coworker assumes we’ll give him rides, can I fire a new hire for being pregnant, and more

by Alison Green on September 30, 2019

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

1. My coworker always assumes someone will drive him to meetings

I have a coworker who always assumes that someone will drive him to and from meetings outside our facility. He owns a car but usually takes public transportation to work since it’s cheaper and his wife can use the car. It’s one thing to give him a ride to a meeting from work because we are going the same place, but he never asks, he just follows you out to your car. He also never says thank-you or offers gas money. The worst part is he also assumes you will drive him back downtown in rush hour traffic so he can get a bus home, and gets upset when no one will drive him. Most of us don’t even live in that direction, and I don’t think his transportation should be my responsibility. Any advice for how to deal with this situation?

You’re right that his transportation isn’t your responsibility. That said, depending on your office norms around ride-sharing to meetings, it might not look great if you flatly refuse to take him to a meeting you’re going to yourself. But there are ways to get out of that, like “Sorry, I need to make a stop on the way so can’t take passengers” or “I can do it in an emergency, but generally I prefer to drive alone.” (That last one sounds pretty chilly and I’d only use it if he’s a bad passenger in some way.)

But you absolutely don’t need to drive him back afterwards if you’re not going back to the office! You can say, “I can drive you there but won’t be able to take you back afterwards; I’m heading straight home from the meeting.” If he gets upset, that’s on him — he’ll need to plan his own transportation rather than relying on coworkers to go out of their way (in rush hour!).

As for the lack of thank-you’s and gas money … he might not be offering gas money because he assumes you’re submitting for mileage reimbursement (if you’re not, you should be). But is anyone in a position to say to him, “Hey, you’re relying on all of us for rides but never saying thank-you or acknowledging it’s a favor, and people will be more willing to help if you do”?

2. My new hire didn’t tell me she’s pregnant — can I fire her?

I have taken a employee on and after four weeks work she has told me she is almost five months pregnant and did not say so at the interview because she’d been told that no one would employ her. I feel lied to. Do I have any rights in this issue? Can I terminate her or legally do I have to keep her on?

No, you can’t legally fire her for being pregnant; that would violate the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act. And if you wouldn’t have hired her if you’d known she was pregnant, that would have been illegal too.

In fairness, I should note that if you have fewer than 15 employees, that law doesn’t cover you. But if that’s the case, firing her is highly likely to make you look like an awful person to the rest of your employees, and I advise against it. It will particularly not help the morale or loyalty of any employees who might become pregnant in the future, want to become pregnant in the future, or have spouses who might become pregnant in the future, or who are women, or who are people who care about women. So … lots of people.

She also had zero obligation to have disclosed her pregnancy to you before you hired her — and your reaction now is exactly why people told her not to.

And to be clear, I get that it can be frustrating to discover that as soon as you finish training someone and they’re just starting to master their role, they’re going to be on leave for a while and you’ll need to find and train a totally different person to cover for them. But people get pregnant, and they still need jobs while they’re pregnant. Accepting that — and accepting that you can’t discriminate against them — is part of the deal when you employ a workforce made up of humans.

3. Are my rough drafts porny?

I recently had a weird experience where I don’t know if I should be changing a practice or if another person is being silly. I’m in an early career position where I’m writing a lot of memos and short papers. Sometimes I have to share documents and drafts before all the details of an issue are known or researched so I use a bolded “XXX” in the text to signal where I need to plug something in. (For example: “of the 542 participants, XXX said they would repeat the program” or “XXX% of their funding comes from…”) I find it easy to type and easy to spot in a document full of text.

However, I recently had a senior team member (who considers herself a mothering person) come to me, scandalized, because I was putting “porn symbols” in the drafts. I never once considered this to be an issue (while I now know what “XXX” can imply, I started doing this as a fill-this-in-later when I was an early teen). I don’t want to be stubborn, but I also feel like if someone is being ridiculous it’s better to hold your ground. Do I change my drafting process?

Your coworker is being ridiculous. “XXX” is a common placeholder in documents. It doesn’t signify porn in this context.

That said, if this pearl-clutching coworker has a lot of influence in your office, you might be better off just rolling your eyes internally and changing to “XX,” which is also common for this kind of use. On the other hand, if she’s widely considered to be absurd or doesn’t have a lot of standing, it might be perfectly fine to continue as you have been. If you’re unsure, you can always ask your boss if she cares. (I would be sincerely delighted to get this question from an employee.)

4. My husband’s resume includes old stuff that I think he should remove

My husband, who is 32, just recently went back to school for accounting after about 10 years of being in customer service jobs. He’s had steady employment for the last five years, despite having a short gap between his last job and going back to school. He’s working to finish his bachelor’s and will also get a Master’s of Accounting. He’s starting the process of meeting with firms and going to his school’s meet-the-firm nights and fairs, with the goal of getting an internship or job offer.

He recently asked for my help on his resume. He wrote up a draft and it was appallingly bad — like, the kind of quality I’d expect from my 13-year-old brother, or someone putting together a resume for the first time. Think no formatting, inconsistent font sizing, subjective descriptions. I reformatted the whole thing according to your guidelines, and helped him change it into a resume to be proud of.

However, he is adamant about including three things: his Eagle Scout award (which he received in high school), his Mormon mission in Brazil (which was in 2006-2008), and the fact that he was part of the volunteer clean-up crews for Hurricanes Katrina and Ivan.

My husband is not a stupid man — he’s in fact quite brilliant and loves math and accounting and is headed toward a stellar career. But I am struggling to get him to see how having these three things on his professional resume could hurt his job search. None of them are relevant to accounting, all are over 10 years old, and none resulted in any promotable skills (he’s no longer fluent in Portuguese). I think that including them will show him as out-of-touch and, honestly, unprofessional.

Can you back me up on this? Am I right that these need to go? We are in Utah, if that makes a difference. (It doesn’t to me. I still don’t think a mission or volunteer service from 10+ years ago have any place on a resume!)

Eh, I’m less concerned than you are! I’d tell him take off the hurricane clean-up work (it’s too old to be relevant), but mainly it’s just a bad use of space. If he’s otherwise a strong candidate, people might think it’s a little odd to have it listed but they’re not going to reject him over it. (To be clear, he should remove them. If he’s reading this: Remove those, sir! But it’s not so bad that it’s worth a big argument.)

The Eagle Scout award is sort of its own category. Typically nothing from high school belongs on a resume, but there are a lot of people who are super impressed by Eagle Scouts, consider it a lifetime honor, and will ask him about it in interviews. (I don’t get it, but that’s how it is.) It’s fine to leave it on.

The Mormon mission is the thing I’d push hardest to remove — religion and resumes shouldn’t mix, and a lot of people will see that and think he doesn’t understand that it won’t be universally well received (and may wonder if he’ll bring religion into the workplace in problematic ways). But in Utah, this might be less of an issue. Still, though, I’d push for removing it. The strongest argument with him might be that he presumably has other, stronger qualifications that it’s better to focus hiring managers on. A resume shouldn’t list everything he’s ever done; it should list the things that most strengthen his candidacy. For an accounting job, I’m skeptical that a mission falls in that category.

5. Is it too early to ask about how we handle vacations around the holidays?

I’m at my first job just out of college and was wondering when I should ask someone at my office what people generally do for PTO during the holidays (by which I mean the week of Christmas to New Year’s), as I’m not sure if everyone uses their PTO to take the full week or if people actually come in that week. Is now a good time to bring that up, or should I be waiting?

What complicates things is that I live on the east coast and my family is on the west coast, and my company generally has a big week-long meeting near where my family is in the beginning of January. I’m considering taking the week of Christmas off, and then taking the week of New Year’s to work remotely, so that I don’t have to fly between coasts three times in as many weeks (six-hour flights are exhausting!) and can just drive to the company meeting. While my company is generally pretty lax about working from home, I definitely will want to run that by my manager first before booking travel, but I’m not sure if now is too early to ask.

Now isn’t too early! Go ahead and ask. Even without the travel complication, you could just say, “I’m making holiday plans and wondering how people normally handle the week between Christmas and New Year’s. Do most people come in? Is it okay to plan to take time off then, or is there a system for coverage I should be aware of?” (That last part is because in some jobs you might be expected to be there if other people have already put in vacation requests for that week. In other jobs, that won’t be an issue at all — but it’s good to find out how your office does it.)

Read an update to this letter here.

You may also like:
{ 1,558 comments }

{ 1,558 comments… read them below }

  1. Had to Comment*

    The Eagle Scout thing is actually a pretty major accomplishment. For example, going into the military as an Eagle Scout (or with a Girl Scout Gold Award) with get you bumped up a rank or two off the bat.

    1. Kristine*

      Why is it such a big deal? My husband is an Eagle Scout and his project was repainting dull curbs in his neighborhood. Is that really a huge accomplishment that needs to be on his resume forever? His mother organized other neighborhood kids to help paint and my husband just rode his bike around asking the kids if they needed anything (I know this because I was one of the kids who was painting).

      1. ToddPacker*

        I don’t think it’s the final project as much as the years of effort to get there that is impressive.

        1. 8DaysAWeek*

          This. I am involved with the hiring processes at work and if we see Eagle on a resume it may be the deciding factor between two candidates. It is a big deal. Being a scout also means you potentially have outstanding leadership and moral qualities which transfer into the workplace.

          As a Boy Scout leader and parent of a Boy Scout, it is a big deal. I see how much work these boys put in from the age of about 11 to 18.

          1. Helena*

            This practice seems like a bad idea, as it’s going to disadvantage people coming from poorer backgrounds, and socioeconomic status correlates to all kinds of protected classes. Kids who have to work to help support their families probably won’t have time to do that level of unpaid work from age 11 to 18. Ditto kids with abusive or controlling parents, or kids who are homeless, or in foster care, or kids with disabilities or major medical problems.

            1. madge*

              I’ll add kids who grew up Jehovah’s Witnesses; they aren’t allowed in the scouting organizations, either. Giving preference to people who were fortunate enough to participate seems very limiting.

              1. somanyquestions*

                Also kids who are LGBTQ. The decades of outright discrimination was why my kids weren’t allowed to join boy scouts. A few years ago when they denied that kid the ability to even apply for eagle scout because he was gay, after ha spent years working for it, my respect for the organization hit a pretty low point.

                1. A*

                  This. It’s frightening to me how much this is being glossed over. If I saw this on a resume – from someone who isn’t apply for their very first job – I would be concerned about what it might be indicate about their personal views and inclusivity. Not because they participated or got to that level, but in the choice to include that on the resume. If you go out of your way to highlight something that old, I assume it is a major part of your life – and not being aware of the questions it could raise is concerning in and of itself.

                2. Pushback*

                  “If I saw this on a resume – from someone who isn’t apply for their very first job – I would be concerned about what it might be indicate about their personal views and inclusivity.”

                  That says a lot more about you and your stereotypes than the applicant.

                4. A*

                  In response to Pushback “That says a lot more about you and your stereotypes than the applicant.”…

                  I’m not sure I follow. I suppose it does speak to how highly I rank inclusivity as a value amongst my employees, but I don’t think (/hope) that’s unusual. Given how many others are expressing similar sentiments, it doesn’t appear that I’m completely off base.

                  It’s also out of context to pull one sentence from my reply as if it didn’t have additional information speaking to the ‘why’. I don’t assume anything about someone just because they were an Eagle Scout – but the decision to include it on a resume when you’re in your 30s does lead to some assumptions.

                  Not sure I follow what the issue is here. Open to hearing clarification!

                5. Micklak*

                  It’s easy to get a certain impression of what BSA is about from news stories and policy statements from the national office. But when I was a scout we were mostly interested in camping and running through the woods and learning cool skills. The adults in my troop encouraged us to be service oriented, to work together, to develop plans, to follow through and to “be prepared.” It wasn’t exclusive, it wasn’t churchy. I’m gay and enjoyed the hell out of it. Scouts is why I bring 6 pairs of underwear on a 3 day trip.

                  It pains me to see comments from people questioning the quality of a person who would list being an eagle scout on their resume. It’s shocking actually. Making it to eagle is a huge accomplishment. The people I’ve seen do it have my respect and admiration.

                  If you hire someone who was an eagle scout they are much more likely to volunteer to be the floor warden during a fire drill than they are to discriminate against an LGBT person.

                6. FairPayFullBenefits*

                  +1 If anything, I think touting Boy Scouts could be a mark against applicants at more progressive employers/places.

                7. TinLizi*

                  My dad was a scout leader, my brother earned an eagle scout, and my sister got a gold award. From my personal experience/observation, the gold award was a lot more difficult and required more initiative, planning, community outreach, etc than the eagle. Also, every eagle scout I have personally met has just not been a good person. I would also not count this as a mark in their favor.

              2. Kate*

                I agree it should be left on his resume. I also agree that it’s not just about the final project – but factoring in that throughout a young person’s youth – they stuck with ONE THING for many years – and every year earned achievements towards a final goal, and then achieved the final goal. It is also kind of like a ‘life long club.” You never know who else is also an Eagle Scout.

                Scouting also has programs and initiatives to engage youth who may not otherwise be able to participate (mainly due to parents who cannot participate, not so much about money). Most Packs and Troops actually have funds set aside to pay for kids uniforms, camp fees, etc. when the family cannot afford those. Hopefully the tide is turning in terms of who can participate.

                1. Random advice*

                  The Eagle Scout award should absolutely stay on. It is a lifetime honor. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (whatever you may think of his administration) is heavily into promoting the Eagle Scout award.

                  On the LDS mission, while the husband may not be 100% fluent in Portuguese, he may well still be proficient in the language. I would try to find a way to leave it in and tone down the religious aspect (“lived two years in Brazil on a faith-based charity mission” — maybe even leave out “faith based”). And living abroad for a significant period indicates adaptability, flexibility, and an ability to manage a multi-cultural workforce. (For jobs in Utah or heavily LDS areas, keep it in, as is.)

                2. Kate*

                  I wanted to be a Boy Scout, but I couldn’t because I was a girl. There are lots of reasons why Boy Scouts is not inclusive in the way that hiring should be inclusive. I wouldn’t hold it against someone for being an Eagle Scout or being proud of being one, but if they put it on their resume, I would assume they didn’t have an adequate understanding of the equity implications in a professional context.

                3. Roar lioness roar*

                  “I wanted to be a Boy Scout, but I couldn’t because I was a girl.”

                  That is a bit like saying you should leave off your degree if you attended Barnard College or Mt. Holyoke.

                4. FairPayFullBenefits*

                  Lots of people have one activity they stick with throughout childhood, there just isn’t an award for it at the end – playing an instrument, a sport, dance, theater, etc. I do think becoming an Eagle Scout is impressive, I just don’t think it’s more impressive than doing some other activity.

              3. Jadelyn*

                Or just folks who aren’t Christian in general – for all that scouting is theoretically secular, Boy Scout troops in particular tend to be attached to churches. If your family isn’t the churchy sort, you might never even have the exposure to scouting to know it’s an option.

                Like, I’ll admit flat-out that seeing Eagle Scout on someone’s resume would actually bias me against them. Between the religious implications, the history of LGBTQ exclusion, and the overall good-ol-boy-ism vibe of Boy Scouts, someone who’s in their 30s and still listing Eagle Scout on their resume throws up all sorts of very bright orange flags for me. They would have to be a unicorn of a candidate for me to still be interested in moving forward with them.

                2. Dahlia*

                  @Vicky Austin: I think that’s why Jadelyn said “for all that scouting is theoretically secular, Boy Scout troops in particular tend to be attached to churches.”

                3. Jadelyn*

                  @Vicky – Not necessarily, no. But as I said, they tend to be attached to churches. Knowing one person who bucks the trend doesn’t mean the trend doesn’t exist.

                4. Wilbur*

                  I’ve know quite a few LGBTQ scouts, it varies a lot by the Troop and Council. The national organization has finally come around, a lot of that was influenced by the Mormon church. The Mormon church used Scouting pretty extensively for their youth program, and had a fairly large population. My troop also had a lot of Jewish and a few Muslim members, as well as an atheist or two. Also, not exclusively white.

                  There is also a problem with how troops and sponsors handle ownership-typically the sponsoring organization owns all their equipment. For my former troop, we had issues with our sponsoring church because they wanted to institute a church member (non active Scouting member) as the Scoutmaster. We discussed moving the troop, but the church said they would keep all the equipment we had raised money and purchased. Wasn’t really possible to move if we had to buy a new trailer, tents, stoves, cookware, etc.

                  That being said, I am an Eagle Scout and don’t list it on my resume. I try to be really concise though. I would absolutely include it if I though it would be beneficial.

                5. Micklak*

                  They are frequently attached to churches because churches give scout troops free space to meet. My troop met in the elementary school gym. We never talked about god once in 6 years.

              4. Meredith*

                Well, my husband is a very inclusive individual with many great qualities. He’s a bleeding heart liberal. He is also an Eagle Scout and has that indicated on his resume (at the very bottom, under volunteerism and the like). He also has a PhD and 2 post-docs and is 45 years old, and I’ve successfully persuaded him to remove several old jobs from his resume. He IS an Eagle Scout (as is my father and stepfather), despite the fact that he wouldn’t encourage his own kids to join, and a personal connection with something that is generally viewed as a positive can definitely help a resume stand out.

                Volunteering for a particular organization that tugs at the heartstrings of a hiring manager or department decision maker, or having been a nationally-ranked tennis champ in high school, or having appeared on Wheel of Fortune can all do the same. I don’t see the issue.

            2. Treats for Shelby*

              Better not rate people who’ve had internships higher than people who didn’t then – it’s the same situation.

              1. Helena*

                I work in a specific field where all internships are paid, so it doesn’t apply. But I do disagree with employers giving preference to people who’ve done internships in fields where unpaid internships are standard, since unpaid internships are so often exploitative. The practice of giving preference to people who were unpaid interns is common in my area, and it’s widely discussed that some employers use it as an under-the-table way to screen for the supposed “right kind of people”, i.e., wealthy WASPs. Or, more commonly, it leads to unconscious discrimination, which can still get you in trouble with the feds if someone digs into the numbers.

              2. A*

                Not the same. Many internships are completed during school/work hours – and there are paid options. Apples and oranges.

              3. VeryAnon*

                If those internships were typically only available to white heterosexual males then yes, that would be a good analogy.

                1. Roar lioness roar*

                  The Eagle Scout is not exclusively available to white heterosexual males, but thanks for your stereotypes.

            3. atalanta0jess*

              Well, this is true of all kinds of resume-enhancing activities. MOST resume-enhancing activities, even.

            4. BetsCounts*

              Oh wow I had never even thought of it that way but as soon as you said it, I thought DUUHH! I have always added a little bump when I reviewed resumes that had GSA bronze/silver/gold awards and the BSA equivalent- but I will absolutely stop that now!! Thank you so much for pointing it out!!!!

              1. Shakti*

                Girl Scouts are different! They’re secular and work very hard to be inclusive of all economic backgrounds as well as cultures and LGBTQ issues! Girl Scouts are not partnered with or equivalent to Boy Scouts at all please don’t lump them in together! Do give their projects a bump! Lots of awesome people are Girl Scouts

                1. RUKiddingMe*

                  Yes this!!! GS is not the “women’s auxiliary.” I’m not GS, I’m Campfire, but still.

                  Women/girls face enough discrimination/other bias by virtue of having the audacity to be female.

                  GS and BS are not at all the same. If anyone deserves that bump it’s a GS or a Campfire Girl.

                  Groups that were inclusive while BSA was still swimming in the ooze of “omg the gay might rub off…or something.” Plus the whole religious/secular thing.

            6. AKchic*

              I wouldn’t allow my kids to join the scouts because of their anti-LGBTQ+ stances. It’s gotten better, but now it’s more hit and miss depending on who the leader of the individual packs are.
              And it’s still very much “do you have time and money to invest?” dependent. Which my family doesn’t have either to spare, so my youngest will be kept out of it too.

