should conjoined twins receive one salary, daily meetings with my boss, and more

by Alison Green on January 27, 2025

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

1. Should conjoined twins receive one salary or two?

I recently read this article. The summary is that Abby and Brittany are conjoined twins who are fifth grade teachers. They only draw one salary between the two of them because they occupy one position in their school district. I can’t help but feel like this is a little unfair. I understand that they can only physically occupy one classroom at a time but they are two people with two minds who, presumably, both put work into lesson plans, etc. As an avid reader of your website, I am very curious to hear what your take on this situation is.

It’s true that the school district is benefiting from the position being filled by two people with two different perspectives and potentially two separate sets of strengths. It’s also true that they’re in a single teacher’s role, meaning that the school district would need to use a second teacher’s salary without that putting a teacher in a second classroom. And realistically, if hiring them meant paying two salaries to fill one position, it would significantly limit their job options because a lot of employers simply wouldn’t hire them. I do think you’d have a potential legal problem if the half-salary they’re each earning is less than minimum wage … but otherwise my take is that the whole system we’ve set up for work isn’t cut out to handle conjoined twins!

2. An acquaintance won’t stop contacting me about a job he was rejected for

An acquaintance of mine applied to work at my organization. He got partway through the process and realized through a mutual friend that I work there, so reached out asking if my area was hiring. We are, so I passed his resume along to my manager, as he seemed like a good fit in terms of skills and experience. This landed him an interview. My manager said something was “off” in the interview and he didn’t seem like the right hire, and asked me if I was strongly recommending him. I said no, he’s just an acquaintance. We used to volunteer at the same place for a time a few years ago, but I have never worked with him professionally, nor is he a close friend. So, she informed him we would not be moving forward.

That was two months ago. Since that time, he has contacted both me and my manager repeatedly to “follow up,” including emailing my personal email to ask for advice about how to be reconsidered. My manager told him we were no longer filling the position but he still persists, each time explaining how and why he would make a great addition to the team. After responding politely the first time, I am now ignoring his email. However, we do have mutual friends and I am worried we may run into each other, and in fact I likely will see him at an upcoming event. Do I continue to ghost him? I’m not the hiring manager but he got a very clear “we aren’t moving forward” after the interview. I don’t think he realizes these continued attempts to change my manager’s mind are giving a bad impression.

You’re not obligated to coach this guy, but since you’re likely to run into him, you could respond to his next email with, “I’m sorry this didn’t work out, but that really is the final answer and you should not keep contacting Jane about it — it’s coming across as too pushy and has no chance of changing the decision.” I might add, “Continuing to contact her will be harmful, not helpful.” If he keeps it up even after that, feel free to go back to ignoring him.

3. How to interpret new daily meetings with my boss

I have a fully remote sales job and have been a top performer for the last couple years, though admittedly I have been flagging lately. About a month ago, my boss started scheduling DAILY 30-minute 1-on-1s with me, in addition to our weekly hour. I’m trying to figure out why, and how to respond.

The way he framed it, I’m working with some challenging customers right now and could use the extra support, and this will give us a chance to discuss in detail. This kind of makes sense, but I don’t feel like I really uniquely need support compared to others on the team.

Two other interpretations were: either this is a warning shot that I’m underperforming (though I’m still otherwise being praised and assigned important work) or he’s concerned that I’m considering quitting (there’s been some drama lately and I don’t think I’ll stay forever, but I’m fine for now).

Each interpretation suggests a different approach — if it’s really for my benefit, I should just honestly pick his brain and end early if I don’t need help. If it’s a warning, I need to use the time to show commitment to the work. And if he’s trying to read me, I guess I shouldn’t share any doubts? Since I don’t know why we’re doing this, I try to cover my bases and project a lot of confidence and enthusiasm and progress and frankly, it’s exhausting. Does one of these sound more plausible than the others? What would you do?

Any of those is plausible. Do you have the kind of relationship where you can just ask him? Personally, with a boss I had good rapport with, I’d just say, “Can I ask — are we having extra daily meetings because you’re worried about how I’m approaching these clients? Or is there anything else in my work that’s making you concerned?” And depending on how that went, I might say, “If you think it’s helpful to meet daily, I’ll of course do that, but on my end, it works well to keep our weekly hour and just touch base ad hoc if anything comes up that we need to discuss before that.”

But otherwise, since you say you haven’t been performing at your usual level and there’s room to get back there, the smartest avenue is to do that. If that’s his concern, you’ll be covering it. However, that’s not about projecting extra confidence and enthusiasm; it’s about the actual work you’re doing; projecting enthusiasm alone is unlikely to take care of it. (And unless something happens that convinces you that  definitely not what’s behind the new meetings, it’s safest to assume it could be, and proceed accordingly.)

4. Should cost of living adjustments be prorated based on your start date?

Is it normal for cost of living adjustments to be prorated based on employment start date?

I work for a nonprofit with employees working remotely across the country (I am one of these). I started working here in July 2024, which was the beginning of the org’s fiscal year.

This past fall, the org held town hall meetings to share messaging about the upcoming year: COLA’s would be lower this year, no merit raises, and they revamped how bonuses are done, so no more individual bonuses but rather a team bonus situation. I’m new, so I don’t know how things used to be done and I tried not to worry too much. And of course none of us works at a nonprofit to get rich — I’m biding my time being underpaid just to try to get my federal student loans forgiven.

The COLA emails start coming out in early January. My adjustment is 0.58% and includes a note saying, “This COLA acknowledges the 2024 percentage and exceeds the 2025 projected rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and is intended to help alleviate the impact this may have on you and your family.” I did the math. That’s only $300 more per year, or $12 per pay cycle. I wrote back and asked if there were perhaps an accounting error, and was told that employees who started after October 1, 2023 do not receive the full 2.5% but rather a prorated amount commensurate with their start date. They said the reason for that is that employees hired in that time period “have a salary amount that takes the current CPI into account, whether by the amount offered or the minimum range amount they are brought in at. By providing a prorated amount for the following year, we are balancing out the total amount for COLA between the two calendar years.”

Is this normal? Is this fair? My expenses for the upcoming year are going up way beyond half a percent! There are many things about nonprofit life that make me cry, and the pay is the biggest one of them.

It’s not unusual for cost-of-living adjustments to be prorated in that way. The thinking is what they shared: that the salary you came in at already reflected the cost of living at that time, whereas people who have been with the organization longer had their salaries set under different cost-of-living calculations. Whether or not that’s true is a different question, and would depend on whether the salary band for the job you were hired into had changed in the previous year. But it’s pretty common for them to figure that you accepted the salary as a fair one only six months ago.

5. Federal employee grappling with private sector resume

I’m a federal employee. If you’ve been watching the news this week, there’s a lot going on in the background that’s making life for federal employees very hard right now. Aside from the obvious, they are making several lists of categories of employees, likely trying to figure out how to get rid of as many of us as possible in big sweeps of layoffs and firings at once. (We’ve been told these lists are being provided with names to the White House.) This has pushed me to try to find a private-sector job for the first time in more than 25 years. I know I need to completely overhaul my resume from a federal format where listing your duties is primary to a corporate one where accomplishments are king. What I’m not sure of is my current position, which I started about 4-5 months ago. I’ve done two big things that will eventually make a difference and have numbers behind them, but they’re not there yet. I know you’ve advised folks in the past to leave these shorter stays off resumes, but I’m concerned about it not looking like I’ve had a job since the summer. How would you advise me to handle this? If this weren’t my current position, I’d just leave it off, but I’m stumped here.

Leave your current position on your resume. People will understand why you’re looking right now. And for the two big things you’ve done that don’t have numbers behind them yet, you can still list those! Not all accomplishments can be measured quantitatively, and that’s okay. Just describe as best as you can what you’ve done and what the impact is / why it matters.

You may also like:
{ 351 comments }

{ 351 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Observer*

    #5 – Looking for a new job.

    Only someone who is living under a rock is going to wonder why you are looking for a new job. And I really doubt that people’s politics are going to play into that.

    Lots of luck!

    Reply ↓
    2. Katie*

      Does it even look bad to be at the same organization for 25 years but leave after month 4 in your current role anywhere?

      Reply ↓
      1. OP5*

        Good point, Katie. It’s been hard to look at things with reason when we’re getting hit so hard on all fronts. I appreciate the perspective.

        Reply ↓
      2. Anon for this*

        I had a coworker who started job hunting THE MOMENT he was officially promoted to the team lead role and found out our employer caps promotion raises at 7% of your existing salary. He was gone two months later.

        Reply ↓
        1. The Rural Juror*

          I had a long conversation with a close friend who works for FEMA where we talked about her worries. Also wishing you all the best, OP5. This is such a tough situation.

          Reply ↓
      2. Paperclip Movement*

        I’m in local government (shielded from a lot of the chaos) and I’m also privileged enough that getting laid off or fired won’t hurt much. I’ve decided to resist the attacks on our institutions by staying in my current role and doing the job I was hired to do as long as possible. If they want to get rid of me, they’re going to have to go through the entire disciplinary process or fight my union to do so.

        As I said, I’m in a much safer position than you are, and being prepared in case the layoffs go through is certainly wise. However, this administration is deliberately creating fear and chaos right now. I would urge you to wait to see how the legal fights are going before actually resigning, if you are in a position to do so.

        Reply ↓
      3. RedinSC*

        Awww, OP5, I’m sorry. This is all so difficult.

        List the current position, it’s not going to look weird.

        Best of luck.

        Reply ↓
      4. Jules the 3rd*

        Serious best of luck. At least you can be totally sure it’s not you!

        On the new initiatives, you can use language like, “Implemented [New Process] which is projected to [impact]”. “Projected to” is a commonly used term, though you will need to be able to talk to how the projection was calculated in an interview.

        As someone who just went from 22 years in industry to local government:
        – Aim high but be flexible
        – Be aware that the pace in industry is faster and the path is less certain
        – Don’t forget your state and local govs

        Reply ↓
      5. blergnerd*

        Take this as it is, you know your safety and your situation best, but the fed workers in my life has a “do not comply in advance” policy and have decided they’re gonna make the administration fire them and will not choose to leave before that point. And even then, there’s union reps and lots can be contested.

        Dunno your deal and how comfortable you, but as you’re brushing up your resume you may want to consider *all* your options. This is one of the few scenarios IMHO where being pushed out forcefully is a badge of honor, and thinking employers shouldn’t hold that against your record.

        Reply ↓
      6. Canadian Federal Plankton*

        A lot of Canadian federal government employees are thinking of our US counterparts right now. Sending you strength and caring. <3

        Reply ↓
    5. iglwif*

      This this this.

      It’s SCARY to start over after that long in one place (I did it not long ago, and I remember it vividly) but absolutely no one is going to wonder why you’re looking and nobody is going to blame you, either.

      Wishing you all the good fortune in your job hunt!!

      Reply ↓
  3. Cabubbles*

    As a teacher, I feel like Brittany and Abby deserve a stipend. They’re double adult presence improves classroom management in the same way that the presence of a para creates. It also allows for them to assist students and complete other duties at the same time. Double teachers salary doesn’t seem plausible because they supervise two classes at once. Additionally, unlike a para they can’t run to the printer etc while the other continues to supervise.

    Reply ↓
    1. Cmdrshprd*

      Idk, I can see where you are coming from and don’t disagree, but would a second mind/eyes improve management enough that a school would consider it worth it?
      In your para example I assume the para gets more than a stipend, and rather a full salary of their own.

      If it’s 1 teacher at x salary, or conjoined twins at x salary plus stipend (unless it was very minimal) I don’t think the extra class management benefit is worth the cost.

      I wonder how the federal/government registration works, do they have 2 social security numbers or 1.

      I feel like it has to be only 1, because I think for government purposes 1 person. is 1 body, even if it’s two separate minds.

      if they had to take disability I don’t think they get two ssi checks.

      Same for retirement, I don’t think it would be feasible for them to work two “separate” full time jobs, because then their body is working 16 hr days that is not sustainable even with two minds. So idk that they could work one job with 1 SSN and another with a 2nd SSN.

      I think maybe it depends on they type of conjoined, but I think I have read/heard that tasks take joint coordination because one twin controls the left side and the other twin controls the right. So most jobs would require both of them to be mentally present/aware to accomplish what 1 body usually does.

      Reply ↓
      1. KateM*

        They have two passports, they have two dricing licences, they have taken exams separately – so they have to have two different SSNs.

        Reply ↓
        1. MechE*

          Having two SSNs makes sense theoretically, as one may work and the other might not. Having two passports is ridiculous. One can’t travel without the other.

          Reply ↓
          1. ScruffyInternHerder*

            No disagreement there, but as Alison said – nothing about our system is set up to work for conjoined twins, and I’d extend it beyond work!

            Reply ↓
          2. knitted feet*

            Well, how else would you do it, though? Create a whole new passport setup to allow two people to be covered by one document? Decide which twin gets to be the official one and which doesn’t? Or just issue these two people a passport each and get it done already?

            Reply ↓
              1. Rusty Shackelford*

                It could have a photo of both of them, and maybe the name could be Abby Middlename Lastname/Brittany Middlename Lastname (I know one of them got married but I don’t know if she changed her name, otherwise it could be Abby Middlename/Brittany Middlename Lastname). Everything else would look like a typical passport.

                Reply ↓
                1. knitted feet*

                  OK, sure, I guess I can picture the layout. But then – why? MechE above is of the opinion that having two passports is ridiculous. But two people each having their own passport – which is a useful form of official ID – sounds entirely reasonable to me. You could put something together that would cover them both at once, I suppose, but why would you need to? I mean I’m all for saving paper but…

                2. Rusty Shackelford*

                  @knitted feet – I agree it’s not necessary, I was just thinking about the question of how it would be done.

            2. BW*

              I have a brother and sister. All three of us were on the same US passport when we were little. We were all official on the passport.

              Reply ↓
              3. Emmy Noether*

                Child entries on parent’s passport are no longer possible (for a few years now, exact timing depending on country). They also didn’t include a picture of the child, just a name and date of birth.

                And which one would be the “child” entry in this case?

                Making a whole new passport format/template with two pictures seems like a LOT more trouble than just issuing two.

                Reply ↓
              4. Kuddel Daddeldu*

                That does not work any more, same as the wife (and children) being on the husband’s passport.
                Nowadays, a (biometric) passport for each individual is required for entry into pretty much any country.
                (I travel a lot and have to check entry/visa requirements quite often; I also know the numbers and expiration dates of my last three passports by heart from entering them into a gazillion of forms…)

                Reply ↓
              5. iglwif*

                It has been a very, very long time since that was the practice in the United States. Like maybe the 1960s? I was born in the 1970s (born in Canada to US citizen parents) and got my first US passport when I was a toddler.

