swiping on a coworker on a dating app, bosses gave a perk to their spouses instead of to employees, and more

by Alison Green on March 20, 2025

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

1. Is swiping on a coworker on a dating app grounds for an HR meeting?

Asking for a friend: They absent-mindedly swiped on a coworker in a dating app (whom they asked out once two years earlier). Said coworker was uncomfortable with that and went to HR, and they all had a sit-down about leaving said coworker alone.

I am all for not harassing people you work with romantically, but I am also conflicted — is swiping right on a coworker on Bumble or Tinder grounds for an HR intervention?

They are both on a dating app, after all — a place where you are opening up yourself to these kinds of interactions explicitly. And then the interaction has to be mutual anyway — both people need to “initiate” conversation here, without knowing if the other person has done so. (Apparently in this case their coworker was paying for premium rights to see who was swiping on them, and spoke with HR without initiating.)

Dating apps also location-based, and so a lot of coworkers might show up there. Having worked at a 500-person office, I probably have swiped on several without realizing! A lot of people also use these by quickly swiping, not necessarily making a researched decision every time.

I might be utterly off-base here, but I want to be sure not to alienate people I work with. What would be the correct etiquette here?

This doesn’t sound like someone who reported a coworker to HR simply for swiping right on them on a dating app. Their perspective is likely that the coworker had already asked them out and been told no, now they’re making another overture, and they work together so it’s extra aggravating that they weren’t respecting the original no.

It still could have been overkill to involve HR — but so much of this depends on how your friend handled the original rejection and how they’ve treated the coworker since then.

Related:
I matched with a coworker on a dating site
if you’re thinking of asking a coworker on a date…

2. Our bosses gave a perk to their spouses instead of to other employees

Our company is very small, three joint owners and three employees.

Our company has a business relationship with another company, and as a result they’ve offered tickets to the F1 Grand Prix in our area this year. Both bosses immediately planned to use the tickets on both themselves (this is understandable) and then both of their spouses. My question is about the latter — is it actually appropriate for them to share this perk with spouses instead of employees? It just struck me as a bit weird and self-interested for the initial instinct to be to share it with their spouses, who are unaffiliated with the company in any way outside of being their romantic partners, instead of with the very few employees they actually have.

I would love to have some insight on whether or not this is appropriate or normal behavior, as I don’t know if I should speak up and say that it bothered me that romantic partners who don’t work here were going to be seeing perks that employees are not.

It’s definitely a thing that happens with certain perks. It varies by company, but in a lot of workplaces there isn’t an automatic assumption that this sort of perk will distributed equitably, or that executives’ spouses won’t be included ahead of employees. You see it particularly with tickets, but you also see it with dinners out and trips (where spouses might be included too)

I don’t think it’s an outrage that warrants complaining about it, but it’s also not particularly gracious of the owners, and it’s something really good leaders wouldn’t do. Good leaders see that kind of gift as an opportunity to reward people, build morale, and make them feel like a valued part of the team (and that’s true even if the tickets were specifically a thank-you to the owners for choosing to give their business to the other company).

But while I don’t think you should complain, per se, there’s also nothing wrong with asking if employees can be included the next time something like that is offered.

3. My manager is from a country at war with mine

I am living in Europe but I have a lot of family in Ukraine. My job just hired a new line manager for my team, an external hire. Today was their first day on the job and we had a team meeting where we were all being introduced for the first time. After a round of introductions, they said, “I noticed that there are multiple people from Ukraine on the team. I am from Russia, I wonder how that will go.” My internal reaction was, “Yes, I wonder as well, and I really wish this wasn’t sprung up on me in a team meeting.” Obviously, we should all treat people as individuals, I don’t know what their position is on the war, and good for them for noticing the inherent trickiness of the situation. But they didn’t follow up with any explicit comments about what they believe, and even just that makes me worried about how I’d have to phrase things about them. My job has been happy with my performance so far but there has been periodic impact on my day-to-day work when family and friends had various losses, injuries, and close calls that affected me as well, and I generally gave context to my manager about what was going on without thinking too hard about how to phrase it.

Do you think my company should have done anything differently (other than not hiring a good candidate, which seems unreasonable)? Are there things that I should consider for dealing with this? In the past all my managers checked in with me on how things were going and while I don’t rant about my personal life, I haven’t had to worry about saying something controversial before, I guess I had the good luck of working with people who had similar views on political events that affected me personally.

It would have been odd if your company had done anything differently. People aren’t their countries, and there’s no reason to assume anything either way about the new hire’s stance; the only thing it makes sense to assume is that they’ll behave professionally no matter what political differences they might have with team mates (on anything, not just this). If that turns out not to be the case, that’s something you’d need to escalate, but that would be an aberration, not something anyone should go in expecting will happen.

The new hire’s comment was a little awkward, but it actually doesn’t reveal much and likely was borne out of feeling awkward about things themself.

I think, too, that if you’re affected by something affecting your family’s safety, it’s still fine to share that! It’s likely to go better if everyone proceeds from the assumption that all involved are decent people with empathy for others. If that turns out not to be the case, you’ll find out soon enough (and is something you’d need to escalate, per my first paragraph), but don’t ascribe that to them prematurely.

I hope your family is safe.

4. How to say “this was your idea” to my manager

I have a new skip-level boss who is making me insane. There are a number of ways she’s not good at managing and working for her is incredibly unpleasant, so I’m trying to get out even though I love my job. In the meantime, I need to survive a recurring dynamic.

“Andrea” will tell me to create a spreadsheet showing X, Y, and Z information. All this is available in our reporting system, but she wants it in a spreadsheet format. Then she’ll tell me to add on A and B. This will take me days to create. I’ll send it to her, and then wake up with comments all over the sheet: “Why are we reporting on B?” “How did you define X?” “What is this A column?”

The answer to all of those is… you asked me for it. You told me you wanted to see B so there it is. X is defined as exactly what you told me to pull. Column A is the column that you said you needed. I feel like either I’m stupid because I can’t understand why this keeps happening, or she’s forgetting what she asked for. She is unpleasant and does not take feedback well, so I am very hesitant to name the dynamic; my direct manager is kind but not able to shield me.

What’s a professional script for “I have no idea why you wanted this, but you asked for it so I gave it to you” when I get asked about things like this?

