything about this in any case. Because they have enough on their hands that they are not going to waste time, energy, and capital (social / political / organizational) to rescue the couches. It’s just not important enough.

      Even if it’s just HR guy being an idiot or deliberately obnoxious, there is simply no reason for them to do anything here. I can’t imagine any way in which replacing the couches with chairs is a violation, so they have no skin in this situation.

      Reply ↓
      1. Willow*

        If there was an incident and the officer is responding by removing the couches, it’s possible that they didn’t follow the proper procedure and the title ix office might not know about it. Especially since they announced to everyone that it was because of title ix. The purpose of contacting the title ix office isn’t to keep the couches, it’s to make sure they’re aware of the situation so they can do their job.

        Reply ↓
      2. Lydia*

        Except the flip side of removing couches is that they would hopefully be replaced by some other accessible seating, because that might be another sort of violation. People who use mobility devices such as crutches or canes or walkers might need a place to rest that readily available.

        Reply ↓
    8. Taskmistress*

      In my experience working in higher ed, people will often use “Title IX” as a placeholder for “anything related to sex/SA” regardless of whether a report or investigation ever occurred. That’s my guess as to what’s happened here.

      Reply ↓
  5. WoodswomanWrites*

    #3 reminds me of a situation at a place where I worked years ago. Our location included a gaga pit–think kickball in a small enclosed space–and at the end of the work day, a couple people wanted to use it. Our manager loudly proclaimed to everyone that we were now officially off the clock and if anyone got hurt, they couldn’t file for worker’s comp. I can’t remember if it was that day or another one, but someone did in fact suffer a knee injury that required surgery.

    Reply ↓
    1. Archi-detect*

      yeah axes can bounce back and have to be sharp to stick in the target. I get the workers comp worry (not that I’m discouraging axe throwing, knowing the risks)

      Reply ↓
      1. Redaktorin*

        FWIW, getting hurt at a work party organized by your boss is going to be a workers’ comp issue regardless of how the company tells you to bill those hours—at least in my state. And injuries on the premises while using facilities owned by your employer can still be a problem even if your boss preemptively announces they don’t intend to pay up.

        It’s really, really a lot better to just shut this stuff down.

        Reply ↓
      2. AnotherOne*

        true but my office group did archery as a EOY thing and the person running our session made sure none of us could do anything stupid so there was no risk of injury beyond us walking up the stairs. (the stairs were quite steep)

        and the axe places were there is drinking and axe throwing have to have pretty strict rules cuz they have their own liability issues so i don’t imagine there is a huge risk.

        Reply ↓
        1. Not Hawkeye*

          I injured myself minorly at a work archery event. Not even on the “pointy” end – on the notch end. The range gave me a bandaid for it. I didn’t file for workman’s comp.

          Reply ↓
          1. Chas*

            Yes, I used to do archery and all my (minor) injuries were because of the bowstring snapping on my arm when I held the bow wrong. I was never even close to getting shot because I everyone was following all the guidance about when to go to the line to shoot, to only face the targets when you were handling your arrows, not to try to talk to anyone who was at the shooting line, to wait at the line until you were told it was safe to go to the target to get your arrows back, etc…

            Reply ↓
      3. toolegittoresign*

        Most of the axe-throwing places are sort of like bowling alleys. You stand a good 10 – 20 feet from the target, which is at the end of a little corridor. No one is allowed in the corridor while axes are being thrown. They do bounce back, but never far enough to come anywhere near the throwers, and the corridor barriers sort of limit how far the axe can bounce off. Usually, you’re also being supervised by an employee who will shout if you’re in any way not following the safety rules. Not to say it’s totally risk-free, but I would say the risk is similar to bowling or darts.

        My father played softball with his company and got more than one concussion on the field. It’s interesting what’s perceived as dangerous vs what isn’t.

        Reply ↓
    2. Junior Assistant Peon*

      My company did an employee party at a place that had axe-throwing, and I was shocked that we were allowed to just go ahead and throw axes without getting some kind of a safety talk first.

      Reply ↓
      1. UKDancer*

        Interesting. We did it once at a team building event many years ago and several jobs back. There were a range of activities and this was one option which a lot of people enjoyed. We definitely got a talk about safety and had to sign something to say we understood the risks.

        I would expect something of the sort at any reputable place in the UK.

        Reply ↓
      2. Roland*

        That’s quite surprising. When I’ve done anything like that there’s always been waivers to sign and safety demonstrations, regardless of whether I was with work or friends. You may have gone somewhere kind of sketchy.

        Reply ↓
      3. Falling Diphthong*

        A dumb-things-at-work thread had an example of axe-throwing: Clearing brush at a summer camp, someone asked the new employee to hand him the axe, and the employee threw it. No malice–he thought it would be funny, so he did the thing, and then everyone was appalled and he belatedly realized why that might have been a bad idea. Fired, because the combination of sharp objects, young kids, and this employee’s judgment was clearly not going to work out.

        Reply ↓
      4. Baela Targaryen*

        How odd — I’ve done it many times, and every time I’ve done it there has been a safety talk and multiple barriers preventing people from being anywhere near where an axe was thrown.

        Reply ↓
      5. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        This probably varies a lot by location – my wife once needed to go into a place with axe-throwing just to use the restroom (first place we found that was open) and she needed to sign a waiver just for that.

        Reply ↓
      6. Another Kristin*

        I went to an axe-throwing birthday party once and really enjoyed it! We did get an extensive safety talk at the beginning and the axes were not really sharp – sharp enough to bite into the target, but not sharp enough to break your skin. Obviously this will vary between axe-throwing establishments.

        Honestly, it was a lot of fun, I should go axe-throwing again…though probably not with my co-workers.

        Reply ↓
        1. Butterfly Counter*

          This has been my experience.

          Waivers out the wazoo and a safety demonstration. However, I’ve also been a part of a fundraiser where we rented out several axe throwing lanes for free use between, say 6 and 8pm. Then, it was a come-when-you-can situation. People who showed up at 6 got the safety demo. Those who came later were given the waivers, explanations, and rules while the specifics were then communicated by those who had been there longer.

          Reply ↓
      7. Chirpy*

        The organization I volunteer with sometimes does axe/knife throwing events, and we have waivers, safety training for all participants, and safety officers required to be present – and you can be turned away if you’ve drunk any alcohol. It’s why I don’t go to those axe-throwing bars, I don’t want to risk it being one of those unsafe places!

        Reply ↓
      8. Lenora Rose*

        That’s very strange; the only time I can think of I saw an equivalent “Just stand behind this line and go” was when a bunch of archers were being set up to try axe/knife/javelin throwing (We got a talk on technique; but the safety rules are extremely similar).

        Reply ↓
      9. DataWonk*

        That’s surprising – every axe throwing place I’ve been to had an instructor there for every throw, unless you were registered in a league (and even then, if you were with guests, the instructor had to be there with them).

        Reply ↓
      10. Hohumdrum*

        I do it while drunk on mead at the Renaissance fest every year, they make the blades pretty dull I suspect. Never seen an injury yet

        Reply ↓
        1. Chirpy*

          The renfair I went to last summer had such horribly maintained equipment, I would have failed all of it if they brought it to my events. It was an accident waiting to happen.

          Reply ↓
    3. ChickenNoodle*

      I am an adjudicator for my area’s WCB. Your manager is not the one who decides whether or not something is allowable and while it wouldn’t have been cut and dry, that would most likely have been allowable under my area’s policies.

      Reply ↓
    4. Trotwood*

      I work for a big company and there’s a whole list of activities that are not permitted for company-sponsored events. Nothing with a weapons theme (axe-throwing, paintballing, etc.), nothing that involves moving at high speeds (go-karting, zip lines)…it’s just the way it goes.

      Reply ↓
      2. JSPA*

        Where do they draw the line? Darts?

        xe-throwing was a niche lumberjack thing for decades (centuries?) before becoming a hipster thing; like log-rolling, it wasn’t safe, but it was all about lumberjack job skills, not about weaponry. (Compare that golf clubs and baseball bats can be used as lethal weapons, but you wouldn’t ban baseball or golf on the basis of being sports based on weapons.)

        Reply ↓
        1. Not A Raccoon Keeper*

          My thoughts exactly. Maybe it’s my Canadian showing, but axes are for wood, not people! If I can cross the US border (with xray) with an axe (hatchet, but still) and without question, I don’t think it counts as a weapon.

          Reply ↓
          1. Travel for Life*

            Exactly. Fellow Canadian and an axe in a sanctioned, axe throwing event company is no more a weapon than a steak knife in a restaurant. It’s really interesting that one person’s tool is another person’s weapon.

            Reply ↓
      3. Susan*

        That is sad. My boss took us go-karting this summer. There is a place around the corner from our office, and it was a lot of fun. I great way to let off steam, even for me, one of the slowest.

        Reply ↓
      1. A Lab Rabbit*

        Yeah, it was developed in Israel, and I think the name means “touch touch”.

        Also, “Radio Ga-Ga” is Queen song from the 1980s. (Gosh, time flies.)

        Reply ↓
    6. Lisa*

      At our company we are specifically forbidden to ride go-karts at any company event. There was apparently An Incident several years ago and now our liability (or worker’s comp, not sure which) insurance excludes it.

      Reply ↓
    7. Freya*

      Here in Australia, one of the tests as to whether worker’s comp applies is whether the worker’s attendance is considered to be an activity arising in the course of their employment. If the employer encourages workers to attend a social event outside normal work hours, then it’s more likely to be related to employment.

      There’s been cases where injuries occurring at a work party were considered to be unrelated to employment because the injury was due to the action of unrelated parties in the same place but not attending the same party, and some where the injury would have been workers comp but for the fact that the employee was already drunk before getting to the party. There’s also been cases where an after-party to the work function was ruled to be not a work function and therefore the injury was not related to employment (where if it were at the work function and not the after-party, it would have been).

      In this case, you were on-premises but not participating in work-related activities benefiting your employer. So the issue would then be that you were engaging in a leisure activity not promoted or encouraged by the employer, and because it was on the premises, it’s a great big grey area with regards to workers comp.

      Reply ↓
  6. RLC*

    Re #1: in all the workplaces I’ve been in, when An Incident happened it reportedly took place on a large desk or a conference table. One government office I worked in subsequently modified all office doors in the building to include windows to “prevent another Incident” after the building cleaners walked in on an after-hours Incident. Uhhh, okay.

    Reply ↓
    2. Lady Lessa*

      Grin, and at my job, the two places where we want windows we can’t have them due to fire regulations. They are both going into production from either a hall way or the QC lab. They would be nice to prevent near collisions from two fast moving folks going in opposite directions.

      Reply ↓
    3. Morning Reader*

      When we had a renovation we all got glass walled or doored offices. Next, before we had active shooter drills, all of them got window shades that could be drawn so that you could lock yourself in and hide.
      An exercise in contrasting requirements.

      Reply ↓
    4. Junior Assistant Peon*

      At a former workplace of mine, people would try to befriend the janitors because they occasionally walked in on couples after hours and knew all the gossip. Sadly, this ended when they replaced employee janitors with outsourced services.

      Reply ↓
  7. Coverage Associate*

    So I attended a very religious college. There were a few 2 seater sofas in the public areas, probably smaller and definitely stiffer than what you would buy for your living room. When a male student and a female student would share such a sofa, they had to sit as far apart as possible so as not to be touching.

    Several years after I graduated, I brought my husband to tour the campus. We were seated on one of these sofas, not cuddling or anything, but closer than students would have been allowed. I watched a chaplain come around a corner, begin to form a reprimand in his mind and lips, realize we weren’t current students, fix his face, and walk away without saying anything.

    Reply ↓
    1. AnotherLibrarian*

      When I worked at a religious college, my office was tucked down near a few isolated couches. The number of times I walked past students who clearly were just sitting on that couch side by side with an air gap and projecting an air of extreme “nothing to see here” was considerable and amusing.

      I still don’t think getting rid of couches is going solve an actual problem though.

      Reply ↓
      1. TooTiredToThink*

        I’m cackling that all of us that went to religious schools for college are like – um, yeah… I was amused reading it and thinking that uncomfortable couches never stopped anyone. My school wasn’t even all that strict (the only main restriction was that it was strict boy/girl dorms and we were only allowed in the other dorms on Fridays and Saturdays until 11pm). I mean, heck – the male RA let us sneak onto a boy’s floor to prank them at 2:30 am once LOL.