                Reply ↓
          3. Temperance*

            They’re two individual people, though. While it’s true that they can’t do anything like travel separately, how do you decide which sister *gets* the passport?

            Reply ↓
        2. Phony Genius*

          Since they are legally two people, I am certain that they have two SSN’s. But if they only draw one salary, how does that work? Is the whole paycheck put in one name, or do they each get a check for half the amount?

          Reply ↓
      2. Cabubbles*

        Paras do get wages not a stipend. I suggested an added stipend to accommodate for the added benefit the school was getting. I don’t think the benefit equates to a second full salary. Legally, the twins are their own persons they’re just physically incapable of being apart.

        Reply ↓
      3. JSPA*

        If they used excellent headphones and directional microphone, I suppose they could both speak and both voice-to-text type for a dual remote job of some sort (teaching or otherwise). But if they went into classroom teaching, they presumably want to be there.

        Reply ↓
    2. KateM*

      This depends on a lot of their employer’s attitude, I think, and whether they even planned to have more than one teacher in a classroom. In my current school there are a couple of teachers who go to other lessons to help, but it is a relatively new thing for us – ten years ago there was one teacher in a classroom and that was that. It very much means that our school now has some extra money that they can pay for those extra eyes. In an one-teacher system though hiring one of them would basically amount to someone saying in an interview that they will always have to take along another person who is not employee to them to the classroom – and requesting that the other person must be hired and paid separately as well would make it rather a lot. “I need an accommodiation of always having this other person with me” may be doable, “you can hire me only if you also hire my sister for the same time for a particular position that we tell you it must be” may be considered an outrageous demand.

      Reply ↓
    3. MK*

      I don’t doubt that having a second adult in the class provides a benefit for the class, but it is a benefit the school, didn’t ask, budget or hired for, so I don’t see how it is reasonable to ask them to pay for it.

      Reply ↓
      1. AcademiaNut*

        That’s the problem with a school job – the twin would probably add some benefit to the classroom, although not as much as a separate employee as they can’t get around independently, but the money to pay them would have to come from a fixed budget, and would mean another classroom had less staff than they otherwise would.

        The twin not being an employee could be a bit tricky as well, however. They’d be in the position of a community volunteer, which would mean they wouldn’t be allowed to be privy to information that isn’t allowed to be shared with people who aren’t teachers or the kid’s parent. So the twin would really need to be counted as an employee to be allowed to be present for all her sister’s job duties.

        Reply ↓
        1. KateM*

          Yes, so it’s definitely possible that the situation was “we’d like to hire you; we will have to officially hire your sister as well for the situation to be allowed, but we have budget for only one teacher sp you’d have to share one salary; so is this okay with you?”.

          Reply ↓
      2. Nona*

        They did hire for it – they hired the twins. If they didn’t want the benefit, maybe they should have hired someone else.

        Reply ↓
        1. doreen*

          That runs into problems , too, though. For the twins. If an employer has to pay extra for a benefit they don’t want or need ( or maybe doesn’t even exist) , they won’t be hired. I’m not so sure they would think it’s better to be unemployed than it is to share one job and one salary.

          Reply ↓
          1. Antilles*

            This. The practical result of the “well they’re getting a benefit” argument is that nobody would ever hire the twins.
            In the scenario where the school sees a benefit of having two teachers in the classroom and is willing to pay accordingly, then they’d like prefer to spend that salary on two individuals who can act separately, to handle things like “breaking the class into smaller groups” or “handling one disruptive child” or etc.
            In the scenario where the schools only wanted/needed one individual in the classroom, then there’s no reason to pay the extra money from their limited funds because even if there is a benefit, it’s unnecessary.

            Reply ↓
        2. DeliCat*

          Unfortunately, if the choice is paying an additional salary and simply hiring someone else then most employers (especially in that particular industry) will simply hire someone else.

          Like with most jobs there’s a fairly wide spectrum of skills and abilities amongst teachers. It is possible that the benefits generated from the twins bouncing ideas off of each other or incorporating their differing interests into their lessons could be achieved by one teacher at the higher end of that spectrum.

          Reply ↓
          1. MigraineMonth*

            I think there are roles where the two could meet the requirements of two separate roles at the same time, at least with reasonable accommodation. I imagine many telework jobs could work if there were a computer, keyboard and noise-cancelling headphones for each sister.

            However, in-person elementary school teaching doesn’t seem to be one of those roles.

            Reply ↓
            1. DeliCat*

              Absolutely. I was thinking back to when I was a VA; no hard copy and very little phone calls.

              But I agree. I don’t think it’s feasible in their chosen field.

              Reply ↓
    4. Nina*

      If one of them can be actively teaching a class while the other is doing marking or planning or administrative stuff for the next class, they could cover more class periods per day than a single teacher (because of not needing non-contact periods to do admin!) and should be paid pro-rated to how many class periods they cover compared to a single teacher.

      Reply ↓
      1. KateM*

        When I am teaching, I am standing up all the time – writing stuff on black- or whiteboard, walking around in classroom to help students. I can’t imagine how mu conjoined twin would do any marking or planning. Plus, I may need two hands for any of these jobs and the other twin is operating the second hand.

        Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          A teacher whose mobility is more restricted can set their classroom up differently though. I don’t know how Abby and Brittany run their classroom and I think it’s kind of weird to speculate, but the fact that one person moves around a lot as a teacher doesn’t mean that it’s necessary to teach.

          Reply ↓
        2. BW*

          If they are sitting at a desk in front of a computer, one of them can be projecting their computer “white board” on a screen in front of the classroom from their computer while talking to the class. The other twin can be grading papers (either actual papers or online homework on her own computer) at the same desk.

          Just because you are standing up all the time and writing on a white board at the front of the room doesn’t mean that’s how they are doing it.

          When I teach, it’s over Zoom, and I use the white board function in Zoom, and I share Powerpoint presentations. There’s no more standing up and writing on a chalk board.

          Reply ↓
          1. Banana Pyjamas*

            Yes when I was in high school, some teachers taught everything from an ELMO, projector, or SMART board. So they were in one place for most of class. If we had work time during class, that would be when they walked around the room. It’s perfectly feasible that one could do admin while one teaches.

            Reply ↓
      2. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

        so how does one twin do grading or administrivia while the other one is actively teaching the class?

        Reply ↓
          1. Annie*

            But I think each control one arm, right? So they could be focusing on different items and working on different things at the same time.

            Reply ↓
    5. JSPA*

      They should at minimum benefit from two bodies worth of lifetime health benefit limits, both get dental, and I’d argue, double retirement matching. And if other teachers have a paid aide in the classroom to be a second set of eyes (some schools / districts do), and they don’t need one, they should get that pay as a stipend.

      In theory, one of them could study (audio?) for additional degrees or certifications while the other focuses on teaching, and get bonuses for having those?

      And if there’s pay for lesson planning outside of work hours (rare?) one could argue for that being added, if one is planning while the other is actively teaching.

      But otherwise, if each is effectively tagging along for much of the other’s teaching stint (and two kids can’t really be coached at the same time because they are too close to hear their own coaching without confusion from hearing the second voice and topic, which seems likely) they’re not functioning as two full time teachers in the same classroom.

      Reply ↓
    6. Rebecca*

      I don’t know about it being the same as the presence of a para. When I have someone in my classroom with me, that person can be on the other side of the room, either helping with behaviour management or teaching another group of students. I am trying to picture them sitting at one table with two separate groups of students, and the close proximity would make that difficult. A para who had to be standing right up beside me while I was teaching wouldn’t be that useful.

      BUT I am also sort of deeply uncomfortable with the idea that 2 people are getting one salary, even if I can’t articulate the justification for the second salary. Especially since I do think they were required to pay two tuitions for their degree!

      It’s just such a unique situation that unless we’re there seeing how things are actually working, there probably isn’t a blanket rule that would work for conjoined twins in general.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nobby Nobbs*

        For one thing, you’re still using the second person’s time even if you’re not getting a lot of labor out of them. Would that be an “engaged to wait” situation? In spirit and principle at least, if not legally.

        Reply ↓
      2. Sloanicota*

        That is a great point. With only one salary, I hope they only had one tuition. Most of the comments here relate to both situations. Yet somehow I get the feeling their school charged them separately for their education and their employer pays them together.

        Reply ↓
        1. Person from the Resume*

          Separate brains, two separate degrees, probs my paying double. Especially since in college you pay by class. Even if they took the same classes, they submitted two homework assignments and took two test so they’re like two separate students for that purpose.

          Reply ↓
        2. Phony Genius*

          According to the article, they only paid one tuition, but two sets of administrative fees. I guess this was a compromise.

          Reply ↓
            1. Person from the Resume*

              But the school is not getting 2 teaching roles filled. They are getting 1 classroom teacher. If they pay two salaries, the school is getting shafted.

              It’s not even getting a teacher and an assistant that can take one student aside and work one-on-one while the teacher teaches the rest of the class. They can’t even really have separate conversations since they are so close together.

              Conjoined twins are unique. Pretty much each conjoined twin situation is unique. The women are doing the best they can in a world not designed for them. They have had to compromise like getting the same degree so they could attend classes together. This is a compromise they worked out so that they can be employable in a field they’ve chosen.

              I suppose that they might could make two salaries if they were able to find jobs that just required data entry where they could sit side by side and work on separate computers. But it would have to be very strict data entry, limited human face to face interaction. They’d have trouble being on the phone so close together or if one needed to go to a meeting, the other would be away from their desk and work.

              Reply ↓
      3. doreen*

        I agree that there probably isn’t a blanket rule that would work for conjoined twins or even jobs in general. For a teaching job, it seems like the employer would get some extra benefit from having a second person who can pay attention to what’s going on while the other teaches but not as much as a second teacher or even a second person (like a para) who can work with a different physically separated group of students – but for other jobs, the employer won’t get anything extra and for still other jobs , the employer would be able to fill two positions.

        Reply ↓
        1. Retired editor*

          One of my children had a team-taught classroom in elementary school, where two teachers shared one job. My understanding was that they were each paid 60% of the designated salary plus pro-rated part-time benefits. They had some overlap in hours, but no classroom aide, and I think the extra 10% in each salary came from the aide/tutoring pool of funds.

          In the case of the twins, people have asked how independently they can work. I think that is a factor. Can the school afford to pay them each a 60% salary or more? Will their health insurance cover all their illnesses?

          If this is a public school district, flexibility may depend on state law and local sentiment. For their sake, Ihope they are effective and well-liked teachers who can make a case for two salaries. They’ll need a decent retirement income.

          Reply ↓
      4. Sneaky Squirrel*

        I share the same sentiments. If the law treats them as two separate individuals (e.g. requires separate passports, ssns, files taxes separately, two teaching licenses), I’d be uncomfortable with two getting one salary.

        But I can’t see that any employer would have a use for both sisters, given that they share one set of hands. There’s not much one sister could do while the other is teaching. She’d likely be spending her time coordinating with her sister on hand movement, which likely means her attention will be divided at best. And with only one body, there is still going to be body fatigue from standing and teaching all day, so it’s not likely that they’d be able to cover more hours than a standard teacher.

        The idea of a stipend feels perfect to me. Give one a salary, and then the other receives a consulting stipend for the time she puts in which addresses the minimum wage to an extent.

        Reply ↓
        1. Artemesia*

          There are all sorts of teachers who share a job and a classroom; it is quite common. Normally they alternate days or one is mornings and the other afternoons with perhaps a half day overlap. Job sharing is not unusual with each getting half pay. In this case both are there all day but they are still doing one job. Requiring two full pays for one job would just mean they would not be able to find a job.

          Reply ↓
        2. Rusty Shackelford*

          Is it actually two teachers getting one salary? Or is it one teacher who gets one salary, and her sister is there basically unpaid? How much do they collaborate on the work?

          Reply ↓
    7. Jackalope*

      I kind of like the stipend idea; it acknowledges the reality of the situation – two people who can’t teach separately – while also giving some extra money because the school district is getting the benefit of an extra person in the classroom.

      Reply ↓
    8. Artemesia*

      It makes sense for them to share a position. but I hope that policies are adjusted for things like insurance.

      I have a friend couple who occupied a single professorship at a university when they had young kids. Both are fine scholars. they accepted one salary but the sticking point was insurance. Normally the employee got full coverage and you paid for the spouse/family. They wanted since they both were employees to have their insurance covered and just pay for the kids. The school was at first rigid because they were each essentially half time. They finally came around. Both professors now retired eventually were full time and both achieved tenure.

      So for some things Brittany and Abby should be treated as full time employees — I’d do it for things like retirement matches for their IRAs etc. But it is fair when they have one class to have them share the job.

      Reply ↓
    9. JMC*

      The main point is they are legally two adults and two people doing the job, they deserve two paychecks, period. They have two separate licenses! So two legal identities. Pay them both.

      Reply ↓
      1. KateM*

        Yeah, the real life solution will probably be “we don’t have funds to pay them both so we will hire someone else that requires only one salary”.

        Reply ↓
        1. Homeburger*

          Seems like it would just be treated as a job-share, which it kind of is. The tricky part would be benefits – if they were considered part time and not technically eligible for certain things that seems unfair and I would hope exceptions would be made for this unique situation.

          Reply ↓
      3. Jennifer Strange*

        The school, presumably, only put out a hiring notice for one teacher, though. That Abby and Brittany chose to apply, knowing they were two people, is on them. It’s not as thought the school lied about having two positions and then pulled a bait and switch on them. I’m sympathetic to their situation, but if the school is forced to pay two salaries for one position their response is going to be to hire someone else, which doesn’t help Abby and Brittany either.

        Reply ↓
    10. Cacofonix*

      The real point is, as stated in the response, is that our system isn’t set up for conjoined twins. It shouldn’t be. Conjoined twins are rare to start with, never mind living long enough to be contributing adults. Every situation they are in will need to be one offs. So we can debate long and hard for these two but the reality is they have a job offered and accepted, with two contracts and a salary they split.

      That said, it is a fun thought experiment that has one single real life example with twins of this type of capability.

      Reply ↓
      1. 1-800-BrownCow*

        You are correct. I can see arguments for both sides and this is such an unusual, rare situation, there really is no great answer on what best to do. I bet society spends more time debating what is right and wrong in this situation then they have ever done themselves. I hope they both have joy in their life as they navigate their difficult journey through adulthood.

        Reply ↓
    11. anon for this one*

      There was an update on them that showed them in the classroom doing student teaching. One the pupils they interviewed said, “We can’t get away with any misbehavior, they can see everything!”