Start preempting the question when you initially send the work. For example, when you send her a spreadsheet with edits she requested, write this in the email: “You asked me yesterday to add A and B to the C spreadsheet, so I’ve done that here. A is defined as ___ and B is defined as ___. Please let me know if you want me to do it differently.”

If you miss the chance to do that and end up getting questioned later about why you did something she asked you to do, it’s fine to say, “My understanding from your feedback on Tuesday was that you wanted me to add A and B. Did I misunderstand what you were looking for?” Say this neutrally, like you’re genuinely curious if you misunderstood something, not with a subtext of “how do you not remember this?”

You can also try shooting her a quick summary of your take-aways when she requests things from you. For example: “To recap, I’ll add A and B to the C spreadsheet, defining A as ___ and B as ___, and will have it back to you tomorrow.”

5. Should I list myself as currently employed?

I am/was a federal probationary employee (i.e., I have less than a year of government service). Just over a month ago, I was swept up in the mass termination of probationary employees across the federal government. This week, I was reinstated as part of a temporary restraining order in a court case challenging the legality of that mass termination. However, in the intervening month, my entire unit was subjected to a reduction in force (also of questionable legality and about to face legal challenge). Therefore, when I was reinstated, I was immediately placed on paid administrative leave, which will continue until the reduction in force takes full effect and I am completely separated from federal service (in the absence of legal intervention).

I am of course applying for other jobs, but now that I’ve been reinstated, I don’t know how to represent or how much to explain my current circumstances in application documents. How do I list my employment status while I’m on paid administrative leave? Do I just use “present” as the end date of my government service and leave it at that? Or should I list the date I was terminated, which was the last time I did any substantive work as a government employee? If I list myself as presently employed, do I need to explain in my cover letter why I’m looking for alternate employment after less than a year on the job? Or do employers understand why federal employees are all searching for jobs at this point, regardless of their exact circumstances?

You’re still legally an employee there, so go ahead and list your employment as “to present” (so “May 2024 – present” or whatever). That’s reasonable to do regardless, and it’s especially reasonable given how much uncertainty is surrounding all of this.

You don’t need to explain the situation in your cover letter — hiring managers know — but it’s also fine to allude to it in a single sentence if you want to; just don’t use any more cover letter real estate on it than that. (More about that here.)

You may also like:
{ 122 comments }

{ 122 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    A reminder: We’ve had a recent increase in trolling here, and you can help me by NOT RESPONDING to it. If you engage, you are ensuring that troll will reappear. Instead, please flag the comment for me (just reply with a link, which will send your comment to moderation so I’ll see it).

    A change to previous requests: please don’t reply “reported,” either. Do not engage at all. Thank you.

    Reply ↓
  2. Zombeyonce*

    #2: While I agree with Alison’s advice, I do think it changes if one of the employees who didn’t get to enjoy the perk is the person who works most closely with the company that gave the gift. If I were, say, the main contact on that account and got skipped over in favor of executives’ spouses, I’d be pretty miffed. I’d think the gifting company would also be unhappy in those circumstances.

    Reply ↓
    1. Cmdrshprd*

      I can understand you being upset, but idk if the giving company would unless they gave the to you directly/specifically.

      If they gave them to the boss/owners it was most likely to gain favor with the people that pay to use them rather than person who interacts more with it.

      Reply ↓
    3. MK*

      That might apply when a client gave a perk directly to the person who did most of the work for them, and then the CEO butted in and took it for themselves. With such a small company, it’s unlikely.

      Reply ↓
  3. Bflat*

    There’s no gender mentioned in the letter, but in the response it becomes a man swiping on a woman’s profile.

    “He” could have been thinking “she” might have changed her mind after two years and anyway wouldn’t see the swipe unless she swiped him too. Little did he know she’s paying to be able to see matches in advance and report them.

    Reply ↓
    2. Pumpkin cat*

      Yes, the not knowing about paying to see swipes is important. If the swipes only thinks it will seen if there is mutual interest, that’s important know! I think the other person overreacted. Asking someone out, followed by two years of nothing, than a casual swipe in a dating app (that shouldn’t have been seen if they were being normal) is not an escalation to HR issue. Something is perhaps missing here, maybe the swiper is extra awful/creepy and has been flirty with the other person too much.

      Reply ↓
      1. MK*

        The “followed by two years of nothing” part is an assumption, though. In most cases, when someone is fired/reprimanded/faced consequences that looked like a complete overreaction, it’s often in the context of that person’s behaviour being an issue, and the “minor” thing being really the last drop.

        Also, I think a person with good judgement wouldn’t try their luck again; that they might have changed their mind is a ludicrously inadequate reason, given an explicit rejection. And if going to HR is an overreaction, what would be reasonable? Talking to them themselves? Why should they have to initiate conversation with someone who makes them uncomfortable?

        Reply ↓
          1. Kella*

            In this context, OP1 is not in a position to know whether or not this is part of a broader pattern. If there have been other problems, OP’s friend may or may not be fully aware of the significance of them, and if they are, they may not have shared that with OP in order to paint themselves in a better light. The people who’d have this information are the coworker who went to HR, and potentially HR as well.

            Reply ↓
          2. Nodramalama*

            We can believe LW. LW didn’t write in about their own experience. They’re believing what they’ve been told, which is very much fair game to query.

            Reply ↓
        1. Shiny Penny*

          Because…. young men are not getting their way romantically?
          Is there a conservative plank that promises a compliant woman to every new male conservative convert? Or that promises to prioritize making women less annoyingly independent?
          Oh, wait.

          Reply ↓
        2. Emmet Dash*

          The male ego is a fragile thing. When forced to take “no” for an answer they apparently have no choice but to go authoritarian.

          Reply ↓
        3. learnedthehardway*

          If rejection is something that inspired a turn towards being authoritarian, that’s a problem on the part of the person who can’t handle being rejected.

          NOTHING entitles a person to a romantic interest’s attention, love, or attraction. (That goes both ways, by the way – women aren’t entitled to a man being interested in them, either. Somehow, though, you very rarely hear about women becoming authoritarian / right wing in their political leanings, as a result.)

          Reply ↓
        4. Ellis Bell*

          I mean, the same rules apply to women, it’s just that women have always been good at making men feel comfortable.

          Reply ↓
        5. Your Local Password Resetter*

          No, they were already deeply conservative.
          People do not change their entire worldview because someone turned them down. They just reveal who they already were.