        Reply ↓
  8. The Prettiest Curse*

    In the realm of inappropriate office furniture – a creative agency with an office in my city has a boob chair. (Yup, a chair shaped to look like a woman’s body.) Needless to say, they do not have an equivalent chair designed to look like a man’s body.

    Reply ↓
      1. Amy Purralta*

        That feels very 90’s creative agency culture, I’m surprised but also not surprised that anyone thinks this is a good chair for an office in 2025.

        Reply ↓
      2. UKDancer*

        Wow that’s very inappropriate for work.

        I do remember when I was buying my first flat one of the ones I viewed had 2 chairs like that in the lounge, a copy of a Lucien Freud picture (Benefits Supervisor Sleeping) a large screen TV and no other furniture. The lounge was also painted bright purple and had no curtains but had sheets tacked to the windows.

        I took one look at it and left because it was so weird. I did not want to live there, having seen it.

        Reply ↓
        1. Falling Diphthong*

          Sometimes you look at the set-up for a script, and nope right out before discovering the plot twist and resolution. It’s the Did Not Finish of home decorating.

          Reply ↓
        2. JMC*

          Personally I think I would like living there because it would never be boring. The whole gray and white boring apartments today just drive me crazy.

          Reply ↓
          1. DJ Abbott*

            And black appliances, and entire furniture stores that have only black, white, and gray colors. Are they trying to depress people?
            When I was looking for furniture in pretty colors in the mid-2010s, I ended up having them made to order and choosing the colors myself.

            Reply ↓
            1. I Have RBF*

              I don’t have a problem with brushed steel appliances, or even basic black and white. But when the whole house is white walls with a grey floor, white painted cabinets, white or grey furniture, white countertops, etc, it looks godawful. It’s worse than an old-style hospital. Every piece of wood gets painted white, too. There’s no warmth, life, or character in places like that.

              Reply ↓
              1. DJ Abbott*

                Yes, absolutely! Even worse is when all the appliances are black, and/or the cabinets are black or a dark color, making the kitchen gloomy.
                The gray floors are dark and depressing too. I never realized how much wood floors add warmth and light to a room, until I saw the gray floors.

                Reply ↓
            2. Strive to Excel*

              The theory is that it’s a lot easier to color match neutrals, you can add color from decor, white/pale makes a room look bigger, and while most people are ambiguous about white it’s due to it being bland vs actively disliking it.

              Appliance stores make themselves more money with less work by assuming neutral colors and then customizing with specific colors vs hoping they’ll be able to sell X number of purple washing machines.

              Reply ↓
              1. DJ Abbott*

                There are cheerful neutrals- white, cream color, beige. All black appliances make a kitchen look gloomy.
                For about the last 15 years around here, it’s been a thing to paint apartments light gray instead of white or cream color. That’s more gloomy and depressing. I don’t care how they try to justify it, it needs to stop.

                Reply ↓
                1. MigraineMonth*

                  My apartment complex wants to “remodel” my kitchen, which seems to mean replacing my gray Formica countertops with fake gray granite countertops and replacing my white appliances with black ones. For the privilege of having workers in my apartment while I’m trying to work from home, I would then be charged $35 more per month in rent.

                  Thanks, I’m good.

              2. UKDancer*

                Yes. Also if you’re selling a property it’s better to paint it bland colours so the people looking can see it as a canvas to decorate as they prefer. The number of people who like a particular colour is limited. I mean when I looked at the bright purple lounge all I could think was how many coats it would take to cover it up.

                I love bright yellow bedrooms but when I sold my last place I painted everything light cream and accessorised with cheap bright cushions.

                Reply ↓
                1. DJ Abbott*

                  Yes, you understand! A warm, light cream color, not gloomy gray on the walls. Bright cushions to make it cheerful. This is how it should be.
                  I don’t understand who decided everything has to be black, white and gray or why other people follow it. I’ve always lived in rentals and until the 2010’s they were always painted white or cream color and usually had white appliances, unless they were stainless steel or a color from the past.

        1. RLC*

          My thought exactly! Would fit well in the photos for a brochure promoting a “honeymoon hotel” in the 1970s.

          Reply ↓
  9. JJ*

    #3 – Axes are tools, not weapons. The difference between which is purely in how you use them. I can use a stapler to bind paper… or as a weapon. I can use a pen to write notes… or as a weapon. I can use an axe to chop wood… or as a weapon. Honestly, thinking that anything isn’t a weapon is purely a lack of creativity.

    Reply ↓
    1. Texas Teacher*

      True. Although axe-throwing does seem to fall more into the realm of how you’d use it as a weapon. It’s not like they were going to a place where they’d be splitting wood for recreation.

      Reply ↓
    2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      It’s being used more like a weapon in this case though. What job or task is the axe being used for…?

      Reply ↓
      1. Beth**

        Sport/competition. Like darts. Yes, darts have been used as weapons in some contexts, but when people are playing darts, they are throwing at a darts board and not intentionally threatening people (albeit that there is a risk if someone walks in the wrong place at the wrong time).

        I have done an axe throwing event for work team building purposes. Safety was taken extremely seriously. There was no undertone of violence. The goal was to hit the target (very much like darts), not to harm anyone or otherwise be violence.

        Reply ↓
        1. amoeba*

          Well, yes, I think everybody is aware of that, but the practise of axe throwing as a competition has very probably evolved from its use as a weapon, not from its use as a tool, which is the point people are making here! (Same as archery or whatever – I would also not assume somebody who goes to an archery range is violent in any way but yeah, technically it does involve weapons.)

          Reply ↓
          1. Juniper*

            I thought it would have been from lumberjack games — that was my immediate assumption, not medieval battle practices.

            Reply ↓
            1. Lab Boss*

              Agreed. Target axe throwing in no way “evolved from its use as a weapon,” because axes aren’t and never have been a thrown weapon outside of fantasy fiction (sure, you could hurt someone with a thrown axe, but that’s true of literally any heavy or sharp item). It’s from lumberjack games, which are in turn from bored guys goofing around with tools.

              I can understand why a workplace would shy away from the (real or perceived) liability, but I genuinely don’t understand people who think it’s somehow a war game or “violent” because you’re playing a target game with a tool kind of similar to something that has sometimes historically been used as a weapon.

              Reply ↓
              1. Lenora Rose*

                AS a point on the record, when crossing the border, if asked “any weapons?” by customs, if you list a bow and arrow they call them sports equipment and roll their eyes. Weapons generally means blades (and not even all of those, since I doubt they’d worry about a chef’s set – though as a point of interest, shuriken *do* count as weapons) or guns. Axes have blades, I suppose, but would probably be dismissed at customs as tools.

                Reply ↓
    4. Rebecca*

      This is a bit disingenuous. You can use a stapler as a weapon but the level of risk is negligible.

      The boss is probably less interested in the historical evolution of axe throwing games and more worried about the potential risk of a flying blade in close proximity to her employees’ faces. She doesn’t assume a ton of liability with the staplers.

      Reply ↓
      1. Agree*

        Making OP and the group use their PTO might be her way to deal with the (perceived? real?) higher risk and avoiding liability at a company event. Or she might know the place and think it is inappropriate to be linked to a company event (marketing or decoration can have impact too). Or maybe she is aware that there is no explicit rule around weapons, but that her boss would object to this activity. Not everything will always be covered by existing rules.

        Having that said, I think OP comes across a bit confrontational. Their boss is not taking away job benefits, which is time for the holiday party, but objecting to use for one specific type of activity. If they try to change the opinion of the boss, it is not helpful to argue like that. Try to understand what the actual concern is and address this.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lenora Rose*

          Any time one is told one can do a thing on company time, then is told to use PTO instead, it’s taking away a job benefit, because the PTO could otherwise be used elsewhere.

          More, in places where the PTO is 10 or even 15 working days (2-3 weeks – most of the US and Canada, for the lower ranks at least), half a day matters in a way it might not so much when one gets 40 days (8 weeks).

          Reply ↓
          1. Disagree*

            But the team is free to choose an activity that does not include axes and they can have their party.
            The boss does not want to take away their leave for holiday parties.

            Reply ↓
            1. Disagree, pt. 2*

              I am not saying the boss is right or wrong. It is more important to me how one needs to approach the conversation with a grandboss and that those two options will be received differently: “You are taking away or christmas party benefit. This is against company policies” or “The team would really like to attend this specific event. What kind of information do you need to understand that there is no additional risk involved?” (just as an example)

              Reply ↓
    5. Mouse named Anon*

      My husband and I went axe throwing. It would be pretty hard to get injured (not saying impossible). You are very far from the boards in which you throw the axe at. They aren’t particularly sharp either. At the place we went they had throwing stars. Those were sharper than an axe. Again of course anything is possible injury wise.

      Reply ↓
      1. Cabbagepants*

        My company did axe throwing and it was pretty amazing how many “near misses” we had where one person had to go downrange to pick up their axe from the target, and another person didn’t realize and was about to throw. It never happened that an axe was actually thrown towards someone, but I could easily see it happening by mistake.

        Reply ↓
        1. Socks*

          Huh, sounds like you went to a less safety-conscious place than the one I’ve been to. The axe throwing place I go to sometimes has cages that enclose the thrower and the target, and you’re not supposed to go in until the previous person has come out

          Reply ↓
        2. Lenora Rose*

          There are, or should be, SEVERAL safety regs to prevent exactly that. I’m used to having a designated person whose job is to watch, and tell people when it’s clear, and call a halt if anyone is doing the wrong thing (the designated person often gets to trade off with others watching the line, and gets to participate; the point is there is always *someone*.)

          You never go across the line without a verbal as well as visual indication it’s clear, and you never pick up after that verbal call, until the next one confirming everyone is back.

          Reply ↓
        3. ampersand*

          I’ve never been axe throwing, but it’s always seemed like a terrible idea to me because every venue seems to combine it with drinking. It’s amazing that people aren’t maimed at these events.

          If I were this employer, I think I’d draw the line at axe throwing. That seems reasonable, regardless of whether we’re calling an axe a weapon or a tool.

          Reply ↓
      2. Malarkey01*

        It’s funny you say that as 2 years ago the guy in the stall next to me was hit in the face when one came flying backwards after bouncing off the wall (some of these people throw them incredibly hard). It hit hard enough to split his forehead and expose bone. It did survive but when I was filling out my witness statement the police officer said there had been several serious accidents.

        Reply ↓
        1. Nonsense*

          Ayup, the blunted objects fallacy. People worry about sharp objects easily slicing or piercing body parts so they think blunting them is safer, but blunted objects require more force to make them do the thing and they do it with less accuracy, thus increasing the chances of injury. Or, ask any home chef or ER nurse how many sliced fingers are caused by dull kitchen knives.

          Reply ↓
          1. Elizabeth West*

            I cannot convince my mom of that no matter how hard I try. She’s more afraid of the sharp knife than of the actual risk of cutting herself on her dull-ass knives.

            And yes, blunt objects can hurt and even kill you if they hit hard enough in the right spot.

            Reply ↓
            1. Carol the happy*

              Yeah, my husband will sharpen our kitchen knives without telling me- I let them get dull without noticing. I like a sharp knife, but if I don’t expect it, blood will flow!

              Reply ↓
            2. Nonsense*

              It’s a conversation I never expected to have so many times in my life considering I’m not in the medical or food services fields. I’ve lost count how many coworkers I’ve amazed by easily slicing a tomato because I keep my paring knife sharp.

              Reply ↓
            3. Lenora Rose*

              I’ve given my fingers little nicks with sharp knives all the time. The single worst cut I got, though, the one that meant I had to stop helping out, was a dull knife, because I was cutting HARD.

              Reply ↓
    6. Ellis Bell*

      I don’t think they literally meant all axes are always weapons. I am sure they also know the aim of the activity is not to hurt someone. But ‘weapon’ rolls off the tongue a little more easily than ‘sharp heavy metal items originally intended for utility, used here in a sporting context, which might accidentally become a weapon’.

      Reply ↓
      1. Flor*

        Yeah, arguing that axes aren’t weapons is deliberately missing the point IMO. I doubt the manager is unaware that axes are used to chop wood. But the holiday party leave benefit carries with it an implicit endorsement of the activity by the company, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to draw a line at “throwing sharp, heavy objects, possibly while drinking alcohol” (and I say this as someone who enjoys archery and martial arts and had a blast when we did axe throwing for a work social).