      Reply ↓
    12. Lisa*

      It feels a little like a job-share arrangement, which aren’t that unusual in education. You have two people that split the job, each gets paid half-salary but also gets benefits.

      Reply ↓
    13. CeeDoo*

      The only issue with this is that while there are two brains in there, there is only one body. When you have a teacher and a para or a coteacher, they can be in different parts of the room doing different things, helping different people. My coteacher can run a small group while I handle whole group instruction, and that’s something they can’t do. I do think they deserve more pay, but it’s not the same as having 2 separate people in the room.

      Reply ↓
    14. Jules the 3rd*

      From wikipedia, ‘Each twin controls one arm and one leg’ so they:
      Can not be in two places at the same time
      Can focus / work on two different priorities, esp if given two computers.

      A stipend seems like a reasonable compromise.

      Reply ↓
      1. Anonymous B*

        Ok hopefully I didn’t miss this comment but while everyone brings up good points and questions, I’m wondering how are they gonna pay all their debt with 1 salary? I heard they got charged double for tuition when they went to college.

        Reply ↓
    1. KateM*

      It says about high school that two registration fees but one tuition fee, but I didn’t find anything about higher education.

      Reply ↓
      1. A. Lab Rabbit*

        Yes, and that’s why Jill said “I bet”. And I agree. They probably had to pay for two separate university degrees.

        It’s certainly an odd situation all the way around. Some orgs will want to consider them as one person when it benefits the org, or two people when it benefits the org. Reminds me of a certain compromise in American history, unfortunately.

        Reply ↓
    2. BatManDan*

      Okay, now I’m wondering how do they proctor the exams? LOL. I mean, there is no way to tell if they are using one brain or two to answer the questions!

      Reply ↓
      3. Dovima*

        What an odd thing to say. They are not telepathic. They would have to talk to collaborate on test answers, just like anyone else, and proctors watch for talking. Passing notes would also be obvious, just as with any two non-conjoined individuals.

        Reply ↓
    3. Ohio Duck*

      But that would kinda make sense because they are two students. They wouldn’t write the same essays and receive the same grades.

      Reply ↓
    4. SunnyShine*

      If I remember right from the show, it was 1.5 for tuition. But after looking it up online, the articles said they both paid individually for tuition.

      Either way, I think they should get 1.5 salary.

      Reply ↓
      1. KateM*

        As a blanket statement – “no matter what they are doing they are doing 1.5 person’s job”? I don’t think it works like that. I can see how for some jobs, they could be doing full 2 people worth of work at the same time (like that checkout example, but I also imagine some kind of scientific research), but for some other jobs, they are doing no more than exactly 1 (like if they worked as truck drivers), and for all possibilites inbetween.

        Reply ↓
    5. I can see you*

      Okay yeah so? They are two separate beings in the sense of two separate consciousness, “souls,” etc. They have their own thoughts, likes, dislikes, etc. What if one twin had wanted to get a teaching degree but one had wanted to pursue something different in college? Why wouldn’t their school charge two separate tuitions same with any non-conjoined twins that were attending the same school but studying separate degrees?

      Reply ↓
      1. Jill Swinburne*

        It was in reference to their only receiving one salary: two student loans in exchange for one salary. It doesn’t feel right to me.

        Reply ↓
    6. Riley*

      It is, not common exactly, but a commonly proposed solution at universities to offer one faculty position to married couples with phd’s in the same field. Some couples take this bc it’s easier on the relationship than finding two faulty positions at two different universities.

      So, it’s not like this is without precedent.

      Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

      If my boss suddenly required a weekly 30 minute 1:1 meeting, I’d see it as a reason to up my game. We have weekly team meetings, monthly 2:1 meetings with coworker who has he same job description and our manager, and department meetings every two weeks.

      That said, I have a great relationship with my manager and by the time things got that far, I’d be well aware of the reason for those meetings…

      Reply ↓
    2. Chaordic One*

      A daily meeting certainly seems excessive, but I’d love to have a weekly 30 minute meeting with my boss. Yes, up your game and do your best. Look on it as an opportunity to learn as much as you can in those meetings. (It might well be that there really isn’t anything to be learned, but give it a shot.)

      Reply ↓
      1. Tea Monk*

        Same. People say they want to be left to their own devices but if you leave me to my own devices, well, it’ll get done but probably not the way you want

        Reply ↓
      2. MigraineMonth*

        I insisted on a meeting with my boss every other week. Getting feedback from him–as opposed to hearing his complaints about you through the grapevine later–was like pulling teeth.

        Reply ↓
    3. Agent Diane*

      OP3 ~ if you can be honest with your boss about your performance dip and what you are doing to address it then that’s what you should do.

      One thing you’ll want to do is get this requirement reduced as soon as possible. Right now it’s taking at least two working hours of your week, which puts you in a challenging position. You want to improve your performance, but have less time than your colleagues to do it in.

      Reply ↓
      1. Varthema*

        That depends upon the nature of the meeting. In some of my meetings with my manager we do some brainstorming or troubleshooting or drafting of one of our tasks, and I come out of it much further ahead on it than I would’ve after a half hour of brainstorming by myself.

        Reply ↓
        1. Allonge*

          Yes, in principle the meetings could help – e.g. OP and boss agree on a course of action with Client A, which both allows OP to see what the boss thinks is a good way to handle it and for boss to troubleshoot before action is taken. Next day they can review what went wrong / right and so on. Or OP gets approval for things every day and can proceed without waiting for boss’ input, which otherwise is a bottleneck. Or boss is trying to assess what Etc.

          But this is still a very intensive handholding – frankly, I doubt that boss has this much time to invest in one employee longer term. I really see why it’s a concern-causing measure.

          Anyway: OP, indeed please ask or if that does not work, pay attention to what the boss is doing / asking you to do in the meetings. The other thing is, I know it’s hard with this frequency but try to be proactive about making best use of the meetings (have a list of questions etc.).

          Reply ↓
          1. OP3*

            OP3 here – thanks for the comments! Re asking – given how my boss has presented it I’m pretty sure he’d hold the line of things are fine, would point to some really strong recent deals and lots of praise and say he just wants to make sure i feel supported. A bit more context is that another experienced colleague and friend recently quit from burn-out which makes me the sole person maintaining a few key relationships, so it would be pretty bad if I left. Since we’re in a a bit of a staffing shortage I doubt I’ll get fired, so my best guess is probably my boss is trying to retain me and get my performance back up at the same time. But yea, every day has really been intense. I’ve been trying to prep stuff to make good use of the time – maybe I’ll start to float cancelling or reducing a bit though.

            Reply ↓
            1. Pickles*

              This makes sense to me. Also having a set time ensures your boss is focused on this priority everyday.
              If you were in person there would be casual time to chat but remotely it doesn’t always go that way.

              Reply ↓
            2. I own one tenacious plant*

              This meeting really benefits your boss as well. In addition to making sure you feel and are supported he’s getting a more in-depth look at what it takes to handle these clients and the skills needed. Hopefully that translates into an experienced coworker joining your team and taking some pressure off you.

              Reply ↓
        2. Slow Gin Lizz*

          One thing I’ve realized in the last few years is that meetings between boss/employee are often about what the boss needs, not necessarily what the employee needs. So maybe Boss needs these meetings in order to feel like a supportive boss, or maybe he thinks LW *does* need the extra handholding to deal with the challenging customers. Or maybe, if he thinks LW is going to quit, he thinks some extra 1:1 time will help LW decide not to leave.

          I have a very hard time myself with meetings that don’t seem to benefit me in any way whatsoever. I am not overly fond of Agile scrum meetings, where everyone is just reporting what they’re doing on projects that have nothing to do with me, but at least they’re concise and short. The ones that are the worst for me are the ones that higher ups tend to love, where they want us to brainstorm strategies or ideas that will help them achieve whatever the org/company/department is looking to achieve, because I am not a big-picture kind of person and almost never have anything to contribute to these brainstorming sessions; my strength lies in getting the detail work done and noticing the small things that no one else notices. But I go to them and I try to pay attention, because I know the bosses think I’m participating in a valuable discussion even when I barely say a word.

          Anyway, I digress. LW, it all goes back to “use your words,” as long as your boss is a decent one and will have an honest discussion about what the meetings are for. You could say that you will be much better prepared for them if you know his goals for them, without even bringing up that you know you’ve been underperforming, unless he brings it up first. Good luck!

          Reply ↓
      2. learnedthehardway*

        Seriously – I can’t think of a better way to affect productivity negatively than to have excessive meetings.

        Reply ↓
    4. Katie*

      I recently changed my weekly meetings to daily for my employee at the urging of my company (not specific to her!). They urged it to supplement the contact since we work remotely.

      I personally thought it was crazy but gave her the option and she really wanted it.

      So perhaps the manager got the same urging but just didn’t present it as an option?

      Reply ↓
      1. OP3*

        OP3 here – I wonder too if he got pressure from above to try to retain me or because of the importance of some of the clients I work with and he’s just responding to that. And I do kind of appreciate the extra time (sometimes) – daily probably wouldn’t be my preference though :-)

        Reply ↓
    5. Sloanicota*

      I felt a little bad for OP if they’re being held to the level of their previous very high performance. Now doing a perfectly regular amount of work (?) seems like failure. I wondered if after their performance dip OP is doing less than their coworkers – my guess is probably not.

      Reply ↓
      1. OP3*

        OP3 here – yea, I feel this too. Thanks for the sympathy. We’re pretty short-staffed at the moment, and I’ve always been praised for what I can bring together. I think they intentionally keep us a little short-staffed here too so as not to “waste” money on salespeople, so sometimes the culture feels like you have to be constantly over-performing or you’re effectively under-performing. It’s also so hard to measure – if I’m working on more gnarly problems and spend a lot of time getting a single deal, because I’m good at working through those relationships, but it’s super time-consuming… that might not be reflected in metrics as well. I know my boss gets it, or I think he does, that’s why he trusts me with the more complex stuff, but sometimes I think he (or people above him) wishes I could work on the hard clients AND have the same throughput as people working with easier clients.

        Reply ↓
        1. learnedthehardway*

          Perhaps these meetings can be a chance for you to suggest that you should be measured on different metrics.

          Reply ↓
    6. WillowSunstar*

      My anxiety would be going through the roof if I suddenly had to attend an additional 30-minute 1:1 meeting daily. But then we’re all getting laid off in a couple of months, so it’s already going through the roof. Not govt, private sector, but still.

      Reply ↓
    9. The Ginger Ginger*

      30 minutes a day is a huge time sink for 2 people though, if there’s not something specific to strategize about. I mean how much is the client situation changing in the basically 7.5-10 work hours happening between those meetings?

      Also, you say your performance slipped, but to what extent? Are we talking average performance to a low performance, or rockstar to good? And is it something that working harder is feasible to do to fix it, or is it a personal circumstance that you need to be extended some grace for? For example, if you’re burning out or having health issues, it’s not really possible to just “do better”. You might need a break, or temporarily fewer responsibilities, or something else.

      Is your manager historically a micromanager? Basically tripling the amount of meeting time you have with them a week is pretty extreme.

      I would be pretty alarmed by my manager adding a daily 30 minute meeting to my calendar with this little information about what’s going on. I’d definitely be digging into the goal of the meetings and my manager’s perception of my performance and role at the company.

      Reply ↓
    10. RedinSC*

      It’s that, or it’s the boss’s new management strategy. I know that one time, after my manager read a book on meetings, he revamped how all our meetings were done. So, does LW’s manager read these types of books and change up strategies, etc? Is that part of the corporate culture there? If so, it could really only be “this is our new strategy moving forward”

      But I’d ask, like Alison mentioned.

      Reply ↓
  6. I'm the Phoebe in Any Group*

    I think they deserve two salaries. In effect they are co-teaching, co-planning, co-working.

    Reply ↓
        1. KateM*

          “I need to do more work in order to do the job of one person” is not a compelling reason to pay you more. Rather, it is something that may make your employer wonder if they shouldn’t replace you with someone more effective.

          Reply ↓
        2. MK*

          No? They are filling one teacher position, so they are doing the work of one person. E.g. they are co-planning, but teh result is still 1 lesson plan, not 2.

          Reply ↓
      1. Irish Teacher.*

        I’d say it’s more like team teaching, where two teachers work together to teach a class. This can be done in various ways, from one teaching and the other dealing with discipline issues, answering questions, etc to one working with a small group who need extra help.

        A jobshare is more one works mornings and the other afternoons or one works two days and the other three. Each works part-time and gets paid for the hours they work.

        We have had both situations in our school and I would say this is far closer to team teaching.

        That said, the salary thing gets tricky because at least in Ireland, team teaching is considered resource and is paid under that and…I doubt one class would have the resource allocation for a full-time team teacher, so if the second teacher were considered part of the school’s allocation of resource teachers, students in other classes might end up with reduced resource hours.

        It might be different in the US but here, the government decides each school’s teacher allocation and while schools are free to decide how they use those teachers, if they have pay for 10 classroom teachers and 2 resource teachers and two of those twelve teachers are in the same classroom, you are talking either having nine classes, which means larger class sizes or only having one resource teacher for all the other classes.

        Reply ↓
        1. Varthema*

          Yep, in the US as well, teaching resources are very much a zero-sum game. As a former teacher myself I can certainly see how having someone there to brainstorm lesson plans and refine technique and, yes, be watching the class while I’m teaching and then that would really help pick up on who’s getting it and who’s not, who’s acting up, etc. But I’m still not sure it would even quite equate to having a para, because the other person can’t circulate independently. We certainly wouldn’t be able to talk at the same time any more than two teachers standing next to each other would talk at the same time.

          Reply ↓
      2. English Rose*

        Yes that’s what I think. Two people in a job share will often do a little bit more work than one person covering the same duties, because they have to keep each other updated on where they’ve got to as part of a handover of duties, but they share one salary. Such an interesting question and situation!

        Reply ↓
    3. KateM*

      I mean, if I went to my school and said “I run my lesson plans by my mother who is also a teacher, so you should pay her”, at best they would shrug and forget it, seeing as they could as well hold it against me like I was not able to do a proper teacher’s job on my own, at worst they’d fire me for showing school documents to a non-employee.

      Reply ↓
      1. Armchair analyst*

        Well this concern is legit – in this case, seems like both conjoined twins should be employees, so that they’ll both follow the rules and policies of the employer.

        A novel about conjoined twins is “The Girls” by Lori Lansens – it really made me think about people with this condition much more sympatheticly

        Reply ↓
      2. Pierrot*

        That seems different. In this case, the twins are both employees of the school and they are in the classroom together at all times, but they earn one salary.