          Reply ↓
        6. Emmy Noether*

          I mean, you’re possibly right, but… the response to grown men essentially throwing a tantrum because they are expected to behave themselves isn’t trying to appease them and stop imposing consequences (in case you’re trying to imply that).

          Maybe we should ask ourselves, as a society, why so many grown men (and in my experience, it’s the older men as much as the younger men) have the emotional maturity of toddlers. But again, the answer can’t be just giving in. It doesn’t work for toddlers, and it won’t work for men.

          Reply ↓
        7. Rogue Slime Mold*

          Do you truly believe that in the 20s, 50s, 70s, and 90s, it was not the case that a man might be turned down when he made a pass, and then if he made a pass at the same person 2 years later turned down again? Because I believe that’s been a deeply routine part of dating in any society where opt-in dating is a thing.

          Reply ↓
      3. Rogue Slime Mold*

        This seems like an emperor’s new clothes thing: The swipes on you can be seen if there is mutual interest OR a subscription fee. So it’s just flatly untrue that no one can see you unless you have swiped on each other.

        (Side note: I believe absent-mindedly swiping right on everyone gets your profile demoted, as it’s unexciting to match with such a person and may well be a bot.)

        Reply ↓
    3. Orange Line Appreciator*

      The details in the letter don’t necessarily imply that the reporter was paying to see matches. Different apps work in different ways. For example, Hinge shows you the people who like you/message you even if you don’t match back, but the unpaid version of Tinder doesn’t show who likes you unless you like them back.

      We don’t know what app was being used, but we know the reporter felt that reportee’s actions were unwelcome and uncomfortable. That’s the crux of it, not whether or not they might have been paying for a premium version of the app.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nebula*

        The letter says that this is one of the apps where you have to have the premium version to see who likes you, and that the person swiped on had that premium version, whereas the person who swiped thought it had to be a mutual thing in order for the like to be seen. That is actually information that’s in the letter.

        Reply ↓
    4. Rogue Slime Mold*

      Sincerely confused: Both you and OP are arguing that she wouldn’t even see the swipe unless she swiped on him. Yet there is a level she can pay for where she sees who swipes on her. So it’s not the case that people on the app are unaware of who swiped on them unless they have first swiped on the other person and there is no simple workaround to that, like say a monthly subscription to see exactly that.

      It seems there is a profound mismatch between people’s expectations of invisibility on social media and the reality.

      Reply ↓
  4. TPS Reports*

    LW #4: I had a similar issue with a skip level boss who was also really harsh and one thing that helped was asking her to put her requests in writing to me. I approached it as a communication issue “Hey Heather, you seem really frustrated that I keep missing the mark on these TPS reports. Can you recap today’s conversation in a quick email for me so I have something to refer back to when I go to pull the report for you? Feel free to add on anything else you might need when you send the email.”

    Turns out Heather was much better at explaining what she wanted (and why) in writing so I had less issues providing what she needed AND she got better at acknowledging that I had done what she requested….even if the report still wasn’t 100% what she had envisioned. It wasn’t perfect but it took her edge off.

    Reply ↓
  5. HannahS*

    OP1, I tend to agree with Alison, there’s got to be some context missing in the story your friend told you–doesn’t mean they’re trying to pull the wool over your eyes, but they might not realize how their actions are being perceived. It generally IS bad etiquette to ask someone out a more than once if they’ve already said no. It’s one of those things that can be incredibly charming on TV and is really, really unpleasant in real life. (Noting that I don’t think the OP said that it was a man and a woman.)

    I really don’t see anything wrong with trying to match with someone in your same company, especially when you’re in a company of 500 people. Obviously, avoid anyone in your reporting hierarchy and think twice about getting involved with someone you have to continue working closely with. But I don’t think that being an employee somewhere means you can’t EVER express interest in anyone who works in the same place.

    Reply ↓
    1. Daria grace*

      I don’t know that a swipe right rises to the level of asking someone out, just flagging that you’re open to conversation

      Reply ↓
      1. M*

        It’s more than being open to conversation if you’ve already been rejected by that person and they’ve gone to HR who has told you explicitly to leave them alone.

        Reply ↓
        1. Cmdrshprd*

          the hr and being told to leave them alone happened after the swipe not before.

          A swipe after a no is not another ask out because unless you swipe also, nothing happens.

          Reply ↓
          1. Earlk*

            Technically. But if you’ve been rejected by someone you work with you should er on the side of caution.

            Reply ↓
      2. Snow Globe*

        In a work context, you have one chance to ask someone out (and only if there is no chain-of-command overlap). If they say ‘no’, you don’t ask again, and you don’t act like you are hurt around them, you behave professionally. I don’t see why that is hard to understand.

        Reply ↓
    2. Cmdrshprd*

      “there’s got to be some context missing in the story your friend told you–”

      maybe, maybe not, the coworker might have other baggage coming into play that colors how they viewed the swipe, or friend has continued being creepy, but there does not HAVE to be more.

      “It generally IS bad etiquette to ask someone out a more than once if they’ve already said no. ”

      I would say a swipe is not the same as asking someone out, a second time, especially because most require mutual interest/swipes for a match.

      If it were a traditional site where people were open to message anyone and a person sent a message I would agree, that a message would be out of line after being rejected.

      Reply ↓
    3. Ellis Bell*

      Oh I think your second paragraph explains why I feel so out of step with other commentators. If it’s someone in the wider company/building then yeah, I agree it’s no big deal to indicate romantic interest (unless you’ve already done it and been told it’s unwelcome, obviously!) I immediately imagined the hypothetical was someone I was working closely with every day, and I would never put someone in an awkward position like that without a lot of encouragement.

      Reply ↓
    4. Your Local Password Resetter*

      Yeah, normally asking someone out on it’s own isn’t a HR-level act. But the fact that they were already rejected, and that this is very much their side of the story, definitely leaves a lot of room for HR-worthy actions in between.

      Reply ↓
      1. Abby*

        Yeah I’m also reasonably dubious about the characterisation of “absent-mindedly” swiping on someone they’ve already asked out and been rejected by. Swiping on dating apps definitely can be a pretty absent-minded activity, even with coworkers if it’s a big company, but most people don’t forget being rejected in a hurry, especially by someone they still see around a lot.

        It feels like they’re trying to say “oh it was totally a chill thing, I didn’t put any thought into it, this is an overreaction”, but personally if I’d been pursued by a coworker, told them no, and they reached out again through this medium, it wouldn’t feel particularly chill or casual to me!