        Reply ↓
    7. Totally Minnie*

      Other people have already tackled the “people using an axe as a tool are probably not throwing it” element, but even if they were using the axes as the tools they’re designed to be, lumberjacks and loggers are at the top of most lists of jobs with a high risk of death. It’s not a super safe task if you don’t have training and experience, and I can totally see why an employer wouldn’t want to sponsor it as the office holiday party.

      Reply ↓
    8. Lisa*

      “Lizzie Borden took an ax
      And gave her mother forty whacks,
      And when she saw what she had done,
      She gave her father forty-one.”

      Axe throwing isn’t inherently violent or dangerous, no, but with the number of workplace violence incidents you hear about it’s not a good look.

      Reply ↓
    9. Eff Walsingham*

      Came here to say this. As a Canadian, my initial take was “??? Axes are tools, not weapons.” In my experience, the manager’s reaction would be seen as OTT, when it would be less precious and more to-the-point to say “potentially dangerous activities” or something. (At least one comment has referenced zip-lining… plenty of workplaces don’t want employees doing activities perceived as high-risk under the auspices of the company, and that’s their prerogative.)

      I do agree that some axe-throwing establishments have a sort of medieval-fantasy-weapony decor and/or logos, and like to get permission to link your group on social media for promotional purposes. (I enjoy axe throwing, and am apparently surprisingly good at it for a middle-aged office professional who isn’t good at darts.) So if I had a business, I might well want to avoid the association, depending on what sort of clients I hoped to attract, etc. I just think that the word “weapons” comes across as hyperbole in this context, and needlessly polarizing when the aim of the discussion is to plan a (presumably enjoyable) social event.

      Reply ↓
      1. toolegittoresign*

        It’s funny how the decor is medieval inspired when the sport has mainly been popular in North America because of lumberjacks. And of course the lumberjack games are just the hijinks they got up to while they were bored… at work!

        Reply ↓
    10. toolegittoresign*

      Thing is — almost any sport is very dangerous and companies should think very carefully about official company games. My dad played softball with a company he worked for and got more than one concussion. I’ve been bowling with my coworkers many times, and there’s plenty of ways you can get really hurt at a bowling alley. Any projectile is dangerous, not just axes!

      Reply ↓
    1. Archi-detect*

      to be fair a couch in a classroom feels really out of place as opposed to reception or offices. Also as others have noted someone interested in doing that wouldn’t need a couch.

      Reply ↓
      1. UKDancer*

        Yes, a settee would be really weird in a classroom when I was at university. They were mainly lecture theatres so rows of seats with the teacher at the front. Seminar rooms were smaller with seats in a row. None of them had settees although the common rooms in the faculty had them.

        We had them in the common rooms in the halls of residence and at the students union as well. But I can’t think why anyone would have had one in the classroom, that would have been odd.

        Reply ↓
        1. londonedit*

          Definitely odd in a classroom, but when I was at uni I think pretty much all of the lecturers had a sofa in their office, so whenever you went to see them for a one-on-one meeting you’d sit on the sofa. Of course they wouldn’t also be sitting on the sofa, they’d be at their desk, because none of them were sex pests.

          Reply ↓
          1. Elizabeth West*

            At my uni, they just had chairs. I went to see my advisor the last time I tried to go to school and he insisted we leave the door open so he wouldn’t be accused of any impropriety.

            I ended up changing advisors because he was kind of an a-hole, but he never did anything funky that I was aware of, nor do I know if that was an official policy. He could have just been paranoid about it.

            Reply ↓
            1. UKDancer*

              My ex was an academic and he said the policy was that they didn’t have meetings with any students with the door shut and it was a policy that he’ d seen in all the universities he’d worked in. Not sure if they all do it but obviously a lot do nowadays.

              Reply ↓
            2. Elsewise*

              Ha! You just reminded me of my college thesis advisor. He was a visiting professor and VERY handsome, which all of the students of course noticed. He once took a meeting with myself and the rest of his advisees, who were all women. Said something along the lines of “at my old college we weren’t allowed to close the door when we were meeting with students, but there’s no policy here, and I’m gay, so if you want the door closed we can do that.” It put a lot of speculation to rest, to the disappointment of several young women (and the joy of quite a few young men).

              Reply ↓
      2. Dek*

        Depends on the class.

        I remember one history class that was small enough that the teacher just had old couches in a 3/4 square. It was nice.

        If you fell asleep during class, though, he would sneak up with a beeper and beep it right by your head.

        Reply ↓
    2. Bananagram*

      I don’t know, I think it depends on the school. Sounds like in your example, he was an outlier, so that definitely makes it weird. But at my high school in the 90s (private, but also very conservative), couches were not at all unusual as a decorating choice to make the classroom feel more informal, give places for conversation during meetings, etc. Especially if the classroom was also the teacher’s office.
      Regardless, Alison’s response is spot-on as always — I’d bet good money Something Happened and this is a misguided attempt to prevent it from recurring.

      Reply ↓
    3. Rebecca*

      Look at classrooms on pinterest, there is a real trend of teachers using ‘flexible seating’ to turn their classrooms into what look like highly decorated trendy coffee shops.

      Reply ↓
      1. Rebecca*

        Hit submit too soon. The flexible seating often includes things like bar stools, sofas, arm chairs…

        I mean, I guess it’s nice? I don’t think it makes the learning any better. It speaks a lot to the toxic atmosphere in schools where teachers end up spending a ton of their own money proving how dedicated they are, or something.

        Reply ↓
        1. Jane Anonsten*

          Flexible seating, done well, can be very beneficial. That’s not to say that all the teacher rooms you’re seeing on Pinterest or wherever have well done flexible seating or even that couches fall within that sphere, but I have a neurodivergent kid who definitely benefits from not having to sit in a school chair all day. And it’d be amazing if schools could provide the funds for that, but unfortunately I don’t see that changing any time in the near future :/

          Reply ↓
          1. Rebecca*

            I agree that the schools should provide the funds for that. I don’t think that I, as a teacher making not very much money, should foot the bill for the entire government. We’ve been relying on the goodwill of teachers who care to fill in gaps entire institutions should be filling, and we’re seeing the consequences of that – there are debilitating teacher shortages in a lot of places.

            Reply ↓
            1. Jane Anonsten*

              My husband is a teacher so I’m very familiar with all of that. If I had my way, teachers would be paid exponentially more and school districts would reimburse for every single thing a teacher wanted to include in their room, down to silly shaped paper clips. We can talk in an open thread about ways to make that happen and the obstacles that exist to it.

              You said though that you didn’t think it made the learning any better to have flexible seating and I was offering a data point that for my neurodivergent child, it does make the learning better.

              Reply ↓
        2. Ellis Bell*

          Bar stools are pretty useful. The specially made perch seats and wobble seats for standing desks and ADHD students are super expensive and bar stools can be far cheaper and do the same job. I don’t actually know any teachers who buy this themselves though, or who would buy their students couches with their own money. Teacher spending is not usually driven by proving dedication, which is a given, but by trying to get good results out of students (and therefore a pay-rise) without much in the way of resources. You would be way more likely to buy pens or paper, or something you couldn’t do without. The pretty, calming, relaxing spaces you see on Pintrest are usually whole-school plans for SEN students with anxiety/panic attacks/sensory overload, or for a reading corner. This is usually organised by the SENDco, a senior teacher, or a team of teachers who focus on special needs, and who would have a (tiny) budget to meet those student’s legal requirements. It wouldn’t be unusual to donate old stuff from your house, but buying new furniture for the school would be odd. In terms of the teacher in Ellen N’s husband’s school…. yes there should have been more professional curiosity about why he needed a couch, and definitely a whole-school approach on furnishings (which are actually super important and need to meet policy; generally a headteacher level of decision) but a better safeguarding approach is to make sure there are no private spaces and everyone is viewable (achieved with glass doors in most schools).

          Reply ↓
          1. Rebecca*

            In many of the schools I’ve worked in (a lot, in a few different countries), I did indeed experience the toxic atmosphere of having to prove how much I cared for my students and my job instead of being evaluated on how well my students were actually doing. I absolutely was pressured to spend my own money on things that went beyond pencils and paper, including decor and, one year, sanitizing products and masks to keep my students safe from covid in my too-crowded classroom. A school that has provided money for the extra furnishings and bar stools is nice, but not necessarily the majority. I’ve only ever worked at one school that had a dedicated SENDco (I’m guessing you’re in the UK?) that wasn’t run absolutely ragged trying to do the bare minimum – usually we’re muddling through doing the best we can for the kids in our classes, and the pressure to spend to be able to do that is high.

            Reply ↓
            1. Ellis Bell*

              You really got me thinking about this, and I was discussing it with a colleague this afternoon that the most toxic I’ve found teaching to be, was during teacher training; my colleague agreed that it was like “joining a cult” and we both had like 100% of people we knew in teaching just try to warn us off the industry entirely. Emotional blackmail, proving you care with impossible or unreasonable tasks, yada yada … that was all present on training placements until I found good school environments (my colleague was previously in boarding where they have you captive so it’s even easier to instil cult tactics). I think we know this is why retention in teaching is so low, but what my better school environments have taught me by contrast, is that it’s not safe either. If teachers are alone and unsupported the kids are unsupported down the line. If predatory teachers are left alone to do what whatever looks good (and all they have to do is “care”, which they do… for the wrong reasons) then their victims are equally more alone and invisible.

              Reply ↓
            2. Artemesia*

              Teachers are expected to furnish and decorate and provide supplies everywhere I have lived. One of my favorite charities is Donorschoose because it allows you to provide such things for individual teachers who provide proposals. I try to finish up several requests for teachers in high low income schools in my city each fall and spring.

              Reply ↓
          2. MigraineMonth*

            The US tax code has a specific deduction for teachers spending their own money on classroom supplies (decorations, furnishings, arts & craft supplies, etc), so this is far from universal. It would be great if we actually met the needs of kids with disabilities, but given our extremely local/uneven funding for public schools, far too frequently that requires suing the school district to get necessary accommodations.

            Reply ↓
        3. Nightengale*

          Flexible seating can definitely make learning better for a lot of neurodivergent people

          When I sit upright in a chair at a desk I have to put a lot of effort into sitting upright and the desk is not a height where I can comfortably write or type. I spent most of school basically kneeling in chairs.

          When I sit on the floor leaning on a cushion, or on a seat where I can put my feet up, I am better supported in space and can type (almost never write anymore) more readily.

          Separate from specific seating needs, there is also the idea that kids learn more when they have some control and agency about the situation. Offering a choice of seats can be one way to contribute to a feeling of connection and belonging.

          Reply ↓
          1. Freya*

            I despised the ‘ergonomic’ chairs we got in high school, because I am shorter than average, so the lumbar support was in a really bad spot, and my feet just don’t reach the ground. So neurospicy me figured out how to balance on just the back legs of the chair, with my legs crossed and wedged underneath my desk, and the constant micro-adjustments to stay balanced was just enough to ping the bit of my brain that needed lots of data input.

            Reply ↓
      2. Falling Diphthong*

        Some of the medical offices near me have taken to a variety of seating in the waiting rooms, which I assume is intended to provide better options for larger people.

        Like the windows upthread, installed to discourage shenanigans, then given blinds so you could hide.

        Reply ↓
    4. Liane*

      Same thing happened with a female *middle school (ages 12-14)* teacher where I used to live, convicted of molesting a male student. There was a couch in her classroom.

      Her husband divorced her and later wrote the book Gorgeous Disaster about it. It’s a pretty evenhanded account, worth reading, and definitely refutes the (disgusting & hopefully outdated) assumption that a grown woman seducing an underage boy is “doing him a favor.”

      Reply ↓
    6. Wayward Sun*

      One of my teachers had one in her classroom. If you finished your work early you were allowed to go sit on it and read as a reward. Another teacher had an old claw-foot tub lined with carpet for the same purpose.

      Reply ↓
    7. Loves libraries*

      I work as a substitute teacher in a high school. Several teachers have couches in their classrooms. They are usually used as a reward to be able to sit on the couch. Sometimes there is a rotation list. Students are not required to sit on the couch. Couches can also be used as a shield or hiding place during an “incident of violence”. Welcome to 2025 in the US.

      Reply ↓
  11. bamcheeks*

    I would find “no couches bc sexual harassment” so offensive. Sexual harassment is not WEATHER: it doesn’t happen because of the existence of couches, but because people choose to harrass and systems support them over victims. This is your employer telling you they have no interest in tackling genuine harassment or inequity.