        I think it’s tricky because schools are confined to their budgets. If this was a major corporation and money wasn’t an issue, I think the right thing to do would be to pay them two salaries, but that’s not realistic at a public school.

        Reply ↓
    4. Media Monkey*

      i think that’s harder to argue in light of the career they chose. in an office job like many, 2 people would equal double the output/ work completed and deserve double the salary. in teaching, the school has less flexibility than if they hire a different 2 people – one can supervise one small group while the other teaches the rest of the class, or one can fill in for another teacher. it’s an interesting conundrum though!

      Reply ↓
  7. Pennyworth*

    I have the greatest admiration for the achievements of the conjoined twins. They are probably the only conjoined teachers. Surely some provision could be made for their exceptional circumstances to pay them 2 salaries. If the educational authorities can’t make it happen, perhaps a twin-focussed charity could step in.

    Reply ↓
  8. Kiriana*

    I remember reading a spec fic novel some months back in which a small number of people spontaneously… gained an extra body? It was very weird, they generally basically thought of themselves as one person still but weren’t actually *entirely* one person, and a few pairs actually couldn’t stand each other and lived in completely different places. They were legally treated as a single person because how does the government handle that? Which caused all sorts of problems in terms of incomes, taxes, benefits, etc.

    I always wondered whether the author had done much research on how the law handles conjoined twins. Most of the information out there is about the ethics of separation since as we get better at doing so Abby and Brittany’s situation of living into adulthood while still conjoined becomes rarer, but also they’re much more likely to be treated of capable of employment than they would have been a few decades in the past. There’s also some discussion of legally distinct identities in regards to crime since there have been two cases where one twin committed a crime and a court had to decide how to sentence them without also inflicting punishment on the innocent twin as well. (If anyone’s wondering, in both cases it was decided that any imprisonment would not be appropriate, which might have been made easier by both crimes being relatively minor – one was assault in the form of a single punch and one was a speeding violation.) There’s theoretical discussion about more serious crimes but the only information I’ve found about employment law is about Abby and Brittany. Seems like they might well be the only conjoined twins to have entered the workforce in the modern era/outside of old freakshows and carnivals.

    Personally I’d almost argue that if one of them has employment with the salary of one person, the other person is therefore unable to also enter into a separate employment agreement due to a disability and therefore they should receive government disability benefits to top up the other person’s income. That would probably put them on about one and a half salaries, depending exactly how much teachers are paid in their area.

    Reply ↓
    1. Jill Swinburne*

      Oooh, now that’s an interesting aspect of conjoined twins I hadn’t thought of. If one commits murder, how do you prove the other isn’t an accessory? Or how do you even decide which one gets charged? (Presumably whoever controls the hand that pulled the trigger, but then should or could the other one have stopped them? And could you even tell which one did? Would questioning be like the ‘one of us always tells the truth and the other always lies’ puzzle?)

      It’s probably never going to be tested in court but if it was I’d follow the shit out of that case.

      Reply ↓
      1. Irish Teacher.*

        And if the other isn’t guilty, then how do you deal with sentencing? A non-custodial sentence probably wouldn’t be appropriate for murder but you can’t jail an innocent person.

        And yikes, imagine the moral dilemma for the innocent twin. Presumably, they would know what their twin did, but if they report them, then a) they are reporting their twin for murder, b) they are creating a situation where they are going to experience some degree of the negative consequences their twin does and c) they are presumably going to make somebody who is attached to them and who has a history of murder extremely angry at them. Even though the twin probably couldn’t kill them, I could well imagine it involving a certain degree of risk. And imagine the difficulty of trying to contact the police when half your body is adamant that you were not to do it (I mean, the same applies to the murder itself; it would probably be hard for one person to commit murder if the other were completely opposed but not necessarily impossible).

        Yeah, it would be a fascinating but also really upsetting, case.

        Reply ↓
      2. BatManDan*

        I’ve often wondered about the legal / criminal aspects of conjoined twins, whereas most people want to focus on the titillation that surrounds the fact that one of them is married and the other is not (although it’ll get weirder still when they are both married).

        Reply ↓
        1. Jenesis*

          If you click through the linked articles on the LadBible site, their mother did bring this up.

          Their mother Patty added: “I don’t know what would happen if they got pulled over for speeding. Would they each get a ticket or just Abby because it’s her foot on the accelerator?”

          Reply ↓
      3. Jennifer Strange*

        Conjoined twins Daisy and Violet Hilton actually starred in a movie about that same idea (it’s called Chained for Life).

        Reply ↓
        1. Jennifer Strange*

          And in reading the Wikipedia for that movie I see that there was possibly a real case of this with Lazarus and Joannes Baptista Colloredo in the 1600s where Lazarus escaped the death penalty for murder because it would also kill his brother.

          Reply ↓
  9. Feds*

    LW5 – I remain baffled as to where the current administration thinks thousands of people are going to go and what they’re going to do. I mean, I know that they don’t care but where in the United States is there a surplus or even a high need for highly skilled management type positions? So they basically fire what 200,ooo (no idea) people, where exactly are they supposed to go and earn a living?

    Reply ↓
    2. ghost_cat*

      I was living in Queensland, Australia when the incoming Premier cut the public service by around 14,000 jobs (that was, give or take, a workforce around 250,000). It was hard. Both my husband and I lost our jobs. I was contracting back to government 4 weeks later – and at the same salary but govt had to pay the consultancy fee on stop – but my husband had to retrain and shift jobs (he was in IT). It was a tough time and one that still makes me angry and very, very sad, not least from the public opinion who rejoiced in the cutbacks (e.g. waste of public money etc etc). We left Queensland and relocated to another State, where we still live to this day. My heart goes out to those of you in public administration. Hold your head up high and know that you have worth.

      Reply ↓
    3. Seal*

      That and the fact that the justification is that the targeted workers either aren’t doing their jobs and/or their jobs are expendable, despite having no idea what they actually do. And anyone who’s hired people knows how hard it is to fill even one vacancy, let alone hundreds of thousands.

      I saw a microcosm of this at my last job, so I know how it ends. We got a new director who came in determined to put own stamp on things. They came in promising raises and new facilities and open communication, none of which ever happened. Naturally, the staff had questions and concerns, which the director considered disrespectful, even going so far as telling us “I’m the director and can do what I want.” That included bullying, shunning, and badmouthing good employees. Within a year, half the staff left, taking their expertise and institutional knowledge with them. The director thought this was great, because they could replace them with their own people. However, they didn’t take into account the fact that due to an its relatively remote location, the entire organization struggled to attract good candidates. Nor did they consider who was going to do the work of those who left or what they were going to tell people who complained because it affected their work. It didn’t even occur to them that ours is a small industry that loves a good story, and everyone that left now had a GREAT story. The place is now a shadow of itself and a cautionary tale. The sad thing is that it was entirely due to one insecure person who wanted to prove they were in charge at all costs. So unnecessary.

      Reply ↓
        1. Seal*

          Yep – right down to the sycophants who are thrilled to finally have permission to implement their warped agendas.

          Reply ↓
      2. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

        We saw this in the UK when the railway was privitized. A governmental funded operation then in the hands of many, many private companies who were only out for money.

        Lookup Ladbroke Grove and Potters Bar for how these decisions can go so wrong. And we lost so much knowledge – we run on VERY old kit that has some interesting quirks and the incoming firms were convinced that all they needed were cheap engineering graduates.

        Decades later and we’re still suffering.

        Reply ↓
      3. Rex Libris*

        This is only a problem if one cares about the success of the organization. If, for some reason you wanted the organization to fail so you could oh, I don’t know, justify privatizing large sectors of it, this is a classic way to do it… Lay off workers and underfund departments until they can no longer accomplish their mission, use their inability to accomplish their mission as “proof” of their inefficiency, then argue that the solution is turning their functions over to the private sector.

        Reply ↓
    4. Cats Ate My Croissant*

      While I’m not from the US, I wonder if they thought (and I’m using that word loosely) of ’jobs’ as some sort of amorphous indiscriminate pool, “there are X jobs available and X people, no problem”. So the fired federal employees can conveniently fit into the ‘spare’ jobs freed up when they deport anyone they don’t like the look of.

      Reply ↓
      2. WellRed*

        The soon to be former feds are unlikely to take low paying agricultural and service jobs and those are the most likely to be affected by and anti-immigration plans.

        Reply ↓
      2. I'm a Fed*

        I think they care in the sense that they enjoy making people suffer. They consider making other people lose as “winning,” and winning is the only thing that matters to them. If they thought this all the way through, a lot of the highly-educated people in the country have jobs because of laws and regulations.

        I have 2 employees who have reason to be concerned and it’s hard to know what to tell them other than being sympathetic and letting them know what factors might play in (e.g. we’re not a targeted agency like say EPA). It’s stressful for them and for me, and upsetting. And that’s a feature, not a bug.

        Reply ↓
        1. Totally Minnie*

          Add to that the fact that a large percentage of federal employees are people of color or disabled people. The current administration actively wants people in those categories to be unemployed.

          Reply ↓
        3. OP5*

          I’m sorry it’s rough right now, Fed. This past week was so head-spinning. My spouse is on a list, and I already know people placed on leave or let go. I just want to get out while the getting is good.

          Reply ↓
      3. Artemesia*

        This. They have ended medical research stranding dying people who were scheduled to be on drug trials. they have decided the CDC and NIH cannot communicate about anything including the spread of bird flu. They literally don’t care if people die, if epidemics rage unchecked. It isn’t about ‘thinking they can replace these people’ — it is about creating pain and chaos.

        Reply ↓
      4. Elizabeth West*

        He just wants people who will do whatever he says. His agenda is vengeance and enriching himself, so whatever accomplishes those two goals will be the M.O.

        Reply ↓
      5. Rex Libris*

        I think their actual ideology is privatizing and monetizing the functions and services of government, but “shrinking” it or “increasing efficiency” sounds better. To do that though, it helps if they can convince people that the current system is completely ineffective, which is easier when every department is ridiculously understaffed and underfunded.

        Reply ↓
        1. Hannah Lee*

          ^ this

          There may be some people that believe the small government is better lines, but many more of what comes out when you scratch the surface of this is that someone with deep pockets wants to make even more and has convinced someone with power to drive towards privatizing them … like the move to privatize public land for resource pillaging by for-profit entities. And layered into that is a basic disdain for those that do this work, the populations they serve and a sick agenda of vengeance, maximizing pain, suffering, destruction of anyone who is not them, as well as tearing down what those “others” see value in. (it’s like Reagan gleefully tearing down the solar panels President Carter had installed on the White House as soon as Ronnie took office, only everything, everywhere, all at once)

          Reply ↓
      6. Pizza Rat*

        It is. The RTO is expected to reduce staff as people quit to find other remote jobs and they won’t be replaced. Then there’s the DEI division who are all on leave. You can bet they’re looking for other opportunities and of course won’t be replaced either.

        Reply ↓
    6. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      It goes beyond “they don’t care”, they are actively hostile. They’d be delighted if thousands of current feds are unemployed.

      (If at all possible, do not comply in advance. General thinking here in the DC area is they can’t actually do a lot of what they’re threatening, at least not right away, and it’s largely an attempt to get people to quit.)

      Reply ↓
      1. Watry*

        Yes, should those employees not be able to get another job or have to take a large step down, it will be seen as entirely their fault for being part of the Deep State/being a leftist/being part of a marginalized population and therefore not deserving the position in the first place/not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps/being paid by tax money/essentially whatever they can think of.

        Reply ↓
    7. Alex*

      This may sound harsh but at the end of the day people aren’t entitled to highly skilled management type positions so they may have to look at lower level work. Presumably the vast majority of these positions were not created as a pseudo job creation scheme but to add value to the federal government so if it is felt (rightly or not) that such value is not being created the lack of alternative jobs is not a justification for keeping these roles.

      Reply ↓
      1. I'm a Fed*

        It sounds like the average amount of knowledge re the federal workforce, i.e. somewhere between none and actively misinformed. This effort is not because it is felt that fed employees are not adding value, it is to kneecap the government’s ability to enforce laws created in the way the Constitution requires and replace it with people who are willing to ignore the law of the land and follow whatever the would-be king scrawls in sharpie. The administration does not like it at all that the federal workforce is doing what it is supposed to be doing, and he is trying to ignore the law by removing the ability to enforce it.

        Civil servants are not the “deep state” for following laws, rather than memos scrawled in sharpie, and ethics rules, and most of us could have made considerably more money in the private sector.

        Reply ↓
      2. I'm a Fed*

        ” such value is not being created the lack of alternative jobs is not a justification for keeping these roles.”

        This is incorrect. Agencies enforce the law as duly enacted by Congress. The administration wants to eliminate laws without an act of Congress and is firing the federal workforce to eliminate the executive branch’s requirement to enforce the law as written. It’s an end run around democracy, not some sort of real “efficiency” exercise.

        Reply ↓
        1. North Bay Teky*

          Exactly this. The oligarchs try to preach that government should be run like a business. When you hear that, you know they have zero clue how the government actually works. They just want to end oversight. They want to foul the air. the water and abuse workers with impunity.

          Reply ↓
          2. Justcuz*

            “Running it like a business” has ruined many institutions within this country. This last, dying breed of selfish Reaganites is bound and determined to ruin us all on their way out of power. And lets be clear here, not all Fed jobs are being hit; ones that benefit older adults and retirees (see: the voters of years past who voted to dismantle most institutions – and this administration’s largest voting pool) are not to be touched. And by that I mean – not touched ANYMORE when its now the time to benefit them. Such a selfish, broken group in our society.

            Reply ↓
            1. Artemesia*

              Every business the dear leader ran went bankrupt. He will be running the government like one of his businesses.

              Reply ↓
            2. Rex Libris*

              Public libraries went through a fad some years ago where they were going to shift to the “bookstore model” and run everything like a business. IMO it did immeasurable harm to the status and image of libraries as a public good and a public service.

              It calmed down somewhat when all the bookstores started going out of business.

              Reply ↓
            3. Samwise*

              Sigh. Everyone who doesn’t die young ends up an older adult. Are you saying that everyone over age 60 is selfish etc. That most folks over 60 “voted to dismantle most institutions”?

              You make it sound like a majority of people that age are to blame. That’s not true for women 65+, more of whom voted for Kamala. In fact, in every age category, more men than women voted for Trump. Trump’s largest constituency is “men”.