        Reply ↓
    5. LifebeforeCorona*

      This is interesting. I used an app a few years ago and met up with a person. We talked and agreed neither of us were feeling anything. Several years later I took another job and run into this person on a regular basis because of my work. We obviously recognized each other and keep our interactions to a polite nod. One of the perils of small town living.

      Reply ↓
  6. Jillian with a J dammit*

    In my industry, I would disagree with Alison (first time ever!). Tickets are given to specific people in most cases; if I’m given 4 tickets, it’s more like a “bring your husband and kids” invitation. It would be unheard of to give them to someone else, even another manager or employee, without asking the giver. I could say “Hey, I can’t use all these tickets. Would you like them back or should I give them to other team members?”.

    Reply ↓
      1. WS*

        Yeah, my brother’s company often gets tickets like these. Execs get first pick, then it’s open to all full-time employees via company Slack. Tickets go in pairs so you can take your partner/kid/whoever, but sometimes two employees go together.

        Reply ↓
      2. Rogue Slime Mold*

        But I think the path then can be:
        1) Vendor sends 2 tickets to basketball game.
        A) Top person wants to go, and so takes the tickets and goes with a spouse, sibling, friend, etc.
        B) Top person doesn’t want to go, and so sends out an email asking if anyone wants the tickets. First to say “yes” wins. How far the email goes depends on the size of the office, but in a large place it might make sense to send it to a small group, then if no one bites another small group, so any disappointment at Marianne snagging the tickets is kept to a small number.

        Reply ↓
  7. Daria grace*

    1. I’m not currently on dating apps so don’t know the finer details of the culture but unless there’s important missing context here I feel like there’s an overreaction. I would see swiping right as just flagging that they’re open to interaction and thus things not starting to get into potentially problematic territory until messages are sent.

    Reply ↓
    1. Glen*

      to me the important detail is that they had been told to leave their colleague alone /before/ The Swiping Incident. It doesn’t require any kind of action perhaps but I totally understand looping HR in because it does look like some soft boundary testing (even if it is in fact entirely innocent)

      Reply ↓
    2. Glen*

      apparently I can’t read. I do think speaking to the friend to tell them to leave coworker alone is overkill unless there’s something we don’t know!

      Reply ↓
    3. Your Local Password Resetter*

      On it’s own I would agree, but it could also be part of a larger pattern that would justify going to HR.
      And since OP is getting this second-hand from their friend, we don’t really have the information to judge if the response was unreasonable or not.

      Reply ↓
      1. Rogue Slime Mold*

        There’s a genre of letter where in the last paragraph, or in a response to the columnist’s answer, the OP lets drop a detail that changes readers’ reaction to the first part. Both in the direction “This seems like you’re normal and the other person is odd–oh, nope, with this detail I suddenly get where they’re coming from” and in the reverse direction.

        And this is third-hand about OP’s friend, where complaining to your friends about how unfairly you have been treated is rife with opportunities to leave out awkward details.

        Reply ↓
  8. Bazzathedog11*

    #1. How many times does your friend need to be told NO. They (he) needs to monitor their own behaviour, the onus should not be on their colleague to do this. I’m sure they’ve kept with up what this person looks like, and I’m sure your friend doesn’t swipe right on everyone. What will be a wake-up call for them.?

    Reply ↓
    2. Daria grace*

      That seems a bit much in the circumstances. If it was someone they’d dated and who had set serious boundaries them then it would absolutely be that serious but that’s not what happened here. Flicking through tinder it would be easy to not even register this was a person you’d had brief interaction with years ago

      Reply ↓
      1. Bazzathedog11*

        Maybe, maybe not. Oops he swiped right, forgot that colleague took it to HR. Sometimes people are really generous on this site bending over backwards in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I hope they pretend it didn’t happen and don’t feel the need to apologise.

        Reply ↓
        1. Glen*

          the coworker took it to HR after the swipe by my reading. I misread it that way at first, too, but it looks like HR only got involved after The Swiping Incident, so it does sound like overkill unless there’s more that we don’t know about. Given that the usual way it works is that you can’t actually see who swiped right on you unless you also swipe right on them, it’s not super egregious. Basically a swipe means “I am open to speaking with this person in this context if they are also open to speaking to me”, which is pretty innocuous.

          Reply ↓
          1. allathian*

            Yes, but the person who complained had paid for a premium account on the dating app to see who had swiped right on their profile before they had swiped anywhere.

            Reply ↓
            1. Orange Line Appreciator*

              We don’t know that, though. Some apps (Hinge, for example) show you everyone who swipes right without needing both parties to mutually express interest.

              And even if the person did pay for the premium version of the app, so what? That doesn’t mean they forfeited the right to feel uncomfortable being approached by someone they’ve already turned down.

              Reply ↓
              1. Insert Clever Name Here*

                From the letter:

                And then the interaction has to be mutual anyway — both people need to “initiate” conversation here, without knowing if the other person has done so. (Apparently in this case their coworker was paying for premium rights to see who was swiping on them, and spoke with HR without initiating.)

                Reply ↓
          2. Rogue Slime Mold*

            Genuinely head-scratching to me because “you can’t see who swiped right on you” and “you can’t see who swiped right on you unless you click this button and pay a fee” are not the same.

            While there are social rules about pretending you haven’t noticed things that were taking place in plain sight, this seems to be assigning that to an app in a way that just is not true. People can see you! It’s very easy to do so!

            Reply ↓
        2. Come on, man*

          “Sometimes people are really generous on this site bending over backwards in giving people the benefit of the doubt.”

          … do we read the same comments section?

          Reply ↓
  9. JM60*

    #3 I’m not from Ukraine, but if a manager brought up that they’re from Russia, others are from Ukraine, and they don’t say anything against the war, I’d take that as a sign that they aren’t against the war.

    My manager being okay with a completely unnecessary war that is jeopardising the safety of my family and friends would be a big deal.

    Reply ↓
    1. Come on, man*

      Whoa, hold on. Does that mean anyone from any group needs to denounce everything just to be clear they’re against The Thing?

      If haven’t heard a Muslim coworker speak out against ISIS am I supposed to assume that he’s not against them?

      Reply ↓
      1. Roeslein*

        I really don’t think this is comparable. I live in a city with many people from both countries, including many Russians who support their government, and my assumption would definitely be the same as JM60.