            7. Effective Immediately*

              This was exactly my thought. Also, based on the Boy Scouts of America’s own data, it’s going to really significantly privilege white people in hiring.

                1. Autumnheart*

                  You can google this for yourself, but the BSA is a conservative, suburban/rural organization that has always found it difficult to recruit in urban areas, and which has executed multiple recruitment efforts focused on getting more minorities to join.

                  So, yeah, Only (Straight) White People Could Be Scouts and that’s been a characteristic of the Scouts for virtually its entire history. It didn’t even allow gays to openly participate until 2012.

                2. Politico*

                  …the BSA is a conservative, suburban/rural organization that has always found it difficult to recruit in urban areas, and which has executed multiple recruitment efforts focused on getting more minorities to join. So, yeah, Only (Straight) White People Could Be Scouts…

                  I’m calling BS on this. It is one thing to say that there is a general correlation between difficulty in recruiting in urban areas and whiteness. That is very different from saying “only white people can be scouts.”

            8. Who Plays Backgammon?*

              or kids who do other community service over time that doesn’t lead to/culminate in a well-known award.

              1. Who Plays Backgammon?*

                Or some disabled kids, like a relative of mine who could participate as a cub scout but as he got older the physical demands were not feasible. His physical limitations are not an indication that he lacked “leadership potential” and I’d hate to think he’d be shut out of jobs just because he can’t hike 10 miles.

                1. J*

                  “Oh, I see you graduated from the Command and General Staff College, but since disabled people aren’t allowed in the military I’m going to disregard that credential. It’s unfair that people should be shut out of jobs just because they can’t hike 10 miles.”

                  It’s really sad that a person physically can’t compete or qualify for a certain training opportunities, but that has absolutely ZERO relevance to the fact that one candidate has better credentials than another.

            10. Rust1783*

              I don’t want to speak for the other poster, but I don’t see this as “privileging” people who were able to complete an Eagle Scout badge at the expense of people who weren’t able to. Frankly, you could make that argument about all manner of academic achievements too, including a college or even high school degree itself. (Perhaps your workplace does not need to select for people who have attained degrees, but many places do.) Becoming an Eagle Scout is, I think, used as a handy measure of dedication, planning, and sticktuitiveness. Other candidates can and should demonstrate those same things through other means.

              I would be a little more concerned about a Boy Scout parent or former Boy Scout perhaps fetishizing the Eagle Scout thing and ignoring other candidates’ roughly equivalent or more relevant accomplishments.

            11. J*

              “This practice seems like a bad idea, as it’s going to disadvantage people coming from poorer backgrounds, and socioeconomic status correlates to all kinds of protected classes.”

              Uh huh. And how do you feel about college?

          2. Chips and Salsa*

            I know way more Eagle Scouts than your average person, having worked in boy scout camp and having been a Venture Scout. This would have never occurred to me: “Being a scout also means you potentially have outstanding leadership and moral qualities which transfer into the workplace.” Eagle projects can vary so much in difficulty and amount of help received. Plus, I know people who got their Eagles but still aren’t what I would consider good leaders or moral paragons. Finally, people change A LOT from the age of 18 onward.

            1. Alanna of Trebond*

              Yeah, that last point seems key to me. Gold Awards and Eagle Scouts and other big honors are impressive, in theory, because they require executing a complex project that requires an unusual amount of initiative, dedication, maturity, and organizational skill *for a teenager.* (Imagine a 30-year-old doing an Eagle Scout-esque project as a volunteer … it doesn’t seem as impressive.)

              If I’m comparing two people applying for jobs who have actual work histories, knowing who would have been a more impressive candidate at 18 is not that helpful. It’s sort of like consulting high school stats for a NFL quarterback, or giving a science professor tenure because they won a big-deal national science fair as a kid. Teenagers do legitimately impressive things in all kinds of fields, but thankfully people also continue to learn, change, and grow past the age of 18. (I won several big awards in high school that ended up directly relevant to my line of work, and I quit listing them on my resume the minute I had any professional experience — which feels to me like the right call.)

              It seems like enough people disagree with me that OP should leave it on, though.

              1. Federal Middle Manager*

                This is a very thoughtful reply and was my experience in a scouting-heavy community as well. The projects and adult “support” (sometimes outright takeover) vary so much that, personally, I don’t give it much weight later in life. But right out of high school I’d give it the same consideration I’d give other high school level achievements that may or may not be very class / monetarily dependent (travel athletic teams, academic teams that require tutors / coaches, etc.).

              2. Sarah N.*

                I did get asked for my college transcripts at a few jobs where I applied…after getting my PhD. Not sure what they could possibly glean from the undergrad transcripts of someone with a PhD, but perhaps they secretly work for the registrars office to beef up their funds from people having to order transcripts.

                1. Classroom Diva*

                  THIS. LOL

                  I cannot understand workplaces that ask for undergrad university transcripts from people who haven’t been at the university for their undergrad for 30 years or more (like me), and who have a Master’s or better. What is with that? What in the world does it tell them?

                  Having said this, the school I work at asked for (and got!) my undergrad transcripts and have them in a file. SMH

                2. Rust1783*

                  I applied for and eventually got a non-Academic job at a big University and I was shocked at all the crap I had to dig up – college transcripts, even actual letters of recommendation. I kept thinking, y’all know this is really unusual everywhere outside academia, right? Why do you need a letter from my English Literature thesis advisor to know whether I’ll be a successful operations manager?

            2. Rin*

              I have to agree. I never did the Eagle scout stuff cause a) female-presenting b) pretty broke family when I was a kid c) fairly queer but looking at the information I can see available online for the requirements, it’s very similar to the volunteering I was doing at the time. I could’ve been an eagle scout if I could’ve participated but that doesn’t matter. It’s almost 10 years ago and I should hope that there’s anything more recent on their CV that speaks for community mindedness.

              Also, who knows how that work was actually done (adults tend to take over projects like that) by the participant. If the CV owner wants to show community spirit with the eagle scout thing, they’d better have something more recent is all I’m saying. Otherwise, it really shows an achievement that meant something in the past (and doesn’t say a dang thing about who they are now).

              Plus, I’m sorry but “outstanding leadership and moral qualities”? It’s messed up that an award that is pretty exclusive to white, straight, usually able-bodied, male-presenting people (since I think they only opened up boy scouts to girls this year so unlikely there are any female eagle scouts yet and seeing as there is a strong financial component which tends to select for white people, plus the anti-LGBT history, the difficulties of doing hikes with health conditions…) can be used to describe leadership and community service but there’s no equivalent that’s seen as as high an honour socially for girls and women. Are girls and women (especially woc, disabled women, and queer women) not allowed to also have great leadership skills and moral qualities that can be summarized in one award on their CV instead of blocks of volunteering experience?

              I’m sorry but it just seems silly to keep on a CV all around.

              1. CoC*

                I could’ve been an eagle scout if I could’ve participated but that doesn’t matter. It’s almost 10 years ago and I should hope that there’s anything more recent on their CV that speaks for community mindedness.

                I am curious whether you advocate the abolition of awards like the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal because “they don’t matter” and “research speaks for itself.”

                1. Autumnheart*

                  Um, no? because those are awarded for work done expressly within the field by people whose job it is to do that research?

                  I won a spelling bee in 6th grade, but I don’t list that on my resume.

              1. katelyn*

                If you don’t know what it is then it’s likely you wouldn’t give the same weight to it as Eagle Scout. So I think it’s a fair point about bias, tbh.

                2. EH*

                  They do, actually! There’s the Gold Award. Most troops don’t talk about it as far as I can tell. It’s for seriously ambitious Scouts.

                4. Tisiphone*

                  I wish I had known about the award when I was in scouting. I loved it, had a great time, but nobody ever mentioned the Gold Award to our troop. We were an active chapter and did the regional gatherings. This thread has been illuminating.

              2. Sara*

                They do! Gold Stars and Silver stars. I earned a Gold Star and it helped me on my college resume – though i have since taken it off my professional one.

                1. Quill*

                  Yeah, I’d argue that it probably shouldn’t be considered beyond college / immediate post graduation work. By the time you’re 30, a top scouting honor was nearly half your life ago, and it would make a great interview anecdote but if you have more recent awards, especially relevant to your actual work, bump it in favor of them!

                  (Also I’m not even going into the historical accessibility of these honors for scouting – beyond that scouting as a teen has long been the domain of teens with sufficient leisure time and parental involvement / funding to continue with that particular hobby.)

              3. Jadelyn*

                Technically, yes – there’s the Gold award. But it’s not nearly so well-known and doesn’t carry anywhere near the same cultural weight as Eagle Scout, which quite frankly does make privileging Eagle Scout applicants a sexist practice.

                2. Pragmatist*

                  Why not simply retroactively designate all Gold Award recipients as Eagle Scouts as well? Problem solved.

                3. Duchess Conseula Banana Hammock*

                  @Pragmatist
                  Because they aren’t part of the same organization. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have nothing to do with each other.

                4. Pragmatist*

                  Well, when women were first admitted to Harvard College, they continued to receive degrees from Radcliffe College even though they were separate institutions. Why not do something analogous?

              4. Beth*

                They do, but it’s much less well-known outside scouting circles, so it carries a lot less weight. I think the military might still respect it somewhat (which always seemed like an “oh shit what’s the girl equivalent to an eagle scout, now that we have girls” move to me rather than an actual acknowledgement of the achievement, but hey, take what we can get, right?). But I really doubt most employers would recognize it, much less treat it as a major honor in the same way.

                It also doesn’t mean much for kids who can’t access either organization for whatever reason. Maybe their parents won’t take them to meetings, maybe they can’t afford it (which could look like there not being cash for outings and gear, or like the kid needing to work from a young age to help support their family and therefore not having time), maybe there isn’t a local troop in their area, maybe they’re trans and their local troop isn’t welcoming, maybe there are some strong racial tensions in their area and the local troop isn’t a particularly safe space for them, maybe they’re not Christian and the religious messaging in the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts is an issue for them…there are so many reasons we shouldn’t be particularly privileging people who were involved in these specific organizations over all the other things kids might be involved in and accomplishing.

                2. Classroom Diva*

                  Isn’t this the case, though, with ANY accomplishment? Seriously, anything you do is because someone could take you, you could afford it (time or money or both), you had a mentor or someone helping, and so on.

                  It is silly to refuse to acknowledge an award because “everyone couldn’t get it.” That’s EXACTLY what all awards are…distinguishing between some individuals and others. Everyone has their own background. I can’t get awards from the East Coast, either, because I grew up on the West Coast. It is what it is.

                  It should not diminish the hard work and the effort of that particular person who was able to get the award. Otherwise, NO award and NO accomplishment means anything, and you might as well draw names out of a hat for jobs.

                  This would extend even to schools. Not everyone (for whatever reason) can get into a top name school. After all, they may have had rich parents. They may have had help. They may have fit a particular demographic the school was looking for. So, will you discount that they graduated with honors from said school?

                3. Beth*

                  Well, yeah it’s true of all achievements! But my point isn’t that we should eliminate the Eagle Scout award from being a thing–it’s that it’s currently privileged above most childhood achievements, and as something that isn’t universally achievable for reasons that have nothing to do with competence or dedication or etc., that’s a bad thing.

                  Most childhood achievements might be a boost to a college application or to your resume for your first or second job. But it would be considered really weird and out of touch to continue using, say, your getting the lead role in a school play, or getting a high SAT score, or having won the state championship for butterfly stroke, to promote yourself into your late 20s and beyond. It’s a thing you did as a kid, and while it’s great to celebrate that at the time and understandable to use it to show your general dedication/teamwork skills/etc. when you don’t have professional achievements to list yet, people expect you to phase it out in favor of actual adult achievements eventually. Eagle Scout should be like that.

                  (And yes, I’m aware that Girl Scouts are at least nominally secular. But in my experience at least, there was still a culturally Christian framework in place–the oath involved mention of God, for example, and various summer camps I went to often did a quick prayer before meals. They weren’t specific about WHICH god, but it was clearly a concept of God that was monotheistic, all-powerful, loving, etc.–basically, vague enough to be comfortable for probably any branch of Christianity, but definitely not universal to all religions. As a generally agnostic person I didn’t care, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it was alienating to some people.)

              5. FairPayFullBenefits*

                Exactly the point – there IS an equivalent, and nobody even knows what it is. Actually, the fact that it’s not available to both genders is another reason I don’t think Eagle Scout belongs on a resume.

          4. always_theories*

            Ehhh, this makes me super uncomfortable, given that until a few years ago you could be booted out of the Boy Scouts for being gay, and you can still be booted for being trans or an atheist. It’s an impressive accomplishment, sure, but it’s also historically been limited to a certain demographic.

            1. Linar*

              Exactly. This is 100% why it should never be a deciding factor. It’s a completely unfair one rooted in a very biased, narrow view of who was allowed to have accomplishments.

            2. Linar*

              Also, we still live in a culture where, in most of the USA, people have zero qualms about listing Eagle Scout but a lot of people still worry about putting their LGBTQ+ advocacy or their involvement in BLM or their support of their local band/tribe/nation’s autonomy on a resume.

              We aren’t to a place yet where there isn’t an inherent advantage to being a part of the traditional white male patriarchal structure and being outside of it can be a disadvantage.

            4. Catabodua*

              That is exactly why many men did include it. It was a way to let employers know they were white, christian and straight without having to say anything.

              When I see it on a resume for a candidate who’s just starting out and doesn’t have any experience it’s understandable. When I see it on a resume for a seasoned candidate I think of it as very odd, sort of like continuing to include your college GPA on your resume after you have worked for several years.

              1. Dasein9*

                Yep. I’d take it the same way I’d take mention of a fraternity: a signpost put up for other members of that network to see so they can privilege the candidate over others.

                1. Catabodua*

                  That is another one. Not just a signpost, but an expectation they can privilege their way ahead of others.

                2. Nephron*

                  I actually feel bad because if I am ever in a hiring position I will have a negative association with greek life. The University I was a TA for made us take back all graded exams with no copying because greek houses were found to have decades of filing cabinets of old exams by class and by professor. Not only was it an unfair advantage, it made my life harder because we could not use old exam questions and we had to watch the exams like they were the crowned jewels. I actually feel bad for anyone from greek life interviewing with us TAs.

                3. whingedrinking*

                  @nephron: My father’s alma mater, when he was there, had a policy of keeping all past exams up to a certain point on file at the library and allowing students to check them out. One student decided it would be worth the fines he’d incur to check out the past exams for a certain, very difficult class, and just keep them until the exam was over, thus giving himself an advantage over the other students. Unfortunately, the prof for that class was a notorious procrastinator, and didn’t get around to actually making that year’s exam until after the student had checked the previous years’. He thus had to make up that year’s exam completely from scratch without reference to the earlier ones, and the cheating student gained no advantage at all.

              2. Vicky Austin*

                Why does it automatically mean they are white? Boy Scouts allows people of color to join. I’ve known Boy Scouts who aren’t white.

                1. fhqwhgads*

                  It’s not a “doesn’t allow” thing; it’s a”predominantly are” thing. Waaaaaay disproportionately so. Not discussing what could be/should be but what is.

              1. Vicky Austin*

                I don’t know if it’s changed since I was a Girl Scout in the 1980’s, but I do remember that “On my honor, I will try to serve God” was part of the Girl Scout oath we said at every meeting. No specific religion was mentioned, however.

                1. neeko*

                  Yeah, I didn’t phrase that well. I meant that GS has never had a direct connection with any religion where BS are usually chartered by a religious entity of some sort. That is still part of the promise but the Scouts are allowed to swap “God” for whatever word they feel more comfortable with. I think that was changed in the 90s?

                2. Derivative Poster*

                  @Vicky Austin
                  When I was a Girl Scout in the 1990’s, that language was made optional; individuals were allowed to make substitutions to suit their beliefs. IIRC one group lobbying for the change was a Buddhist temple in my area which had a very large and active scouting program.

                  For the records, I received the Gold Award and don’t think I’ve mentioned it on resumes or applications since age 18. As others have said, it doesn’t have nearly the cultural currency of the Eagle Scout Award despite, IMHO, often resulting in more useful contributions to the community.

                3. LizM*

                  I was in Girl Scouts in the 1990s and early 2000s (got my Gold Award). We had a lot of conversations about that piece of the Girl Scout promise, and settled on, “God could mean whatever you want it to mean, you can substitute another word if it was more appropriate, and bottom line, you didn’t have to say it at all if it didn’t fit your belief system.”

                  I went to enough statewide and national events that I don’t think our interpretation was that far off from the larger organization.

            6. Kate*

              I will share – I’ve been involved in scouting in different capacities over the years and will mention that in years of involvement, I have never once known of someone being kicked out of a den, pack, or troop for being gay, or otherwise different. While it’s big news in terms of the national org’s policy – in practice, when it comes down to small groups of families running their program together – there were openly gay leaders and scouts and no one batted an eye. (Not to say it never happens, of course, there are jerks everywhere.) But, in reality, most packs and troops are made of a small communities of neighbors who would never kick anyone out for being different in any way.
              (In fact, I think Scouting often becomes an ‘alternative’ activity for kids who may not find their niche anywhere else in school. “Have you considered scouts?” is something you hear when there is (unfortunately) a kid who doesn’t feel like they belong anywhere else. (Hurts my heart to type that.) The national org can say what they want – but it’s the parents and kids and family members who actually run the program on a day to day basis in each town, school, etc. In my experience, I never witnessed anything but inclusion. Again – big disclaimer here is that I’m sharing MY personal experience, not quoting what happens all over the world, or stating it as fact.

              1. JSPA*

                It’s really variable by location (and sponsoring organization). When a troop is based at a religious institution not open to [issues] as opposed to, say, a public school, there’s more discrimination. It does come up when kids (very morally) refuse to say pledges or sign oaths about themselves that are not factually correct. Scouting has been a wonderful second home for a lot of kids, including those whose first home is crappy. But if we had a giant internship program that formally discriminated on the basis of things that the BSA have formally discriminated on, there would also be significant push-back about using that internship program as a major gold star on a resumé; and for many of the same reasons.

                1. Richard Hershberger*

                  My middle-school daughter is a Girl Scout. She would have nothing to do with it if it discriminated against LGBTQ. This is why we don’t eat at Chick fil A. That decision was hers, which I support.

              2. A*

                Sure, but there is still the choice to align with a broader organization that holds those beliefs. I’m proud to say that in my hometown, back ~20 years ago, the local boy scout troops voted to ‘disband’ and then reformed as ‘Community Action Groups’ that were open to all. It was GREAT, especially because it also offered a place a refuge for girls (like myself) that were sick-to-death of making friendship bracelets and candles in girl scouts.

                True, they didn’t have the official camps – and we used home made badges – but we all got to go home at the end of the day knowing we weren’t perpetuating a larger issue.

                Same reason I won’t shop or volunteer in Salvation Army stores. Individually they may be allowed to operate under their own moral code, but the broader organization still has policies on the books that are bigoted.

                1. Jadelyn*

                  Ugh, friendship bracelets. I was always bitter that my younger brother got to go on trips and learn to shoot guns and do cool stuff while I had to sit around making “swaps”. I learned later on about Venture Scouts, and was so mad that I hadn’t known about that back when I could’ve gotten involved.

                2. A*

                  I didn’t know how to tie a knot, make a fire, or build a tent – but I could make a meannnnnn friendship bracelet and bake some decent brownies for the old folks home (not to down play those ‘skills’ – just wasn’t what I was looking for) lol

                3. Richard Hershberger*

                  Friendship bracelets: A lot of this depends on the local troop, and higher up on the local council. How GS troops actually spend their time varies wildly. My daughter’s does some crafty stuff, but they also go on hikes and camping. If a girl wants the outdoorsy stuff, a good local council should be able to hook her up with the right troop. That being said, I wouldn’t assume all local councils are good at this.

                4. Jules the 3rd*

                  Hunh – I learned knots and sailing in Girl Scouts, along with practicing campfire building, campfire cooking, raising tents (my family camped, so I already knew the basics). We hiked, checking out local plants. I think we did do a couple variations of friendship bracelets and those flat wire keychains, but they were only one or two sessions a year.