              Reply ↓
              1. Justcuz*

                Demographics are numbers. People make up those numbers. A large majority of a demographic voted for what is happening now. The vast majority of that demographic voted to dismantle institutions (many of which they are now trying to protect to benefit themselves) in the decades past. You may not have been the person. And good for you? I mean that is a low bar in of itself, but it not anything to suggest a certain part of our culture was raised and exercised a certain level of selfishness that affect us all and continue to affect us all to this day. There is also tons of very accessible objective evidence that shows this that is the case. Again, I am sorry if you are within that demographic and take offense it to, and good for you for not giving into the pressure of your cultural upbringing. But you can’t deny this isn’t real. its like when people say “not all men” when all men benefit from it.

                Reply ↓
            1. Coffee Protein Drink*

              and run by the rich because obviously the rich are smarter and better because they’re rich. There was an article in the Guardian about this philosophy and our current veep that I cannot find, but it’s disturbing.

              Reply ↓
        2. Alex*

          In the eyes of the president it is correct, but the point was not about the value of these particular jobs (many of which clearly do bring significant value and benefits) but rather that a lack of alternative jobs at the same level is not a legitimate reason to keep jobs if those jobs are genuinely no longer required.
          There are many excellent arguments for the retention of these jobs but positive arguments as to the wider benefits brought about by these jobs are much stronger than negative arguments about what would happen to the workers if their current job was no longer in existence (and in fact those in favour of the cuts would almost certainly claim that the fact that these individuals worries about the inability to source similar level work is due to (perceived) laziness or lack of ability on the part of the workers and highlights the need for such cuts).

          Reply ↓
      3. 3-Foot Tall Inflatable Rainbow Unicorn*

        This entire conversation, from the top post to this comment is assuming a vital fact not in evidence – that ONLY management jobs are the ones at threat, and ONLY federal managers.

        Read the EOs, especially the anti-DEIA one. It challenges the right of any woman/minority/disabled person on merit and specifically mentions private contracting companies who work for the Fed.

        Now throw a lot of people like that out of work, threaten private companies that still have DEI initiatives, and see how fast a, say, brilliant, qualified, and experienced black woman over 40 finds out the only “lower level work” she’s offered is house cleaning.

        Reply ↓
        1. Artemesia*

          Yes. Anti DEI is literally about making it hard for people of color and women to find good jobs; it is about authorizing the old boy network and over discrimination. Once again welcome to the world of mediocre men going to the head of the line.

          Reply ↓
    8. WillowSunstar*

      That and in the private sector, many companies are having layoffs right now also. I don’t think this was thought through very well. I don’t think the effect will be positive on the US economy.

      Reply ↓
      1. Phoenix Feathers*

        No, it was thought through. The issue is that the people who are making this decision hate the government and want to destroy it. They’re like a bunch of toddlers wanting to k com over a pile of blocks. They don’t CARE what disastrous consequences this will have for the country if they get to smash things.

        Reply ↓
    9. Salty Caramel*

      I wish I could say state & local governments would be delighted to have qualified people, but they may not have the budgets or openings to do so.

      Reply ↓
    10. Tea Monk*

      Uh…they don’t know how anything works. These are the same people who think that there should be work requirements for Medicaid

      Reply ↓
    11. RC*

      “Where the current administration thinks…” well, there’s your problem.

      Seriously, there’s no logic or reason to any of it, just chaos and stress and pain for the sake of it, collateral be damned. And then when services break because there’s nobody left to do it, they can say “see! Government totally sucks and is incompetent always!”

      LW5, everyone will 100% understand why you’re looking again so soon. It’s like how anyone would understand someone had a short stint end date c. March 2020 on their resume.

      Reply ↓
    12. mr.mathmadz*

      “but where in the United States is there a surplus or even a high need for highly skilled management type positions?”

      there’s not, which will be great because when you have massive unemployment folks are willing to take lower paid work and jobs they usually wouldn’t. eventually this echos all throughout all levels of employment and you get an underclass of people who can be forced to work very undesirable jobs for little to no money. this is what America was founded on, and is needed for the upperclass to make maximum profits.

      Reply ↓
      1. MassMatt*

        It’s depressing, but I’ve thought for the past several years employees have had an unusual amount of power to push back on bad jobs, get better pay, etc but that the pendulum was likely to swing back in favor of employers, a matter of when not if.

        People who have been watching videos while being paid to work and otherwise doing the absolute minimum are going to be in the greatest danger of job loss. And also hamstrung the most in their next job search when new employers ask what they accomplished at their last job, or what skills they have developed over the past few years.

        Reply ↓
  10. Suze*

    #1. To me this situation would depend on what the twins negotiated, since their case is so unique. If the school advertised a single open position and that is what they accepted, I am guessing it is because they were satisfied with the compensation, and are not looking to use their unique physical situation to make more money. If they really wanted to get rich they could likely do so by bringing attention to their unusual bodies (ie go into advertising, entertainment, various kinds of PR?), but I am guessing they are looking to earn a living in a way that doesn’t do that.

    Reply ↓
    1. Wilbur*

      They’re in Minnesota, and in my experience there’s not a lot of flexibility in terms of teacher pay. It’s set by education and years of service, plus you can get stipends for additional responsibilities (pep band, coaching, etc.). They might be able to do something with district approval, but that would probably require approval periodically through the school year. Minimum wage is probably not an issue, teaching is not considered a full time job. It’s usually a 9 or 10 month contract based on the length of the schoolyear (usually ~180 days), they don’t get paid for the summer. Based on teacher salaries here, I think they’d each be earning ~$16/hr minimum each based on a 180 day school schedule and $46k annual salary.

      Reply ↓
    2. Nancy*

      I don’t know why this story is coming up now. They had a reality show years ago, plus multiple stories over they years that answers many questions here. At some point they stated they had separate part-time contracts with the school, which is in their hometown.

      Reply ↓
  11. Seal*

    #1 – Unless you and your boss are working on a project with a hard deadline, a daily 30-minute 1:1 seems REALLY excessive, even if you are underperforming. And not spelling out why there’s a sudden need to meet daily or what your boss expects from you is just plain bad management. It’s certainly worth asking for further details and if this is a temporary or permanent change and going from there.

    Reply ↓
  12. Sparrow*

    Question spurred for me by #5: If someone has projected numbers for the impact of a project, is it ever ok to list those on a resume (presumably only with the clear caveat that they’re not confirmed yet, e.g. “Made X Y Z changes to Wonderland Sales Program; changes are projected to increase annual tea sales by 30-35%”?) Or should you always hold off on including numbers until they’re 100% confirmed?

    Reply ↓
    1. cheap ass rolling with it*

      I personally wouldn’t believe projected numbers. I’ve met plenty of people in sales who promise big numbers, but never deliver. OTOH, a mass layoff is certainly a good excuse for why the OP never saw the impact…

      Reply ↓
    2. bamcheeks*

      Use whatever you used to make the business case for change, report whatever early signs you’re monitoring, and make it clear that’s what you’re doing. Presumably you didn’t decide to run a project based on guesswork and vibes! But also, hopefully you’ve got a track record of other successful projects so they can see the context.

      Reply ↓
  13. bamcheeks*

    I don’t mean to sound humourless, but I am not sure there is a way to have a speculative conversation about how conjoined twins manage their jobs that doesn’t lean in to ableism. I know nobody intends to be, but there are just too many assumptions about normative jobs and job structures, and I don’t think anyone’s real life deserves to be treated as a thought experiment.

    Reply ↓
    3. Magpie*

      I think there’s a little leeway to discuss these specific people and their careers because they’ve made themselves public figures through a lot of their lives. They had a reality show for a while, and the reality show even had episodes that showed them completing their student teaching assignments and searching for jobs after graduation.

      Reply ↓
      1. len*

        Nah this line of reasoning sucks, for anyone imo but especially for people who probably (demonstrably, historically speaking) have limited opportunities to make a living through typical means without inviting additional attention.

        Reply ↓
        1. Magpie*

          How do you reckon they have limited opportunities to make a living? They went to college, got degrees, and found employment in the teaching profession. Seems like they’ve had plenty of opportunities to educate themselves and start career paths. They chose to participate in a reality show as a way to supplement their income, or maybe to educate the public on their conditions, but it doesn’t seem like it was their only means of supporting themselves.

          Reply ↓
            1. Magpie*

              Anyone who’s a bit different might experience some discrimination, but I think a lot of employers would also see the strengths that result from their condition. It’s surprising to me how many people on this thread are attempting to defend them by treating them as an oddity to be pitied, rather than seeing them as accomplished women who are clearly able to make decisions for themselves and find a path in life that allows them to support themselves.

              Reply ↓
          2. Dahlia*

            They found one job. If they’re being paid one salary, they are literally being paid half as much as their peers. That’s… that. That is an example of a limited opportunity.

            Reply ↓
    4. JSPA*

      In that we’re narrowly discussing specific abilities vs job tasks, and narrow “job value” vs the more nebulous and problematic concept of “worth,” can’t you equally argue that it’s ability-focused, not disability focused? “Being two people brings an extra pair of eyes to the situation” and “two minds are better than one” are not ability / disability related concepts, after all!

      Reply ↓
    5. Seeking Second Childhood*

      Thanks, this whole thread made me uncomfortable. These are real women, not science fiction characters.

      Reply ↓
    6. Not on*

      This. I’m picturing AAM with a handlebar mustache and a top hat shouting “step right up” as people pay to gawk at these poor women.

      Reply ↓
      1. Pierrot*

        I don’t think that’s really fair. There was an interview with the women where they discussed their day to day lives, including their work. This article has been circulated a lot online recently because people don’t think it is fair that two individuals are paid one salary. It makes sense that AAM would weigh in. The women have done interviews (and may have had a TV show) and have talked about using their platform to demystify their lives. They are adults with agency and referring to them as “these poor women” also seems disrespectful.

        Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          I think Alison’s answer is great and I think she’s absolutely right about the system not being set up for conjoined twins. I think the discussion heading in the direction of of people imagining how they work and how that computes to an assumed “normal” (abled) teacher gets kinda weird pretty quickly, though. I think it’s partly because it’s so rare that it’s not a problem anyone needs to solve or have an answer to, separate from a discussion with specific individuals about what works for them and why, so it quite quickly feels like the fascination is purely about different bodies.

          Reply ↓
        2. Typity*

          Indeed. Curiosity about the different life experiences of different kinds of people doesn’t seem to me any terrible crime.

          Reply ↓
          1. knitted feet*

            Well, no, not terrible. But it’s easy for that curiosity to turn into a bunch of people with zero experience speculating about how conjoined twins might get stuff done. That’s not increasing anyone’s knowledge, because none of us know how the twins handle this or what they think about it unless they tell us. After a while we’re just going ‘ooOOOooo that’s sooo weird how does that even WORK’. Or making confident pronouncements on an extremely rare situation that none of us have been in. There is no standard protocol here, everything about it needs to be informed by the people involved, and that’s not us.

            It’s not that no one should ever think or talk about it, but the conversation can get really sticky, really fast.

            Reply ↓
    8. Dr. Rebecca*

      As it’s still legal to pay us sub-minimum wages, depending on the job/disability, I think it’s a very good thing to have a conversation about how exploitative it could be to pay two people one salary.

      Reply ↓
      1. bamcheeks*

        I hope that’s the conversation that’s happening, and I agree it’s needed! I feel like the conversation I’m seeing is tending more towards assumptions that disabled people don’t perform work at the same standard or same level of effectiveness as abled people though.

        Reply ↓
        1. doreen*

          I don’t think it is – I think it’s tending toward the assumption that this particular condition doesn’t allow the people involved to perform certain jobs at the same standard/level of effectiveness that people with two separate bodies would have – they can’t teach twice as many classes as a single teacher or drive twice as many buses as a single bus driver but maybe they can process twice as many transactions received by mail (driver license renewals, bill payments) as a single clerk.

          Reply ↓
    9. Jules the First*

      Except that there *are* industries out there where established “teams” get hired together as a package deal (more commonly in the creative industries than in teaching, sure, but it happens). I know several writing teams who get hired on a single contract and single person’s salary (which they have their own internal formula for splitting) in film and tv; ditto author/illustrator combos who get a single book contract. For a few years I even was half a dyad – I worked with a designer who was organisationally helpless, and so if you hired “us” you got his design skills and my organisational efficiencies (and no, we weren’t a couple). If you were a private client, we would itemise the breakdown for you if you wanted it, but if we were working within a bigger company on contract to their clients we were a single “hire” with one contract, one salary (which we split), and one job title. This kind of “team employment” is not as uncommon as you might think!

      Reply ↓
    10. Powerpants*

      Thank you! I am a disabled person and am pretty disgusted right now. The important thing to me here is not the practicalities of all this for the employer, which people seem to be stuck on, but the accommodation that these women require to have the same rights as the two people that they are.

      Reply ↓
      1. boof*

        I think employers do need to be accommodating and accessible and ultimately that benefits all of society even if there are temporary inconveniences. That being said, I don’t know that “pay double for the same amount of work” is a reasonable accommodation. I certainly understand why anyone would want more money if they can get it, but I don’t think employers should be in the habit of trying to pay people what they want/need instead of trying to pay people equally for equally work + make that work accessible as possible.
        … of course, I also think the government should be the one ensuring there’s a basic standard of living for all, not employers – reality may vary.

        Reply ↓
    11. boof*

      I get what you’re saying and to a degree I think it depends soooo much on very specific details we cannot / should not know that the speculation may be useless, but I think there is some benefit to groups to at least THINKING about what specific challenges/needs/policies make sense for them.
      With that being said, my hot take; I agree with allison in general when it comes strictly to salary I think it should be more striving for equal pay for equal work not paying people differently because they need different things. So if they are effectively doing one person’s job, one salary, split how they like. I realize salaries and benefits don’t perfectly adjust the way it would ideally but, ideally if the two of them were able to accomplish substantially more than a solo peer then somehow they could get a promotion or second stipend or some kind of material reward for that – alternatively it may be the main reward is more intangible like having more free time because they can get through all their grading and prep faster.

      Reply ↓
  14. JSPA*

    #2, break out the honesty, as he’s not getting already-clear messages. This is too long for an email, but as points to hit in a conversation… maybe.

    “Murgatroyd, you’re not getting the grooming job. Your recontacting Jane after being rejected has not landed as “asking for pointers for future jobs”; it reads like a refusal to accept a hiring decision. And that behavior automatically flags any applicant as someone who rejects company decisions: people who argue with hiring decisions are often the same people who don’t follow other directions, orders, and policies. As such, regardless of your clearly good intent, this pushiness has probably already blocked you from consideration for jobs in our section for some time to come. If you don’t want that reputation to spread further, it would be wise to stop contacting Jane entirely, and stop contacting me for anything related to llamacorp. If someone is encouraging you to do this, you need to know that they are hurting your career prospects. They don’t understand how hiring works in our sector, and in most sectors. Best of luck on your job search–but it would be wise to let the air clear here for at least 3 or 4 years before re-applying in our Department, and to find different guidance on applications and follow-up.”