        Reply ↓
      2. JM60*

        Does that mean anyone from any group needs to denounce everything just to be clear they’re against The Thing?

        No! It means that if:

        1 I’m from a group that is murdering your friends and/or family.

        and

        2 I explicitly bring up #1 without denouncing the murder.

        Then I’ll consider up your lack of denunciation of #1 as you being okay with it.

        Merely existing as being from a certain group doesn’t mean that you have an affirmative obligation to denounce every wrongdoing by members of that group.

        Reply ↓
        1. JM60*

          Eh. I got 1st and 3rd person mixed up because I’m tired right now. I meant to write:

          1 You’re from a group that is murdering my friends and/or family.

          and

          2 You explicitly bring up #1 without denouncing the murder.

          Then I’ll consider up your lack of denunciation of #1 as you being okay with the the murdering.

          Reply ↓
          1. Numbersmouse*

            But they’re not from a group that is murdering OP’s friends and family… They just happen to be of the same nationality (unless all 140+ million Russians are one group to you, in which case let’s call humans a group too). That’s flat-out making assumptions about people based on their nationality.

            Reply ↓
    2. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

      You need a lot more evidence than this before you start assuming major serious things about people based on their nationality.

      Reply ↓
    3. Glen*

      I appreciate that it’s a fraught subject but this is really not ok. I can’t imagine people saying this about an American working with Iraqi or Afghani colleagues. Those were both far longer wars, were both started on pretexts about as flimsy as Putin’s, and Iraq almost certainly caused more death and destruction, while Afghanistan was on about the same scale. We all tend to think of our own side as the “good guys” so it’s not surprising that we consider the russo-ukrainian war to be very different, it’s something I struggle with myself. But it’s still the case that there’s no real factual basis to consider Putin’s actions in Ukraine as any better than Bush’s in Iraq. And the American people actually elected bush!* Putin, on the other hand, may enjoy popular support from Russians, but he’s not their choice, so the average Russian has less culpability for Ukraine than you or I do for Iraq and Afghanistan (and Korea, and Vietnam, and…)

      * yes I know, but he did at least get a huge chunk of the vote, enough for the case to go his way.

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        If I (an American) work with colleagues from Iraqi or Afghanistan, I wouldn’t call attention to that. If for some reason I felt the need to call attention to it, then I’d at least make it clear that I’m against wrongdoing that affected them and/or their friends and/or family.

        The lack of disavowing wrongdoing would be very different if the subject never came up.

        Reply ↓
        1. Come on, man*

          But if you worked openly with said colleagues – say in the height of 9/11 – and they *didn’t* renounce Islamic terrorism of their own volition…?

          Reply ↓
        2. Numbersmouse*

          I’m from an autocratic country and if my government started bombing civilians, it wouldn’t even cross my mind to clarify I’m against it, even if I drew attention to it… After all, I didn’t vote for the bastards.

          I feel like people from democratic countries identify with their government’s actions more than we do, even if they’ve voted against the government. And that’s fine (even if it weirds me out to hear my left-wing American friends say “when we invaded Iraq”)! But there’s no reason to assume this one Russian guy does, and therefore build a whole set of assumptions about his stance on Putin and the war on that basis.

          Reply ↓
        3. Numbersmouse*

          And last thing: if you were an American working with, say, Iraqis at the height of the Iraq war, I’d consider it far weirder if you didn’t comment on that fact at all. So you thinking it’s weird to make an allusion and then not follow up on it is just a matter of subjective social sensitivities, not a hard-and-fast rule that you must either be silent on the topic of your government’s crimes or publicly and entirely disavow them.

          Reply ↓
    4. The Prettiest Curse*

      I have both Ukrainian and Russian heritage, which is not obvious from my name. (Let’s just say that I’m not rooting for Russia, because otherwise it will get sweary.) I have 2 Russian colleagues in my office – one is very anti-Putin/anti-war and the other doesn’t really discuss it, so I’m not sure. It took quite a while for my colleague who is anti-Putin to discuss it with me. People usually aren’t comfortable discussing geopolitics on their first encounter, so in this case I’d just attribute the colleague’s remark to initial meeting awkwardness.

      Also, it would be a bit weird to have to denounce everything potentially bad associated with your heritage, religion etc. when you are first introduced to someone! I’m from the UK and also have Irish heritage, plus a bit of Serbian and Swedish too. So denouncing everything bad that has ever been done by all of those countries would take me a really, really long time.

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        Also, it would be a bit weird to have to denounce everything potentially bad associated with your heritage, religion etc. when you are first introduced to someone!

        Most people simply don’t draw attention to it! It’s the act of drawing attention to it that makes their silence in the face of ongoing murder speak volumes to me.

        Reply ↓
        1. Crystal Lettuce*

          I assume you have never worked in a foreign country? Because if you have a foreign name and accent, someone will draw attention to your nationality, regardless if you want it or not.

          Reply ↓
    5. Drag0nfly*

      That’s an overly emotional and unfair way of looking at the situation. The manager is not obligated to comment on the war, or to match your feelings about the war. The manager IS obligated to make sure the workplace is peaceful. You deserve to work peacefully, the Russian deserves to work peacefully, and your colleagues who are none of the above have the right to work peacefully, without being dragged into the conflict.

      Purity tests have no place in this situation; no one should be forced to speak your shibboleths in order to be treated decently. And if you’re a manager and were demanding people speak your shibboleths, you open the door for lawsuits. “The employee wasn’t performative to my satisfaction in voicing what I want him to voice, so I decided he must be the bad guy?”

      It’s honestly bigotry to assume “the Russian must be bad because he’s Russian,” and “she must be corrupt because she’s Ukrainian.” All that is required of the manager and the coworkers is to behave like professional adults. You — the hypothetical you in your scenario — don’t know if the Russian manager was escaping conscription, has relatives who were conscripted, has personally suffered in some other way, or what. And it’s none of your business either way. They don’t have to prove that to you, they just have to treat you decently and reasonably, the same way they need to treat the other coworkers.

      In your case, if your hypothetical self would have such hostility, you may want to observe the rule about not discussing politics. This way you don’t jump the gun and assume a person keeping quiet must be engaging in bad think, rather than prudently seeking to maintain the peace.

      Reply ↓
      1. Garlic Knot*

        When my family is under rockets for three years, there should be no expectation of “being fair”.