    Reply ↓
    1. Queer Anon*

      “Sexual harassment isn’t weather” is the absolute best way I’ve ever seen this concept worded. Thank you for that, will absolutely be borrowing it in the future.

      Reply ↓
    2. Emmy Noether*

      I’m going to steal “sexual harassment is not weather”, because that is brilliant. A lot of people do treat it like that’s what it is, and like the sensible way to deal with it is to stay away from the metaphorical thunderstorm.

      Reply ↓
    3. amoeba*

      Yeah, if it was actually to prevent harassment, that would be pretty bad. In my head, it’s probably more to prevent, err, consensual shenanigans, but as people have stated before: honestly, if people want that to happen, it will happen, couches or no couches.

      Reply ↓
    5. Worldwalker*

      Agreed.

      If someone thinks sexual harassment is acceptable (and has seen it being accepted) they’re going to do it whether there are couches or a bare gymnasium. And if they are going to go further than just harassment, there’s always the floor.

      Depriving everyone else of their couches won’t change this.

      The message seems to be “policies against sexual harassment are bad; see what they made us do!”

      Reply ↓
    6. Ellis Bell*

      Sexual harassment is not weather!!
      I love this. If I made a report of sexual harassment and the response was new furniture, I doubt I would stay there.

      Reply ↓
    7. Shirley Keeldar*

      Thanks—this articulates exactly what bothered me about this policy but I was having trouble finding the words. Furniture is not the problem!

      Reply ↓
    8. acek*

      This kind of thing can also harm support for anti sexual harassment initiatives in general. And that’s not by accident. If this were a large tech company, I would bet that “we can’t have couches because of anti sexual harassment laws” would be said specifically as part of a campaign to lessen support for these laws, to promote the idea that these laws are nonsensical, that “you aren’t allowed to do anything these days”. Before I worked in this bro dominated field I would have thought the idea of this being done for that reason ridiculous but there is a coordinated effort in some fields to fight anything regarding equality and inclusion. It’s probably not the case here, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely either, and people who say these things should be aware that if they don’t mean it that way, it does have that effect on more people than you might expect.

      Reply ↓
    10. Lab Boss*

      I don’t work in higher ed but I do live near a large university and volunteer extensively with student orgs so I’m more in touch with campus culture than your average bear. “Addressing the actual problem” and “Visibly taking action” are two related, but separate, things- a college might be taking genuine action to solve problems, but if that isn’t some big visible gesture then people will complain “Nothing is being done.” This results in colleges always being sure to make the visible gesture (even if it’s basically irrelevant) so they can show how much they care. You then just have to hope they’re ALSO doing the less visible but more relevant stuff behind the scenes.

      Reply ↓
  12. Techie Boss*

    LW4, I find that mentioning something positive about the employee’s response to the feedback can be a helpful way to end on a positive note without softening the message. Something like “I appreciate that you’re taking this seriously.” Assuming it’s true, obviously.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW 4*

      I’m still on holiday and almost missed the publication! But Allison is right, I overthought it. I guess I didn’t want to leave my employee hanging. Your suggestion works as wel

      Reply ↓
  13. Pam Adams*

    LW1,

    I can guarantee that my students would be lying down/curling up on those couches, but they’d be doing it to nap.

    Reply ↓
  14. FrontlinER*

    Oh man my first job was a student job on campus security at a religious college. There was a couch tucked away in the furthermost corridor and corner of a large building. You had to know this couch existed to find it. We called it the 314 couch as 314 was our informal police code for anything related to sex. We all knew a lot of stuff happened on that particular couch, but rarely found anyone there.

    Reply ↓
  15. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP2 (food stamps) – I’m confused about this one. I thought food stamps were claimed based on need (low income, etc) – is there really such a thing as “extra” food stamps, could she not have used them for non-perishable things she needs, or why is she claiming them if she doesn’t actually seem to need them … the list of questions goes on.

    If they’re linked to low income from this company, I’d feel uncomfortable that she was saying the “quiet part out loud” by telling everyone she has food stamps, it’s like saying “this job isn’t paying enough to sustain the cost of living”, though perhaps it’s right that I’d feel uncomfortable hearing that.

    I’d be on the lookout for any other “not quite within the rules” things she might be tempted to do to cut costs or corners here and there. Probably she just saw this as efficient, but there’s a chance that the “extra” food stamps is a cover and she was actually trying to contribute more to the party to save others (or the company) paying.

    Reply ↓
    1. Queer Anon*

      I believe the details of SNAP implementation vary by state, but when I received it I absolutely got more in benefits per month than I needed to buy food. It expires after a certain period of time, so using the extra on *something* before it expires is absolutely a thing people do, and there are only so many cans of beans you can fit in a pantry!

      I see no reason in this letter to suspect that this person is doing anything nefarious, and I also want to throw out there that questioning the ability of a person with a low income to manage their own money/resources or alleging that someone is claiming benefits they don’t actually need are really damaging misconceptions that come up a lot from people who haven’t ever been in that situation, and it hurt to see that in this comments section.

      Reply ↓
      1. 2025*

        It sounds to me like a young person just wanting to fit in, be part of the team, with the only resources she has.

        Reply ↓
      3. Observer*

        but when I received it I absolutely got more in benefits per month than I needed to buy food.

        That is *extremely* uncommon, although I do think did happen a bot more often when there were the Covid increases.

        Even in more generous states, SNAP benefits are generally not expected to even cover *all* of most people’s food expenditures, so having extra is very much not the norm.

        Reply ↓
    2. Kella*

      Food stamps are based on need, but you get a set amount each month depending on your average income and certain expenses, and sometimes that amount gets used up faster or slower depending on prices and circumstances. It is strange, though, because my memory is that they roll over to the next month, so it’s not like she’d lose them, and yes, she could spend them on shelf-stable stuff that would help during months where the benefits get used up faster.

      My read is that she was feeling self conscious about not contributing, was under her food budget that month, and wanted to use what she had left on the party. I don’t know why she felt the need to specify that she was using foodstamps to do so. Maybe she wanted to emphasize her generosity?

      Reply ↓
      1. Kisa*

        I agree with your read. Also, apart from the fact that some people just are oversharers, for some people relying on benefits like this, its so so so so common (as in ‘everybody is relying on stamps at some point’) occurence that you dont even think about it being statement or embarassing or whatever.

        In my area you can get “extra” benefit during holidays to be able to make celebration.

        Reply ↓
    3. dogwoodblossom*

      Yes, there is such a thing as “extra” or leftover snap benefits. It’s been a long time but when I was on them unused benefits would roll over to the next month so you can save up a surplus. And you only need so much flour and dried beans. Freezer only holds so much.

      Also at that time in my life when I felt like I had nothing, when I couldn’t even afford to get a coffee with my friends (they were genealogy very chill about the fact that i would come and sit and order nothing), I did try to do things like make food for people. It often felt like the only thing I had to offer socially. So I can see where this coworker is coming from even though I agree that nobody should take them up on this offer.

      Reply ↓
      1. EchoGirl*

        And you only need so much flour and dried beans. Freezer only holds so much.

        This. Depending on how much you get vs. how much you spend, it can start to add up, and there’s only so much stockpiling you can do, especially if you’re not settled and having to move soon is a possibility. But yeah, don’t go around broadcasting it to anyone beyond your inner circle, that’s a good way to get yourself in trouble.

        (In my case, I was getting maximum allotment because I was in Americorps and there’s a special exception for Americorps members to get food benefits, basically in lieu of actually paying them more. Even in my former state which isn’t exactly known for being generous, the monthly allotment was more than I needed and I was always trying to figure out what to do with the rest of it — I even tried buying food to donate to a food drive once, but even though passing along the excess to people in worse situations seemed like a good use of it, it still felt like I was doing something wrong and I didn’t do it again. However, I was very careful about who I talked to about all this because the last thing I wanted was to become fodder for someone’s anecdote about “benefit cheaters” — it was immediate family, my partner, and other Americorps members, and that was it.)

        Reply ↓
        1. Silver Robin*

          Rant moment: I did AmeriCorps right out of college and applied for SNAP and got denied because I had over $2k in savings (something I had worked hard on in my last year of college). I called and the agent I spoke to was nice but basically told me I had to spend it all and that they would check my bank records when I reapplied, which meant I could not just transfer that money to my parents for safe keeping or something. So I never reapplied. I did end up relying a bit on the free food distribution my org gave clients, but I only took what we could not distribute and only after we closed up shop each week.

          I know this is a minor version of what folks in worse circumstances go through all the time, but it did a good job “radicalizing” me against how the government makes folks jump through absurd hoops to get help they obviously need because of exactly those bs misconceptions people have about how poor people operate.

          Reply ↓
          1. CommanderBanana*

            ^^ This rule is such BS and it makes me so angry. You need and should have an emergency fund! This is financial security 101. Cash is not the same as food stamps. I can’t use food stamps to put tires on a car or go to the doctor, and yet we punish people for doing the thing that they’re also shamed and called financially irresponsible for not doing.

            Reply ↓
            1. Silver Robin*

              Yeah, either you are horribly irresponsible and a drain on society or you are “clearly” fine enough to handle this on your own since you have some savings and should be using those on basic necessities until those savings are gone…at which point you are now back to a horribly irresponsible drain on society. Damned either way.

              Reply ↓
          2. Washi*

            Fwiw a lot of states, including my purple and not very generous state, don’t have asset limits anymore for SNAP or regular Medicaid, just income.

            Source: I am a social worker who helps people apply for benefits and also a former Americorps member who had SNAP!

            Reply ↓
            1. Silver Robin*

              That is reassuring to hear; I had the time/mental bandwidth on my hands to try to argue my case through a phone tree and unhelpful bureaucracy, but lots of folks do not and it is nonsense to tell folks that their $2k savings account needs to be drained in order for them to get food.

              Reply ↓
          3. EchoGirl*

            I don’t know if it’s a time thing or a state thing, but this is definitely not the case across the board. In the state I was in (which is not exactly a liberal haven), they didn’t ask about savings. Savings were a factor for pre-expansion Medicaid and for cash assistance, but not SNAP (ironically, helping people with benefits applications was also part of the role I was doing with Americorps, so I got very familiar with the rules).

            To be clear, I’m mentioning this only because I don’t want someone who could use the assistance reading this and thinking “I have too many savings, I won’t even bother applying” when they live in a state where they could qualify despite said savings. I 100% believe that this was the rule in the time/place that Silver Robin applied.

            Reply ↓
            1. Silver Robin*

              My experience is now nearly a decade old so definitely possible that it was not the same in all places at the time and/or has since changed. Folks should absolutely still try to apply!

              Reply ↓
        2. Washi*

          I actually immediately thought of Americorps or something similar because I had the same situation as a former AC member getting the max allowance because my stipend didn’t count as income.

          Otherwise it is hard for me to understand how there could be “extra”. I am a social worker and in my state, my elderly clients getting $2000/month in social security and paying half of more of that to rent and utilities still only get the minimum allotments of $23/month in SNAP. And in my state the benefits don’t expire for something like 9 months. Sure, someone supporting more people will get higher benefits, but iny experience it still won’t be enough for there to be so much extra as to expire and urgently need to be used.

          So I’m thinking maybe an Americorps member living with their parents with minimal expenses and just kinda clueless about how this comes across! I totally bought stuff for work potlucks using my SNAP benefits but I didn’t go around announcing it. And if any fellow Americorps members had done that, probably someone would have told them nicely not to publicize their intent like that.

          Reply ↓
      2. Kisa*

        YES to your second pragraph. I grew up relatively poor and as a child I felt like I never had anything to share or anything anyone would even want to be shared.

        I really feel for this coworker.

        Reply ↓
    4. Ochre*

      In some cases the food benefits are also very specific, like “one 12 oz jar of peanut butter per time period” and you can’t turn that into a box of wheat crackers instead. So if she feels like she has a surplus of peanut butter at home already, she could be offering to get peanut butter and (say) make PB cookies. And she can’t get anything else with that allotment so figures she should just use it up. (Agreed that the intention of the benefit isn’t for sharing this way, but I can see her thinking she might as well use it.)

      Reply ↓
      1. EchoGirl*

        I think the rigid rules are usually for WIC (which is technically a different program, though they may be administered by the same agency), not standard food stamps, which are usually just X amount per month to be used towards food purchases. I can’t speak for every state though.