    Reply ↓
    1. Hannah Lee*

      RE this candidate – way to let the hiring manager know her judgement that there was “something off” about you was spot on and she was right not to keep you in the go-forward pool.

      The only thing that could come of his continued follow up is expanding the negative impact to his job prospects. Right now this one hiring manager is getting an increasingly negative view of him and likely has him on a her own ‘won’t be considering for future openings” list. If he keeps it up, she’ll likely give feedback back into HR/recruiting and get added to their auto “no thanks” list, and possibly into her informal network.

      Reply ↓
  15. R. L. Steinway*

    I know I need to completely overhaul my resume from a federal format where listing your duties is primary to a corporate one where accomplishments are king.

    I think this distinction neatly summarizes why the government is seen as inefficient. The fact that everyone is expected to measure their performance by actual accomplishments except government employees is a pretty damning admission. Is there any justification for this or is it as bad as it looks?

    Reply ↓
    1. bamcheeks*

      I think you’re conflating two things here. A resume isn’t measuring performance: it’s marketing you to a potential employer. Measuring performance is a whole other thing, and different recruitment practices use different approaches and strategies to do that. There’s nothing intrinsically better about masking for accomplishments upfront versus activiites: they are just optimising for different things at different stages of the process.

      (Personally, I have worked with people who have done US-style resumes which list achievements over activities, and I find them frustrating because they don’t tell me what you did. OK, you increased sales by 25% — how? were you working directly with clients? improving internal processes? leading a team? improving the product? I don’t want your job description but I do want to know what you can actually DO.)

      Reply ↓
      1. R. L. Steinway*

        Thank you for your response. I would still like to know why the government and the corporate world take such a different approach to hiring. Surely if it were just a case of “different people do things differently” then there would be plenty of businesses that ask applicants to list their duties, but my whole life the advice, including on this site, has been not to do that and to instead use measurable achievements. It seems like a pretty dramatic divide that suggests a less outcome-driven approach on the government’s part.

        Reply ↓
        1. Xantar*

          Because government doesn’t have a profit motive, it’s often more difficult to measure outcomes for the government. For most government workers, their job is to ensure that the laws are carried out within their area of work. You can’t exactly measure that in terms of dollars saved or widgets produced.

          Let’s say for example that you are a compliance officer who processes H1-B visas. Your job is to make sure that the applicants meet the requirements to be issued the visa, and that involves checking into their background and gathering other information. The thing is you can’t say something like, “I boosted the number of H1-B visas processed” because the law only allows so many visas to be issued in the first place. The only “outcome” anybody cares about is whether things are processed correctly.

          By the way, this is also why “run government like a business” is a silly idea if you think about it for more than a minute.

          Reply ↓
          2. A. Lab Rabbit*

            Very much this. I encountered this in teaching, where a lot of people said that schools should be run like a business. But learning should not be a business, as our goal is to educate kids, not make money.

            This constant worship of the American businessman who doesn’t have to think, but just “listens to his gut” must end. Unfortunately, we will probably be extinct before it does.

            Reply ↓
            1. Artemesia*

              And you need to invest resources in students who are the least promising. If the goal were numbers you would invest only in the best and the brightest. Kids with learning issues, behavioral issues etc need more time and energy and are likely to yield yes positively quantifiable results.

              Reply ↓
          3. Cabbagepants*

            But just to carry out the thought experiment, you could say the same thing about sooooo many corporate jobs. The hypothetical H1B processing agent could say how many and with what audit rate (or however performance would be evaluated). Same as a corporate person screening job applications, say, or an engineer doing QA.

            It makes more sense to me to just see it as different industries having different standards.

            Reply ↓
            1. Xantar*

              I see what you’re saying and generally agree. I guess my viewpoint is that “different industries having different standards” stems from the profit motive or lack thereof. Most corporate jobs are looking for people who will add value to the company in one way or another. Even the hypothetical corporate person screening job applications is there because without them, somebody else would have to do the job and that would cost the company more money than it costs to pay their salary (theoretically, anyway).

              Government jobs are generally looking for people who will apply the law diligently. It’s not a black and white, either/or situation because plenty of government workers come up with little or big ways to make things happen more efficiently, but that’s what leads to different expectations in the job application process.

              Reply ↓
        2. Taketombo*

          In my civil service job the main thing I do is review mandated contractor reports to make sure they aren’t ripping us off. But when they are, all I can do is advise the contract manager, who writes a letter to put them on notice, which if there are enough of them may get the contractor barred from future work.

          The Feds require we collect and review the reports, and the Feds also set the bar for when we can bar a contractor. It’s very frustrating. I did the exact same thing for private owners and as a contractor for subcontractors, and they acted.

          Reply ↓
        3. honeygrim*

          I’m actually a little confused by the LW’s letter. When I applied to my government position, I had to fill out a very long application with questions that specifically asked about my accomplishments in different areas that the position would be responsible for. So my guess is that they’re talking about the “marketing” aspect of the resume, which doesn’t have as much of an impact in government hiring because of that application process.

          When I’ve hired people, I do look at their resume and note the areas in which they’ve excelled in their positions. But I also look at their answers to the application questions to see if they’ve had the experience I need them to have in the areas I’m hiring for.

          And in my opinion the “inefficiency of government” is not due to the average workers – who, like me, took an oath to serve the people of the country – but instead due to the egos of those in power who treat making decisions that affect people’s lives like they’re playing a game of chess. When the annual budget isn’t actually set until 6 months into the fiscal year (which has happened at least for the past two FY), it’s hard for the average workers to get anything done.

          Reply ↓
          1. Another Fed*

            Think of it this way, federal resumes are never 1 page. In fact we don’t really consider 1 page resumes because there just not enough info. Private sector is much more focused on marketing specific accomplishments. (That being said a 12 page resume that usajobs tries to create is a nightemare to review.) Also positive vibes out to all the other federal employees, its going to be an extremely bumpy and scary 4 years, especially with leadership wanting to make fed employees “traumatized and dread going to work” and “increasingly seen as the villain”

            Reply ↓
          2. Totally Minnie*

            That’s a good point. I’m in government as well (state, not federal), and for a lot of government positions your resume is more supplemental to the process, while it’s integral for a lot of private sector jobs. In my last job search, most private sector openings were asking for only a resume and cover letter, while to government jobs had long and in-depth application forms. You could upload a resume and cover letter as part of the process, but most of the emphasis was on the application form, which included very specific questions about past experience and skill levels.

            It’s just an entirely different method of applying for jobs.

            Reply ↓
        4. Surviving, Not Thriving*

          There are many, many letters on this site asking how to convert “duties” to “accomplishments”, from employees in all sectors of work. Also, there are plenty of us who have accomplishment-focused federal resumes. What sets federal resumes apart from other sectors is the amount of detail you are expected to provide, and that can be difficult to summarize into 1 page of quantitative accomplishments. Federal hiring also tends to be framed in terms of experience, so that’s what people focus on so that they can make it through the initial HR screening.

          Another reality of working in government is that 1) you are often just one small part of a much bigger project or initiative, making it difficult to quantify your contribution in a resume-worthy way; or 2) you do perfectly competent work on a project that then gets scuttled for reasons completely beyond your control (court decision, change in administration, funding freeze) leaving you without an accomplishment for your resume.

          Reply ↓
        5. Emmy Noether*

          What Xantar said, and also, it’s a sort of subculture, which sometimes just deviate from main culture for ineffable reasons.

          Germany does duties-style CVs in the corporate world and the reasons… well, I think they’re complex and historical and rooted in attitudes about what is valuable work, how individuals see their role in society, what is considered bragging, and cynicism about marketing. Multiple sociology theses could probably be written.

          Reply ↓
        6. Spencer Hastings*

          Yeah, I guess this is not the totally optimal and AAM-approved way of doing things, but when I’m writing my resume, my first bullet point is usually summarizing the relevant parts of the job description, and the subsequent ones go more into what was special about how I did it. Like for teaching jobs, I mentioned the general size of the class and what level it was.

          I used to be in academia and now work for a for-profit business, though, not government.

          Reply ↓
        7. bamcheeks*

          I think there are plenty of private sector employers who will have elements of their recruitment processes which are more like the government approach to hiring (structured interviews, tests, etc.) But I don’t think there are many private employers big enough to ask for a totally different approach to the initial application and have the reach to get that from applicants. The few that do tend to find it easier to ask for an application form rather than a different style of resume, because then they can give more direction to applicants (but they will probably also get a fair amount of pushback from applicants!)

          Government jobs are both optimising slightly differently (need to be able demonstrate evidence of good hiring, equality of opportunity etc over speed, for example) AND are large and desirable enough to put a different set of requirements on their applicants right from the application point. Unlike most individual corporations, they can sustain a multitude of entire careers and specialist skillsets. So they can make that demand of applicants and find a large enough pool who are willing to do it.

          Reply ↓
        8. That Paralegal*

          I work in the private sector, after years in non-profits and higher education, and I didn’t get hired into this job until I made a skills-first resume. The corporate world absolutely wants to know what skills and experience you have.

          Government and non-profit jobs have TONS of measures and accountability in place. Example: I was a professor for a state university. I had to produce a binder every single year proving I had done my job. It was usually 3″ thick with syllabi, evidence of research, teaching evaluations, you name it. Every year. Even long-tenured full professors had to do this. The reporting had to align with university and college missions, accrediting requirements, and a departmental rubric.

          Just because the resumes look different doesn’t mean government doesn’t hold employees accountable. That’s a ridiculous assumption. Government institutions are (or should be) outcome-oriented, not profit-oriented. That’s the only “WHY” you need, imo.

          Reply ↓
        9. Union Nerd*

          I can’t speak for the U.S. government, but my accomplishments are included in my performance evaluation and I would share that with a government hiring manager whereas that wouldn’t work for a private company. It’s not an internal hire when applying to another government job, yet there is a way of doing things that works more efficiently.

          Reply ↓
        10. Hillary*

          Basically the government approach wants information up front, while with private sector detail comes later in the process. There are pros and cons to each approach.

          The government approach with its focus on duties and data is more quantitative and arguably more fair. The application and interview structures ensure equal treatment to candidates. It’s also a lot more work up front defining the role and planning interview questions & rubrics – the hiring manager can’t decide halfway through they need different skills than posted.

          The private sector approach is more freewheeling – a resume is a marketing document and the start of a conversation. That’s good for extroverts like me who can get in the door and sell themselves, but it also means potentially missing out on hires who are good at the work they actually do but not sales.

          Reply ↓
      2. Mockingjay*

        Government operates differently than most businesses. Programs can span decades or be never ending, and even finite special project funding can still span years. The only performance metric might be: administered public services according to Gov’t Statute 456 of 1978. Government has a strict hierarchy of roles, contrasted with lateral and team approaches in other industries. Of course, many government agencies use more modern methodologies and work approaches, but the overall impression of government workers can be they are stodgy and lack innovation. That’s what LW 2 is trying to address: how to demonstrate his experience can translate into private businesses that measure performance quarterly or use collaborative work methods.

        LW2 can point to knowledge of QA processes (Government is rife with these) to reduce errors, regulatory compliance, budgeting, client relations (for a role that provides public services), even training that can be passed on. (I’m a gov’t contractor, and the amount of specialized training I’ve received over the years is phenomenal – it was a requirement of the program that staff be trained in X & Y – technical processes, program management, logistics, info security.) Take that zeal for public service and put it to work for New Company.

        Reply ↓
    2. JSPA*

      When a job description and function come with strict definitions and internal metrics, it’s equally efficient. It’s also simply a holdover from how resumes used to be set up. (I assume you’re not arguing that no workplace was efficient until 15 or 20 years ago?)

      Reply ↓
    3. Texas Teacher*

      I see what you’re saying, but for some jobs the difference between “duties” and “accomplishments” is quite narrow. Listing duties would give an employer some idea of what a candidate is able and used to doing.

      Reply ↓
    4. Morning Reader*

      Oh please. So many govt jobs are routine and unlike working for a capitalist, there are no profit-making “accomplishments.” I’d rather see “responsible for weekly tps reports” on a resume than “created 52 tps reports annually.” What really is the difference?
      You make it sound like there are no accomplishments by government workers. Sometimes they are the absence of negative outcomes, not accomplishments. “Coordinated govt response to COVID, only one million dead” or “monitored food safety, only one salmonella outbreak on my watch,” ; many or most job responsibilities do not translate well to “accomplishments.”

      Reply ↓
    5. AnonFed*

      This is a resume thing not a performance thing.

      I’m a fed, I’m rated both quarterly and annually based on the number of I write/handle and a random quality audit (this is a mass over simplicification for anonymity). I also have certain awards for things like 5 and 10 consecutive years of achieving the highest ratings.

      Reply ↓
    6. Emmy Noether*

      I think it’s just different style/format. I’m in private industry, but not in the US, and the CVs I’ve seen in my life are definitely more of the “duties” style than “accomplishments”. Frankly, I don’t think it makes much of a difference.

      Call me cynical, but I don’t think one can actually judge accomplishments on a CV for most positions. Too much depends on the team, opportunities, the working conditions, etc. The things I do that would sound good on paper are not the same things that are actually difficult. The things that would be impressive externally are not the same ones that impress my boss. The numbers don’t normally translate from one workplace to another either. For example, you can increase [whatever] by X%… either by doing something semi-competently that was done incompetently before, or by being a rockstar at something that was being done ok before. Who can tell the difference from the outside?

      If you just put duties, you are implicitly saying that you’re competent at those duties, so not that different. And you can more easily put things you do well but don’t produce flashy numbers.

      I’d even argue that incentivizing people to focus their time on the flashiest of accomplishments that sound great… is not a recipe for actual good solid work.

      Experience says there are competent and incompetent people everywhere, across all types of workplaces, all places and all times. American private industry does not particularly strike me as a meritocracy anymore than anyplace else. You don’t actually hire better with your CV style. Also, all governments at all times have been accused by their people of being inefficient. It’s just one of those things.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jennifer @unchartedworlds*

        Yeah, I think to really know whether someone’s good at something, you have to (a) in some way be close enough to see them doing it, and (b) have a similar skillset, to know the difference between what looks hard and what’s actually hard.

        Reply ↓
    7. I'm a Fed*

      The federal executive branch is mission driven, while private industry is profit driven. Efficiency increases profits, but it does not necessarily add to protecting the mission. People have been fooled into thinking that government should operate the way business operates when any sensible analysis would indicate that it actively should not operate the way business operates. The government is supposed to be taking care of people, which is not an area where efficiency is beneficial (see also, private equity owning hospitals).