        Reply ↓
      2. JM60*

        The manager is not obligated to comment on the war

        Merely being from a country that is killing someone’s else’s friend and family in another country doesn’t itself obligate you to affirmatively denounce that murdering. However, it’s different it you draw attention to the murdering. Then, the act of drawing attention to it makes your silence in the face of ongoing murder look like you’re okay with it.

        It’s honestly bigotry to assume “the Russian must be bad because he’s Russian,”

        I never made that assumption.

        or to match your feelings about the war.

        If you’re of the opinion that Russia’s war on Ukraine is okay, then you’re either extremely confused (perhaps brainwashed), or you’re a bad person. Even if it’s the former, I think someone from Ukraine has the right to feel uncomfortable working for you.

        Reply ↓
        1. learnedthehardway*

          Agreed – it would have been one thing if the manager had simply not brought up the issue, and had said something like “I’m looking forward to working with each of you”.

          But to say, “Well, I’m Russian, some of you are Ukranian, and we’ll have to see how it goes!” – to me, that’s a VERY odd statement to make. It might mean he’s a bit worried about how things will go (if so, why not be reassuring about it). OR it might mean “I’m not that keen on Ukranians, so don’t cross me”. Or perhaps “I’m anticipating trouble from you and am letting you know that I won’t put up with it.”

          Personally, I would document this and sit on it. I wouldn’t necessarily go to HR right now, but I would send an email to myself so I had a time/date stamp on it.

          Reply ↓
    6. Vique*

      What a strange thing to say.
      Clearly both the LW and their manager are leaving abroad so why would you assume the manager is supporting the war?

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        They drew attention to it without denouncing Russia’s war. That’s very different from just passively not denouncing wrongdoing by your country if the subject never came up.

        There are plenty of Russians living outside Russia who support the Russian government.

        Reply ↓
        1. Crystal Lettuce*

          I am a Russian manager, and I always say that I am from Russia when I introduce myself to new coworkers. Something along the line of “I studied in X university in Moscow, Russia, started my career at Y company doing A, moved to the UK in 2015 and have worked in B and C companies doing D.” Just because when people meet someone with foreign name and foreign accent, it is natural for them to wonder where I am from. I’d rather address it right away than answer awkward questions later. I did the same well before full-scale Ukraine invasion started.

          Reply ↓
          1. Myrin*

            JM60 is talking about the manager’s specifically pointing out that there are multiple employees from Ukraine and als “wondering how that will go”, thereby making a direct reference to the current political situation and the war in particular. That’s different from someone just factually stating where they’re from.

            Reply ↓
    7. Myrin*

      I get what you’re saying but I can honestly imagine that that’s reading too much intent into the whole situation.

      When I first read the letter, my immediate reaction was a dismayed “Oh no, why would you proactively bring this up, and in such a weird way???”. I’m actually with you in that it’s supremely awkward and possibly even suspicious to call attention to these facts and then just randomly leave them dangling like that (“I wonder how that will go.”? Like, come on. Could you have worded that any more uncomfortably?) but if there’s no other reason to believe the manager is a fan of Putin’s, treating the Ukrainian employees differently, or something along those lines, I’d honestly chalk it up to thoughtless awkwardness and/or social gracelessness (also not something I’m a fan of in a manager but better than a supporter of an active war).

      Reply ↓
      1. Emmy Noether*

        I agree with this. It’s been my experience that many people from countries with autocratic/repressive regimes are very reticent to make a statement against that regime to people they do not know well, even if they are indeed against it.

        It’s possible he had the impulse to say something about the elephant in the room and ended up saying something very awkward because he didn’t want to declare himself in front of a room of essentially strangers. Was that a mistake? I think so. But I’d give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Especially if he’s been out of Russia for a while – he’d know that being pro-Russia won’t go over very well, so I feel like he’d be less likely to bring it up?

        Reply ↓
        1. JM60*

          People in countries with autocratic/repressive regimes, who are against those regimes, tend to be very reticent to make a statement against that regime. However, in my experience, people from those countries typically feel free to criticize those regimes in their everyday life after moving to another country.

          Reply ↓
          1. bamcheeks*

            I broadly agree with you about not bringing it up at all unless you’re prepared to offer support to colleagues who are almost certainly impacted on the war, but whether you feel safe to criticise your country of origin does depend on the country. LW just says they’re in Europe, and there are parts of Europe where it’s very safe for a Russian to criticise the Russian government, and parts where it’s not. And even in safe countries, I know several Russians who are anti-war but still very conflicted about vocally criticising a war and a government which, say, their propaganda-consuming family is still supporting.

            So I don’t think I’d necessarily assume the Russian colleague was pro-war, but I’d certainly have a degree of caution around them.

            (And not bringing it up is definitely the top option.)

            Reply ↓
          2. Numbersmouse*

            It seriously depends on the regime, how they operate, if the person in question still has family living back home (and who therefore might be retaliated against), who they know/think is listening, etc.

            Reply ↓
    8. Ellis Bell*

      It could easily be that the manager simply thinks that it should have nothing to do with the work, but if that’s the case it was awkward to bring it up without stating why. I think OP would have felt more reassured if they’d taken a stance.

      Reply ↓
    9. Nia*

      I don’t know why you’re getting so much pushback from this. You’re completely correct, that the manager brought it up and then didn’t say anything further is a red flag.

      Reply ↓
    10. Your Local Password Resetter*

      Manager definitely fumbled this one, but since LW still has to work under them I’d treat it as an awkward acknowledgment of the situation without getting into extremely volatile and personal topics at work.

      Definitely do keep an eye out on how the manager treats people though. And would it be worth adressing it directly, since this caused friction that a good manager would presumably want to clear up?

      Reply ↓
    11. Roland*

      I feel like not saying “I’m against the war” can also quite reasonably mean “I don’t want to put my family in danger by talking about my politics with people I don’t know at all”

      Reply ↓
    12. Zarniwoop*

      I’d consider the possibility that they’re concerned about possible repercussions should word get home that they said anything against Putin or the war.