        Reply ↓
        1. Elizabeth West*

          Most have a list of items you can’t spend it on, but there aren’t any quantity limits on specific items that I’m aware of. As to benefit amounts and who is eligible, that varies wildly by state. I checked it out once in OldState after a layoff and the amount for a single adult with no kids was . . . less than generous.

          Reply ↓
        2. Coffee Protein Drink*

          It’s been a while since I was a grocery store cashier, but in my experience it was WIC with its very specific rules. WIC was designed for new parents and those with very young children. Brands of formula were specified as were brands of cereal.

          Reply ↓
      2. Observer*

        In some cases the food benefits are also very specific, like “one 12 oz jar of peanut butter per time period”

        Not SNAP. It doesn’t work that way in any state.

        This does sound like WIC, though.

        And their requirements are *insane*. The move towards electronic cards has been a huge boon, and has made it easier for families to actually fully benefit from the program. But also, at least in NY they have loosened some of the stupider requirements.

        Still an example of what can go wrong when government agencies / program designers try too hard to make sure that Every Penny Is Wisely Spent.

        Reply ↓
    5. KellyP*

      Are you serious? You think because someone is on food stamps they’re more likely to be corrupt?

      Maybe given it was holiday time and she was eating at relatives’ houses more than usual or at other places outside her home so didn’t need as much food shopping.

      Maybe she had been given a Christmas gift of food for the festive season, so didn’t need the food stamps.

      If I was the employee in the letter on food stamps I’d be looking for a new job, her co-workers are not to be trusted. They clearly have an issue with people on government assistance.

      Reply ↓
      1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

        > You think because someone is on food stamps they’re more likely to be corrupt?

        Why do you think I think this?
        I was asking if “extra” food stamps are a thing (which I’ve now been informed by other commenters that they can be), or whether this means that they are being claimed and aren’t needed – which seems not to be the case. I suggested that perhaps being willing to use food stamps for a non-intended purpose (I assume this is outside the rules) means she may go outside the rules with other things too. That isn’t the same as “corrupt” or ‘because’ she gets food stamps.

        Reply ↓
        1. Nonsense*

          You should probably dig into why you’re so quick to assume that someone on food stamps would also be someone ready to break rules in other areas, because that is an incredibly gross line of thinking.

          Reply ↓
          1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

            This is assuming a chain of “cause and effect” that I didn’t say. What I said was if she’s willing to break the rules of some situation (which -happens- to be rules for using food stamps in this case), is she willing to break rules in other situations. It is just a generalisation of the thought process that when someone says or suggests something, you wonder whether it’s part of a pattern.

            Reply ↓
            1. xylocopa*

              If someone gets a speeding ticket or a parking violation do you scrutinize their work for cutting corners or breaking rules?

              Reply ↓
            2. goddess21*

              just a thought maybe arbitrary rules imposed on people in poverty who want to eat regularly arent the same thing as the ten commandments

              Reply ↓
            3. Observer*

              What I said was if she’s willing to break the rules of some situation (which -happens- to be rules for using food stamps in this case), is she willing to break rules in other situations

              Yes, and people are pointing out that one thing is actually *not* like the other.

              Reply ↓
        2. Mockingjay*

          People on assistance are on it to survive. I know there are many stories about people abusing the systems (SNAP, housing, utility assistance, etc.), but truthfully, it’s a difficult, lengthy, bureaucratic process to apply and to maintain eligibility. As a manager (former), I’ve had to sign proof of eligibility for employees. It’s embarrassing for the employee and I felt horrible that I couldn’t do more (worked for a Megacorp at the time that had stringent rules limiting promotion and paid poorly overall while raking in record profits).

          Reply ↓
          1. Coffee Protein Drink*

            Having needed to apply when my unemployment ran out, I can confirm it’s a long, detailed, heavily bureaucratic process to even get someone to look at your application. A lot of documentation needs to be provided, and in my state an interview was also required.

            Bill Clinton’s administration added work requirements as well.

            Reply ↓
        4. Smithy*

          Breaking the rules may be a softer way of saying corrupt, but it’s really not that different.

          You could take this logic if you see a colleague jaywalking, crossing the street when the light is red, or even letting a meter expire. All of those are examples of breaking traffic laws, but taking that to imply they might also be prone to corruption or fraud in the workplace isn’t analogous.

          Honestly, the broader and more likely assumption is that this person may be newer to the workplace and less familiar with what to be open about and what to be more cautious in sharing. This is a really common thing with younger coworkers, and giving guidance around keeping certain aspects of your personal life more discrete is a kindness. Whether that’s SNAP or partying or other similar new to the workplace lessons.

          Reply ↓
    6. Seeking Second Childhood*

      Turn that around — I’d look at why the company is paying so poorly that someone full-time is qualified forfood stamps.

      (I’m hoping she was newly hired and celebrating that she’s not needing them anymore.)

      Reply ↓
      2. Snow Globe*

        Qualification for food stamps is based both on income and number of household members; two people may make the same amount of money, but if one is supporting a larger number of family members, they can be eligible, while the other one is not.

        Also, food stamps aren’t just for the unemployed; they are intended to provide assistance to people who are working, but low income. So if you say that anyone working full time should make enough money to not be eligible for food stamps, you are saying that they should only be for the unemployed (or less than full-time employed), which is actually more strict than the program intends.

        Reply ↓
        1. Seashell*

          I think they’re saying that employers should pay full-time workers a wage that is enough to live on. There are Wal-Mart employees who get food stamps, while the company’s founders have more money than they could spend in three lifetimes.

          Reply ↓
        2. Irish Teacher.*

          I think the point is more that no job should pay so little that people would require them. Not that they should be restricted to only the unemployed, but that it should be very rare for a working person to meet the income requirement, unless they are say a single parent with a large number of children and only work 15 hours a week or something. Because otherwise they should be paid enough to cover their needs.

          The point is that people who are working full-time shouldn’t be low-income.

          Reply ↓
          1. StarTrek Nutcase*

            IMO jobs should pay what the job is worth NOT based on individual employees “need”. My needs are widely different from others because of choices I and they made. But if we have the same job, then the pay should be the same (allowing for experience, etc). I’m (F) old enough to remember when there was an argument that men should be paid more for a specific job because he had a family to support. I thought it wrong then and equally wrong now to base pay on needs.

            Reply ↓
              1. Tea Monk*

                Yea,what a job js worth is subjective- see the pay of important jobs such as teacher, home health worker, day care worker versus some much less socially useful jobs, but needs such as rent and food cost are more objective

                Reply ↓
              2. UKDancer*

                Yes, this is why we have a national minimum wage in England, in order to make sure people are paid enough to survive on. We also have a London living wage which is higher because London is expensive. It’s not mandatory to pay the living wage but I’d side-eye any reasonable sized employer that didn’t.

                Neither are great and in my view are set too low, but it’s better than not having one I think.

                Reply ↓
                1. Elizabeth West*

                  The US minimum hasn’t been raised in decades because some people I will not name think “you should pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” >:( #rawr

                2. Annie*

                  In the US the minimum wage is by state and sometimes cities, so like you mention London having a living wage, you may have a much higher minimum wage in L.A. or NYC vs some remote part of Alabama.

                3. New Jack Karyn*

                  Annie: There is a federal minimum wage in the US. Several states do not exceed it ($7.25/hour).

              3. Allonge*

                Definitely.

                But what a ‘living wage’ needs to cover is very different for a single person who can rely on their parents, a two-earner household with no dependents and the only earner in a household with six other people. So we have things like food stamps to make sure the other people also get to eat.

                Reply ↓
              4. Freya*

                Absolutely. You currently have to work 21-22 hours at Australian minimum wage to be above the poverty line as a single person with no kids (set at 50% of the median wage after tax), but that doesn’t mean much when average rent in a sharehouse is more than half of that!

                Reply ↓
          2. doreen*

            But I think Snow Globe’s point ( and if it’s not theirs , it’s mine) is that there are few jobs that pay enough that no one would ever be eligible for food stamps – for example, in my state a six person household is eligible for SNAP if their income is below $54K and an eight person household the income limit is $68K. Whether I’m underpaid or not should depend on how much I am paid, the work I do and how much others are paid for the same work , not that I’m underpaid because my six person household is eligible for food stamps and my coworker who earns the same amount is not underpaid because they support only themself.

            Reply ↓
        3. Lenora Rose*

          No full-time work should pay so little people need food stamps; this is NOT the same as saying having a job should disqualify someone or the food stamp rules should be stricter (They’re already absurdly strict from what I understand).

          It’s chiding the higher-ups of the business for not actually taking care of the employees, not the employees for being employed at a place that doesn’t pay them enough.

          Reply ↓
      3. Cat Tree*

        I guess I was assuming that she’s pretty young and still living with her parents or other adult family members. Her job might pay OK but maybe the other adults have part-time or intermittent work, or other reasons to bring the household average low enough to qualify for benefits.

        Reply ↓
    7. CommanderBanana*

      I’d be on the lookout for any other “not quite within the rules” things she might be tempted to do to cut costs or corners here and there.

      I think you just said the quiet part out loud.

      Reply ↓
    8. Lisa*

      “Extra” food stamps is less common than “not enough” but can happen. For example if they spent time at holidays with family and so didn’t need to eat at home. If I were in that situation and the benefits were literally going to expire I’d buy food and donate it to a food shelf rather than to my company.

      My bigger question is why isn’t her employer paying her enough that she doesn’t need food stamps. I hope there’s a very good reason for that.

      Reply ↓
    9. Salty Caramel*

      I read this as someone wanting to contribute, even if it isn’t an appropriate use. Why she needs them isn’t under discussion here.

      Reply ↓
    10. Observer*

      I’d be on the lookout for any other “not quite within the rules” things she might be tempted to do to cut costs or corners here and there.

      That’s a pretty wild over-reaction. Sure, this was not the most appropriate thing for her to suggest. And it’s true that such a suggestion should NOT be accepted.

      But going from there to suspecting her of breaking rules, and cutting corners where she should not be? No. It’s really akin to saying that the person who takes the occasional pen home (which they should not do), is a significant risk for embezzling from the company.

      Reply ↓
    11. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      This was almost 30 years ago, but I qualified for a program that provided basic food stuffs (eggs, milk, Cheerios, cheese, etc) simply because of my age (19) and that I had an infant/young child. Had nothing to do with my income, just with making sure the mother and baby were fed and to encourage healthy eating habits.

      Reply ↓
  16. OvernightInAcademia*

    Huh, every university I’ve attended, visited, or worked at had copious couches, and in some cases people – mainly grad students – slept in them. My department had both a graduate student lounge with 12-15 couches and a women’s lounge (locked with keys given to female grad students and facultly) with 2 + a larger comfy chair. Every Ph.D. student had either a TA or RA + a ton of homework. We put in monster hours and most people stayed over at least 1-2x/week. The sofas were there specifically for this purpose. The main first year grad student office (giant room with 20+ desk stations) also had a sofa, although not one we slept on. There were couches strategically placed in grad school group offices at most other schools I’ve seen, and also generally in other spaces with less frequency.

    They’ve been hit or miss in other work environments – some have them and some don’t – but they’ve always been prevalent in academia. What are overworked grad students supposed to do without them?

    Reply ↓
    2. amoeba*

      Well, to be fair, I also worked in academia for years and yeah, although we didn’t stay overnight regularly, we absolutely needed the couches for breaks etc.

      However, academia being not exactly the model for professionalism, they were also used for parties, people crashing on them for the night if they were too drunk to make it home, and I’m very, very certain that people also had sex on them. So, like… yeah, that was fine for PhD students and postdocs, but I wouldn’t think it transfers very well to the corporate world!

      (To be clear, I find it ridiculous to get rid of couches, our very corporate office has loads of them – even long and comfy ones – and there is absolutely no problem with that! There would be, though, if we tried to use them like people at uni did…)

      Reply ↓
      1. OvernightInAcademia*

        This post was very specifically about a university setting where it is common. That said, while less frequent (both in terms of the number of couches and the number of overnight stays), it’s not unheard of in office settings, especially in tech, and particularly in areas where public transit isn’t available 24/7.

        Reply ↓
    3. umami*

      We actually had to remove all the couches on our campus that were in public spaces because there were so many issues. We had an early high school on campus, and a good number of those students were … not very discreet about using the couches in inappropriate ways. I’m sure they weren’t the only ones, but they were the more obvious ones. And they were only on campus during regular school hours!