                  The only reason I had any mild preference about Kid Jules’ gender was a girl could do GS, but we wouldn’t be doing BS because whatever local groups said about LGBTQx and atheists, they still send money to the national groups.

              3. Jadelyn*

                I’m glad you’ve been lucky in your experiences, but that doesn’t change the fact that those who belong to the targeted groups in question are always aware that at any point, the local leadership could decide to start enforcing those national policies. There’s an inherent two-tiered structure of inclusion/partial inclusion as a result, even if the local leadership has no intention of ever doing so.

              5. Classroom Diva*

                Agreed.

                We had Scouts graduate from our program who went on to be LGBTQ+ activists. We had Scouts of every color. We had parents of every background. It wasn’t necessarily openly discussed, but, then again, it never was even 10 years ago in any life venue.

                To me, the people who seem to be the least inclusive and the most “judgey” in this thread are the “progressives” who react with hate toward former Scouts.

                1. Progressives, judgmental? Really?*

                  “To me, the people who seem to be the least inclusive and the most “judgey” in this thread are the “progressives” who react with hate toward former Scouts.”

                  Bingo.

                2. FairPayFullBenefits*

                  Pointing out a problematic uninclusive history of an organization, and expressing concern that membership could be used in hiring, isn’t “judgey.”

                  I don’t hate Eagle Scouts. I have friends who are Eagle Scouts, and I’m proud of their accomplishment. But I would still question their judgment if they thought it belonged on a resume.

            7. JSPA*

              The boy scouts are now “scouting BSA” and open to girls. (Separate from the Girl Scouts, and there are a whoooole lot of resulting tensions better not gotten into.) I don’t know (though I should, and could/should ask) what the implications are for trans scouts (I’m guessing still be an issue, in that the troops are still gender-segregated / not co-ed, though of course some troops have been open and welcoming in defiance of national policy, all along). All badges, programs and yes, eagle scout rank will be open to “both” genders (whether that will include “all” genders, again, I’d need to ask). The theism thing (at least at the level of “higher power”) is, I believe, still in effect.

              2. N-SoCal*

                No, we should get into it. And with the truth.

                It’s not about Boys Scouts being inclusive, it’s about money.

                If the BSA organization gave a hoot at all to be honorable, it would have reprimanded those that advertised as “girl scouts” yet signed them up for cub scouts. It wouldn’t have corralled all the kids at school, in the gym or playground, and handed out stickers to take home just for the girls.

                And if they really truly cared at all for the victims of sexual assault, they wouldn’t be threatening to file for bankruptcy in a way to seal records so the dirty truth doesn’t get out.

            8. A*

              Yup. Seeing this on a resume would make me think that the individual is either painfully out of touch with what it could appear to be indicative of (within the context of using it as an ‘accomplishment’ in the professional realm), or it didn’t even occur to them. I don’t know which is worse, but either way I don’t like it. Most of my friends (~30 years old) that have scouting titles are open to talking about it if people are curious, but very rarely bring it up for this reason.

              1. Kate*

                Well this is what happens when you drill down so deep into something like this. Many are saying they would not include Eagle Scout on a resume because the Scouting organization does not align their beliefs – and they disagree with BSA/Scouting mission overall. The argument is that it could lead to one person getting a job over someone else – because of the Eagle Scout connection, which is a bias.

                Now – if you saw Eagle Scout on a resume and you’re saying you would assume the person is either unaware of the stigma or doesn’t care – isn’t that a bias then too? You’d penalize a candidate for BEING an Eagle Scout.

                I’m just pointing out that these things can be argued all day long and it just goes round and round in circles – because we’re all human and we all have our own preconceived notions. I’d see Eagle Scout on a resume and think, “Hey, this kid knows how to accomplish a goal – has been responsible for something, etc.” FWIW, I typically react the same way to student-athletes. I know (from personal experience) the work/time management it takes to balance school and sport – and I know that being a member of a team breeds some good leadership/coachability too.

                You just suggested that a manager could see Eagle Scout on a resume and think, “Yikes – this guy is a bigot. Pass.” That’s not really fair either.

                1. FairPayFullBenefits*

                  I wouldn’t penalize them for BEING an Eagle Scout – I would question their judgment in thinking this belongs on a resume, the same way I’d look at candidates who include other non-work activities on a resume and appear out of touch.

              2. BananaPants*

                I was a Girl Scout from K-12th grade and earned my Gold Award. I’m now in my late 30s and am an active Girl Scout volunteer and co-leader, and the ONLY time my Gold Award comes up is in that specific context. I took it off my resume midway through undergrad (along with other high school awards/achievements) because I’d done an internship in my field and that kind of general resume filler was no longer needed.

          5. Plush Penguin*

            So, if you have two candidates, one’s male and the other’s female, they’re pretty equal in all respects, the deciding factor could be something that’s only available to the male candidate?

            You might want to rethink this idea.

              1. Linar*

                Considering that 2019 was the inaugural Eagle Scout class for women, this really isn’t equitable, fair treatment.

              2. Dust Bunny*

                Only recently, though.

                Girl Scouts do have high ranks, too, but they don’t get as much fanfare as Boy Scouts seem to.

                1. Works in IT*

                  Not only do they not get as much fanfare, but I ended up dropping out of Girl scouts because my troop gave me absolutely zero support when I wanted to try to work on the preliminary badges to get the more prestigious awards. The troop leader was much more interested in making the troop a fun hangout place for her daughter than a place where we could learn and grow. Don’t Boy Scouts have annual expedition camps that would allow individuals to progress with or without the support of their troop? In girl scouts if you don’t have the support of your troop you get nowhere.

                2. Penny Parker*

                  I got kicked out of Girl Scouts in the late 1960s due to being political and objecting to the war in Vietnam. I was a Girl Scout from the age of 7 to the age of 15, and got kicked out for my political beliefs. NO employer should take scouting into consideration when deciding who to hire!

              3. somanyquestions*

                Not everyone has girl scouts. Where I grew up there were only boy scouts. And 4-H, but that’s not the same.

              4. Allie*

                I was in the Girl Scouts as a child and legitimately had never heard about the Gold Award until this moment, so to me it is definitely not equivalent (I wouldn’t be impressed by an Eagle Scout though either, so maybe depends on location…

            2. Quill*

              Plus, every troop may have slightly different standards?

              I can see if the details of what they got the award for were relevant (Applying for a position in Leslie Knope’s parks and rec department, list that Eagle Scout award you got for helping raise funds for handicap accessible play equipment for your local elementary school playground,) but just the “I was an eagle scout” is going to bias you towards white, straight men who came from a very comfortable economic background.

              1. That Girl from Quinn's House*

                Leslie Knope would not hire anyone whose resume had *ptooey* EAGLE *ptooey* on it, lousy Eagleton.

              2. Politico*

                “is going to bias you towards white, straight men who came from a very comfortable economic background.”

                Where is your evidence that minority groups (setting aside the LBGT issue) are excluded from becoming Eagle Scouts?

                1. Jadelyn*

                  …I mean, as soon as you say “setting aside [excluded group]” you’ve kind of undermined your own point. Clearly, there is exclusion going on. Why should we “set aside” one particular type of exclusion, just to make BSA look better in this discussion?

                2. A*

                  That’s a really large bucket to ‘set aside’. And not that they are a minority necessarily, but they also exclude atheists.

                  Don’t worry – it’s inclusive to all. So long as you are straight and believe in God!

          6. Dust Bunny*

            Yeah, no. I would not do this. One, it’s unequal. Two, I’m a woman but I was raised going to my brother’s scout meetings, etc., and . . . some troops are great, but some are a load of macho ridiculousness. My brother got his Eagle as fast as humanly possible because his troop was a bunch of blockheaded misogynists and he wanted the award but didn’t want to spend a moment longer than he had to in their company. Giving preference to an Eagle Scout smells of bro culture from here.

            1. Politico*

              “My brother got his Eagle as fast as humanly possible because his troop was a bunch of blockheaded misogynists and he wanted the award but didn’t want to spend a moment longer than he had to in their company.”

              …which actually shows the value of the award.

              1. Jadelyn*

                Depends on your definition of “value”, I suppose. If all you mean is “other people will privilege you for having it”, I guess it’s valuable in that sense.

          7. VeryAnon*

            It also meant, prior to 2015, that they were heterosexual. I don’t consider heterosexuality – and the tolerance of homophobia – to be a moral quality, and it’s worth remembering the vicious homophobia of the Scouts.

            2. Utah Ex-Pat*

              They’re in Utah. With respect to any changes they’ve made in the last few years, that’s still pretty redundant.

              1. Jadelyn*

                Yeah, that thought occurred to me too – anywhere else in the country, this is a Problem. In Utah, it just means you fit right in with the culture, so leave it on there. Employers in that culture will love it.

                1. AKchic*

                  Yeah… being in Utah, it might benefit him to keep it on, but that’s just an employer red flag, and an orange flag on him for perpetuating/condoning that kind of environment.

          9. Catabodua*

            So, who’s morals? What you’re basically saying is if they aren’t of the same religious bent as you they aren’t viewed as favorably. You might want to unpack that a bit next time you are hiring someone.

          10. A*

            I can see why you’d be tempted to go about it hat way – but please, please consider spending some time researching accessibility challenges for lower socio-economic status demographics. Especially as a scout leader.

          11. Elizabeth West*

            With all the homophobia the Boy Scout organization has exhibited, I do not think the words “moral leadership” mean what you think they mean.

          12. Mallory Janis Ian*

            So much depends on the quality of the troop. I’m sure that in some packs and troops, the award represents the hard work and leadership qualities on the part of the boy, but I’ve seen troops and packs where the parents are allowed to do so much of the work for the boys, and where the boys are herded through merit badge workshops, that some of the meaning is potentially lost for me. You don’t know whether the merit was earned by the boy or bestowed for work done mainly by the parents and troop leadership. The parents in the troop we were in for a while would start out “letting” the boys’ leadership plan activities and events, but they would take over if the boys planned things that didn’t seem fun for the parents. It was more of an adult social club with a side of scouting.

          13. Nopetopus*

            This is a horrible idea, unless you’re hiring 19-year-olds, and probably even then. Plenty of kids with equally strong leadership qualities don’t join Scouting – until very recently, gay and trans kids were excluded, and atheists still are. I can understand someone being proud of it, but using it as a deciding factor is basically saying “We prefer straight religious men whose parents had enough spare time and money to take them to Scout meetings above all other candidates.” I guess if that’s true it’s better for all concerned to learn this early on (if someone is going to have an issue about me being gay I’d rather find that out at the interview stage than later), but if your intent *isn’t* to be discriminatory, you may want to rethink.

          14. Zennish*

            At least to me, and probably some others outside the scouting world, it would just seem out of touch and weird… kind of like highlighting that you were captain of your high school football team on a resume.

          15. Nom the Plumage*

            I hate to be this person, because I truly believe that most Eagle Scouts have good morals, but this assumption needs to stop. My abusive ex was (is) an Eagle Scout. He was very proud of it, too, to an egotistical level.

            And he was morally bankrupt. He currently has a restraining order due to violent tendencies.

          16. J*

            These arguments are absurd. The fact that a credential is limited to a certain age / religion / whatever is irrelevant to the question of what the credential represents and whether those skills are useful to the employer.

        2. Dust Bunny*

          My brother got his Eagle at 14; it doesn’t necessarily take years. I mean, I guess he’s proud of it but he wouldn’t put it on a resume. (And he did a real project–restoring a historic cemetery.)

      2. Snarkaeologist*

        The service project is just the capstone, though – something you do after demonstrating that you’ve acquired all the skills and values scouting is supposed to teach. I personally don’t think it should matter on someone’s resume decades later, but it isn’t about the curbs.

      3. mark132*

        I’ve got one and I lean towards it not being a very big deal either. And your story is reminiscent of a common joke. The person receiving the eagle scout often should be the mother not the youth.

        1. Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss*

          Which is why my son didn’t get his Chief Scout (Canadian version). He was mildly interested in earning it but I wasn’t going to earn it for him as his parent! I figured, if I was the one pushing and prodding to get it done, the accomplishment was false. Left it up to him and it was not earned. (But did he still get something out of Scouting? Of course!)

        2. merp*

          This is me too. I have my gold award and I would never argue that it should get me any extra consideration. I was 17, and while it was a lot of work, it has nothing to do with me as a person now.

        3. lemon*

          Very good point. Extracurricular activities like this require a lot of parental involvement that working parents usually aren’t able to participate in, which disadvantages people from working-class backgrounds. My single mother worked the night shift, which meant I had to stay home and take care of my younger sibling. None of us had time to get involved in Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts if we had wanted to.

        4. BananaPants*

          Nope, it’s the dad who hauled the lumber and provided the power tools to build the bench outside the family’s church!

      4. Snuck*

        I’m in Australia… I’m assuming this is like the Gold Scout Medal? A pinnacle of scouting involvement that comes from basically being part of the movement for a decade or more, and completing all sorts of levels in a wide variety of things, in particular in teams? Or the Duke of Edinburgh Award, which culminates in a final significant personal endeavour, but again, has many years of dedicated service individually and in groups on the way….

        If so… and I was employing a younger adult (someone who might be under 25 or so, so this information is relevant up to a decade ago)…. I would consider it a sign of good long term team work training, dedication to a cause, a wide variety of experiences etc… it would be similar to showing you’d worked through high school into university at a fast food restaurant (same job, whole time) or competed at state level in a sport… in my mind. Long term effort, dedication, team work etc… if you didn’t have a lot on your resume this might help me understand that you’ve learnt to work with people… and it gives me a ‘nice’ thing to ask you about… a personal contact sort of question where I can find out a little more about you.

        2. Super Admin*

          I think I took my DofE Award off my resume after my first serious job post-university. It’s great for younger people to have it on a CV when there’s little work experience, but after the first couple of jobs I don’t really think it adds much.

          1. Helena*

            I would say uni applications only, to be honest. Maybe graduate recruitment if you didn’t achieve anything noteworthy at uni. Certainly not second job onwards.

        3. Snuck*

          Agree guys, by the time you’re about 25 you should have some experience in the workforce and not really need this to show your capacity and talent anymore… But if you are 18, and do a four year degree… so only 22…. when you get out and try to hunt down a job… you might find it’s a way to show your persistence and group skills… but then … four years of uni and no part time job in the field is kind of an eyebrow raiser too… Look at your wider resume, and work out what you want to say about yourself… I guess.

          1. Quill*

            Depends on the field, of course – no part time work is available in the field I ended up going into, and not much in the one I studied for (no funding for it!)

          2. LadyCop*

            I don’t see how not having a part time job ESPECIALLY one related to the given field of study, for a 22yo with a 4 year degree is a cardinal sin.
            I didn’t have a car for most of my time in college, there was no such thing as public transportation, and certainly no such jobs to be found near campus.
            Typically, the only kind of related jobs that will hire such people are internships, those were equally impossible, especially in some fields.
            I don’t know how you can be so quick to judge someone who hasn’t even begun their career.
            Ironically, having worked in military and law enforcement, those jobs 100% care about Eagle Scout accomplishments. Especially in the military where my college degree gave me the “gift” of a $0 signing bonus as if officers make any kind of money…
            Anyway, is it relevant at 30? Maybe, certainly more than the other 2 items. But I also struggle with justifying my military experience on a resume as it’s been 10 years…and being a veteran isn’t always easy to just plug in somewhere.

      5. Owler*

        I think the point of an Eagle or Gold award is supposed to highlight the work and leadership of the scout, not the parent. Done right and independently, it should demonstrate the ability of the scout to be a leader and accomplish a significant task. Girl Scouts has a goal of being girl-led, so my daughter’s troop leaders are trying to build their leadership skills gradually. So for the Girl scouts, there are tiers of awards to help them on the path to an independent project.
        – Bronze Award: 5th graders worked as a troop on a service project that was leader-led.
        – Silver: middle schoolers work in pairs on a project with some support and guidance from leaders and. their parent.
        – Gold: high school girls complete project of their own design through their own leadership. Our leaders will push them to not rely on parent support, so there shouldn’t be a mom (me) organizing neighborhood kids. :)

        1. N-SoCal*

          I’ll add to this – the Gold Award today takes a lot, especially paperwork and council approval. There have been some projects where there was pushback for sustainability.

          And you’re spot on about girl led. Super stoked to see your comment – Have a great troop year!

          PS – Have you seen the adult vests? For the first time since high school I can wear my silver and gold award pins. :)

      6. Seeking Second Childhood*

        If your MIL did the organisation & project management for him, then she&he missed the point. What a shame.

      7. Mazzy*

        Some people’s projects are much bigger though. I guess it depends on what the project was, and I think the project should be included as the accomplishment. Raising money to build something large by hand when your a teenager is a big deal

        1. Alexandra Lynch*

          My ex, in the eighties, raised money for and got community support to place special stickers on windows where kids slept so that the fire department could find them first, and gave out stickers to a town of 10K, complete with a promotion in the local paper.

          My eldest son raised money for and planted a one-acre organic garden and with the help of his troop got it through the driest summer on record for the last thirty years, and donated all produce to the local food bank.

          My youngest son organized and taught basic water safety classes to underprivileged elementary kids in the community, complete with educating parents on why their kids needed to know basic water safety.

          1. Lucette Kensack*

            That’s all very impressive and admirable… for children. I’d be interested in that accomplishment if I were hiring your youngest as a summer lifeguard, or any of them for their first jobs in high school, college, or their first couple of years of adulthood. But beyond that, it doesn’t tell me anything about them as adult professional workers.

              1. Blueberry*

                What could a gay kid do to be equally impressive, since until very recently they couldn’t be an Eagle Scout?

                1. JSPA*

                  Or at least, not be an Eagle scout, and honest about being gay.

                  And what of the many gay ex-eagle scouts who returned their Eagle Scout regalia and asked to be stricken from the official rolls, as protest against the policy? Surely they are just as principled and disciplined (and I’d argue, more so.) Do they put, “ex-Eagle Scout”? Or is that having it both ways?

        2. A*

          Sure! When you’re in your early 20s. When you’re in your 30s it’s definitely a stretch to say that it speaks to your current abilities and leadership skills. I know plenty of people that had amazing accomplishments as teenagers that are not exactly the most accomplished of adults…

        3. Pommette!*

          I feel like this is a situation where describing the project, rather than the honour it led to, would make sense.
          If your accomplishments and the skills you learned from running a project are still relevant (and they may or may not be, ten years on, depending on the nature of the project and of the work you’re applying to), it would make sense to add a bullet-point or two to help potential employers see that.

      8. N-SoCal*

        ….that’s not how the project is supposed to work. The parents and the troop/board of review really did a disservice here.

        For every unpleasant story, there are so many good ones out there.

      9. Goldfinch*

        My Girl Scout Gold Award entailed writing, planning, and carrying out a two-day music therapy course for an entire district of middle school students. Your husband slacked off, and BS leadership should not have approved that project.

        3. LizM*

          Yup. My Gold Award involved starting a student-run recycling program at my high school that ran for 15 years until students finally pressured the District to provide the budget to have the maintenance staff take it over.

          I work with a Boy Scout troop now, and we’ve had a couple of boys complete their Eagle Scout Award with my agency. I also have some issues with the stances the national organization has taken, but I continue to be impressed by the leadership that I see individual boys take.

          I’d probably roll my eyes if I saw a Gold Award or Eagle Scout Award that was 10+ years old on a resume, but I would consider it for a person applying for an entry level job without significant work history. Especially in my field (natural resources) where the project may be directly related to the job they’re applying to.

      10. GalFriday*

        For Eagle Scout, it’s about much more than the final project. There are several other factors that count toward earning that rank, including holding leadership positions within the troop, other community service hours and earning some very specific merit badges that offer life-skills and seek to grow more well-rounded citizens.