      Reply ↓
  10. Raida*

    4. How to say “this was your idea” to my manager

    As a reporting and data person I’d handle it like this:
    Write down, in bullet points, the parameters, confirming the measures and methodologies are suited to the end goals at the time the task is given to you. Refuse to progress until this step has been taken, offer to put ten minutes in the calendar to nail it all down.
    Put all that in email. Include a statement of the deadline and the current estimated date of completion.
    When providing the end result, the email goes something like:

    Morning Jo,

    Please find attached the requested data.
    As per your parameters this includes
    – Date Range
    – Weekdays only
    – Excluding Public and School Holidays
    – Customer Type
    – Cumulative Monthly Total Sales
    – Site Load Profile
    – defined as Daily Maximum Load
    – excluding all Unknown and Clown models

    Essentially: I treat it like it is *important*, so I will put in the effort necessary to provide something that is both wanted and useful and understood – so they will provide the information required to do so.
    As a student, this would be called “conscientious” but as an adult it is called “pedantic” and fckmedead, but pedantic is good for people who give wishy washy requests or change their mind or don’t think things through or complain.

    Reply ↓
    1. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

      “Refuse to progress until this step has been taken” is probably not practical, especially with a skip level boss.

      But love your sample email for sending over the information.

      Reply ↓
    2. learnedthehardway*

      If I was dealing with a manager who routinely changed their directions or expected things they had not requested, I would start sending that email out BEFORE I started the work, along the lines of “To recap our meeting, here is what I will be doing for you. Please advise if you have any changes to make.”

      Reply ↓
  11. Glen*

    re LW1:

    Reading the letter, it was first escalated to HR when they originally asked the coworker out! HR had already told this person not to bother their coworker. I suspect we’re not getting the full story here but, regardless, don’t swipe right on a coworker that you have already been told to stop bothering! Even if it has been two years! Given the whole mutual-swipes thing I’m not convinced it was a major violation, but it’s still an obviously bad idea under those circumstances. Not shocked that it wound up back in front of HR, even if it was entirely innocent it certainly *looks* like boundary testing.

    Reply ↓
    1. Glen*

      whoops, no. It’s not even all that ambiguous I just apparently can’t read. HR asked the friend to leave their colleague alone after The Big Swipe. Yeah, overkill, unless there’s something we weren’t told, and there’s genuinely no way to call it.

      Reply ↓
  12. Just me*

    The whole scenario on swiping someone’s dating profile being a problem just doesn’t make sense to me. Now granted I haven’t had any experience with such as I’m from the sign up and let the computer match you days, which were crazy with what was suggested as possible matches! Still just swiping on a profile in my opinion would be simply checking to see if this is the person I think it is or not. So why would that be problematic?

    Reply ↓
    1. Glen*

      swiping right on someone afaik is actually indicating an interest in them, you swipe after viewing their profile.

      still sounds like overkill unless there’s more going on than we’ve been told.

      Reply ↓
    2. Hroethvitnir*

      Eh. I’m old and taken enough to have never had to deal with dating sites, and I wouldn’t go to HR based on what we know, but if someone who’d asked me out in the past and I continue to interact with at work swiped right, I would be keeping an *incredibly* suspicious eye on them for creepy behaviour.

      If I’d asked someone out and they said no, I cannot describe how fast I’d swipe left if I saw them on a dating site. If it was an *actual* accident and I got called to HR, I’m not saying I wouldn’t have any degree of internal defensiveness, but the overwhelming feeling is feeling awful I made someone feel anxious enough to go to HR.

      The letter has rules lawyer vibes, which does not predispose me to being generous in my interpretation, frankly.

      Reply ↓
    3. Nodramalama*

      Unless this is some other app, you generally don’t get a notification is someone just looks at your profile. Swiping is literally signalling to that person an interest.

      Reply ↓
  13. Nolongerthere*

    I once worked for a company that supplied wineries with supplies – think corks, bottles, barrels, etc. One of our suppliers brought their supplies in from Europe, but then sent the supplies via freight train from the East Coast to our office on the West Coast. There was a train strike I believe in Canada, so one of our shipments was seriously delayed in a particular winery was having fits. I called a bunch of people and was able after several days of legwork to get the shipment released off the plane and for someone to fly it to our supplier.

    In gratitude, the winery sent me a case of wine and you should’ve heard my boss complaining from here to Timbuktu! “Why did you get a case of wine? I’m the owner I should get the case of wine.” I simply replied” Tim wanted to thank me for getting him those capsules so quickly. Train strike remember?” He was still PO’d but didn’t try to take any of the wine.

    Reply ↓
  14. Nodramalama*

    Yes, LW1, you haven’t doubtlessly got the story as the truth from your friends perspective. But I highly suspect the coworker will have a different perspective.

    Reply ↓
  15. Numbat*

    I know a guy, Mr Business Owner, who was offered one ticket to a high profile sporting event that takes place in another state.

    He asked to pass the phone to Mrs Business Owner, so the vendor could explain to her that she would be missing out on going, while Mr Business Owner went and left her home alone.

    The vendor quickly came up with another ticket.

    Reply ↓
  16. Palmer*

    #1 could be a case of unreliable narrator.

    It’s possible LW’s friend asked her out more than once, or that he’s had other discomforting behavior. I expect that could explain going to HR over a swipe.

    #3 I expect some conveyance from LW that they value peace and family and that everyone gets to be safe could convey that they are not their country, that their values are not different from people on the other side of the war. It is pretty obvious most people don’t support the wild expansionist behavior of Russia and would love for the conflict to stop. I wouldn’t go diving into politics, but it should be pretty easy for LW to humanize themself.

    #4 When dealing with flipfloppers and ‘forgetful’ bosses, I tend to write up all the things they listed as action items, so I can itemize to specifically what they want accomplished, as well as dates. This serves as receipts. Preemptively mentioning you did what they asked is re-hydrating them on context (in the event they’re competent just juggling things and forgetting why they prioritized certain things.

    You can throw in a little bit of a “I followed your instructions on A & B and think it improved this significantly’. This type of flattery is good for the micromanagey types who are self conscious or want to feel like they were involved and risk mangling things with constant adjustments. Some bosses will regularly do small unnecessary tweaks.

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

    For the swiping on the co-worker, maybe the swiper was already low level inappropriate with the coworker who rejected her: flirting, looks, stuff like that. If that happened, then the swipe, going to HR makes sense.

    Reply ↓
  18. Garlic Knot*

    #4 I am a Ukrainian living abroad, and I expect this will turn into an issue (for me). My first language is Russian, and some companies see it as an asset, whereas I’ve been avoiding exactly that since about 2012. You didn’t hire me for my Russian, I’m not providing any work in Russian. But I am job hunting and can see a boss happily trying to make me work with Russian clients, which is just nope. I don’t care what their war stance is and don’t care to find out. Unfortunately, here where I live “acting like you are entitled to pick and choose your work tasks” is gross insubordination. But really, do spare us your accusations of “bigotry” (?!) and “not all Russians”. It is not personal for you.