      Reply ↓
      1. Hannah Lee*

        Efficiency increases profits …

        And even that depends on how someone defines “efficiency”, because more than a few for-profit entities when someone insisted on defining “efficiency” over a very short time frame and with no accounting for efficacy, or makes decisions based on promised efficiency improvements and doesn’t bother to verify that promise is based in reality before implementing a chance, and doesn’t bother to measure (the right things) after a change is made.

        Reply ↓
    8. ???*

      I have always been a private sector employee, and for better or worse I always listed my duties, it never occurred to me ( until I started reading this site) to list accomplishments. I’ve seen many resumes list duties instead of accomplishments. especially lower level employees.

      Reply ↓
    9. I should really pick a name*

      I wouldn’t say the private sector expects resumes showing achievements instead of duties.

      A resume that shows achievements may be more effective, but the vast majority of resumes list duties.

      Reply ↓
      1. Watry*

        Additionally, every public sector application I’ve ever put in has required me to list job duties for each job in my history.

        Reply ↓
      2. Coffee Protein Drink*

        I think Accomplishments came in when employers started encouraging hard numbers on resumes. That annoys me because some things cannot be measured.

        Reply ↓
        1. Mizzmarymack*

          I get a ton of intern resumes that say things like “increased efficiency 34%” and I really wonder 1) what are you measuring and 2) what did you do.

          I mean “averaged 4-business day turnaround on process XYZ (company average was 7)” tells me something, although it might just be they had few assigned duties outside of process XYZ.

          Reply ↓
      3. Allonge*

        This. It’s great to add relevant accomplishments when you can. But the list of duties also helps a hiring manager to assess what ‘Senior Llama Groomer Grade 3’ really meant in practice in your second-to-last job. As always, there is no simple ‘one trick’ to make it work.

        Reply ↓
    10. Very anon*

      As a government hiring manager I actually disagree with the LW, so the justification is “LW is misunderstanding a bit.”

      I mean, think about it this way. You get two 10-page, government style resumes. One of them has the job description copied and pasted for the last five jobs (duties). It’s very repetitive since the last 3 jobs had similar duties, just at higher levels or different locations. The other one changes things like “wrote TPS reports” to “completed 16 TPS reports two weeks ahead of schedule, trained two entry level employees in TPS report standards, improved public notification of TPS reporting progress by developing SOP for listing online.” Pretty standard AAM-style accomplishment format, right? Resume 2 is going to stand out just as much in the public sector as the private sector.

      Reply ↓
      1. Also Very Anon*

        Former senior government hiring manager here, this is absolutely correct.

        In my former position, someone who listed only duties and not metric would be extremely unlikely to proceed to the interview stage. Any mention of accomplishments is better than none.

        OP should work to identify whatever metrics are possible (depends on what career field as to what metrics are most useful). Then my advice is to redesign the résumé from scratch – and to do that repeatedly, because the first time will not likely be correct. Even if OP stays in their current federal job, this will be a good exercise in increasing their ability to articulate their value to the organization.

        I would not want to be a fed right now who cannot clearly articulate their value to the organization.

        OP should also lean on their network, because the style of resume and perception of impact are so broadly different. An internal recommendation will absolutely help in OP’s job search to serve as a translation between the two styles.

        Reply ↓
        1. OP5*

          I have whole documents of my accomplishments over the past 25 years. I’m very proud of my work and the awards I’ve won. However, that doesn’t go on a federal resume, generally speaking. So to assume I don’t have accomplishments to point to or know better to highlight them in a new format is a little hurtful. Please remember that the people who write into this site are real people with real feelings.

          Reply ↓
    11. OP5*

      Government wants to know what you can *do*. For-profit businesses want to know how what you did made the bottom line better. Since the goal of government is not to generate revenue or profits, our HR systems are set up to make sure we can do the work. Interviews dig deeper into the duties to make sure your abilities are a match to their position, and performance standards and goals are set up once you start to make sure the work is continuing, especially when you can’t rate against revenu.

      Reply ↓
    12. Carly*

      I mean, the government isn’t focused on constant growth like the private sector is. The jobs need to get done, but expansions in duties would be something that was negotiated by elected reps. Also I do think it’s just a formal difference in style; for example, you could have someone whose job is to hire contractors in both the private and public sector. In the private, they might advertise this is as “Negotiated an x value contract that increased revenue by x%.” Whereas the public employee might describe it as “Was responsible for hiring and negotiating with all contractors in x field, which accounted for x% of our annual budget.” Both people do the same thing, but they’re just describing it differently. Honestly, I think the latter is more honest and clear, whereas private sector resumes always feel like wading through a bog of exaggerations and half-truths. 

      Reply ↓
    13. doreen*

      Some of it is that measuring performance by accomplishments for government jobs can be difficult. You can measure some government jobs by how many X are completed in a certain amount of time but that doesn’t work for all jobs. For example, I had a job that for a certain period of time tried to measure performance by the percentage of cases completed in a single day and for another period of time tried the average number of days it took to complete a case. Imagine rating a prosecutor by the number of days between the arrest and the completion of the case (that wasn’t my job but the comparison works) without examining any of the cases – they could finish every case almost immediately by offering an attractive enough plea and if that doesn’t work, they could dismiss the case a week later. It’s not just government jobs – if an OB in private practice has a higher/lower C section rate than others, you can’t tell from the numbers alone why this happens. It might be because the doctor only takes on the most ( or least) difficult ( or ) cases.

      Reply ↓
    14. Stuff*

      So, I work in the public sector, though not at the Federal level. The thing about my job is, I am tasked with enforcing regulations and applying benefits. What am I supposed to accomplish in a role where my job is to enforce the existing rules and policies? It is not my job to create new things to enforce, nor would it be appropriate to. It isn’t my place to create new initiatives, because we don’t WANT bureaucrats at my level deciding for themselves what the rules and policies are, that would be very bad. This means a very accomplishment focused resume hard to do and of limited value to other government roles.

      Reply ↓
  16. Apex Mountain*

    I’ll admit I’ve never thought about conjoined twins in the workplace. If they need to travel for work, do they buy two seats on the plane or just one?

    Reply ↓
    2. Person from the Resume*

      I think everything with conjoined twins have to be on a case by case basis for their particular medical situation.

      Legal decisions too. But if they are stuck with wanting a job that doesn’t exploit their medical condition, they probably have to accept that they can’t work two job simultaneously so it doesn’t make sense for them to get two salaries.

      Reply ↓
    3. fhqwhgads*

      The twins specifically mentioned in the article, 1 seat. Other conjoined twins conjoined in a different way, it depends.

      Reply ↓
  17. ijustworkhere*

    Sometimes when a top performer begins to have a sales slump, it’s a sign that they’re burned out, or looking elsewhere. In most organizations, it’s a high priority to keep a top performer performing and happy, and a sales manager will spend more time with you to figure out what’s going on and to support you. So it makes sense that your boss would want to meet with you more frequently. Every day seems like a lot though. How much is your production lagging?

    Reply ↓
    1. OP3*

      OP3 here – thanks for the comment. This might be more likely than my original message made it seem – a good friend of mine (the other strongest person here imo) also left recently and the company would be in a serious pinch with a loss of continuity for a number of important clients if I left too. I think I can catch up to where I need to be still – I haven’t really missed anything critical, just have a growing backlog and *I* can feel like I’m not performing where I’m usually at, but I don’t think that’s so obvious to everyone else. Because we’re in a a bit of a staffing shortage I doubt I’ll get fired, so my best guess is probably my boss is trying to retain me and get my performance back up at the same time. But yea, every day has really been intense.

      Reply ↓
      1. HonorBox*

        I wonder if there’s some pressure above your boss, too, given that the team is a person down and they’re trying to make sure everything is staying afloat.

        Depending on how productive these meetings are and/or how much other stuff you could be doing, you could start to respectfully push back on the frequency. If you’re not hitting a ton of new and critical details every day, maybe suggesting that your 30 minutes would allow you to do ________ instead of meeting, and could you meet every other day?

        Reply ↓
  18. MistOrMister*

    OP5 – only someone who doesnt have the sense god gave a turnip would question you trying to move from the gvt to private sector right now. There are a lot of people in your same position and also a lot who didnt get their jobs started before the hiring freeze who are now unemployed and having to scramble trying to find something. I think there are going to be a lot of gvt workers with all kinds of time served at their last/current position and no one is going to bat an eye as long as they dont have a history of job hopping.

    Reply ↓
    1. OP5*

      Thanks, Mist. It’s been so hard to see reason when we’re being hit with a fire hose of everything that’s been going on. I appreciate your perspective.

      Reply ↓
  19. Rae*

    I’m going to try to look back and see if a set of conjoined twins in my area received 1 salary or two. The grocery store where they worked built a special set of checkout desks so that they could both run checkout lines.

    Reply ↓
    1. LalChi11*

      It sounds like in that case it would have made sense that they receive two separate wages if they were able to work two stations simultaneously.

      Reply ↓
  20. Despachito*

    Re Abby and Brittany – I think the most fair solution would be to pay them per lesson taught (plus the prep time I assume every teacher must do).

    Plus I think they should be entitled to receive some “disability” compensation from the state (I say “disability” for lack of better wording, I don’t see them as disabled per se but their condition certainly refrains them from working full hours as two separate persons)?

    I think they are absolutely amazing :)

    Reply ↓
    1. Jennifer Strange*

      Plus I think they should be entitled to receive some “disability” compensation from the state

      This is where my mind went too. At the end of the day, there are going to be few jobs that both of them can work at the same time (“work” in this regard meaning they can achieve the exact same results and output as two non-conjoined people) so they likely would be entitled to some sort of government assistance to make up the income gap.

      Reply ↓
  21. Long Time Lurker*

    I live and work in DC and every place in the private and NP sector is expecting (or already getting) a slew of resumes from people who had worked for the federal government. I even know of one place that decided to post a job they had been thinking about hiring for specifically to capture someone with that experience. We all know what’s going on.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      Yeah, although hopefully they don’t bring #4’s attitude: “I’m biding my time being underpaid just to try to get my federal student loans forgiven.” I hope that was meant to be lighthearted. I work in nonprofit and this is … not the attitude we are looking for.

      Reply ↓
      1. kiki*

        I took that statement as an explanation for why it makes sense for them not to look for something else in the private sector where’d they’d (hopefully) not be underpaid. I think it happens a lot when somebody at a non-profit asks for pay advice for everyone in the comments to respond with, “oh, just leave and go corporate.” I understand trying to fend that off.

        Reply ↓
        1. Kat*

          Right? I was really confused by that original comment. Committing to a workplace for years in order to get a benefit in the (pretty distant) future is… what, unfair to the workplace?

          Reply ↓
    2. Pizza Rat*

      I even know of one place that decided to post a job they had been thinking about hiring for specifically to capture someone with that experience.

      I hope this becomes a trend.

      Reply ↓
  22. CityMouse*

    LW4, if you were just biding your time to get your loans forgiven, I might reconsider, based on what happened with PSLF before and what is likely to happen now. I am so, so sorry, to be clear.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW #4*

      LW #4 here! Thanks, Alison, for posting my question! Your answer helped me understand the nuance of my org’s reasoning behind the prorated COLA.

      Thanks also, CityMouse, for your response and your kind words. I’ve been following the PSLF nonsense as closely as possible (shoutout to the PSLF and student loans subreddits) and after a lot of debate, I’m going to stick with it for now. My nonprofit job is pretty satisfying work in my field of study, which I think I wouldn’t be able to find in the private sector, and theoretically I’m just about one year away from forgiveness. So… we’ll see. Sigh.

      p.s. today is my birthday and it feels pretty special to have my question featured on the site today :)

      Reply ↓
      1. Hlao-roo*

        Happy birthday!

        I have worked for companies (for-profit) that also pro-rate raises based on start date (for example, a person who started in March and would have gotten a 4% raise gets a 3% raise during the first review cycle because they only worked 3/4 of the year). Just another data point on the side of “pro-rated raises are common.”

        Thanks for writing in, and I hope PSLF pans out for you!

        Reply ↓
        1. LW #4*

          Thank you for the birthday wishes (and the PSLF wishes)! And thank you for sharing your experiences with pro-rated raises. My whole career has been in either higher ed or nonprofits and I’ve been lucky to ever get a raise (ha) let alone a pro-rated one. Live and learn! I appreciate your comment! :)

          Reply ↓
    2. That Paralegal*

      I will spare everyone my extensive rant about the BS Betsy deVos injected into the Department of Education and the PSLF and other loan forgiveness programs. I should have had my loans forgiven during the LAST Trump administration. The recent push to clear the logjam of PSLF applications resulted in mine being forgiven, years later than they should’ve.

      All this to say: whoever runs the DOE will absolutely throw a spanner in the works of loan forgiveness.

      Reply ↓
  23. Guest*

    LW2: I’d take Alison’s advice a bit farther – yes, the acquaintance needs to know they’re overstepping big time with the manager. It might be a good idea for LW to let the manager know they are not encouraging these high pressure messages in any way, shape, or form. LW also needs to tell this guy he is not to contact them about this on their personal email, social media, or phone. If they do, they get blocked. I realize this could make things awkward, but LW is not responsible for this guy’s bad choices and needs to protect their professional reputation and their sanity.

    Reply ↓
  24. Lex Talionis*

    Re question #1 – I recently commented on a Reddit post from someone looking for advice on a work question. I recommend and gave a link to this blog and said, if it happened in the workplace you will find it here. I guess I was right!

    Reply ↓
  25. HonorBox*

    OP2 – The fact that you have mutual friends is a complicating factor to be sure, but I think that friends will likely be understanding if this guy is pestering you as much as it sounds like. That said, I think I’d send him a quick note, just a little more direct than what is given in the answer above.
    “I’m not the hiring manager and don’t have a role in hiring at all. The only thing I know for sure is my boss has told me that the role you interviewed for is no longer one we’re looking to fill. Continuing to contact us is going to be more harmful than helpful. If you want to apply in the future, keep an eye out for vacancies on our employment page (add an appropriate link).”

    Reply ↓
    1. Working under my down comforter*

      Agreed. It’s okay to tell this person to no longer contact you about this position. However, I would leave it at that.

      Reply ↓
  26. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    5. In the UK so a lot different but we’ve had a lot of experience of governmental funded stuff suddenly being stopped or sold off to private companies and I’ve made a jump from a publically funded role to private firms before.