      11. TootsNYC*

        when it’s done right, it can be a big deal. It means the kid has been organized and goal-driven at an age earlier than their Eagle Scout project.

        When it’s done wrong–when mom organizes the neighbor kids, and the scout doesn’t to anything, it cheapens the whole thing. But even with lots of grownup help, the kid has still had an up-close look at how a larger project comes together.

        I would leave it on a resume. It’s certainly not a negative in any way, and it might just cut through the din of all those resumes.
        And it’s a nice thing to have as a conversational point.

        I interviewed a guy who had his Eagle Scout stuff on his resume until his 40s, and I asked him about it. I didn’t know that much about it.

        He had a great answer: It was a while ago, sometimes he thinks he doesn’t need it on his resume, but it taught him a great deal about how the world works, and he finds he does use skills whose genesis was that project.

        1. Jadelyn*

          I mean, considering a bunch of rather heated replies, I would push back on your claim that it’s “not a negative in any way”…

      12. A*

        It’s the cumulative work leading up to it. That being said, while most the Eagle Scouts I know (now ages 30+) are incredible people that worked super hard for it – I also know some who didn’t have to do quite as much. It’s very heavily dependent on the chapter your in, the people running it, scout leader connections etc. I was vaguely aware of this, but became much more in tune when I dated someone who worked for the HQ in addition to being a leader. It was shocking to see the disparity between what some put in compared to others, despite all getting the same title at the end.

        Personally I would view it as a yellow flag if I saw it on an application – unless I was hiring for a position that some how was immediately relevant. Not because it isn’t a major accomplishment, but it would make me wonder if they didn’t have anything else to fill that space. I’m the same age as OP’s husband, and I struggle to keep my more recent developments/accomplishments down to one page.

        To be honest, it would also make me question if they 100% support the policies of the broader Scout organization – solely because if they chose to include it above other, more relevant and recent, accomplishments it might be indicative of it being a major defining factor in their life. Depending on the role I’m hiring for, that could be a cause for concern given some of the organizations views towards inclusivity. Or the applicant doesn’t know how it could come across – which is also cause for concern at his age.

        1. TootsNYC*

          the guy I interviewed talked a bit about how great his scout leaders were, and how they pushed them to be really proactive with their projects and had a good mix of setting expectations and guiding, and making the kids tackle it on their own.

    2. Allison*

      actually, one of the problems is that though the Girl Scout Gold Award should be considered the same, it doesn’t have equal cultural recognition, so people unconsciously give an edge to guys who did the same kind of projects at around the same age.

      1. ssnc*

        seconded – when my gold award was on my resume, i had to list it as an eagle scout equivalent which was annoying.

        im super proud of the award, but work in high school doesnt matter on my resume because ive done more impressive things as an adult in my 30s.

        1. EPLawyer*

          Well the problem is really on the GSUSA on this one. (lifetime member). They keep changing the darn name. First it was the First Class Award, then the Golden Eagle, then the Gold Award. Unlike the Boy Scouts where the Eagle Award has been the Eagle award forever.

          Back to the point, I know of at least one law school that when announcing a new Dean of the school made a point of mentioning he was an Eagle Scout. It is supposed to show you can manage, lead a project through to the conclusion. However, I think by the time you have enough experience to be a law school dean, you should have other ways to demonstrate that. Same thing here. If Eagle Scout is all you have to show you are a leader, you might need to work on the resume some more.

          1. Naomi*

            Sister of an Eagle Scout here. I don’t know if my brother puts it on his resume–he’s only 23, so it wouldn’t look too weird, but he also has plenty of relevant work experience to list.

            But your comment about the law school dean made me think about the congratulatory letters read at my brother’s ceremony. The most memorable one was from Dirty Jobs’ Mike Rowe, and you can read it here (http://mikerowe.com/about-mike/eagle-scout-letter/). The message was pretty much “congratulations, now go out there and keep using those skills instead of resting on your laurels.”

          2. Penny Parker*

            Scott Walker thought being an Eagle Scout was appropriate to use as a reason he ought to be governor of Wisconsin. There was a LOT of press about that! Also, in 2015 he gave an interview where he claimed that being an Eagle Scout qualified him to be “commander in chief of the U.S. military.” I kid you not.
            I am not sure if including this link will work, and I don’t know how to do it any other way. But here goes:
            https://madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/scott-walker-suggests-being-an-eagle-scout-has-prepared-him/article_a8f0957e-5f09-504b-961d-c67c2927eb23.html

              1. Progressives, judgmental? Really?*

                “Big fish little pond syndrome, never finished college.”

                Wow. Just wow.

                Gotta love the open-minded.

                1. Autumnheart*

                  Is it really news that Scott Walker is not the sharpest tool in the shed? Having an open mind doesn’t mean being in blatant denial of reality.

          3. Close Bracket*

            It’s been the Gold Award since I was in HS, and I graduated in 1989. The real problem is patriarchy.

            1. RUKiddingMe*

              Exactly. It’s not the name. Too many people never even knew that GS even had such an award. And…it’s “only a girl award,” not a “real“ award so what they call/ed it never mattered anyway.

      2. BWooster*

        Yes, that is exactly right. If Eagle scouts get some sort of a bump in their careers, that is just another thing that advantages men over women. I didn’t grow up in the US, and had no involvement with scouting whatsoever, but there’s enough name recognition around Eagle Scouts that I am familiar with the term while being completely unaware that there was a Girl Scout equivalent.

          2. Filosofickle*

            Me too! And I knew young women who stayed active in GS through the end; don’t recall hearing anything about it.

            My brother and dad were Eagles. My brother’s project was hard work wrangling a team to rebuild sections of trail in a local canyon. When I see parents post their kids Eagle project and it’s like, building some bird houses, mostly alone, I think…who exactly signed off on that?

          3. Jules the 3rd*

            Same – GS from age 4 to 16 (mom was my older sister’s troop leader the first couple of years).

        2. TootsNYC*

          I think the Eagle Scout award is one of the reasons behind the push to get girls into the Boy Scouts of America

        3. A*

          Honestly I had no idea there was a GS equivalent. I quit shortly after ‘graduating’ from being a Brownie because while the BS’s were getting public ceremonies, we had to cross a fake bridge on the floor of our gym to no fan-fare – as a symbol of ‘crossing into our adult lives’. It was so ridiculous. I was way too young to fully understand that the gender bias, but I knew something was off and I cared more about learning how to start a fire than make friendship bracelets (HOW MANY STIITCH PATTERNS DO I NEED TO LEARN BEFORE I’M A WOMAN?!?).

          1. Elizabeth West*

            When I was a GS, we did learn to start fires. We had pocketknives, too, although I think they took those away later in the interest of “safety.” The rest were cooking, etc.
            They have some cool proficiency badges now, like coding, digital movie making, and screenwriter (I wish they’d had that one in my day).

            1. 42 towels*

              I was a Girl Scout in the early ’80s, Ann’s the flowcharts skills I learned for my computer coding badge I still use at work today!

      3. N-SoCal*

        It is. It SO is. The fact that some have to explain it as an equivalent of what the Boy Scouts earn is a sick reminder of bias in society.

        1. Solar Moose*

          (1) Girls were allowed to join as of earlier this year. I assume none have been awarded Eagle Scout yet, as it’s only been about 8 months. And when the first do start earning their awards, it’s still something that was not an option for the vast majority of the current workforce.

          (2) Despite “girls can join” being the official rule, there’s going to be plenty of pushback at the local level that will drive girls away for years to come. Who wants to be the only girl in a group of boys who don’t want you there? Official rules are the first barrier in social justice, not the final barrier. BSA is, quite literally, a boys’ club.

          Long-term, this was a fantastic change by the BSA, and I think it will be very positive for everyone involved. But it will take decades, at minimum, to get anywhere near even footing.

          1. Kyrielle*

            Yes. I have two boys who are Cub Scouts and I _love_ that it is finally open to girls – and in our pack, we are welcoming them. But it is a thing that will affect the world long-term, and we need to wait and see how it goes. It’s not a thing that makes “Eagle Scout” an unbiased thing suddenly, as if it had always been the case.

          2. Anun walks into a bar*

            Older Boy Scouting has had co-ed Venture scouting for decades (I was one in the 1980’s so it’s not unknown.

            The hardest point on this is Girl Scouts has great, GREAT programming for older scouts, and this will be hard on them, as they have not done anything to deserve attrition of quality female scouts. Boy Scouts could do a lot to foster professional relationships and AND support joint success, ESPECIALLY with all of the bad policies (Venture scouts were ineligible for eagle and, yes, that kept young women from the rank and benefits, and LGBTQ scouts, parents and leaders were not welcomed/excluded) bad actors (sexual predation and cover-up)

            1. Jadelyn*

              They may have Venture scouting, but nobody knows about it. I was involved in GS from very early on and dropped out when I was about 13 or so, because I was bored of making stupid arts and crafts while my younger brother went backpacking and learned to shoot. I learned about Venture scouting when I was 17, already too late to really get involved. If there was better publicity around Venture scouting, I’d agree that it’s a good equivalent/alternative, but it’s a pretty obscure thing. It can’t be an equivalent/alternative if nobody knows it exists.

              1. Filosofickle*

                My brother had adventures, did interesting and useful things, and learned leadership skills in BS. In GS, I did lame crafts. It was mostly social time. I know this isn’t a reflection on GS necessary, a lot of it comes down to individual troop leadership and group expectations. But I bailed around the same age because my GS troop wasn’t boring.

        2. Properlike*

          Girls can, but girls who are atheist cannot. Nor may a girl want to, given the organization’s continuing anti-LGBTQ behavior.

          1. Quill*

            I’m having delightful visions of the girl scouts just coming in to the boy scouts’ camp and leading out all the gay and trans kids to their (obviously more cheerful) campfire.

            1. somanyquestions*

              Like when Leslie Knope’s troop of scouts were having so much more fun than the boys that it caused a revolt. :)

          2. Upstater-ish*

            As an employer I would see an Eagle Scout from say the last 10 years as a negative and indicative of someone who is out of touch with the importance of diversity.

            1. LadyCop*

              Lol. This is the true irony of this entire thread. Both dismissing scouts as a kids thing, while demanding they have advanced, individual, adult opinions on LGBTQ issues.
              Aee they kids or not???

          3. Pinkie pie*

            The times are changing. My daughters pack leader is a woman married to a woman. My eldest daughter made friends with a transgender girl at Boy Scout camp.

      5. merp*

        Yes, this! I have my gold award and have run into so many people who don’t know about it. I also wouldn’t put it on a resume, personally, but for those that want to, this is a big issue.

    3. Annie*

      I’m an employer and I would be very impressed to learn that someone had worked Katrina cleanup crew. I wouldn’t call them in for that alone, but if their application was borderline that could easily tip them over the edge and land them an interview.

      Ditto I’d find the fact someone had lived in Brazil as a missionary for two years really fascinating. It wouldn’t affect my decision whether to call them in for an interview but it would definitely make me remember their CV.

      1. moql*

        In Utah, it’s fair to assume that most middle and upper class men in your office have done a mission. It’s only a point of interest if you have a connection to where they went or their language skills are important. Does have the funny side effect of occasionally our #2 getting called to the reception desk to translate an unusual language.

      2. Zip Silver*

        Cleaning up after a hurricane is in no way impressive.

        It sounds like this guy’s from out of state, so it’s some sort bleeeing heart volunteer thing, but I’ve cleaned up after multiple hurricanes (3 weeks of no power after Ike, most of that time spent chainsawing and burning, and went out to my grandparents ranch for the same thing after Rita, and then again recently after Irma).

        I wouldn’t ever dream about putting that on my resume. It’d get laughed at by Gulf Coast employers.

        1. Yorick*

          Cleaning up after a hurricane as community service is as impressive as any other community service.

          It’s not like he was cleaning up his own house or his grandma’s house. He went to help other people.

          1. Septemberisalmostover*

            I agree. Its hard work, in potentially hazardous conditions. Extreme heat and humidity. It can likely last for several weeks to a month.

          2. Zip Silver*

            Ranch, not house lol.

            And clearing trees so that the neighborhood was accessible, not just on our property. Still not resume worthy, especially since it was 14 years ago.

            1. Uldi*

              Here on the East Coast, we call that “Thanks for the help, we really appreciate it.” This is someone coming from out of state to help get your community back to something approaching normal. I find it odd that you and Zip would be so dismissive of it.

              Major charity work like Katrina clean-up should always be on a resume, in my opinion.

          4. A*

            Yes, it is. However shouldn’t we be encouraging ongoing involvement? If I saw this on a resume I would read it as “this one time, I did something good. In the last ten years? Nothing to note.”

            If it is a large part of who they are, to the point where I can view it as speaking to their character – it would need to be ongoing & recent.

            1. LadyCop*

              This. Katrina was nearly 15 years ago. It doesn’t buy you a life long “I’m a community oriented person ” card.

          5. Pommette!*

            It’s as impressive as any other community service, yes… but I’m not sure that community service should necessarily/normally go on a résumé.

            I makes sense to list service when the skills used for it or experiences gained through it are directly relevant to the work you’re applying for. So, say, if the future accountant had done work that involved finance or finance-adjacent skills – if he’d been a treasurer for an organization that helped with post-hurricane rebuilding – that should definitely go on. I’m all for using a broad definition of “relevant” here: soup-kitchen volunteering would be relevant for food prep or service work, but also to do any work that requires customer service skills, . But if the connection isn’t readily obvious and/or demonstrated through bullet points describing the role + your accomplishments, listing community service feels kind of odd – maybe even boastful – to me.

            (Then again, maybe I’m wrong in thinking this, and shooting myself in the foot by not mentioning my service work when applying for jobs!).

        2. MK*

          I don’t understand your implied contempt. If your house was hit by a hurricane, of course it’s not impressive that you did the clean up, you had no choise; the same goes for helping your family, sort of, it is the socially expected thing to do. But if you left your comfortable, not-hurricane-hit home and disrupted your life to go help people who were hit by a natural disaster half a continent away, that is a remarkable thing, even impressive if your did it for any length of time. It belongs in a resume as much as any other volunteer/charity work (in my country, that is “not at all”, but if in your culture you would put volunteering at a homeless shelter in, why not this?).

          1. Nephron*

            I think we are running into the residual anger towards tourism volunteering. There are some amazing people who show up after a disaster providing help and skills. Haiti received an outpouring of skilled workers and people coming in to help, there was also a van of missionaries stopped at the border with the Dominican Republic with children the random Americans decided were orphans less than 72 hours after the Earthquake. There are a lot of people that think they can help after a disaster and end up getting in the way and drawing resources away from communities in need because they now need help, or those with actual skills assume it is taken care of because a church with no experience is loudly showing their presence. Claiming you helped after a disaster, with or without an organization, is a mixed bag unfortunately. That is why a lot of organizations push the donate money if you are small church that wants to help, do not collect items and do not send people unless you have experience.

        3. FairPayFullBenefits*

          Yeah, I mean we don’t have details on what he did, but SO many of these clean-up efforts are a long-weekend, feel-good trip for volunteers to have a meaningful experience or pad their resumes for younger people. Unless he made a major, long-term commitment, I wouldn’t give it much weight.

      3. Anononon*

        The missionary work would be a negative for me – I’m generally strongly against missionaries, and the whole concept,

        1. Linar*

          Yes. Historically it’s been tied to racism and colonialism. Even if this person’s mission was carefully planned to avoid that, it would still be a negative to me.

          Even well-meaning missionaries have caused a lot of damage. My aunt married into a First Nations band that was decimated by the diseases well-meaning missionaries brought with them.

          Note, I’m not saying all missions are bad nor am I saying missionaries are per se bad, but simply viewing them as a positive comes from a place of privilege. Many people do not view them as a positive.

          1. Linar*

            P.S. My local nuns have made a very concerted effort to ensure that whatever missions they support are done at the request of, and driven by, locals. They hosted a symposium of nuns from around the world that discussed the purpose of missions and how to balance the demands of the Church with the desire not to be colonizers or racists.

            So missions can be done in a way that tries to address the historical “white man’s burden” aspect.

            But that’s not something that would be readily apparent if someone listed “mission trip” on a resume.

            1. Quill*

              My great aunt’s convent kept most of their outreach local for this reason – that and the ability to stay longer and effect greater change.

          2. professor*

            yes, THIS!

            Missionary work is a negative to me, as I value diversity and inclusivity, and this is white privileged neo-colonialism on display….

        2. NoviceManagerGuy*

          It’s pretty much mandatory in Mormonism as I understand it. It doesn’t belong on a resume, but excluding a candidate for fulfilling a requirement of their faith isn’t a good plan.

          (I’m not religious.)

          2. YetAnotherUsername*

            Absolutely. Discrimination against someone for doing this is absolutely religious discrimination.

          3. Arts Akimbo*

            Also, Mormons go on missions to historically white places as well. There are always a couple of young adults on their mandated mission in my medium-sized-tourist-attraction city.

            I wonder if it’s a thing of huge prestige that the husband got sent on the Brazil mission? Maybe that’s why he’s so insistent on having it on his resume (as they live in Utah and he is presumably job-searching there, where church elders might know it’s a big deal?)

            1. That Girl from Quinn's House*

              I worked with a girl who did her mission in Arizona; when I lived in Massachusetts and California we frequently had missionaries in our communities. Though the general reception in the community was that they were some retro oddity but handy for performing unpleasant tasks for free.

              1. Jadelyn*

                Mormon Missionaries: irritating most of the time, but really useful if you’re trying to move house while they’re coming through your neighborhood.

                1. President Porpoise*

                  Protip – They love doing this sort of thing, because while they’re loading your moving truck, they are not out knocking doors, which they hate doing as much as you hate having it done.

                2. Jadelyn*

                  @President Porpoise – Trust me, I know – all my cousins are LDS and did missions, which was how I knew to ask when a pair came around while I was moving that time. :)

                  (I actually didn’t believe my cousins at first, and still felt bad about taking advantage – until my cousins were like “No, you don’t get it – that’s giving them a break. They will be thankful for the opportunity. Just ask.”)

              2. Wendy Darling*

                I live in a large, prosperous suburb of a major city and we have missionaries around. They are forever trying to offer people sodas, which is a losing proposition around here because we’re all bougie scum and drink La Croix or Spindrift or whatever the flavored seltzer du jour is. They’re nice kids but 1. they’d have better luck if they started asking people if they wanted kombucha, and 2. being a missionary in an upper middle class American city is not really a resume-worthy activity!

            2. President Porpoise*

              Nope, no prestige. Missions are added to resumes everywhere, whether they were served in Little Rock, Arkansas or Tokyo, Japan.

              1. CoC*

                “Missions are added to resumes everywhere, whether they were served in Little Rock, Arkansas or Tokyo, Japan”

                Yeah! Because Japan is a minor economy and employees who speak fluent Japanese (and can market in the language) are plentiful.

            3. Botanist*

              Thirded. Mormon missionaries serve in every state in the USA and every country in the world where the government permits. Which is most of them.

            4. Filosofickle*

              I was checking out the Oakland Temple for the architecture & views and, killing time before sunset to take my photos, I went inside the visitor’s center. Turns out you can’t wander around unattended, so they assigned a pair missionaries to me. I asked these two young women a ton of questions about what it was like doing a mission in Berkeley/Oakland — i can’t imagine many places less suited to proselytizing!

              I also ran into LDS missionaries in Blois, France! A friend’s kid just served hers in Tacoma. Another friend’s kid is in Brazil. They go everywhere, for better or worse. And some do still opt out of missions from what I can see in my sample group. (I know a bunch of Mormons because I grew up near a large population center, although I’m an atheist and am not a fan.)

            5. lawyer*

              It’s not prestige – my understanding is the missionaries/their families pay the costs of the mission, so placement is determined by how much you can afford (or are able to fundraise). At least, that’s what I was told by a kid who was super bummed that he only had enough money to go to Seattle (rather than some cool overseas place).

              1. Filosofickle*

                That’s so interesting, I had no idea families had to pay.