      Reply ↓
      1. EvilQueenRegina*

        When I was in my first year at university, two guys in my residence tried to …liberate a couch from one of the local pubs and carry it back to the hall. I think someone claimed they actually got it out of the door, but they didn’t get it very far before they got arrested. Makes me wonder what they were planning to do with it if they had got it back.

        Reply ↓
    4. Incarnadine*

      I think that there’s nothing wrong with couches in casual/hangout spaces, but having them in waiting rooms is a little weirder because you’re usually not there with your friends or people you’re okay with sharing a personal space bubble with. Add on the social pressure of a waiting area for admin affairs that often mean that you’re already in trouble and need to stay on the good side of whoever you’re visiting with, or in an exceptional situation of some sort where you feel like you can’t kick up a fuss, and I can see where they’re coming from.

      Putting people in the situation where they might have to sit thigh-to-thigh is not great, and just doesn’t happen in lounges or other casual spaces meant for studying.

      (In grad school I had an advisor that I always made sure to stay at least one healthy arms-length from, and honestly stuff like weird seating really did pose a pretty significant problem. I have a group photo from a lab dinner, where you can’t see it in the photo, but his hand is on the seat of my chair and I am quite literally sitting in the window to avoid him. Couches for the common rooms, but well-separated chairs in more professional spaces, please!)

      Reply ↓
  17. not like a regular teacher*

    For the food stamps letter, why is this company paying so little that this person is on food stamps?

    Reply ↓
    2. Tuesday Tacos*

      They may not be, but there are many circumstances where she is not making the minimum money and qualifies. This person could be making $25 an hour but have three kids at home and no spouse. They could also have a disabled child or adult they are caring for. Sometimes what is a fair salary just doesn’t stretch to cover circumstances.

      Reply ↓
      1. Pizza Rat*

        Quite true. I once knew a woman with a full-time job and two part-time jobs and still needed food stamps because she didn’t get child support for her two kids.

        Reply ↓
    3. Magpie*

      Food stamp eligibility is based not just in income, but also how many people are in the household. In my state, which is a relatively low cost of living state, a family of six is eligible with an income of $55,000 a year. That’s roughly the median household income for the country. So if someone is the sole provider for their family of six they can be making a salary well above minimum wage and still be eligible for food stamps. This is not necessarily a case of the company paying too little.

      Reply ↓
    4. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      What everyone else said, plus some programs don’t even use income to qualify.

      I was in one many years ago that was for moths and infant/young children where whole food (fruits, veg), dairy (milk, cheese), and things like Cheerios were delivered to me in order to encourage healthy eating habits for both mom and baby.

      Reply ↓
  18. AnotherLibrarian*

    I’m curious about people’s feelings about #5. Would you like that level of transparency? I’m conflicted if I would as a job candidate. Generally, I come down on- more transparency is better, but I might also feel like my time got wasted applying for a job that didn’t really exist. How do other people feel?

    Reply ↓
    1. Athersgeo*

      I’m thining with this one that it’s possible the job was never intended to be public and OP5 saw it in the handful of minutes it was accidentally viewable, hence the overly transparent rejection. A sort of an “Oops, you weren’t meant to see that, so sorry!”

      Reply ↓
      1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

        I think so too. I could picture it being something like: the hiring manager rejected it on the grounds that that position is earmarked for a temporary role-holder becoming permanent. Someone is in a rush and copy-pastes it from and email into the candidate-facing part, or it gets entered into the wrong field, or whatever.

        It would have been tempting to reply with “apologies, my application was specifically intended for a role that was actually available”!

        Reply ↓
      2. Another Kristin*

        Lots of companies/institutions have policies where all jobs are competitive and MUST be posted, even if they are only ever going to hire one person. It seems like it would make a lot of extra work for HR, but I imagine those policies are there to be a check against corruption/nepotism

        Reply ↓
        1. Ginger Cat Lady*

          It is work for HR, sure, but they’re paid to do it.
          What’s worse is it wastes the time of applicants, ESPECIALLY if you hold a mock interview process to give the illusion of looking at other candidates. Been there, sucked to use my precious PTO, time, and energy prepping for an interview that was a total sham because they were going to hire Fred all along.

          Reply ↓
    2. AcademiaNut*

      Having them say it outright wouldn’t make me feel any better. I would feel better if they told me that in the job posting, so I would know not to apply in the first place. After I’ve spent the time preparing the application it’s going to annoy me, more so if I took time off work solely to hide the fact that they weren’t conducting a general job search.

      Reply ↓
    3. amoeba*

      I’d absolutely like to know (and I’ve also actually heard that after I got a rejection – through internal sources I knew privately though, not officially from the hiring manager!)

      I’d still question the professionalism of the person writing it though – I’m not in the US and I’m honestly pretty sure that would be illegal (in case they’re actually required by law to post externally, which is a thing here), or at least openly against company policy. So I’d be very surprised to say the least to see it stated so openly. I wouldn’t be surprised if they let me know through inofficial channels though, we’re a small field and everybody knows everybody or at least has common acquaintances, so this tends to be quite easy…

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Yeah. I’m glad they said it *before* interviews, but they’re still openly admitting to doing something that’s Not Great (publicly posting a job they had no intention of hiring anyone for) so it’s not like I’m super appreciative of the transparency here.

        Reply ↓
    4. Dread Pirate Roberts*

      At a university where I never worked but applied to a few times, they added something like “please be advised that there is an internal candidate being strongly considered” (paraphrasing) to some job postings. I liked that method so I knew not to bother applying for them. I’m sure some people did apply anyway, but at least they’d know going in that the odds were against them even more than usual.

      While I understand Alison’s point that the rule to post externally means they really should assess all candidates equally, I’ve seen it from the other side enough where it really makes sense to earmark a position for a temporary or otherwise-would-be-laid-off employee.

      Reply ↓
    5. Falling Diphthong*

      I’ve been reading Nexus, about information networks, and an interesting point he makes is that bureaucracies are always opaque–as soon as they were invented, people couldn’t figure them out from outside.

      So in this instance someone tried to make the process clearer–“It’s not you, it’s us”–and that just revealed that here we have a regulation that says Joyce should place a green post-it on the file drawer Monday, and Stuart should take that post-it off on Tuesday, and the office has concluded that trying to argue the logic is lost and they just make sure the post-it happens.

      Reply ↓
    6. MassMatt*

      We get many letters from candidates facing rejection complaining about lack of transparency but the alternative seems fraught with potential problems.
      It’s no wonder most places send a generic “Thanks for replying, we went with another candidate”, or nothing at all.

      In this case the person writing the rejection letter apparently wanted to be transparent and the LW is unhappy about it, and at least one comment below questions their professionalism. It seems there’s no winning this game.

      Reply ↓
    8. Caramel & Cheddar*

      I think the transparency is good but the way they worded it was weird, or at least the piece of it that we got here was. The “specifically intended for” part just feels like a reprimand, like LW5 was wrong to apply or something. Maybe there was more in the rejection that made that bit less odd.

      Reply ↓
      1. Antilles*

        I don’t think it’s a reprimand for applying, I think it’s just trying to make crystal clear that where things stand. This job is specifically intended for a current employee = This is not an open competition for the job, don’t waste time following up, we’re only posting this because HR Policy 44-J requires us to.

        Reply ↓
    9. learnedthehardway*

      I have occasionally sent a rejection letter to a candidate explaining that an internal person got the role – but this is usually in a case where the candidate was interviewed (possibly a couple of times) and was a good fit, and the internal applied at the last minute. My motivation is usually to let the candidate know that they were considered very strong and that the decision was out of my and the hiring manager’s hands, and that we would like to keep them in mind for future positions.

      In this case, the role seems to have been published externally by accident. It’s a nice gesture to explain to strong candidates that this is the case and to apologize for wasting their time.

      Reply ↓
    11. Happy*

      As an applicant, I would always prefer more transparency. I’m always shocked by the letters that complain about transparency.

      Reply ↓
    12. Jenesis*

      I’d appreciate it and wouldn’t take it personally, but I also wouldn’t apply to that company anymore. If they’re going to waste my time once there’s no reason they won’t do it again.

      If the transparency was in the job posting itself that would be a different story.

      Reply ↓
    13. temp*

      This happened to me when I moved into my current role. Specifically, I was also a temp, so I was technically employed by the temp agency. When I got hired on by the actual company, they needed me to officially apply for the new role so they posted a job on their website, and once I applied they took it down. I don’t think they do any internal-only job postings, so it was publicly available for a few hours.

      So it wasn’t that there was a rule that the role needed to be posted externally to say that they met some interviewing quota. It just needed to be posted so I could apply for it and it happened to be public.

      Reply ↓
  19. anon for this one*

    At least LW3’s higher-ups nixed the idea in advance. One time years ago, ours approved an event, but then, after an incident of sexual harassment occurred at the event, disclaimed any connection with it after the fact and told the employees who attended they would have to pay the bill (ca. $100 per person, though it cost each of us double that as most people had a spouse or partner in attendance).

    Reply ↓
  20. Seeking Second Childhood*

    In some places & eras, women’s restrooms had couches.

    Maybe this initiative started woth removing those.

    Reply ↓
  21. PurpleCattledog*

    I’m not familiar with Title IX not being American. But I see the idea behind providing 2 separate seats for people to wait/meet whatever over a shared couch. Especially if the coaches weren’t particularly roomy.

    It won’t stop people having sex on campus who want to. What it will do is allow people who aren’t comfortable having someone sit right against them take a seat. It allows larger people to comfortably take a seat without feeling they’re ending up too close to the next person or taking up too much space. It takes away the power plays some people do of sitting towards the middle so you have to stay standing or squash in or request they move (aka manspreading). It does decrease opportunities for harassment as it forces physical separation.

    It allows staff to feel comfortable meeting with a student (and vice versa).

    It wouldn’t surprise me if there was an incident – and assault in the form of groping was my first thought.

    Reply ↓
    1. Observer*

      All of this.

      It won’t keep jerks from being jerks. But it will reduce opportunities for certain types of jerkitude, and that’s generally a good thing.

      Reply ↓
    2. Not that weird*

      Yes, exactly – I’m in academia, and I’m sure there was an incident, and I’m sure this sort of thing is the idea behind it. I’m surprised that more people aren’t understanding this, so I want to second your comment.

      Reply ↓
      1. Angstrom*

        Replacing couches with chairs isn’t controversial — it’s the stated reason that’s odd. If the powers that be had said “We’re replacing the couches with chairs to provide more seating options”, it would be a nonissue. Invoking a federal nondiscrimination law to justify a furniture change? That’s unusual.

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

      Manspreading is slightly different. It’s a power move, yes, but it’s not just about sitting in the middle. Rather, it’s where man-people who are sitting in public (such as on a subway) spread their legs so that their man-parts have lots of room. They literally spread their legs very wide, so that they take up far more of the shared seat than they normally would.

      Here’s some images: https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/f27/a16/e5af08f33594695d6c4904d06a5d953906-14-manspreading.2x.rsocial.w600.jpg and https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/23a9242a9158bfa4975b095879937ade16a729e3/0_108_5256_3154/master/5256.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading#/media/File:EMT_Madrid_ampl%C3%ADa_su_se%C3%B1alizaci%C3%B3n_a_bordo_del_autob%C3%BAs_para_evitar_el_%E2%80%9Cmanspreading%E2%80%9D_(01).jpg

      Reply ↓
    4. New Jack Karyn*

      Yes, thank you! I was surprised that so many commenters thought it was bananapants, and could not envision a situation that would benefit from chairs vs couches.

      Reply ↓
  22. I should really pick a name*

    #2
    The food stamps feel like a bit of a red herring.

    Is this the kind of party where employees contributing food is even a thing?

    Reply ↓
        1. FashionablyEvil*

          This part: During the lead-up to our holiday party, a younger coworker offered to use their extra food stamps to get food for the team. They explained that they weren’t planning to use the stamps for themselves and wanted to contribute to the celebration.

          To me, that reads as people were contributing to the holiday party aka it was (at least partly) a potluck.

          Reply ↓
  23. Irish Teacher.*

    LW1, my guess is that this is related to the fact that you work at a college and mention students and colleagues being on the couch, so I am guessing both students and staff members come in to the office. My guess is that they have something in their minds related to the “casting couch” idea and are worried either about the possibility of sex between a staff member and a student or else a student claiming something untoward happened. Or perhaps just a student thinking the couch represents something unsavory.