    Reply ↓
  19. bee*

    On its own, I don’t think simply swiping “yes” on a coworker on a dating app 2 years after having been turned down for a date is egregious. Especially if it’s on a dating app where the standard experience means the other person would only know how somebody swiped if they also expressed interest. I can see how somebody could see that as “I’m not pursuing, just keeping the door open in case this person has changed their mind.”

    That all being said, since LW said they’re asking for a friend, I’d be a bit cautious about implicitly trusting their friend’s perspective on whether or not their coworker was right to feel creeped out. I’ve witnessed people say to friends “I don’t know why they think I’m creepy— I’ve only asked them out once!” but then they’ve spent the better part of a year gazing forlornly at their coworker from across the room. There may be all sorts of dynamics and context that might make the coworker feel like LW’s friend’s like was more loaded or creepy than was conveyed to LW.

    But on the general etiquette for coworkers and dating apps, I would say it’s okay to swipe yes, but proceed with caution. Don’t engage with coworkers if your profile is overtly sexual or would otherwise be considered inappropriate for a coworker. Don’t make a habit of swiping yes on, like, every person you work with— people talk and you might get an odd reputation. Be mindful of power dynamics (e.g. if you’re the CEO, don’t swipe yes on the intern). Be more cautious if you work directly with somebody. And finally, make sure that if you’re swiping yes on coworkers, be sure that you can be chill about it at work and that you handle rejection gracefully.

    Reply ↓
    1. Still*

      This. Swiping right on a coworker might be ill-advised but, as you said, the standard behaviour is that it won’t be seen unless it’s mutual. Consent is a built-in part of the process.

      Going to HR over it means that either:
      a) the coworker is wildly overreacting, or
      b) your friend has made the coworker feel uncomfortable in more subtle ways that have been difficult to point a finger to, and the coworker is grasping at the right swipe as something tangible that they can bring up.

      Whatever the case, I think the takeaway is to be scrupulously professional towards the coworker from now on; towards all coworkers, really.

      Reply ↓
      1. Still*

        Also, it’s worth noticing that the friend has already outed themselves as an unreliable narrator. One does not simply forget a rejection or “absent-mindedly” swipe on somebody who’s rejected them. I don’t think it’s a huge deal to say “who knows, maybe they’ll be open to it now, no harm in trying” and swipe right. But I don’t believe for a second that it was “absent-minded”.

        Reply ↓
        1. Rew123*

          This is obviously a generalisation. I’ve witnessed quite a few male friends swipe without even looing at their screen. Once they match with someone then they look at the profile. Where as my female friends read and zoom before they swipe. It is very likely that they purposefully swiped right, but honestly it is a possiblity they just swipeswipeswipe.

          Reply ↓
          1. Still*

            You know what, you’re right, I definitely extrapolated from the way me and my female friends use apps like that. If the friend was swiping without looking, I could see them not noticing.

            Reply ↓
          2. Rogue Slime Mold*

            It’s my understanding (hypothetical; I married when the internet was in its infancy) that if you just swipe right on everyone, then the algorithm demotes your profile because such matches aren’t exciting for the people on the other end. And you may well be a bot.

            Reply ↓
    2. Nodramalama*

      100%. Most people don’t think they’re being inappropriate or creepy. We have no idea what any of their other interactions are

      Reply ↓
  20. Trauma bonded*

    LW #2 I don’t think it’s unusual for a perk to come with a plus one, so I don’t think it’s outrageous that execs are inviting guests not affiliated with the workplace. However, sharing perks is a strong retention strategy and clearly they are more interested in retaining their spouses than the employees. Please keep that in mind when considering your future career growth and opportunities at other employers.

    Reply ↓
  21. Cinn*

    LW4 when you’re originally asked for the report do you have any standing to be like “yep, I can get you that, but can you tell me what you’re hoping to get out of it?”. Then potentially recommend different/additional data sets?

    As someone who puts together lots of different reports together for people, I’ve found it much easier to get them the right information when I know what trends/data/whatever they’re actually looking to get out of it, rather than what they think will get them there.

    Reply ↓
  22. A*

    2: I could be reading this wrong. I see it as 6 total people at the organization (3 bosses and 3 employees) and 4 tickets (2 bosses and spouses).

    There is not a good way to divide 4 things between 6 people. I am guessing instead of picking among the employees the boss who didn’t care about the perk let the other two take it.

    I don’t think there is a way to divide this that would make the employees happy. I know some people are going to say the employees and one boss would be the best way to do it but that is not realistic.

    Reply ↓
  23. bamcheeks*

    On the face of it, “I paid extra to see who is swiping right on me without me swiping right on them and I didn’t like what I saw” seems like a problem you can very easily solve yourself without involving HR. Your friend either has a very touchy HR department or there’s more going on than they’re telling you, LW1! I am not sure I would read this as a general lesson about the etiquette of seeing colleagues on dating apps.

    Reply ↓
  24. Hiring Mgr*

    Maybe I’m being overly generous but I was picturing the Russian boss as trying to lightheartedly acknowledge the situation even if it came out awkwardly.

    People whose countries are at war work together all the time with no issues

    Reply ↓
  25. CorporateGifts*

    I don’t have a lot of experience with this, but every work gift I’ve ever seen was directed to a specific department, not the company writ large (I’ve never gotten one, other than maybe a fruit basket, at a company small enough not to have real departments). For example, at a former job my department of 6-8 got 4 tickets to a MLB game from a vendor we used as a department all but one year I worked there. We had two rabid baseball fans – both female and good friends – so they used the tickets along with one employee’s boyfriend and his sister (I only know who the extras were because I was the other employee). There was no consideration of giving the tickets outside of the department, and it would have been seen as weird and caused problems with how to pick if we tried to pick two other employees to go.

    So if the gift was given to the CEO on behalf of the company and could only be used by a limited number of people, I could see them choosing to use it rather than passing it on, although if there’s a clear “this person’s work was responsible for the gift” I agree it’s bad form not to include them. However, that may not be as clear to someone like a CEO or owner as it is to that person, or that person might not have an accurate view of the larger relationship which causes them to erroneously feel they did the relevant work.

    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