                However, a bit of quick research shows that it used to vary but now they’ve equalized the costs. All missionaries all pay the same per month (will be $500 in 2020) for expenses no matter where they go. So it shouldn’t affect destination?

                1. Wendy Darling*

                  Is their lodging provided somehow? Because we definitely have missionaries in my town (I keep seeing them in the park) but a studio apartment here is like $1500 so if they’re supposed to survive on $500 either someone’s springing for their housing or they’re living in a tent.

                2. Captain S*

                  Yes, they pay. I grew up in a majority LDS area and kids put money in their mission fund instead of (or in addition to) their college fund

          4. hbc*

            But I’d be excluding someone for having the very bad judgment of putting their religion on their resume like it’s something to brag about. I’ve definitely excluded people for that reason (or downgraded them significantly), as well as sending business-related emails with religious signatures.

            I’ve also excluded people who put their kids on their resumes, but I’ve hired plenty of people with kids who have the common sense to not include that information where it’s not appropriate.

            1. fposte*

              That’s at high risk of being a distinction without a difference. Think “I didn’t exclude someone because they were gay, I excluded somebody because there was something on the resume that indicated they were gay when it shouldn’t have been on the resume.” We’re not talking about somebody putting “Religion: Latter-Day Saints.” They’d be putting down a work experience. If you’d treat it differently than other work experiences because of the religious association, that’s likely to be discriminatory.

              1. Wendy Darling*

                Tangential but I once got an application from someone outside the US who included his age, religion, marital status (single), and number of children (none) on his resume, and then emphasized in his cover letter that because he was single he would never leave early because of his family and could work lots of overtime, and also that because he was a man he could lift heavy things???

                I…. basically died. Luckily he was also totally unqualified so I could just put that in the “no” pile without even getting into the rest of it.

            2. Kathleen_A*

              I (not a Mormon) grew up in a town outside of Utah but with a very high Mormon population, and as far as I can tell, leaving that mission (and his Eagle Scout designation) on his resume almost certainly won’t do any harm, at least not in Utah, and might actually do some good. Rightly or wrongly, they are to many people signs of Good and Responsible Malehood (women sometimes do missions these days too, though, don’t they?), so I wouldn’t blame him if he decided to leave them on there.

              1. Filosofickle*

                I also grew up outside UT, near a very large Mormon population. My HS had a seminary attached next door , so they could even attend during a class period.

                Yes, women do missions, too, and more are going over time. (I’m betting some women go experience the world a bit and delay the rush to marriage.) Men can go at 19 and women at 21, and their missions are shorter. There’s not as much pressure on them to do so — a guy not going seems to be a Big Deal, but for women it’s optional.

                1. Princesa Zelda*

                  We might have grown up in the same town!

                  Several female friends of mine have gone on mission, and I think all my Mormon friends who still live in the area or have moved to Utah or Idaho list it on their resume.

            3. Jadelyn*

              My favorite was the guy who signed his cover letter with “Your brother in Christ, [name]”.

              As an avowed pagan, I did not find this amusing. That resume went straight in the circular file.

                1. Jadelyn*

                  Well and good, have fun with that, but your job application materials are not the place to be doing it. Especially not with that particular phrasing – it’s grossly presumptive about someone you know absolutely nothing about, and quite frankly I find it deeply offensive to have a total stranger assume that I’ll be fine with them claiming some kind of religious bond to me via a religion I have no love for, having left it for very personal reasons a long time ago.

                2. Veronica*

                  Yes, exactly! So his approach weeds out everyone who responds badly to his presumption. Then he doesn’t have to deal with anyone outside his religion and can stay safe and secure and smug in his bubble.
                  It would be interesting to know how long it takes him to get a job this way – probably depends on how religious his area is.

        3. Green*

          I’m an affirmed atheist, but I still find the mission work to be a plus.

          – HUGE plus for any sales role
          – Demonstrates a commitment, willingness to sacrifice, put yourself out there and take risks
          – Typically missionaries have strong language and cultural training and return with language fluency and crosscultural communication skills

          I’ve worked with Mormon men who had completed missions, and their missionary work wound up being critical to the task (litigation in Latin America). And it has nothing to do with whether they’ll proselytize at work.

          1. President Porpoise*

            Yeah, my brother served his mission in Japan – and wow, the fact that he was fluent in Japanese (low and high forms) and had those qualities made him highly desirable.

            Of course, he also had two years at West Point before he decided he wanted to leave to get married, so, that might have been a factor in his success as well…

        4. Sally*

          I have lived in Utah as a Mormon and I did not like seeing it on a resume when I was hiring there. There are issues within the state’s culture about discrimination against non-Mormons, and I felt listing the mission (which, as mentioned, was pretty common) was a way of trying to show a candidate was in the “in crowd”so to speak.

          1. somanyquestions*

            Thank you. This is a required part of the person’s religion and I have no problem with the fact that it happened, they can believe whatever they want to believe, but giving it significance is like giving significance to the fact that a catholic went to confession every week. Religion shouldn’t be part of hiring, full stop.

          2. Jadelyn*

            100% this, yes. It’s in-group signaling, within the context of heavily-LDS-influenced regional culture in Utah.

          3. Liz*

            100% in agreement. I live in Utah (and I am a Mormon) and when considering candidates I don’t consider it a positive to be so blatantly signalling your religious affiliations. It reads as very unprofessional and it tends to be very polarizing especially in urban areas like Salt Lake City where the Mormon/ non-Mormon divide is closer to 50/50. If a mission is recently completed and the candidate needs to explain a work gap it makes sense but I would prefer a more generic listing like: Volunteer religious service in Brazil with the dates. Most interviewers locally will read between the lines and know what that means but it shows a level of professional awareness that is appreciated by non-Mormon (or Ex-Mormon) interviewers. If it has been a long time I would leave it off entirely. I would list fluency in Portuguese even if he hasn’t used it recently as it is a transferable skill and something he could likely pull out in a pinch if needed. In an interview I generally ask about how a language was acquired and discussing a mission in that context makes sense.

            As Mormon congregations here historically have been in charge of the Scouting programs. I am not generally impressed by an Eagle Scout as culturally there are far more mom-led half-assed projects here than those involved in Scouting outside of Utah. In many households scouting and getting your Eagle scout was mandatory. (Many boys in previous generations were told they couldn’t get their driver’s licences without first earning their Eagle). The church is severing their ties with the BSA in order to make their youth program more equal across genders. It will be interesting to see if families continue to support scouting in the same way culturally and if the quality of the program actually increases as it becomes less common locally.

        5. Massmatt*

          I agree with those concerns, however in Utah it is likely that many employers would regard missionary work as a plus. It’s not likely relevant for the accounting job, but it could establish a rapport with managers etc that have also done it.

        6. Uldi*

          You do realize that this is religious discrimination, right? Mormons are strongly encouraged to go on a mission, and using that against a potential hire is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

        7. A*

          Yup. Putting my personal feelings aside, it would also indicate to me that the candidate might not know how to filter out certain things from the professional realm. We all have aspects of our lives (religion, lifestyle, politics) that are important to us – but that are best left out of the workplace.

          1. Elizabeth West*

            This would be my concern, unless they worded it in such a way as to emphasize the work they did on the mission, especially if there’s anything relating to the job they’re applying for. Regardless, it should be separate from work experience in a Volunteering section.

            Nor would it be necessary for everything; you could leave it off for jobs it has nothing to do with. As Alison has said, a resume is a marketing document, not your permanent record.

      5. Mandolin*

        For someone who doesn’t want to announce they’re straight overtly, but wants the employer to know so they can establish themselves as safe for queer-antagonistic spaces or even queer-unconscious-bias spaces, Boy Scouts is a good way of doing so. Many gay people have gone through the scouts, but the official bans made it a seriously queer-hostile, as well as officially gay-rejecting, space.

        I know that’s not why most people are doing this. But it’s an upsetting connotation. And it is useful in this way, to get straight privilege without directly saying so. That’s not nothing.

        1. Massmatt*

          Interesting point, I didn’t consider this because the only Eagle Scout I know is gay and the few other guys I know that were scouts (gay and straight) said sexual activity at “outings” etc was rampant.

      6. Ana Gram*

        I might list it under a community involvement section. It’s something that would interest me but I wouldn’t make a hiring decision over it. Although, I will say, I hire cops on the east coast and we’ve tossed around the idea of recruiting in LDS churches because of the language skills candidates might bring. That and Katrina would show a commitment to helping your community which is, obviously, something we want. For an accountant? Probably much less relevant.

      7. Annie*

        I’m not American and have never heard of “missionaries” outside of Book of Mormon.

        I certainly wouldn’t be influenced by someone having been a missionary, bit of I saw “lived in Brazil for 2/3 years” that is a such an unusual thing it would inevitably stand out and stick in my mind. Like if someone mentioned they were a professional quality trumpet player or former mountain climber; these things just stick out.

    4. RoadsLady*

      I actually spent some years working professionally with Scouting in Utah.

      Done right, it’s useful on a resume. I have heard enough anecdotes where it’s been useful, if those anecdotes are worthwhile.

      1. Liane*

        There are several Eagle Scouts in my family. When it comes to professional life and job searching, it seems to have a similar function to the name of your university. A degree from Same U. can often make you a little more appealing as an applicant to some hiring managers who are alumnae/i (or big fans) and being an Eagle Scout can too, with other Eagle Scouts.

        1. SomebodyElse*

          There is a lot on a resume that comes down to bias… University, University Clubs, Greek organizations, professional organizations, volunteer organizations, prior companies worked for, etc. etc.

          All other things being more or less equal on a resume or in an interview will come down to intangible things.

          1. Kate*

            Yeah, I mean we’re all human we have biases naturally whether you recognize them or not. Not being an A-hole and not considering a candidate because they are different than you is different than having a common experience and recognizing it. I’ve had candidates come through before that graduated from the same college as me, or had the same major as me (which is not a common major), or we both worked at the same place in the past – any of those things would make me want to talk to a person further. I wouldn’t *not* interview or hire someone if they didn’t have these similarities though.

            We’re all still people, not robots. (In fact – those software systems that automatically reject candidates if they don’t fill out the application exactly the way the role dictates – those remove the human factor but people hate those for that exact reason!)

    5. kangaroo*

      Meanwhile, I consider listing it a ding in the candidate search process. If you learned great skills in high school, you’ve probably used them to accomplish other things in your 20s. A borderline candidate who lists “Eagle Scout” is getting bumped off my list.

      1. Politico*

        This is EXACTLY why OP’s spouse should leave it in.

        Yes, you are going to find some Debbie Downers, like Kangaroo, who will find trivial reasons to exclude people who have accomplished something while young. (Maybe Kangaroo thinks “Nobel Prize” should go off resumes ten years later, too?) Others will say “that’s great! Tell me about what else you have accomplished!” OP should ask himself what kind of company he wants to work for: one that celebrates accomplishment, or one that punishes it.

        The story of Babe Ruth, who we remember for his high level of home runs, not his high level of strikeouts, comes to mind. OP’s husband should be bold, even if it means the Kangaroos of the world dismiss him. It will pay off in the end.

        1. Jadelyn*

          Are…you seriously trying to compare an Eagle Scout award to a fucking Nobel Prize????

          Good lord.

          Not to mention the rampant misrepresentation of kangaroo’s actual point, and the outright hostility/mocking. This is wildly unhelpful and inappropriate for the conversation.

        2. Elizabeth West*

          Pfffft. It has nothing to do with his adult, professional life. For someone who just graduated high school, it might be impressive, but OP’s husband has already amassed other work experience. This is like cadging free beers for life off the fact that you scored the winning touchdown at the big game on your alma mater’s football team. The phrase “peaked in high school” comes to mind.

          And most people don’t earn a full-on Nobel Prize as children. It happens when they’re adults, after a long and focused career.

        3. The Boy Out of the Bubble*

          It’s not Debbie Downing to think it’s bizarre that someone is listing something from childhood that is essentially ancient history rather than a recent achievement showing the same thing. This is a rule of resume writing, not some trivial personal quirk.

          Hilarious that you think a Nobel Prize is an appropriate comparable to making Eagle Scout.

    6. MissDisplaced*

      I think listing Eagle Scout may be fine for some job applications, but not others. For instance, that may add to your candidacy at nonprofits, government or public service jobs. But for regular corporate jobs, it’s just filler.
      OP’s may want to make two slightly different resumes depending on the job/company he’s applying to.

      1. Chatterby*

        I agree, same with the missionary work.
        Some places it’ll help, others it’ll harm.
        Leaving them in may help him find a cultural fit he likes, since places who won’t appreciate those things will pass on him, while those who do will interview him. He should just be aware it may be limiting.

    7. Venus*

      The previous couple comments remind me of how much cultural difference there is in language:
      1. I consider ‘ding’ to be something bad that happens to a car or furniture, and at first thought that ‘ding’ meant it would be a negative
      2. I thought Scouts were weirdly religious in the US, so between this and the missionary work it would be viewed as a negative in my location and field (as Alison says in her response, it would worry me that someone might bring religion into the workplace, and we recently had someone who failed quite badly with this)
      3. The U.S. also seems focused on where people went to university, in ways which don’t seem prevalent in my field and nation

          1. Alexandra Lynch*

            It really depends on the community.

            Just before my youngest son got started on his Eagle Scout project, the change to accept openly LGBTQ people was made, and his troop lost their sponsor, which was a conservative church. So the troop shut down, and he had to go finish his work with a new troop, and that made things harder for him. But the new troop is sponsored by a more mainline church that had its own resolution to welcome LGBTQ people a couple years before, so no problem there.

            There’s not a lot of organizations that have the space available for meetings and things like fundraiser dinners that aren’t churches, unfortunately.

            For the record, elder son is demisexual, at most, and younger son is bi and dates men. Didn’t seem to impact their Scouting.

            1. Mandolin*

              That’s super great, and I’m glad your kids had a good time.

              There was however an overt ban on gay members until 2013. That’s queer hostile, even if your sons had a good time navigating it. Other people, who are more identifiably queer or have a moral problem with participating in somewhere that bans them, aren’t going to have the same luck.

              I don’t object to meeting in churches. I do object to the stated (hopefully historical) ban against atheists and agnostics. They are quite capable of meeting in churches; I did play rehearsals in them.

              Things may have changed in good ways, and I’m all for that, but it doesn’t erase the historical problems that affected all, or possibly almost all, people who are job searching.

              1. Kyrielle*

                Sadly, still there. It’s never stated as such, but one of the requirements of the Scouts is to profess a belief in God. For Cub Scouts, there’s a requirement every year that ties into that. It’s usually handled by the families and most religious families can make it fit their paradigm/worldview. But an atheist family will have issues there (though I know some handle it by discussing diversity, others’ religions and how that does/doesn’t impact service, etc.).

                I don’t have time to volunteer, but I recently planned to get the basic training so I would count for two-deep leadership at meetings / events at least. Until I discovered that I had to agree that God was necessary. Our family is religious. Doing the requirements is within what I can do. Claiming everyone should worship in some fashion…that would be a lie on my part.

                So yes, that barrier is still there, even if it’s sort of malleable depending on the family. At its heart, the requirements related to this in Cub Scouts are actually about service and caring for others and giving to the world…and understanding your family’s beliefs. If it were open to “…or the lack of them” and not named “Duty to God” every level, it would be far better.

                1. Kyrielle*

                  Sorry, by “It’s never stated as such” I mean I’ve never see a “no atheists” statement. The exclusion is created by statements around belief in God, not by direct “atheists aren’t welcome” statements. But it’s real.

              2. Lynn Whitehat*

                My brother got his Eagle Scout in the early 90s. We didn’t go to church growing up. My dad asked on day 1 if it was going to be a problem, and the scout masters said no. Then when my brother went up for his Eagle Scout, one of the requirements was a faith leader testifying to his good moral character. He eventually found some way to wiggle around it, I don’t remember how. But with no help from the friendly Scout Masters who had hand-waved the requirement away at the beginning. It’s always left a bad taste in my mouth.

        2. Linar*

          In much of the USA, they are.

          My stepson was in Scouts. It was a very different experience in the 90s and 00s than when I was a kid. So much more religion. Much more openly.

          When I was a kid, there was a prayer and a vague belief in God. For my stepson, it was very front and center.

          You also cannot be an atheist and be a scout, so there is that.

          If you are interested, there’s a lot on the internet about the Boy Scouts and religion in the 90s and 00s, particularly the on-again, off-again relationship with the Catholic and Mormon religions.

          1. wittyrepartee*

            Yeah, I was thinking about how there’s probably segregated troops by Christian religious sect. Being a Catholic at a Methodist summer camp was really uncomfortable for me as a kid. Things like- being asked to justify your faith by the early 20s camp counselors and having to explain that we don’t worship the Pope or consider Saints minor deities.

            1. Evan Þ.*

              At least when I was in it fifteen years ago, troops weren’t. I guess there probably was some bias where people attending the church where a troop was meeting might tend to join that troop, but I didn’t see even that in the two troops I joined.

              (I heard the Mormons were an exception, though. Not being a Mormon, I didn’t visit there to see in person. And now, I hear, they’ve moved away from Boy Scouting.)

        3. Doreen*

          Like other groups with this sort of set-up, the national group sets policy but each individual group provides a different experience. For example, my son was a scout in a troop sponsored by a Catholic church in the 90s and early 00s. There were non-Catholics in the group and the only explicitly religious parts were the yearly Scout Sunday and they worked on one religious award (awarded by religious groups) per age group .

            1. doreen*

              I’m not saying it did- only that religion wasn’t “front and center” . But the only reason I know there were non-Catholics in the group was because some of them worked on different religious awards. Because the only time religion actually came up was buying the workbooks for these awards and a few words in the law and oath. I’m sure some of them never worked on any religious awards and quite possibly some were in fact atheist or agnostic – but I wouldn’t know because this particular group wasn’t focused on asking people what religion they were or if they were agnostic or atheist. If agnostics/atheists were comfortable joining , this group wouldn’t have had any problem accepting them. Unlike some other groups that would only accept members of one religious group or even congregation.

              1. Mandolin*

                Okay, but you know that they would have been joining in the face of an official policy saying that they can’t be Scouts? That’s hostile even if a single chapter says they don’t care. This may be clearer if you apply it to a different minority group theoretically, or it may not — but overt exclusion is a problem that can’t be handwaved by some people ignoring the rules.

                1. doreen*

                  I do – but you know that all I was ever saying was “each individual group provides a different experience”, right? I didn’t say the official policy wasn’t exclusive.

          2. Arts Akimbo*

            Yeah, the troop leader of the group that meets at our local rec center straight-up told me he welcomed us atheists and LGBTQ+’s to join.

        4. Witchy Human*

          Girl Scouts isn’t. The pledge includes “serve God and my c0untry” but everywhere it’s written there’s also an asterix and a note saying that girls should use any word that reflects their spiritual beliefs. An atheist girl can use “serve good and my country” and be perfectly fine.

          I hate when both branches of scouting are lumped together, because Girl Scouts is pretty liberal.

          1. Linar*

            So do I. The GS are amazing and don’t get enough attention for all they do.

            I’d be much more impressed by GS awards than BS awards.

          2. K8 M*

            Me too. I’m an atheist GS leader. I’ve had many people ask why I wouldn’t put my daughter in the Boy Scouts now that they accept girls- to which I reply: “Because as an atheist, I’m not welcome in their organization but Girl Scouts accepts ALL girls.”
            I’ve also had people tell me that their pack is more liberal and they don’t care if you’re atheist or agnostic, but as long as the parent organization discriminates against me, I’m not interested in interacting with you.

            1. Arts Akimbo*

              “I’ve had many people ask why I wouldn’t put my daughter in the Boy Scouts now that they accept girls-”

              Gah, that’s such soft misogyny on their part, telling you implicitly that the Boy organization must of course be better! I’m so glad you stuck with the awesome GSA!