    Still ridiculous because if a staff member wanted to sexually harrass a student, they could do it regardless of whether or not there is a couch in an office and I doubt anybody is going think, “oh, a couch. Ha, I can claim that I was sexually harrassed here and sue the college.” That just…isn’t how any of this happens.

    But my guess is that they might have had something in their minds related to “casting couches”…yikes, does it look bad to have couches around where staff are interacting with young people? Will somebody get the wrong idea?

    I could be way off, but I suspect it is some way related to that.

    LW5, in a way, I think that was kind of nice of them. I got told something similar on a phonecall when I was rejected. “We were impressed with your interview but one of the candidates had worked here before which, you know…does give a bit of an advantage” or words to that effect. It’s just saying, “it’s not that you did anything wrong. It’s just that the job was basically gone.” They might also be trying to make it clear that they are serious about keeping your application on file and genuinely will consider you if a “real” vacancy comes up.

    I know in teaching in Ireland, where there are jobs that have to be advertised just so somebody get permanancy (I presume it’s so that if a teacher isn’t good at their job but isn’t really bad enough to fire, there is an easy way of finding somebody better. But in 9 cases out of 10, the person is good enough and schools aren’t going to replace people after their first year in their job just for fun), young teachers often feel they must be “doing something wrong” if they get 5 or 10 interviews in May or June and are rejected for all of them, when in reality, the odds are all those interviews are for those kind of jobs. (Most of the actual interviews take place later in the summer.) So I’m guessing they just don’t want you to think you weren’t good enough for the job.

    Reply ↓
  24. Tuesday Tacos*

    That co-worker could have just as easily said “I would like to bring in some snacks for our party, what does everyone like” and then used her food stamps to buy them. The fact that she had to say she had them makes me think she wants people to know, for some reason. Maybe she’s tryong to show how underpaid she is.

    Reply ↓
    1. Parcae*

      Maybe. But I’ve also been in a community/situation where receiving food stamps was completely unremarkable, and in that context I’d interpret the coworker’s comments as an explanation for why she could afford to be generous.

      Reply ↓
    2. N C Kiddle*

      Maybe she just wants to stress that it’s no hardship for her to bring this food in. Maybe she’s a compulsive oversharer. Not sure it really changes the advice.

      Reply ↓
    3. abcd*

      It’s also just… the truth and I don’t think there’s a reason to hide it. It could have also been to qualify that she could only get certain things so the requests had to be within certain parameters

      Reply ↓
    4. Moose*

      Or maybe she doesn’t feel shame or awkward about the fact that she has food stamps and she’s just a regular oversharer. I often say things like “I’m going to put this on the good card and get points.” IMO this isn’t any different when it comes to mild over-sharing.

      Reply ↓
  25. A Book about Metals*

    I think the transparency is good on #5, but hopefully they’re not actually interviewing people if there’s no job

    Reply ↓
    1. DramaQ*

      When I worked at a particular university they required interviews because they did not want to appear to be discriminating against people. You had to interview X number of internal candidates and Y number of external candidates before you were allowed to formally make an announcement on who got the job. My boss loathed it because he felt he was giving candidates false hope but he already knew who he was going to hire. He couldn’t tell them that though or he risked his job.

      The other university I worked at required you interview all internal candidates who met minimum qualifications. A way to skirt around not being able to openly tell people that the job was already in the bag for someone else was to put “Internal candidates only” which those of us that worked there knew was code for changing someone who already worked in that department’s title so don’t bother applying. It also allowed them to not have to open it to external candidates they never intended to hire.

      On the one hand I get it because you do want to limit bias as much as possible and avoid accusations of nepotism but it is incredibly frustrating as a job candidate. I appreciated the “internal candidate only” label because I knew to not even apply. I didn’t waste my time on something that was going to happen.

      I HATE interviews where we all know you are only doing it because you have to. Some people cop real attitudes. It’s just as much a waste of my time as it is yours so you can at least treat me with common decency thank you very much.

      Reply ↓
  26. BonerBuster*

    LW#1: This is clearly about an incident (or 3 or 5 or 10) where faculty tried to get a student to “go the extra mile” for an A.

    Google Backroom Casting Couch for some instructional videos.

    Reply ↓
  27. Grad School Attempt 2*

    My university also has a “no couches” policy that seems to apply to most public spaces, but I’ve been told it’s to prevent students from sleeping on them. (As someone who regularly napped or even slept on the computer lab couch in undergrad I guess I can’t blame them… but now that I’m in my 30s and I have a bad back, I’d really appreciate couches so I could work in a reclining position.)

    Reply ↓
    1. ecnaseener*

      That’s a shame. As a student, I appreciated having couches on campus (in locked spaces, not public ones) so I had somewhere to sleep if I didn’t want to walk home at 3am or in a blizzard or whatever. Students are going to work late sometimes, give them somewhere to crash if they need it!

      (I didn’t sleep on the couches much, because I knew they had in fact been used for sex, but it was an option!)

      Reply ↓
      1. HonorBox*

        Couches would have been a massive upgrade in some situations at my college. People slept in chairs that were not made for comfort. People put their heads down next to a computer keyboard. People (raises hand) slept on a floor.

        There were couches in some private areas – think places like the yearbook office or the reception area in a pod of faculty offices – but after hours, those were not options.

        Reply ↓
      2. Carol the happy*

        I flipped the cushions over so I could pretend there was a “clean” surface….

        Then, I realized the cushions had been flipped so many times! (This was early 80s, the couch was late 60s.) I took the cushion covers to the laundromat once before Christmas break, and they made the rest of the couch look like something Noah tossed off the Ark. By summer, they were nasty again on both sides.

        Reply ↓
  28. HonorBox*

    Regarding the couches: It seems likely that there was an “incident” of some sort but this seems like a MASSIVE overreaction to an incident. If people want to engage in the sort of behavior that I think most of us are assuming happened, they’re going to engage in that behavior regardless of the furniture. I could get on board with Title IX being the reasoning if a professor or professors had couches in their offices and were engaging (or attempting to engage) in bad behavior. But I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the behavior they’re trying to stop can and will happen almost anywhere.

    Reply ↓
  29. Chairman of the Bored*

    “No axe throwing because weapons” is pretty far out.

    By the same logic there should be no corporate softball teams, because bats can also be used as weapons.

    I’d bet more people get weaponed by bats in a year than by axes.

    Reply ↓
    1. Lady Danbury*

      I could understand that logic being applied to a gun related events, because obviously gun violence is extremely common in the US, but when’s the last time you’ve heard of someone being attacked by an axe? It seems like she just didn’t like the event for whatever reason, and was grasping at straws for a reason to ban it.

      Reply ↓
      1. ActualTeacher*

        The last axe attack in the US was six days ago. Someone was convicted of an axe attack a few days before that, and there was another axe attack a few days before that.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lady Danbury*

          And how to those compare to gun stats? Obviously not saying axe attacks don’t happen, but the frequency doesn’t anyway compare to gun violence.

          Reply ↓
          1. Observer*

            It doesn’t really matter. Guns are the weapon of choice in many circumstances, because they are easier. But that doesn’t change the underlying issue of violence.

            Wood chopping is one thing. Ax throwing is absolutely focused on axes as weapons.

            I don’t have a gun, don’t want a gun, do not like guns. But the reality is that the issue the US has is *violence* not guns.

            Reply ↓
    2. Sloanicota*

      I just hope OP and the coworkers all agreed to cancel the outing at that point. A trip with coworkers that I have to pay for myself *and* use my own PTO versus the holiday party? I can just go axe throwing on my own time with my friends, I’ll go to the free holiday party that lets me use PTO to mingle with coworkers. Honestly, shame on the boss for setting it up this way. Who schedules another team building event at the same time as the party anyway (thus defeating the point of the party?).

      Reply ↓
      1. And thanks for the coffee*

        Knitting needles could be used as a weapon. Knitting in meetings would actually improve my attention and prevent me from dozing off.

        Reply ↓
        1. Observer*

          Anything can be used as a weapon. Axes designed for throwing *are* weapons. That is their primary use.

          Now, it’s true that in some recreational spaces, they will use small lightweight axes that are not necessarily designed for throwing, but that work well. But axe throwing is definitely about using axes as weapons.

          Reply ↓
  30. Jam Today*

    I’m pretty hung up on #2 — I don’t think my first reaction to my young colleague offering to use her food stamps to contribute to a potluck would be “oh that’s not necessary”, it would be “why is my young colleague being paid below the threshold for food stamp qualification?”

    Reply ↓
    1. ShouldICareAboutSportsBall?*

      That was my thought as well. Assuming a fulltime employee and barring other circumstances or an unusually large family size (since benefit thresholds can change based on these) it is a problem that one can work fulltime and not make more than the low threshold set for food stamps. Of course having been in this position more than once it might be striking a nerve with me which I’ll totally own.

      Reply ↓
      1. abcd*

        I think the discomfort the coworkers are feeling in this circumstance is completely the right feeling directed at completely the wrong person.

        Reply ↓
  31. Lab Boss*

    The No Couches rule sounds like the college had a problem and is implementing what a legal blogger I follow calls “The Syllogism,” referring to how overly simple or pointless ideas get thoughtlessly implemented to fix a problem, whether they’re an actual fix or not:

    Something Must Be Done
    This is “Something”
    Therefore, This Must Be Done

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Australian*

      Or ‘Farrelling’, as it used to be known at one of my workplaces. We had a boss who got very frustrated when he couldn’t make X thing happen – whatever it was – and channelled his annoyance into reorganising his office. This could happen a couple of times a month, so it was very difficult to keep track of where anything was supposed to be, never mind where it actually *was*.

      Also referred to as ‘displacement activity’.

      Reply ↓
  32. Person from the Resume*

    LW1 …

    Your boss’s answer sounds like a very flippant response. “We want to keep people upright” is extremely flippant. Either he didn’t have a good answer, or he didn’t want to make you aware of it. (because, yes, possibly people engaged in some hanky panky on a office couch).

    It is not a serious answer so don’t try to dig deep for serious meaning. Title IX doesn’t restrict couches in an educational setting.

    Plus it doesn’t sound like you even liked these couches. Just learn that your boss might not give you a serious answer and try to learn to parse that. Feel validated that his response really doesn’t make sense except that he’s quite possibly trying not to give a straight answer to you.

    Reply ↓
    1. Person from the Resume*

      Third possibility is this guidance came down from higher up and your boss thinks it’s silly and that’s why he’s describing the “logic” behind it in a silly manner.

      Reply ↓
  33. Dek*

    Re #1 — it really rubs me the wrong way that their reasoning was “Title IX.” It gives the vibe of “Ugh, all these rules, who can keep them straight” with heavy eyerolling. Not quite as bad as “Fine, then I won’t talk to ANY women!” But still with the sense that it’s a landmine, and that the problem itself is Title IX.

    I do remember in the Honors Lounge at my college, we had couches, but were forbidden from having blankets (an expedition to the equally forbidden storage room was stage, yielding no blankets, but a fantastic 3-foot long bass fish pillow) for similar reasons.

    Reply ↓
    1. A Lab Rabbit*

      It rubs me the wrong way, too. They may have had a legitimate reason for this (and probably did) but then just say “Oh yeah, we’re going with all chairs from this point forward so people don’t have to share a seat.” That’s a good enough reason in and of itself.

      Reply ↓
    2. Phony Genius*

      People who hate Title IX will blame anything they can on Title IX, and make sure to tell as many people as possible.

      Reply ↓
    3. Artemesia*

      This jumped out at me too. It is just another way of denigrating the sensible regulations by making their enforcement ridiculous. Classic frankly MAGA take on regulation especially regulation that protects women and minorities or is related to opportunity.

      Reply ↓
  34. CommanderBanana*

    Re: the axe-throwing: I am leaving my current job in part because my department director has a habit of pulling “policies” out of her rear end when something upsets her.

    She feels people are taking too much leave? Oops, there’s a policy that you can’t take two types of leave consecutively! Someone worked from home and it irked her? Oops, now there’s a policy that you can’t take WFH on a week when Mercury is in retrograde or someone wore purple! She also presents these as policies that “we’ve always had,” since she is a liar and a gaslighter.

    While I would not make an axe-throwing party the hill on which I’d die, I would still be wary of a boss who makes up “policies” on the fly.