    Here’s things, based on feedback from intervieweers, that I’ve accumulated:

    Private enterprise places much more importance on time and money than results.
    Being able to handle the complex webs of red tape and endless meetings isn’t as much of a strength as it should be. Can you hit the ground running?
    If you’ve got ANY experience in a competative market big it up. What let me down was not having any record of working with competitors.

    Reply ↓
  27. Tiredofit all*

    My advice to OP5 is

    1. Keep resume to 2 pages (I know federal resumes are usually much longer).
    2. Eliminate all jargon
    3. Focus on skills.
    4. If you are responding to a job posting, try to work the words in the posting into our resume, they may be using AI for first screening.
    5. While of course you want your education on your resume, private sector employers may view it differently, especially for experienced hires.
    6. IMHO, the job market is awful right now (other than teachers in some areas and nurses), and you will be competing with many other federal employees.

    Reply ↓
    1. OP5*

      Thanks, Tired. I’m a staunch hater of jargon and acronyms so I’m good there! The rest of the advice makes me think private sector isn’t nearly as different – or scary – as public service. I appreciate your perspective.

      Reply ↓
  28. Armchair analyst*

    Personally I’m just glad the birthday of the conjoined twins is not February 29th because that would be very hard for that one employer to update their database to give them their birthday off (reference to previous letter where employer insisted that employees with Leap Day birthdays only get their birthday or equivalent day off once every 4 years, when all other employees got an annual personal day off)

    Reply ↓
  29. duinath*

    Can we take a moment to applaud OP2’s manager and their absolutely fantastic judge of character?

    To leave an interview going “hm, something’s off, unless this person I already know and work with really recommends him I’m going to pass” and then have this happen?

    My annoyance would be tempered with a deep sense of validation.

    OP2, if I were you I would take this as your sign not to ever involve him in your work again. Don’t recommend him, don’t let him know if something opens up, and talk about other stuff when/if you hang out.

    Reply ↓
    2. Artemesia*

      absolutely. The hiring manager was perceptive here. If it were my friend I’d say ‘Look I am not the hiring manager and have nothing to tell you, but constantly contacting someone after they have already filled the job with someone else is a great way to assure that you wouldn’t be considered for a future opening.’

      Reply ↓
  30. UnionsSetPay*

    Teaching is almost always a unionized job and the union contracts set all payment rules and individual teachers have no power to negotiate. So this is properly a question for the union.

    I will note that some of the things unions require actually disfavor some of their members, especially if they gain more education or experience. My dad was laid off in his early 50s after almost 30 years of experience and after earning a doctorate. He was in the highest required salary band, having maxed out both education and experience, and he never found another full time teaching job because the unions (in all of the multiple different states he was licensed in) require he be paid at a rate about double that of entry level teachers with 0-3 years experience and a bachelor’s degree. So if the union decides they should get two salaries or, for example, get an extra education credit, they can do that but the school districts tend to hire the cheapest options possible so it will make them more difficult to hire.

    Reply ↓
    1. Been teaching far too long*

      Not we are not “almost always” unionized. In my state, if we strike, we not only lose our jobs but any retirement benefits we have paid into State retirement. Please don’t make assumptions or gross generalizations like this.

      Reply ↓
      1. A. Lab Rabbit*

        Yes, thank you.

        Also, unions don’t set pay. It is negotiated in a contract between the union and the school district. The pay teachers receive is an agreement between the union and the school district. Individual teachers negotiate through their union. The union isn’t deciding anything.

        As for the father in this case, a doctorate is not required to teacher at the K-12 level and is really overkill for the role. Of course he’s not going to get another teaching role when he is overqualified for it. School districts will choose to go with someone with less experience and education, since they have a budget they have to stick to. No point in buying caviar when a can of tuna will do. (The real question here is why he was laid off.)

        This comment is little more than anti-union rhetoric, alas.

        Reply ↓
        1. Beany*

          Naive question, perhaps: if UnionsSetPay’s father was willing to take a lower salary, corresponding to less experience and fewer academic qualifications, would he be able to? *Should* he be able to? Can he tell them to ignore the doctorate if it hurts his chances?

          I’m assuming that any reasonable salaried work is preferable to none at all — unless he already had enough socked away to retire in his mid-50s.

          Reply ↓
          1. Jaydee*

            Under a collective bargaining agreement, no, an employee covered by the agreement generally cannot take a job at a lower rate of pay than they would be entitled to under the agreement. Now, not every CBA sets education and years of experience as the criteria for where an employee is placed on the salary scale, but for teachers that’s a common way of doing it. It ensures teachers with more (relevant) education and experience are compensated for that training and experience, and it ensures that teachers with the same level of training/experience are treated the same.

            The challenge is that someone trying to get hired at the top of the salary scale has to demonstrate that they bring more to the role than someone with less education and experience. If they can’t do that, they’re not getting the job. A doctorate is going to be a hard sell as providing added value for a regular classroom teaching position. Maybe in a school where a lot of the parents have advanced degrees themselves and there’s a heavy focus on advanced classes and college prep (and especially getting students into Ivy League or other prestigious schools).

            Another thing to consider is that a doctorate opens the door for other types of jobs, such as teaching at a community college or university, administrative roles in K-12 education, education research or policy jobs in government or think tanks, or roles in education-related private sector companies (think textbook publishers, companies that develop standardized tests, companies that develop software for schools) . Those usually pay more than an entry level K-12 teaching position would. Most teachers who get an advanced degree are doing so with the goal of moving into those types of roles.

            Reply ↓
      4. Governmint Condition*

        Whether teachers are unionized and whether they can strike are not necessarily related. In my state, most are unionized, but they are prohibited from striking. (Though the penalties are less than in your state.)

        Reply ↓
    2. GingerNinja*

      Depends on the state. In North Carolina, teachers cannot unionize and there is no collective bargaining. Teachers here really get the short end of the stick.

      Reply ↓
    3. JustKnope*

      Sounds like you need to be mad at the schools, not the unions. If the union negotiations hadn’t been a thing, would your dad have accepted an entry level crap wage despite having 30 years experience and multiple degrees? If he would have to get hired, then he’s getting screwed over and taken advantage of by the school/district.

      Reply ↓
      1. doreen*

        That’s the thing – it seems like UnionsSetPay’s father was only applying for jobs that not only paid based on degrees and experience but also involved giving credit for 30 years experience in other school systems. In my school district, a teacher can get up to 7.5 years of salary step credit from experience outside the district – so a teacher with 30 years experience elsewhere would only get 7.5 years of credit. ( There are additional steps , but only in-district experience counts toward those) . Private schools are often not unionized and even if they are , they are often a different union and certainly a different contract than public schools. It’s very likely that there were teaching jobs that wouldn’t have had to pay him twice what a new teacher would get but for whatever reason, he wasn’t interested in them.

        Reply ↓
  31. Been teaching far too long*

    #5 – Welcome to our world in K12 Ed. Everyone I know is trying to get out of our world, too. There are a lot of “transition” groups on social media for K12 ed to corporate and government to corporate. Check them out. I’ve found them helpful.

    Reply ↓
  32. StressedButOkay*

    OP4, this is very, very common. In fact, at my nonprofit, you have to have worked more than a set number of months – I can’t remember off the top of my head – in order to get a raise of any kind. It sucks but there are a number of reasons behind it. It’s also not that unheard of in for-profit, either – my husband’s first year with his new job had his COLA % lower than the others due to his length of being on the job.

    Reply ↓
    1. till Tuesday*

      I work in the private sector, and having the COLA be prorated is standard for every company I’ve worked for.

      Reply ↓
      1. kiki*

        Yeah, I think it’s a very common approach— the cost of living likely hasn’t gone up as much in the last 6 months as it has in the last year, when longer-term employees last had pay adjustments/ negotiations.

        That all being said, recent times have made keeping up with rising costs of living really difficult. My expenses have risen more dramatically in the last year than they rose in the three years before (without any associated lifestyle creep). I don’t think I know anyone in any sector who feels like their COL adjustments are really keeping up with increases in costs. A lot of people I know have changed jobs to get a pay bump even if they were pretty happy at their previous job, it’s just unlikely any company is going to raise everyone’s salaries 10% across the board, but a lot of people can get 10-20% increases by switching companies

        Reply ↓
      2. fhqwhgads*

        It makes total sense to me, but I’ve never encountered it in the wild personally. In all my jobs, the COLAs (if they were a thing), were annual, with people hired in the past X months ineligible. They didn’t prorate. It was either “you’ve been here long enough it applies to you” or “you’ve been here short enough you were hired on already accounting for inflation”.

        Reply ↓
    2. LW #4*

      Thank you for this perspective! I had never encountered this before, so I am glad to know that it is common. Alison’s response helped me understand my org’s email explanation a bit better. I appreciate your comment!

      Reply ↓
  33. Alan*

    For #2, just a nit, but to stop engagement with someone who is pestering you isn’t “ghosting”. It’s a legitimate boundary setting. Yes it would be better if it were announced but after numerous responses you don’t owe him anything more. If someone asks why you don’t respond to him, or if he does, feign astonishment: “But I *did* respond! Many times! Maybe check the spam folder.” And move on.

    Reply ↓
  34. Nilsson Schmilsson*

    LW5, I am so sorry you’re going through this, along with the thousands of other fed employees. Our petulant child of a President can’t seem to realize consequences of the decisions he and his team make. Is there fat in the employee ranks? Perhaps. And like a good business leader, you target the excess, not cut off your nose to spite your face. But, alas, he was never a good business leader. And in a few months, we’ll be hearing about all the lazy people on unemployment.

    Like other commentators, I agree that virtually every hiring manager will understand why your looking. Is there a chance that your experience in/with the fed could be a bonus in the private sector?

    Reply ↓
    1. OP5*

      Thanks, Nilsson. It’s so hard to see reasonable things with everything going on. 99% of the comments today have made me feel so much better, including yours.

      Reply ↓
  35. H.Regalis*

    LW2 – This guy doesn’t want to hear your or your manager’s “no.” He’s going to push and push and push regardless of what you say or do, so just ignore him. Any reason or explanation you could possibly give will only become something he uses to keep contacting you about this.

    Reply ↓
    1. MassMatt*

      This acquaintance’s oblivious behavior is showing the manager’s instinct about them was correct, there is definitely something “off” about them. Imagine what they would be like to work with. Your manager helped you both dodge a bullet there.

      Reply ↓
  36. SunnyShine*

    LW – If you want to be socially graceful, you can tell him that he’s hurting his chances by constantly contacting your boss. But, if he’s not taking no as an answer, I would just block him. Doesn’t matter if you will see him again. He’s making this awkward, not you.

    Reply ↓
  37. Uhura*

    Letter #4 –

    “There are many things about nonprofit life that make me cry, and the pay is the biggest one of them.”

    Seems like you have a choice to make – 1- work for non-profit for ten years to get the PSLF, but make less money, or 2 – work in a different industry that doesn’t qualify for PSLF but offers a higher pay.

    “I’m biding my time being underpaid just to try to get my federal student loans forgiven.”
    It doesn’t sound like you actually like working non-profit. Now, no job has everything we want and we all have to work to survive, but it’s not a good idea to take a job solely based on one thing. If the major or primary reason you’re working non-profit is just to get loan forgiveness, non-profit may not be the best choice for you. You have to work at non-profit for ten years to get PSLF, which is a long time. You will be miserable and resentful and your job performance will suffer. It’s not fair to you, and it’s not fair to the people that you’re supposed to be helping at the non-profit.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW #4*

      Thanks for your perspective, Urura! You have indeed summed up my professional predicament (not only mine, but those thousands of us in the same PSLF boat). Doing everything “right” for the past decade plus, taking lower paying jobs in the nonprofit sector with the promise of loan forgiveness… and now all this uncertainty.

      I am sure there are many people who take a job based on one thing (we all need to survive capitalism somehow) but I respectfully disagree that my choice may be harmful to the people I’m supposed to be helping at the nonprofit. I’ve been working in nonprofits or higher education for my whole career, and I’m just about one year away from forgiveness (theoretically). It has been a slog but luckily I have found myself working at an org whose mission I believe in, and where my work is actually pretty interesting and engaging, and which uses my degrees! I’m grateful for that, at least.

      If I were to leave the nonprofit sector and give up the hope of PSLF, I run the risk of my loans ballooning to over 4x their original amount because of interest. For the time being, I’m going to stick with my original plan of nonprofit work and pray to the goddesses above that something works out.

      Reply ↓
  38. Orange Cat Energy*

    LW #4

    In addition to prorating salary increase according to your tenure, prorating temporary pay cuts according to tenure is also a thing. During the height of the pandemic, I had started a new job at a nonprofit. They had to implement temporary pay cuts (even after furloughing other staff) because the business’s revenue was severely impacted by being closed to the public for many months (we still hadn’t reopened to the public by that time). Since I was a new hire, I was excluded from the pay cuts because it was seen as unfair to give a new hire a pay cut. I can’t recall if this was a policy across the whole company or if it was at the discretion of management. I also can’t recall how long they cut staff pay (maybe 3 months). I did have to monitor my paycheck because I once did see a deduction for this temp paycut and I had to follow up with my manager. The paycut on my paycheck was a mistake and it was returned to me.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW #4*

      That’s a good point, Orange Cat Energy, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens here. Thanks for sharing your perspective on this! A great reminder to be diligent about reviewing our paychecks.

      Reply ↓
  39. fhqwhgads*

    My first thought on #1 actually has nothing to do with conjoined twins. There’s a precedent for the idea of two people sharing one role and one salary in the WGA.
    A writing partnership, say for a TV show, shares the role, shares the credit, and shares the pay. So if you see something written by PersonA & PersonB, they’re partners; they’re a package deal; they share the job; they split the fee.
    This is different than two separate solo writers being credited, which is a whole different thing.
    But anyway, point being if the two people go into it agreeing we’re going to work together, we’re a package deal, we’re holding one role, the idea of splitting the pay is a thing.

    Reply ↓
  41. Worried J*

    I’m in a program that will require me to get a federal job and graduating this semester. I already had one interview (with one of the top 3 places I wanted to work) cancel, and I’m kind of at a loss over all this…

    this is going to suck and I know people have it worse, but how do you even GET a job in the government right now…

    Reply ↓
    1. Hlao-roo*

      Getting a job in the federal government is a little off-topic for this post, but try asking your question in this Friday’s open thread (it will open at 11am eastern time on Friday, Jan 31st) and you’ll probably get some advice (and/or commiseration) there.

      Reply ↓
        1. Hlao-roo*

          Ah, sorry, I took “how do you even GET a job in the government right now” too literally. I agree, it’s a terrible time all around, whether you’re trying to leave a federal job or get a federal job.

          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