        5. Seeking Second Childhood*

          Former Girl Scout here, quoting from their Web page.
          Girl Scout Promise
          On my honor, I will try:
          To serve God* and my country,
          To help people at all times,
          And to live by the Girl Scout Law.
          …
          * Members may substitute for the word God in accordance with their own spiritual beliefs.

          Further comment…when I was involved in the 80s, it was still “mankind” not “people.”

        6. Moose*

          BSA is largely funded by the Mormon church. See the recent rulings in BSA about allowing gay scout leaders and pushback from the Mormon church

        7. Chatterby*

          Technically, it is not, but for a very long time, the LDS church adopted Scouting as their youth program for boys/ young men. Because of this, the vast majority of scout troops were Mormon ones and pretty much every Mormon man in the US has been through the Scouting program.
          Due to the boy scout policy changes regarding female and LGTBQ members, the LDS church broke ties with the scouting program and made a new youth program of their own that’s loosely based on it.

          1. Scion*

            Even if it’s true that “pretty much every Mormon man in the US has been through the Scouting program,” that doesn’t mean that “the vast majority of scout troops were Mormon ones.”

            Only ~2% of the population is Mormon, and it’s mostly concentrated in Utah. I grew up on the East Coast, and I didn’t meet anyone who was Mormon until college.

        8. neeko*

          “More than 100,000 Scouting units are owned and operated by chartered organizations. Of these, approximately 70 percent are chartered to faith-based organizations”

            1. JSPA*

              True, but that includes Unitarians, reform synagogues, Friends (“Quakers”)and a number of other “affirming / welcoming” (of LGBTQ+ people) denominations.

              Several / many also explicitly accept members who are declared atheists or agnostics or non-theists who are nevertheless committed to a cultural identity, good works, “the invaluable teachings of Jesus, the mortal man,” or whatever other phrasings are currently in vogue and applicable to the faith in question.

              No clue as to the breakdown. Just saying that being a chartered nonprofit faith-based org does not correlate 1:1 with having membership officially limited to straight people, cis people, or theists.

                1. JSPA*

                  Yes, it is, in that one has to at least say some sort of “higher spirit” statement in the oaths. But that’s not a function of how many of the groups are (or are not) based in or at churches. Two separate issues. A basketball league can be church-based without requiring any religious buy-in. And the scout oaths, while not limited to any one faith, last I checked, don’t have a “on my own sense of morality” option (I could be wrong on this. Much has changed. I don’t think this has.)

      4. J.*

        I think the point was that kangaroo would see it as a negative (a ding in exactly the way you describe) if they’re still putting stuff from high school on their resume 15 years later instead of more recent accomplishments, and that if they never progressed to anything notable past being an Eagle Scout as a teen then that’s questionable.

    8. Septemberisalmostover*

      It is a huge deal. We had one Eagle Scout in our graduating class and I remember it being a pretty big deal even then and that was 16 years ago.

      1. MatKnifeNinja*

        I don’t in small town USA and Eagle Scout is a HUGE deal here.

        Every project is multi year and a more than three. It’s not just let mom do all the grunt work and you show up to swing a hammer.

        It’s a big enough deal that my niece’s high school sends out a separate little blurb on who earned one and their project. The high school rarely does that for anything else. The Eagle Scouts go to tye community volunteer awards ceremony, are honored during it. (big deal, black tie affair)

        The Girl Scouts here is non existent here. Most stop after 5th grade. What some girls do is the equivalent of an Eagle Scout project on their own. Two girls in my niece’s high school researched a community need, and started their own charity/non profit. They get as much press as the Eagle Scouts.

        My area is huge on community service. Missionary work, volunteering actively for a non profit, coaching…is all looked on extremely favorably. I know this because all the new hire teachers at my nieces high school have that as part of their little bio they send out-some blurb on “community service”. It maybe coaching. It maybe be church committees. It maybe be working with at risk LGBTQ+ teens. Nobody just teaches and has a home life. Also if you don’t have some ties to the community, your chances to be hired are zip, but that’s for another day.

    9. Mandolin*

      The Boy Scouts had an official policy against gay members until 2013.

      It has a historical ban on atheists and agnostics.

      It majorly sucks that this is an exciting thing that can’t be accessed by a whole load of people, without even getting into gender, which is its own, huge issue. I find it upsetting that people don’t even seem to know this has gone on.

      1. Linar*

        Bingo.

        For this reason, I know that some admissions officers view it as a negative. That is, either the scout believes in excluding gays and the “godless” or is willing to turn a blind eye to this in order to have one’s own advantages.

        So many of these cultural institutions that are baked into the white middle class view of American accomplishment are going to be viewed very differently in hindsight. It always helps to ask whether or not everyone views the group/accomplishment as a positive.

        With the Boy Scouts and with mission trips, I can say with certainty that many people do not view them as positive. In have, in fact, heard them both described as indoctrination tools of the white, male American colonial patriarchy. While that may be taking it too far for some, it’s not a rarely vocalized opinion these days.

        We’re it my friend, I’d say leave both off.

        1. Database Developer Dude*

          I have to agree with you. I’m black, but I’m a Mason, and I’ve encountered a LOT of negative viewpoints about that, before anyone has a chance to get to know me. Despite the community service aspect of it, and the leadership aspect of it, this is something I would *NOT* put on a resume, ever.

          1. Nephron*

            Yes, but this is a man in his 30s deciding to keep it on his resume despite the very public arguments about LGBT+ and nonreligious members. There were eagle scouts that returned their badges in protest of the exclusion of LGBT+ kids. If a man in his 30s is keeping those markers on his resume the question is does he not know about these controversies that were covered in the national news, or does he agree with the exclusions?

      2. Mandolin*

        (The argument that the Girl Scouts has a similar award does nothing, as far as I’m aware, for queer people who are socially identified as male. The Girl Scouts appears to have a policy allowing trans girls, and good for them, but that’s recent. I’m unclear on whether people socially identified as male (e.g. gay and bisexual men, trans women who are not yet out to others and possibly themselves, and trans people with genderqueer identities) can join contemporarily, but they certainly would not have been able to in the past.

        Boy and Girl Scout mentions on resumes from older timeframes also require disclosure about cis or trans identities. A 35-year-old woman listing Boy Scouts will be looked at askance by most employers, and is forced to come out or to avoid mentioning something that would get her a boost if she were perceived as male. A man listing Boy Scouts in the same situation is giving a strong cue he’s cis. However, this problem is endemic with most “sex-segregated” childhood activities. Unlike the overt ban on gay members, this is not something I can blame the Boy Scouts for specifically.)

        1. The Other Katie*

          For what it’s worth, my Girl Scout troop in the 80s included the older brother of one of the girls. The official reason was because of transport or something, but it was because he’d been bullied out of the nearby Boy Scout troop because he was too effeminate, basically. It may not have been an official policy at the time, but it’s been unofficial practice, at least some places, for a while now.

        2. JSPA*

          The GS official transgender policy was apparently quietly official as of 2011, definitely in use by 2012, and highly publicized by 2015, but it codified a longer history of (at least regional / local) acceptance.

          That’s still a short enough time that the direct beneficiaries of the official policy are probably barely hitting the workforce.

      3. Green great dragon*

        To be clear, this is (I assume) US boy scouts. I know UK accepts all faiths or none (they all have their own promises) and equal opportunities generally. Though I’m not sure how far back that goes.

      4. Bagpuss*

        The Boy Scous *of America* had that policy.
        Elsewhere in the world they don’t.
        In the UK, there has ben a non-religious version of the promise since 2013 (and versions for people of faiths other than Christianity for much longer) and they are explicitly welcoming to LGBTQA members and again, have been for some time.

              1. JSPA*

                Helps to finish the thought, then, if you don’t want others to finish it for you. ; )

                Look,

                It’s actually entirely reasonable for others to push back at the conflation of the BSA (now, Scouting USA) and “THE Boy Scouts.” Scouting did not start as a US organization! Baden-Powell’s scouting books and the original Scouting movement date to ~1908, in the UK.

                (Granted, Baden Powell’s legacy was problematic in several ways…but it’s still absolutely fair for people from an older tradition than the US tradition to call us on our provincialism.)

                Same for “The Red Cross.” “THE” red cross was not started by Clara Barton. “THE” Red cross was Swiss. That’s why the emblem is the inverse of the Swiss flag. It was started in 1863 in Geneva by a handful of guys. Clara Barton founded the AMERICAN Red Cross in 1881, after encountering “THE” Red Cross.

                Plenty of people are using the correct terminology–or qualifiers. Where’s the harm in bothering to be precise? Among other things, it reminds us that there’s nothing intrinsic to international scouting or the history of scouting that DEMANDS a certain stance within the BSA / Scouts BSA.

                1. A*

                  …but we are talking about it as it relates to the OP’s letter. Which is in the US. I think this is a bit of a stretch.

          2. Anne Elliot*

            “This is primarily a US blog written by a US author about workplaces generally in the US.” This is not my experience of this blog. One of the things I really enjoy about it is how frequently the questions and comments include a non-US perspective.

              2. Anne Elliot*

                I do understand the word “primarily.” Let me know which word in “This is not my experience” you in turn are having trouble with, and I’ll rephrase.

          3. Annie*

            It’s still ignorant and bigoted to assume that just because the blog owner happens to be American, all the commenters are American too.

          4. Green great dragon*

            Sure. But read across the world. So what’s wrong with clarifying that ‘The Boy Scouts’ means US boy scouts only, not the worldwide Boy Scouts organisation as the comment appears to say?

          5. Tinuviel*

            Pointing out that Boy Scouts are different organizations around the world adds to the conversation. It may be helpful for people reading and not familiar with Boy Scouts in the US/other countries’ context.

            Snapping back that “this is America and this is mostly for Americans” is unnecessarily exclusionary and comes across rude in tone. Let’s not gate-keep here.

          6. Bagpuss*

            Sure, sthe specific question is talking about Utah. But a lot of people have made comments about what conclusions they would draw from seeing Scouting on a redume, and as people not from the S apply for jobs *in* the US, it is relevant to flag up that BSA and its policies are not the same as Scouting organisations elsewhere in the world –
            If you are a US employer dealing with an appication from someone from the UK, for intance , it could be relevant to know that the Scouting movement doesn’t have the same recent hisotry of homophobia that the BSA has. (Judging by the other comments here, it also doesn’t have the same religious connotations)

    10. Aquawoman*

      Honestly, I think there is a lot of implicit or deniable bias in putting so much weight on the Eagle Scout thing. Something that is not available to women just happens to be Super! Impressive! I’m skeptical.

      1. Linar*

        Women, gays, atheists, minorities etc.

        It’s impossible to say how white BSA is because they don’t keep statistics and are opposed to local and regional chapters keeping statistics. (My stepson’s group wanted to do so and were told not to do so). However, a quick google search of black + Eagle Scout is enlightening about how skewed the accomplishment is toward white males in the USA.

        The recent push for the BSA to be more instructive does not erase the history. It’s not an organization that has been open to all. So, when one sees this on a resume, one must realize that it’s not a signifier of accomplishment. It’s a signifier of accomplishment for a certain type of white male.

        1. Quill*

          Even if the bias isn’t specifically racial, I have a hard time believing that the economic bias for scouts doesn’t create racial bias.

          … and it’s not like racial bias mysteriously disappeared in 1970 because the 60’s were over, so there are still going to be candidates who grew up in a very different world in regards to whether or not they were welcome in the scouts as a child.

    11. Bee Eye Ill*

      I am an Eagle Scout and it helped me land my first job out of college because the hiring manager had two young sons who had just joined the scouts. I’d say leave it on there. I always have. It’s just one line.

      1. Mandolin*

        His sons just joined the Boy Scouts of America, so they have something in common with you, and that landed you the job.

        That connection is officially inaccessible, or has been in the recent past, to women, people who identify as non-religious, and people who are queer.

        You were only able to make that connection, and get that job, by demonstrating membership in the correct demographic. “We are both BSA members” also means “we are both men, religious, straight, and cis.”*

        *Official policy creates strong implications, even if some people and chapters are willing to break the rules.

        1. Bee Eye Ill*

          Actually, the hiring manager was a woman. A mom her wanted best for her son’s.

          Thanks for assuming it was a man, though.

          1. Aquawoman*

            OK, so it was a woman who was willing to internalize biases about white, straight, religious, cis-gender men. How is that better?

            1. Bee Eye Ill*

              You could use the same argument about biases for anyone with a military background from not so long ago.
              Things like that do help you get your foot in the door. In another setting, it could have backfired completely. I was fresh out of school without much credentials so I put it on my resume.

              1. A*

                I don’t see much pushback here in regards to having it on the resume when you’re first starting out (especially since it’s somewhat recent). However the OP is in their 30s. Big difference.

          2. Trinity Beeper*

            That doesn’t delegitimize Mandolin’s comment, though. They still have something in common with you, and that landed you the job. It’s still something that is inaccessible to large swaths of the population.

            1. Bee Eye Ill*

              Yeah I get it. But college educations and all sorts of advantages are inaccessible to large swaths of the population. That’s just how it is.

              1. Who Plays Backcgammon?*

                I’ve seen hiring managers “connect” with candidates because they have something in common that doesn’t necessarily indicate privilege. Like, their kids are the same age, they have the same kind of personality, they both love Burning Man and the Rolling Stones. My former manager made a series of knee-jerk hires this way, and so many of her brand-new buds didn’t do well or last long. The last crummy hire quit after a year of chronic lateness, left before their 2-week notice was up (I was out of the office that day, darn it; I’d love to know what really happened but no one would say), and they were actually permitted to come back as a candidate for a higher-level job. At least 2 people went to hiring manager with specific serious problems about candidate, and that ended that.

        1. Bee Eye Ill*

          It would be unearned privilege if she hired me just because I was in the BSA. Lots of people join the scouts, but a very small percentage actually complete all the requirements to make Eagle. Even getting the rank requires a board of review from Scout officials not affiliated with the troop in order to make sure some kid isn’t just getting a free pass. Trust me, my “privilege” was earned.
          And now that they allow girls to join, as an Eagle Scout (and uncle of a very smart niece) I have no problem with girls becoming Eagles, too.

      3. Elizabeth West*

        From a pure work standpoint, you had it on there right out of college, which isn’t that far removed from high school, and usually recent grads don’t have a lot of experience. It’s fine then, but if you are now in your thirties and have a good deal of professional work to point to, you don’t need it.

        I don’t need to include on my resume that I directed the entire third act of my senior play, even though I did it splendidly, to demonstrate leadership. If I had supervisory experience, that’s what I’d emphasize.

    12. What’s with Today, today?*

      Yeah, my husband is a 36-year-old attorney and Eagle Scout. While he is in private practice now and is his own boss, the Eagle Scout was on his resume when he got out of law school. It likely played a role in him getting that first prosecutor job, the DA was also an Eagle Scout, and it was a big interview topic and ice breaker.

        1. Poppy*

          I don’t think many people really stop to think about the difference between networking and connection vs. commonalities that prop up the existing non-diverse system through old boys club mentality.

          Very few people would think of the BSA as an old boys club thing bc it’s not limited to the rich. They’re making the mistake of looking up instead of down the social ladder.

          It is absolutely a connection infused w bias, but I doubt the two men ever thought of that. In fact, I am sure it was simply viewed as something they have in common. As something positive between the two of them. The outside world was irrelevant.

          This is why it is so difficult to unpack centuries if privilege. It requires a lot of emotional labor and constant self reflection by those w privilege. Most won’t do it.

          Most won’t see how something they thing is positive can exclude others and even harm others.

          It’s maddening, but it’s human nature.

          1. JSPA*

            I LOVE “They’re making the mistake of looking up instead of down the social ladder.” Is this a phrase in use? May I steal it? Because it’s totally a thing that comes up over and over again, in hiring, in promotion…

            It’s much more accessible and immediately comprehensible than “all privilege is relative.”

        2. What’s with Today, today.*

          He interviewed for 5 other ADA positions with the same resume and didn’t get those jobs. There is nothing wrong with connecting with an interviewer. I might add that of the four prosecutors hired that year, my husband was the only male.

          1. A*

            Ya I don’t see anything wrong with this. I think it makes sense to list as an accomplishment if it is still recent. I’d consider it to be so for someone getting out of law school since they (if they were a traditionally aged student) would be entering the work force for the first time outside of internships / summer placements. Anything beyond that first job though? Not so much, unless it truly directly relates.

      2. Veronica*

        Yep, a woman with the same qualifications would not have made that connection and probably not have been hired.
        This is how gender discrimination works. Boys are members of a club that only accepts boys, and when they grow up membership in that club helps them get a job because the hiring manager is also a member of the club. If you draw a flow chart, you can see it even more graphically.
        The same is true of golf clubs, men’s clubs, any gender or religion based club – all created to give advantage to people like the members, and no one else.

        1. JSPA*

          Any commonality can be an ice-breaker, but is not the only potential icebreaker. And any ice-breaker can lead to a better interview. That’s the entirely innocent aspect.

          Hiring someone because they share a cultural stamp of approval (especially one that’s limited by race, religion, gender, orientation etc) is problematic.

          But it’s really on the person doing the hiring to not do that thing. They’re the ones with the power to make it not be a thing.

          For an applicant to leave a potential commonality off, in an area where commonality-based-tiebreakers in hiring are accepted and common, does not mean that someone without the commonality will be hired. It means that some other applicant who lists their [mormon / eagle scout / whatever] probable commonality will be hired instead.

          This is entirely a “change comes from above,” either from managers or by company policy or by law. There’s no way to individually identify and organize all applicants to “not do that thing.”

          Except maybe by pointing out that if they’re looking for diversity, applying as a Mormon and Eagle Scout in an organization chock-full of Mormon Eagle Scouts may not be as much of a plus, as husband is hoping.

    13. Elizabeth West*

      Unless you literally just got out of high school, leave it off. I’m a former Girl Scout and I would have to search to find anybody but another scout who would give a crap.

        2. merp*

          This is a super obnoxious comment. You really drank the koolaid, huh? GSA is a great organization that lots of people get a lot of value out of, including by doing their gold award. Gold award is less known the eagle scout, sure (marketing maybe, sexism definitely), but GSA has also managed not to be far less bigoted than the BSA so I’ll take it any day.

          1. Elizabeth West*

            Yeah, I won’t buy any fundraising crap from BSA because of their homophobia, nor would I let a child of mine join it. I don’t donate to the Salvation Army, either. F*ck that shit. Give me ALL the Girl Scout cookies, though.

        3. Elizabeth West*

          Whether they did or not is immaterial. Unless you just got out of high school or possibly college, anything I did in Girl Scouts is too old to count, and it says nothing about my subsequent professional life.

    14. Lola Alegre*

      As someone who is a CPA who has worked at
      multiple accounting firms. None of that stuff is relevant and unfortunately firms do not care about volunteer experiences. If it has nothing to do with accounting/IT or awards from college leave it off

  2. Ginger*

    #3 – another option I use is UPDATE highlighted in yellow.

    For the record, XXX is perfectly fine but might not be worth the capital to battle.

    I’d be tempted to respond with something along the line of having no idea what porno symbology is, how does she know? Just to pass the ridiculousness back to sender.

    1. Engineer Girl*

      I’m for XXX. It’s easily searchable and doesn’t come up as a false positive during any other search of the document.

      I’d ask her why she thinks it’s porn. And if she tells you it’s sinful then tell her you are redeeming it for greater things.

      1. Linda Shaver-Gleason*

        My placeholder has been ***, and someone misinterpreted it, asking why I swore so much. To me, the symbols stand out more.

        1. Diet Root Beer*

          I use *** too! But that’s because I’m trained by Epic to think of those as the universal placeholders. Any other Epic monkeys here?

          1. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

            I used Epic at my previous hospital, but I used *** even before that, from my call center monkey days when I was doing note templates in Notepad.

          3. Doc in a Box*

            Yes, *** for life! Although it’s frustrating that you can’t F2 your way through the Word document to replace them.

          5. Ktelzbeth*

            Definite Epic monkey. I use lots of *** and wish my smartphrases extended outside of Epic. I just wish shift-F2 let you go backwards through ***.