    Reply ↓
  35. H.Regalis*

    If people are bound and determined to have sex at the university, the lack of a couch isn’t going to stop them.

    If a sexual predator is going to rape someone, the lack of a couch isn’t going to stop them either.

    I’m wondering if it’s the latter and the university is taking away the couches so they can be seen as doing something. Either way, I think it’s ridiculous.

    Reply ↓
  36. ZSD*

    #4
    Did anyone else do a double-take when they read that this conversation was happening via Teams chat rather than in person (or over a video call)? If my boss gave me negative feedback like that via chat rather than verbally, I would react negatively.
    I took a moment to think about why I would react so poorly to that, and I think it’s for two somewhat contradictory reasons: 1) Since you’re putting the feedback in writing rather than delivering it verbally, that makes it seem more like this is a Big Deal and that you want to document my error and the feedback. 2) On the other hand, chat is normally for quick, casual messages, like, “Hey, can you close out of this doc so that I can get access?” So giving formal feedback via that informal medium feels inappropriate.

    In the future, I’d say that the better option would be to deliver the feedback verbally (in person or via a video call), and then, if the error does warrant documentation, follow up with an email. But don’t *lead* with the written feedback.

    (I had read your question up to that point thinking you were asking how to end a verbal conversation, not a written one.)

    Reply ↓
    1. Czhorat*

      I’m with you.

      Also, if the text of the letter was literal and LW ended with a reference to ASoIaF (I assume that’s what it is) then I see that as doubleplusungood; if you’re giving me negative feedback then act like a professional. The tone doesn’t need to be ice-cold formal, but trying to lighten the mood at the end with a pop-culture reference could not only land badly but also blunt the impact of the actual feedback.

      Reply ↓
      1. ZSD*

        I don’t think that was literal; I think the LW used real colleagues’ names in the actual Teams message but used aliases here for anonymity.

        Reply ↓
      2. Hlao-roo*

        I’m with ZSD here. I think the literal text was probably closer to “I understand that you’ve been very busy while [coworker’s name] is absent, but I cannot take action to help you out if I am not aware of what is going on. What is important going forward is that this doesn’t happen again. I will send the [employee recognition write-ups] to the [other work department] via [email].”

        Reply ↓
    2. Government worker*

      Yes, this was my first reaction as well. The fact that the manager gave the feedback on chat, then came back after doing something else to reiterate it (“end the conversation”) makes it seem even more inappropriate to me.

      Reply ↓
    3. LW 4*

      As mentioned above, I nearly missed the publication. The reason why it happened in chat was because that is where I was made aware of the situation as I was discussing. I overstated my saying it was negative feedback, it was nothing like a formal reprimand. More like we were discussing a situation, I asked her why an action wasn’t taken, she explained, and then I told her that it can’t happen again. Had she been in office, we would have had the discussion in person. Performance feedbacks are done in person.

      Reply ↓
  37. Tiny Clay Insects*

    My university stopped allowing couches as well, including in faculty offices. I don’t think there was an incident, I think they’re just paranoid about the appearance of impropriety.

    Reply ↓
  38. Czhorat*

    For #3, this touches on a recurring theme as to what constitutes an “official” work event; if you are paying your own way but your boss is there and it’s planned during work then it’s defacto a company event and the company should have some input as what is done and who is invited.

    I’ve done axe-throwing with work; it’s one of those edge cases that’s a tiny bit dangerous, and a tiny bit athletic. It can work for some groups and not for others.

    Reply ↓
    1. Lab Boss*

      In my volunteer work with undergrad groups, they often try to circumvent safety rules by having “unofficial” events. We always tell them the best way to think of it is, if something went terribly wrong, would the newspaper say “College students arrested” or “Org X party broken up by police”? IF it’s the latter you’re at risk of it being an “official” event no matter what you call it.

      Reply ↓
    1. czhorat*

      This could be the real reason. If there are two guests in an office you can seat them more reasonably in two chairs than huddled together on a small couch in which they might have more incidental contact than they’d want.

      Overall I suspect that in most offices this kind of change would be no big deal.

      Reply ↓
    2. UKDancer*

      Definitely. Our tea point seating area at work has some chairs at tables and some settees and soft chairs for breakout meetings and catching up. I almost always prefer a soft chair over a settee because it gives you more personal space and means you don’t have people right next to you.

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

    1. that is..bizarre.

    I mean we removed all the sofas in our building but that was due to them being a pain in the rear end for the cleaners to deal with (bugs, coffee spills, that most of them were from the smoking rooms back when that was still legal get off my lawn) and fire hazards/general disrepair.

    Removing them on the grounds that they *might* cause sexual harassment is just plain weird. I’ve worked in the office a long time and I can tell you there is no environment people won’t hump in or on if they’re really determined.

    If this is a ‘men and women shouldn’t be sat close’ thing then it’s just gross.

    Reply ↓
  42. abcd*

    Yikes, I hope that hearing a coworker is on food stamps would make people uncomfortable! I think the right way for you and your coworkers to navigate this is to pressure your company into making sure everyone is paid a living wage. Why should this coworker hide their circumstances?

    Reply ↓
  43. CubeFarmer*

    RE LW#1, There was undoubtedly an incident. Didn’t even have to be anything overtly sexual, but could have been because a staff member at the college used their office couch to sit uncomfortably close to another person (student, staff person on a lower rung, etc.)

    Reply ↓
    1. Sacred Ground*

      But to treat this as if the presence of the couch was the problem is to let the actual perpetrators off the hook. “Well, of course there was an incident, there was a couch!” And blaming the decision to remove ALL couches on Title IX, as if a law allowing students to sue colleges for sexual harassment means the faculty can’t ever have nice things like couches in offices, seems particularly dickish. It’s like he’s saying, “yes, we ought to be able to have comfy furniture, but since the women complain about harassment, we can’t.” As if having couches in offices means that harassment is inevitable.

      It’s also saying that women complaining of sexual harassment and triggering Title IX investigations are the real problem! They are the reason we don’t get to have couches (blaming women for compaints) and the presence of couches in the office somehow makes sexual harassment inevitable (absolving men of blame for any complaints about them).

      It’s a lie and it’s gross.

      Reply ↓
      1. CubeFarmer*

        Hmm, I don’t think anyone said that the perpetrator got off the hook, and the LW genuinely (perhaps naively, but definitely genuinely) wondered about what a couch had to do with Title IX.

        I didn’t read as much into this as you did. I think there’s a lot to be said for removing the opportunity along with removing the actual harasser.

        Reply ↓
  44. Targaryen*

    Would knitting needles and crochet hooks also need to be banned from offices if a manager is concerned about weapons and safety?

    Reply ↓
    1. Willow*

      Throwing axes are designed as weapons (they’re different from the kind you’d use to chop wood). Knitting needles are designed to knit. Almost any object could theoretically be used as a weapon, but it makes sense to me to treat objects whose primary purpose is violence differently from other tools that could theoretically be used to harm.

      Reply ↓
  45. A Lab Rabbit*

    The “We want people to remain upright.” tells you all you need to know about what prompted this decision. Either a lot of people were napping on these sofas, or there were shenanigans.

    Reply ↓
  46. ubotie*

    Someone definitely napped and/or boned on those couches but the LW is not entitled to specifics, not if the HR person is even semi-competent at their job. Also, couches in public places are *gross*, end of story. Companies won’t even hire custodians to come in every day to empty the trash or restock the bathrooms nowadays, you think they’re going to set aside money for upholstery cleaning???

    Reply ↓
  47. TQB*

    Ha! I work in an office where:1) couches are banned “because…”; and 2) where a division had an axe-throwing party that many members of the team felt was exceptionally bro-y and not inclusive.

    Reply ↓
  48. Ari*

    Am I the only one who thinks important feedback, especially “negative”, should be delivered in person ( or at least on the phone) and not via chat?

    Reply ↓
  49. Old Lady*

    I once took my team (HR) on a teambuilding event to a Rage Room. We spent half an hour (appropriately safety gear equipped) destroying a car windshield, old computer equipment (particularly cathartic), and tons of other glass stuff with crowbars. Company paid for it. (Yes, waivers were signed). Best team-building ever.

    Knowing our very conservative, stodgy CFO had to sign off on that was pretty awesome too.

    Reply ↓
    1. DJ Abbott*

      After 30 years of aggravation with PCs, I would so love to smash some in a rage room! I often whisper swearing and unkind things to my PC at work.

      Reply ↓
      1. Rainy*

        I’m not saying that smashing a pallet of Dell Latitudes with a hammer would be one of the three wishes I asked of a genie, but if said genie gave me one more wish after my first three? I’d smash a pallet of Dell Latitudes with a hammer.

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

          We once got a bunch of techies, a load of old kit (mostly from our homes), a really big garden and some axes one weekend.

          It’s incredibly therapeutic. However, wear goggles. The cleanup is a pest too (it went to recycling).

          Some tips though:

          CRTs implode
          Hard drives can take a lot of whacking
          And take the toner out of the printers first.

          Reply ↓
  50. Sihaya*

    Eh, I’ve taught axe throwing to elementary school aged girls and boys in our service organization using my spouse’s gear and targets. And he’s taught a hundred times more of them.
    First rule of axe and knife throwing: those things aren’t actually supposed to be sharp. The last inch or so at the tip may be filed down to a wedge, but it’s not going to cut through, say, a brisket or paper. The edge or point should just be a wedge that goes in between the layers of wood when you face the grain ends toward the thrower. The most common safety issue I’ve encountered is scraping up your hand on the burs that form on handles after the knife gets thrown against other things a lot. We have to watch for that like hawks and file them before the next child gets a turn. We teach and watch for range safety because, duh. That is easier to control with our usual setup of just two lanes. The kids learn to handle the knives as if they’re sharp and start some range safety habits like not walking onto the field until everyone is done throwing and the safety guy tells them to go. But it’s like beginner archery with the dummy points.

    Interestingly, I’ve found that the same children kind of reset when we teach them hatchet skills for woodcutting – they’re suddenly scared of the hand axe, because it’s just so plainly different and sharp. Personally I know I’m more nervous every time I have to run them through those skills.

    Sorry, that’s just my observational tangent.

    Reply ↓
  51. Trixie the Great and Pedantic*

    As an avid women’s sports fan, I kept reading “coach” instead of “couch” in letter 1 and whew did *that* change the tenor of some of Alison’s answers. (Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, getting rid of coaches would do more to put a stop to inappropriately sexual incidents than getting rid of couches would…)

    Reply ↓
  52. toolegittoresign*

    I was a commuter student in college and nothing was more sad than when I needed a quick nap between classes and my options were either to go sleep in my car or to sleep under the very large, unused study tables in the library’s lower floor. There were no couches anywhere. The “commuter lounge” had those types of seats you find at airport gates that all have armrests between them so no one can lay down.

    Reply ↓
  53. Skytext*

    RE: using food stamps for a pot-luck. While I agree that what LW2’s coworker did wasn’t appropriate (going around “taking orders” for what she was going to purchase for the co. party using food stamps), I don’t think it is wrong to use ingredients purchased w/ food stamps to make a dish for a pot-luck. Because yes other people eat that food, but it’s a trade where Food Stamp User is receiving food in return that she eats. So she is still getting fed by those FS. And maybe she is getting more expensive food—maybe shrimp and steak fajitas while she brought Mac & cheese. Also, people usually take their own leftovers home from pot-lucks, so she’ll still be eating that food. It’s like if she bought an apple with FS, then traded it to her friend for a pear which she ate. Technically she bought the apple w/FS, but she received an equivalent pice of fruit in return. That doesn’t violate the spirit/purpose of food stamps.

    Reply ↓
  54. A Book about Metals*

    FWIW I just checked online for my state’s SNAP Guidelines. It doesn’t mention anything about where you are supposed to consume the items, or who they’re for. The only things it says are what items you can and can’t use the food stamps for. So depending on where the coworker lives, it’s possible this completely ok

    Reply ↓
  55. Bruce*

    LW1: I feel that having 2 separate seats is more congenial than 1 couch… I know that I am not comfortable sharing a couch with strangers. But the “Title 9” explanation is weird!

    As for axe-throwing, I have an axe and I’ve thrown it, but I’d not do it at a work party. There are videos that show some close calls when an inexperienced person throws the axe or tomahawk way off target and it bounces off the netting and flies back at the thrower! Could ruin someone’s day…

    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