          6. Tierrainney*

            oh goodness, yes. EPIC user here. and I’ve had problems when someone uses the *** as a emphasis rather than as a placeholder

        2. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

          My god, there’s literally no pleasing everyone.

          My first thought was that they’d asked why your data entries were encrypted.

        4. Jadelyn*

          I use ?????? – it’s searchable, because I would never use more than a single question mark anywhere else in the document, and has the added bonus of making the “bwuuuuh?” confused-sound in my head when I see it, which reminds me I need to figure it out and fix it.

      2. Czhorat*

        Why not QQ as a placeholder? It stands out and is again easily searchable – I can’t think of any double Q words.

        Whether or not “XX” or “XXX” is problematic (and I lean towards not) this is a very easy thing to change if it makes someone uncomfortable.

        Dig in your heels if and only if it really matters to

        2. LunaLena*

          My first thought was “Raqqa.” But only because I enjoy challenges like that :)

          I generally use ??? or NAME PLACEHOLDER, stuff like that. I agree that XXX isn’t as problematic as the co-worker thinks, but it’s not a hill worth dying on either.

      3. Yorick*

        I use comments. That way you can find them quickly (even just by scrolling) instead of looking for bold text or doing a search. Also you can see on any page that there’s a comment somewhere so you know you’re missing something and you can go look for it.

      4. LQ*

        Totally agree that it has to be searchable and consistent. QQ (though she might think you’re a WoW nerd telling her to quit), ZZZZ (though she might think you’re suggesting napping), XYZ (though she might think you are telling her that her zipper is down). I’m for the same letter multiple times because it visually stands out more. I generally am an XXX person as well.

        But I think it’s roll your eyes (to yourself) and change it, I don’t know that it’s worthy of pushing back on this with someone who is senior.

    2. many bells down*

      Maybe XYZ instead. Easier to search and replace if you have to, where you might need to leave the word “update” in.

      1. AcademiaNut*

        Change to XOXOXO. Explain that it stands for is “hugs and kisses” and is therefore PG.

        My goto is ??? – easy to search for, but not embarrassing if you leave it in, and not generally a valid variable name in most programming languages (I often have documents with code snippets in them).

        1. valentine*

          Maybe XYZ instead.
          Yes, xyz or qrs and no one else has to hear this person repeat “Porn symbols” at work.

          1. Carlie*

            That could be almost as bad – I don’t think “porn” at XXX but my brain immediately went back to 4th grade and “whose pants are unzipped?” with XYZ.
            (It used to be a thing to tell someone XYZ for “examine your zipper”)

    3. AutolycusinExile*

      If you need to appease her but prefer X over a highlight (I tend to miss highlights for some reason), I would recommend changing it to XXXX instead. Less chance of missing it like you might with XX and it’s still searchable – if someone searches for XXX like usual they’ll still find each result, and with longer documents it can be hard to scroll through to find each highlighted section.
      But yes, definitely play dumb and force her to explain it to you if she brings it up again! She’s out of line and at least you’ll get some entertainment out of it :)

    4. in a fog*

      In journalism/publishing, we use TKs as placeholders (if the space needed is big, you just keep adding to TKTKTKTK!). It stands for “to come,” just like lede stands for “lead” and graf stands for “paragraph” because it catches spellcheckers. Of course, my phone probably ignores all of them by this point!

        1. Lyonite*

          My understanding was that it’s actually because it’s a letter combination that’s not normally found in English words, so it’s easy to search for. Regardless, a person would have to be really stretching to be offended by it.

          1. Devil Fish*

            The person we’re all desperately trying to avoid offending (sidebar: WHY?!) is offended by the fact she’s automatically reading a pornographic connotation into “XXX” being present in a work document, which is somehow LW’s fault (sidebar: Again—WHY?! Her internal perversions and the shame she applies to them are not LW’s responsibility to manage).

            If she asks what “TK” stands for and LW responds “to come” there’s a very real chance this person could take it to HR as a pattern of harassment or some such idiotic nonsense (sidebar: that would be fucking hilarious but probably none too useful for LW).

            2. Quill*

              HR has probably already met her and is ready to pee their pants laughing if she comes back with TWO inappropriate placeholders.

      2. Batgirl*

        We always used something like HEADER GOES HERE or CAPTION in caps and I was delighted to actually see those words go to print in a sister paper, when my mother handed me it saying she didn’t understand the headline!
        Perhaps the OP is right about XXX being more unmissable.

          1. TechWorker*

            My entire company uses @@@ (often in code but also in draft documents too). The point people will reference ‘fixing the at at ats’ – interesting to learn it’s not remotely universal :)

        2. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

          The number of times in both undergrad and grad school I submitted draft papers titled “Witty Title Goes Here” :-P

          1. Quill*

            Have sent out rough drafts to people with [F*** CURRENCY] still in them, but fortunately it’s creative writing and usually part of “I need a human to tell me if this makes sense / is written in English” favors between creative types is “you left your editing notes in.”

            1. KoiFeeder*

              F*** is an excellent placeholder because you really, really don’t want it to stay in the main copy.

              I’ve also used FNORD.

              1. Quill*

                Lol, I don’t use it at work (just with writing, aka the other job I am not currently being paid for) because I’m terrified I’d send it to my boss!

          2. Eukomos*

            I’m on the verge of doing that with my dissertation. I just can’t come up with anything good and it’s due at the end of the week. This needs to go on my CV and sound trendy and engaging, while clearly indicating my area of specialty. Last possible chance to change it is the end of October but the chair needs at least a dignified placeholder now to tell people about my defense. Gah. Why can’t any part of this process be easy?

      3. RachelM*

        I second TK!

        I used to work for a website where we’d occasionally run “tkjoke” as a punchline on accident.

      1. Angwyshaunce*

        Me too, actually. The “TBD” is easy to search for (and what I was introduced to), and the brackets help it stand out, almost like visually simulating a field.

      2. Crooked Bird*

        I use brackets too! Always. I either put them around blank space or around anything that’s tentative. I’m a fiction author, so nothing in the final manuscript should ever be in brackets (I imagine there are other uses for them in other fields so this wouldn’t work for everybody), so searching for them enables me to make a perfectly clean sweep before sending it in.

        1. Elizabeth West*

          That’s a good idea; I may steal that. I usually type CHECK or CCCC or MEEP or something, but I could definitely miss those.

    6. Another Sarah*

      I use TBC (To Be Confirmed) as well, but X is… so normal I don’t even compute where this lady is coming from. I’d go to your boss just to cover your bases but honestly this is a her problem, not a you problem.

    8. ssnc*

      i use [put number here] and then put a word comment around that so it wont get missed later in editing. you can also easily scroll through the comments to see what is still left. i find this more helpful than highlighting, since its less clicking to do away with the comment than the highlighting. i also dont have to do any searches.

    9. Jdc*

      I always highlight yellow as I’ve missed some XXX spots after hours of staring at the same document. It makes it more obvious. The woman is bonkers though.

    10. Tan*

      I have heard of this before i.e. I had an old, very religious, ex-coworker hated XXX, because it “sounded rude”, so we all were told to use “###”. Another memorable complaint from her was when some rooms got electronic locks (think server rooms etc, with restricted access not the front door) and she complained they were “slot in” not tap or swipe. The rest of us had a good laugh pointing out that regular, everyday keys “slot in”. She thankfully is retired now

      1. Goldfinch*

        Isn’t it interesting how much that sort of person reveals about themselves with this nonsense? You’re the only one with this stuff constantly on the brain, Karen.

        1. Elemeno P.*

          For real. I manage to use XXX as a placeholder while still having my mind in the gutter. It’s really not the end of the world.

      3. Oh So Anon*

        People like your ex-coworker have no business in the workplace. I’d love to see how someone like her would have been able to cope with real problems.

    11. Shad*

      We highlight in our office, too. Part of that is using form documents where some of the highlights are for things like checking pronouns or notes to ourselves about things that need to be added to the calendar for follow up.

    12. Seeking Second Childhood*

      Many of the non-alpha characters mentioned are reserved by some software apps. often contains HTML formatting, # and * can be wildcards so unhelpful in a search.

      1. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Well I forgot this site USES html so that comment reads weird…but makes my point.
        I actually came back to wonder if the OP”s horrified co-worker would also be horrified at how our networked business product is programmed. Node XXX is the default to be replaced on many a programming screen. It’s actually why I discovered all the things that can’t be searched for.

    13. Gabriel Conroy*

      Not that I believe the letter writer has any obligation not to use XXX, but I personally use Ginger’s strategy of using bold. I actually put in brackets, use bold, and highlight the item and use ZZZ instead of XXX. It’s not because I think XXX is “porny.” It’s just my preference.

      1. HappySnoopy*

        I use XXX or ZZZ. Could switch to that. Its just 1 letter away on qwerty keyboard. Coworker may then just think OP is sleep deprived.

        1. Seeking Second Childhood*

          Apropos of nothing, for a touch typer Z is typed with your pinky which gets kind of uncomfortable if you have to type a lot of them. I did have two for a while, because xxx and zzz are common defaults in our systems programming product.

    14. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      I use ELEPHANT (you would never ever find “elephant” in my work for real, given my field etc).

      Coworker is being completely ridiculous but I would switch to something else anyway because I don’t have time for that kind of nonsense. I would probably amuse myself by using pop culture references such as TARDIS or NARGLE that would not get through a spellcheck or be confused with real content.

    15. Not a Blossom*

      “I’d be tempted to respond with something along the line of having no idea what porno symbology is, how does she know?” Yeah, my first thought was to respond, “What do you mean? I’ve never heard that! Is that what you think of?” Make her feel like the weird one (because she is). I swear, people are bonkers.

    16. Lady Blerd*

      I only use Xs for numbers, as many as the number of numbers they replace. For other missing info, I write things like DD MMM YYYY or NAME or BRANCH and so forth in bold because knowing myself, I may be confused as to what those other Xs would mean.

      1. fhqwhgads*

        I think at least part of the intention in the LW’s case was to use a single consistent placeholder so it would be easy to do a single search for ANYTHING that needed replacing. If the placeholders are specific to what needs replacing they’re more prone to getting missed unless there’s a master list somewhere of all the potential placeholders to search for. Not saying that it’s wrong or bad to have content-specific placeholders, but it doesn’t seem like that fits what the LW was trying to do here.

    19. Mockingjay*

      I use XXX or xxx in drafts daily. It stands out very quickly as the placeholder for missing information. I’ve been doing this for decades.

      No one ever has said anything about it.

    20. MCMonkeyBean*

      I have always used “XXX” since I was in high school, but at my last job I had almost the opposite problem–they actually sold a product with “XXX” in the name so when I was preparing financial documents I kept seeing that and thinking it was something that needed to be updated!

    21. Gazebo Slayer*

      I tend to use an allcaps phrase in brackets, like [INSERT NAME LATER] and also highlight them, to make sure I don’t miss them.

    22. Quill*

      My official edit mark is [Add data] or [Statistics]. The brackets, which I would not be using for literally anything else, make it easy to search [*]. If you use xx you’ll also pick up mentions of Exxon, and xxx, while searchable, doesn’t always tell me what I wanted there! Especially if I need a reminder that I want [January Right First Time Final Statistics] or something equally wordy.

    23. Quinalla*

      This whole XXX = porn is hilarious to me. I mean, sure, in that context I get it as it is a symbol folks use to represent adult/porn on signs, etc., but in a word doc or math problem, X or XX or XXX is such a common placeholder it is laughable that this person is getting so bent out of shape about it. I use X’s myself (usually I highlight them too so they are even easier to find) the same way and then occasionally Y’s and so on as well.

    24. Donkey Hotey*

      One eXXXtra note about the co-worker’s overwrought reaction.

      A man goes to see a psychiatrist, says he’s obsessed with sex.
      Doc gives him a free association test.
      Doc draws a vertical line. “What do you see?” – “A naked woman standing up.”
      Doc draws a horizontal line. “What do you see?” – “A naked woman laying down.”
      Doc draws a bent line. “What do you see?” – “A naked woman sitting in a chair.”
      Doc says, “Well, that settles it. You’re clearly obsessed with sex.”
      Man says, “What do you mean, doc? You’re the one drawing the dirty pictures.”

    25. Cyrus*

      Placeholders in documents drive me nuts at work. I almost always use Microsoft Word’s comment functionality for that. You can navigate from one comment to the next and there’s no danger of people missing it and it staying in place until later versions or the final draft. The new version even makes distinctions between top-level comments and replies to other comments and lets you “resolve” comments without deleting them.

      The thing that drives me nuts is that so few other people use them, or even read existing comments. Some people tend to open documents in a mode that makes them harder to see. Lots of people reply to comments in the text of the document instead of comment bubbles, probably even if a document already has comments. All of this is taking place in the same office, where everyone has the same version of Word, so there are no technical issues. How can we make this more standard? I have no idea. Half the time the problem is with someone on my boss’s or grand-boss’s level anyway.

    26. JSPA*

      I use XXXXXX. It’s long enough that whatever I’m about to drop in will likely fit with the same formatting. Unlike “triple-X,” there are no connotations. Go ahead and google, it’s work-safe. And you can document that this is a default way of indicating “data not shown” or “data not available” without anything regrettable popping up when you do so.

      The evil me wants to say, “Oh, do you have some sort of filter to highlight triple-X material?” (No, don’t do this.)

    27. Kiwiii*

      I usually use something like [NUMBER] or [????] but don’t have any problem with XXX. It’s practical as a placeholder and is obviously not meant as any kind of adult allusion. I wonder if a different repeating letter might work the same, though, if coworker really becomes annoying about it. Maybe ZZZ so she can harp about it putting her to sleep.

    28. Sarah*

      I think XXX is fine in most cases, but I will say that I’ve seen this bite someone before. They were drafting a marketing email and put in a placeholder url (XXX(dot)com) and then accidentally sent the email to customers. As you might expect, this links to a rather explicit website. So just don’t use it in that context!!

    29. bluephone*

      OP’s coworker is a loony tunes but this might not be a hill worth dying on. Something like [PLACEHOLDER] should be a suitable replacement.

      Coworker is still looney tunes though.

    31. Curmudgeon in California*

      If someone was tweaked by XXX I would just search and replace with ZZZ. But then the nitpicker would ask why you were trying to put people to sleep. YYY is a question, WWW is the world wide web. NNN implies a number, MMM indicates tasty. SSS is a snake hiss.

      The idea behind using blocks of capital letters is to use something that would otherwise not be found in the text as a marker of “blank space”. If she thinks of that as “porn”, she doesn’t understand why XXX is used wrt porn.

    32. Glitsy Gus*

      I’ve always used XXX as the placeholder as well, so does almost everyone in my company and most other places I’ve worked. I do admit that sometimes I do giggle to myself when I type it because I’m 12, and other folks I work with have admitted they do as well, but it’s harmless.

      If she’s going to make a big ol’ stink about it then maybe add a fourth X if you want your life to be easier, but otherwise maybe just go with the, “I have no idea what you’re talking about… why would that be offensive? It’s a standard space filler because it’s easy to search?”

  3. namelesscommentator*

    #2. I highly suggest that you seek out some development opportunities for yourself as a manager and employer. I left an employer in part over not-illegal, just difficult, treatment of pregnant and new parent employees. I don’t plan to have kids anytime soon, but I value a workplace that is inclusive. Being unable to discriminate against pregnant women is a pretty baseline thing. You will lose talent over this, and possibly face lawsuits if these are your instincts.
    If you want to be a good employer/person, please educate yourself to do better and not perpetuate systemic inequality.

    1. Pregnant employee*

      I second this. I got pregnant very soon after starting a new job, and a few co-workers told me afterwards that they were keenly watching to see what would happen because if I was treated poorly, they’d be reassessing their own plans over the next few years. A mass exodus is going to be a lot more expensive than accommodating family planning (in case you need a fiscal reason). My workplace has been almost unimaginably supportive and aside from how wonderful that’s been for me personally, I think a lot of my co-workers are very encouraged by this, regardless of whether they want to have kids themselves.

      1. AvonLady Barksdale*

        I had a lot of issues with a past employer, but I identify the breaking point as the time my pregnant co-worker’s husband got an amazing job opportunity and asked to change job locations. She was already remote, technically, but she went to a client site twice a week. We were all very space-agnostic; everyone had remote capabilities and worked from home at least once a week.

        They told her she couldn’t move. Even though the client was willing to work it out. Even though she was moving to a state where we had an office. They said it was because they didn’t want any remote workers. Two weeks later, someone else had to move to another city for a personal matter and she was allowed to work remotely. I was convinced they took the opportunity to get rid of the pregnant lady. This was a place with no health insurance and had never needed a mat leave policy.

        That’s the long way of agreeing that these things matter to the rest of the team.

      2. mrs__peel*

        Abosolutely.

        I don’t have kids and probably never will, but how an employer treats their pregnant employees says a lot to me about how I’m likely to be treated (e.g.) if I become ill, if I need to care for an elderly relative, etc. There are a lot of human situations besides pregnancy where fair dealing and compassion come into play for employees.

    2. Gingerblue*

      Chalk me up as another person with no intention of ever having kids who has watched this sort of situation closely. A workplace that treats my coworker badly today is one that will treat me badly tomorrow. (And even if they still treat me well, they’re sucky humans who I don’t want to be around.)

      1. Not a Blossom*

        Same. I’m not having children, but if I saw this happen, I would absolutely be looking for a new job.

      2. BadWolf*

        And if they treat someone who gets pregnant badly…how are they feeling about all the women in the office? Maybe you shouldn’t give a plum assignment to a woman because she might get pregnant because she just got married. Or her child is 2 so she’s problem going to have another one soon. Or just a general unconscious bias towards new project assignment.

        1. I GOTS TO KNOW!*

          My mother constantly tells me I shouldn’t mention my kids, even in an offhand way, in an interview because I won’t get hired over someone without kids.

          That’s information I want to have. If I am going to be treated badly because I have kids, why would I want to work there? I am interviewing the company too, and if they look down on women who have children, it isn’t the place for me.

          1. TXAdmin*

            THIS! I’ve recently been interviewing at a few places and I’ve made a point to mention my daughter because I don’t want to work somewhere that would think less of me because im a 30 year old mom. But almost every place has then asked me more than once if having a kid means im less flexible or unable to travel….

            1. sunny-dee*

              I can *almost* see the point about asking for travel (although I disagree with it) — my job got restructured, and I went from traveling once every 2-3 months to 2-3 times per month, and it is killer with a young child. I’m grateful for my job (especially since my husband was laid off about 3 months after I returned from maternity leave), but if I had the option, I’d kill the travel. But there are a million things other than having children that can make travel difficult or undesirable — pets, caring for elderly parents, having a fixer-upper house, a medical condition, a fear of flying, serious side hobbies like being a musician, being a newlywed, being in counseling. If travel is a big part of the job, then the focus should be on their travel expectations, not whether you have a kid. And if it isn’t a big part of the job, then “she has a kid so travel is hard” shouldn’t even be part of the calculation.

            2. Jadelyn*

              The travel question actually makes sense, just from a logistics standpoint. Regardless of your gender or family situation, having a child means an extra layer of responsibility and planning needed for travel.

              My coworker, with whom I share an office, and I just traveled to and from our HQ office across the country for an event. She has 3 kids, a husband, and plenty of family local who could help with childcare – but she still had to take a red-eye flight in that had her arriving 6am the day the event started, and left a bit early on the last day of the event to fly home that night since she couldn’t get anyone to take the kids to school the following day. I have no kids, just a cat, and I flew out the day before the event and flew home the day after, and the worst logistical headache I had to deal with was whether to take a shuttle or pay to park my car at the airport for a few days, since my mom had just had surgery and couldn’t drive me as we usually do for each other.

              Of course, the way the question is asked is pretty critical for this – you wouldn’t want to ask about “less flexibility” or about being “unable” to travel – but I don’t see anything wrong with making sure you and the employer are on the same page re travel, if the position requires it.

              1. TXAdmin*

                I absolutely understand asking about travel because it was part or the roles but in every instance it was traveling MAX of 2-3 times per year for major functions that come with months of pre-planning. But the emphasis on whether or not I could travel at all because I’m a mom, even after I said that travel with some advanced notice (specified at 1-2 weeks) would be no problem at all, they still seemed wildly hesitant or like I was lying.

                1. Jadelyn*

                  Fair enough – there’s asking, and then there’s disbelieving, which it sounds like was what you experienced, and which is shitty of them.

          2. Glitsy Gus*

            Yeah, I could see your mom’s reasoning if you’re really desperate and just need to get a paycheck STAT, but if you have any kind of room for preference you want to know if a company is going to be a jerk about kids.

        2. A*

          This! I’m in my early 30s – single, no kids. Every manager I’ve had (across two employers) in the last five years has baited me to get a feel for where my head is at family planning wise (“oh you were babysitting this weekend? I remember babysitting when I was younger, and it taught me I don’t want to have kids” [stares waiting for agreement & indication of being like minded].

          I immediately move on to another topic. Little do they know that I very much plan on having a family – I just haven’t met the right person yet :)

      3. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

        Very much same. How you handle pregnant and new parent employees tells me a great deal, even when I’ll never be one of those! It’s one of those things that’s highly indicative of attitudes and broader philosophies at the top.

      4. Quill*

        Always a good idea: how a workplace treats a pregnant woman is a fair barometer of how they’ll treat a woman with ANY medical problem or perceived future lack of complete availability…

        1. Jadelyn*

          Yep, this. As someone who’s…let’s call it woman-adjacent (nonbinary but am generally read as female bc I can’t do androgyny) and invisibly disabled, I don’t ever plan on having kids but I’m paying a lot of attention to how the company treats women who do get pregnant and have kids, because that’s a strong predictor of how they’ll treat me if my condition requires accommodation.

          1. Quill*

            Lady, childfree, not looking forward to the probably inevitable degradation of my already subpar joints. Pregnancy is an excellent barometer for workplaces I’ll be able to survive in…

      5. Turquoisecow*

        Many years ago my company hired a woman who was pregnant. I’m not sure if she disclosed before being hired or right after, as I didn’t find out until she’d been there a week or so (and we worked closely together).

        A while later, maybe while she was out on maternity leave or shortly before, my boss – who was not her boss, but was on the same level as and friends with her boss – said something to the effect of how convenient it was that she qualified for health insurance with us before she went out on leave. He had clearly thought about the timing of it and suspected that she wouldn’t return after maternity leave. I was appalled that he thought getting the job was some sort of scam – get pregnant, stay at the job long enough to get health insurance, have the baby, then quit.

        It was an absurd scheme for several reasons, not the least of which you obviously need health insurance after the baby is born, she already has another child (I think he was 5 at the time?) and she needed, you know, the paycheck. The whole thing kind of indicated to me my boss’s kind of backward view of the idea of pregnancy and how these things worked.

        1. Jadelyn*

          That’s awful. And yeah, a lot of people seem to view the situation as though their employees are getting pregnant at them – like it’s a plot or a scheme to take advantage of the poor manager/employer. There’s a weird level of suspicion that gets leveled at pregnant folks who get pregnant around the time they’re looking for or getting a new job, and it’s really kind of telling on the person’s biases around gender and pregnancy.

        2. Frank Doyle*

          Also, it’s okay to want to have health insurance when you’re having a baby. Like, if you are pregnant or hoping to be soon, and also looking to change jobs, of COURSE you’re going to take health insurance into account. It would be INSANE to have a kid whilst in between health insurance coverages if you have any choice in the matter.

      6. aebhel*

        Yep. Pregnancy isn’t the only reason someone might need accommodations. I’m the only person at my job who’s had kids in recent memory, but plenty of people have needed to take FMLA to deal with health issues or to care for aging parents, and someone who’ll fire an employee for being pregnant is someone who’ll fire an employee for taking time off to care for a sick family member. People with options don’t want to work for that kind of employer.

        (Also, I was 8 weeks pregnant when I started my current job. I’ve worked there for 6 years now and have got nothing but great performance reviews. Consider the long game, here.)

      7. Tina Belcher's Less Cool Sister*

        Right, because if it’s not pregnancy it will be time off to care for an ailing parent, or a personal crisis like divorce, or recovery from illness or accident.

    3. Akcipitrokulo*

      Yes. I’m past age where it’s an issue for me but I would quit if anyone was treated badly for being pregnant. And make sure *everyone* knew why.

      OP2 – if it is legal because of your size, you would lose goodwill. You would lose good staff. You would lose reputation. and you would lose customers.

      And it would make you the kind of person you really don’t want to be.

      1. RoadsLady*

        These reasons here.

        No matter your field, you don’t want to be “that person.”

        And no, you’re not impressing the other employers with your “driven, work-focused ways”.

        1. Anonny*

          My mum got fired for being pregnant with me, nearly 30 years ago. (It was legal.) There were a lot of other horrible things that boss did, which is why mum is good at dealing with difficult people, but firing her for being pregnant is why his name is prefaced with ‘that w@nker’.

          1. RoadsLady*

            He deserves it.

            I don’t react well to employers who fuss unduly over employee rights.

            I’ve seen people who state they try to avoid hiring women (always about pregnancy/motherhood), people of XYZ religion (while the other letter is on my mind), and other things that are part of being a person.

            Elsewhere on the interweb an online buddy whom I usually admire says he hates seeing pregnant teachers– he doesn’t understand why they took the job if they were just going to go on leave.

            2. Quill*

              It’s almost like people who work with children are often of a demographic that’s likely to be having some!

            3. wittyrepartee*

              Because they like to have money, pension, health benefits, and a life outside the home? Because it’s good to have a job history and a second income in case something happens to their significant other (assuming that their S.O. is in the picture)? Because they like kids enough to find it fulfilling to both teach them and have their own?

            4. Jadelyn*

              “I don’t react well to employers who fuss unduly over employee rights.”

              This. I work in HR, in California. I have zero patience for employers who whine about how much “employees can get away with” here. Wahh, wahh, wahh. If you want to run a business, grow up and deal.

              To me, it’s exceedingly telling of how the employer views their staff: as people? Or as things? The kind of employer who sees their staff as people will be flexible (to the extent they can), because they are also people and they understand that Life Just Happens Sometimes. The kind of employer who whines about employees having rights is the kind of employer who sees their staff as cogs in the machine, interchangeable, replaceable.

              And inevitably, that kind of employer treats their staff like crap in other ways as well – it’s never restricted to just the one aspect.

              2. Elizabeth West*

                And inevitably, that kind of employer treats their staff like crap in other ways as well – it’s never restricted to just the one aspect.

                This x 1000000

              4. Curmudgeon in California*

                This.

                Often they make lots of noises about “people” being “assets”, but in practice treat you as fungible “resources”.

                There’s often no way to screen a company for this.

          2. Woman of a Certain Age*

            When I was born, much longer ago, my mother was one of those rare women who wasn’t obviously pregnant and she concealed her pregnancy until the day before I was born because in those days women were expected to quit their jobs altogether when they had a baby. It was the way things were. My mother didn’t work again until my youngest sibling was in first grade.

            1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

              After I had my oldest, I didn’t work full-time and in my field until we moved to the US four years later. The one time I came close to getting a full-time job in my field, my former boss, who’d changed jobs and tried to bring me in to be on his new team, was told “no, we don’t hire women”. My home country had extremely generous maternity leave at the time (something like three months with full pay and then 15 more months with partial pay, and then you could stay on unpaid leave until your child was six years old, iirc). But the economy was tanking, people were losing their life savings, and we needed money to eat. And I was told by my employer to just stay on unpaid leave for as long as I could. We could not afford that.

              What impressed me the most was that they brought in a full-time replacement for me – a single guy with no kids – before my son was even born. I was one of their most valuable team members, and the minute I walked out the door, there was a man sitting in my seat. I guess that should’ve told me right away how the next few years were going to go for me career-wise. 26 years later, I still get so angry each time I think of it.

              1. sunny-dee*

                Actually, that’s one reason I oppose European-style maternity leave. I understand (and have used!) 3 month maternity leave. A 3-6 month leave is not common but is reasonable for so many things, not just maternity leave — pretty much any kind of serious medical situation. That’s the kind of thing that a company can reasonably absorb and also offer as a decent support to its employees. But I have friends in Czech Republic that have 4 year maternity leave and I think they were trying to extend it (I don’t know if it’s all paid) — and at that point, it’s such a massive burden on the employer that it really does become a reasonable question: “Do I hire this childbearing age woman at the risk that she could just be gone for FOUR FREAKING YEARS?” Because even if she’s not pregnant now and is happily single and doesn’t want to change yet, that could change in 18 months, and then I’m screwed as a company.

                1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

                  Canada seems to be doing fine with one year. I agree that 4 years is excessive, but 3 months is next to nothing. At an OldJob we had a couple at one of our Canada plants who were both in key positions (iirc, she was a scheduler on the shop floor and he was a shift manager maybe?) and when they had a baby, she took the first six months off and he the other six. That worked out very well for the company, and I say that as someone who had to work with them almost every day on production support issues.

                2. Elizabeth West*

                  When I worked in food service, people would come back after two weeks. At that level of income, you can’t afford to stay home very long at all.

            2. Kathleen_A*

              While in the early stages of pregnancy with my older brother, my mother was asked, “Are you planning on starting a family?” (which was also a legal question then). She said no, her reasoning being, “Well, I definitely wasn’t planning on this quite yet!” That reasoning got her the job and a few very useful months of paid work. She’s generally a very, very truthful person, but I must admit that I’m proud of her for figuring out a way to use the system. Because even then, it may have been legal, but “legal” isn’t the same as “right.”

              1. Veronica*

                We do what we need to survive. When I was young I used to answer the question “have you ever been fired?” with “No”. It wasn’t true but it was either lie or turn to crime, because I needed a job to survive.
                Employers who get all huffy about such things are privileged elites who have never had to worry about surviving.

    4. PookieLou*

      I wonder what LW would do if a non-pregnant employee suddenly got sick, their spouse got a job offer in another city, or had some emergency that might cut their employment short of force them to go on extended leave. Would they also feel betrayed because their employment didn’t work out as initially expected? Stuff like that happens all the time. It’s part of life. If somebody is willing to put in 4 months of training and then resume work after extended leave, that should be even easier than working around a sudden permanent departure, right?

      1. Katie the Fed*

        especially given low unemployment right now – it’s not too easy finding and retaining good employees

    5. The Cosmic Avenger*

      As a male, this would also make me walk or possibly run away from an employer. I’d worry that even if they have no knowledge of the law, they’re dangerously uninformed and unsympathetic, qualities that will affect a lot of future decisions.

      1. Kate*

        And just in general… it’s being a bad human to fire someone for being pregnant. I mean, can we all stop pretending like we all LIVE to work every single day? Sure – there are great days at work and really fulfilling careers. But – 99% of people have a life outside of work. Whether your passion is your kids and family, your spouse, your pets, or heck – your lego collection. It doesn’t matter. People are people have lives beyond work. Wanting to fire someone because they’re having a baby is just all kinds of wrong. (Beyond legal reasons.)

        OP, take the energy you are spending on being angry and throw this person and baby shower instead.

        1. Veronica*

          I understand if the LW is upset about being lied to, and not the pregnancy itself.
          However, this is one of those times when an otherwise honest person thought it was necessary to lie to survive. Try to see it in that light and not like she was trying to take advantage.

          1. wittyrepartee*

            It wasn’t even a lie. It was an omission the same as “I didn’t get along with ___ at my last job, and that’s why I’m really leaving” or “It’s possible that my husband’s job will move him in 6-12 months, but I need work in the meantime” during a job interview.

          2. sunny-dee*

            He wasn’t lied to. He feels lied to because he wouldn’t hire a pregnant woman if he knew and so he wanted her to tell him proactively — but that’s not the same as her lying to him. At all.

          3. Jadelyn*

            He wasn’t lied to. No employer is entitled to accurate, complete information on their candidates’ reproductive statuses during hiring. OP feels entitled to that info, but he’s not entitled to it, and he needs to get over that sense of entitlement, because that’s where that feeling of pseudo-betrayal is coming from.

          5. whyisntthiswidelyunderstood*

            Many people don’t announce pregnancies even to their friends and extended family before 3-5 months because miscarriages are so common early in pregnancy. The employee would have been about 3 months along at the time of the interview. Another commenter mentioned this below, but I want to add it to this thread because the LW’s hurt feelings of being “lied to” seem to be the main issue. LW, even this woman’s lifelong BFF would not feel entitled to an announcement at 3 months. Not mentioning it was not a lie or a trick. Letting an employer know before 5 months sounds very accommodating and trusting on her part—in fact, from the timing I’d suspect she told you asap after tests for fetal abnormalities came back and she felt it was safe to announce widely. Please don’t fire her over some sense that you were cheated out of extremely personal information.

    6. blackcat*

      Yes, this.

      Also, depending on where this is, it may be legal to fire her for not coming back to work after the baby is born. She won’t be FMLA eligible, but she will probably be eligible for the MA equivalent, which kicks in after 3 or 4 months. Other states may have similar rules.

      Legal, but a crap thing to do, and your other employees will notice.

      As further anecdata: an acquaintance of mine had her water break at 21 weeks, was on hospital bed rest for 9, weeks, then had a very premature baby in the NICU. Her employer fired her, smack on the 12 weeks of total leave dot (and she had had to do intermittent FMLA leave for doctors appointments during pregnancy). Baby was 2-3 weeks old, she was still hospitalized herself for post-partum cardiomyopathy (which can kill you!). She tells this to EVERYONE. Sort of like “Hi, my name is Jane, do you know that FormerEmployer is a terrible, terrible company that you should never work for or patronize? No? Let me tell you!” This was all made worse since her entire family’s health insurance was from her job (husband works for himself), so they were out $$$$ for Cobra until they found other insurance. Which… is hard to do when you are in the hospital near death.

      And you know what? A recruiter from that company tried to headhunt my husband. He was like “Oh, you’re with the company that will fire a woman while she and her newborn are in the hospital clinging to life! No. Do not call me again.”

      Don’t be that company. Unless you’re hiring unskilled workers in an area where they are plentiful, treating employees like crap WILL make it hard to hire and retain good workers.

      1. Super Admin*

        Your husband’s response to their recruiter is beautiful and hopefully made them consider finding a more compassionate employer.

        1. blackcat*

          I don’t think so. The recruiter said, “I don’t know why a real man would care about something like that.” And hung up on my husband before my husband could!

          BUT I also wanted to offer a story on the flip side of this. I’m an academic, in a male dominated field. I interviewed at one place where someone said, off hand, ” I wasn’t the first person who was pregnant I was hired!” (I was asking folks where they lived while out to dinner, and she described how it was close enough that it only took 15 minutes to “waddle while heavily pregnant.” from her apartment to the department.) I’m STILL sad I didn’t get that job! The fact that there were multiple women (at least 3 I heard about) who started the job while pregnant in a field that is traditionally not welcoming to women was a HUGE plus for me. It was also part of a general good culture there.

          1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

            The recruiter said, “I don’t know why a real man would care about something like that.” And hung up on my husband

            What kind of an evil company from hell is that?!?! Do they do, like, reverse personality tests when they hire? “Sorry, the tests showed you have too much human decency to work for us.”

            1. Myrin*

              Right? That must be the most unsatisfactory reaction to an extremely satisfying comeback that I’ve ever heard. (The “the recruiter hung up first” part made me legitimately furious! Still an amazing reaction by your husband, blackcat, and I adore your second story!)

            2. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

              I am hoping that it means that the recruiter had been hearing a similar response from everyone or nearly everyone they talked to and were getting completely frustrated in trying to hire for that shitty company.

          2. Joaquin Apart*

            Missed opportunity for an e-mail from your husband (which works best if the recruiter is male) :

            “We seem to have been disconnected earlier today. I was about to answer that a real man would care about something like that since it could be indicative of the company culture.

            Any time you find yourself wondering what a real man would do, I will be happy to assist.”

          3. Quill*

            That recruiter has officially passed into the “cuss a phone worker out” territory, a place that is usually only reserved for scam telemarketers and people who try to raise money for organizations that fight against human rights.

          4. tangerineRose*

            A real man cares about things like this. Also, if the company does this to a woman, they might easily do this to a man who gets sick.

      2. Septemberisalmostover*

        A friend of mine was fired after her 12 weeks of FMLA were up, while caring for her dying husband. He had relatively routine surgery, developed an infection and battled for his life for several months. He ended up passing away. It was awful. She does something similar, when the company is named.

        2. Old and Don’t Care*

          I think some employers believe that they “have” to terminate after FMLA is expired or be open to discrimination claims if they don’t treat everyone exactly equally after FMLA runs out. I’ve heard such discussions; fortunately they ended up being hypothetical.

        3. Rainy*

          My first (late) husband’s manager tried to fire him for job abandonment while he was still in the hospital from the stroke she worked him into. He later died of that stroke.

          When I called her to notify her that he’d had a stroke and was going to be in the hospital for a while, she demanded to know when he would be back to work, and then apparently something else. I don’t remember anything past her snotty demand, but I’m told two orderlies had to pry the phone out of my hand and hang up on her and then try to calm me down, because I saw red and everything else is just a blur.

          I tell people her name, and I check in on her on LinkedIn pretty often. Someday I’m going to have the chance to do her a very bad turn, and I want to make sure that I take that opportunity.

          1. Gazebo Slayer*

            OMG. I am so, so sorry that happened to you and your husband, and I hope you have an opportunity for doing that waste of space a *spectacularly* bad turn.

      3. HotSauce*

        Even if you are hiring unskilled workers in an area where they are plentiful this kind of thing can kill your reputation. The company I work for has really had to work hard to rebuild their reputation over the past 10 years for junk like this. They now have all kinds of signing bonuses, the starting pay is much higher than a lot of other similar places and they give people three weeks of vacation right away just so they can get bodies in the door. They have a 2.9 rating on Glassdoor now, but a few years ago they had a 1. They still struggle just to keep their machines running due to labor shortages.

      4. Dagny*

        I went through something bad, just not that bad, and have given people the rundown when they asked what it was like to work at that company. So far, about six people have declined interviews because of what happened to me – most of them men.

    7. Emily K*

      I should also note that if she started 4 weeks ago and it’s “almost 5 months” pregnant, that means she was not yet 4 months when she started and was probably just barely 3 months during the interview. Announcing one’s pregnancy at 3 months is the absolute earliest most people will do it, and those having difficult or high-risk pregnancies will often wait till they’re later. LW may not realize how common miscarriage can be and should understand and appreciate that a brand new employee may not have wanted to show up to a new job the day after a miscarriage having already told all the still-basically-strangers that she works with about a pregnancy that she has since lost

      1. cncx*

        yes, a lot of people don’t disclose early and this was my thought too…it wasn’t even lying if you think that people so rarely disclose that early. Heck i’ve known some people who didn’t even know they were pregnant until right at three months.

      2. P.C. Wharton*

        Super +1 to Emily and cncx. What is going on in her uterus is none of your business at any time, LW, but especially at a time when she’s probably not sure herself! Lots of natural terminations (miscarriages) happen at that point in the pregnancy, not to mention she might have still been deciding at that point whether to carry it to term. None. Of. Your. Business.

      3. CmdrShepard4ever*

        I am curious does anyone know since pregnant employee is 5 months along, and they have only been working for a month, in 4 months when the baby is presumably born, she would have only been employed for 5 months and thus not technically eligible for FMLA. Does that mean the employer can fire her for missing any work while the baby is born?

        Many places I have worked will have you on a probationary period for 6 month where you are accruing vacation but you are not allowed to use it, so pregnant employee wouldn’t even be eligible for that?

        1. ElizabethJane*

          Yes, they technically don’t qualify for federal FMLA (but some states have different rules about shorter time periods). I might be messing up the ruling on this one but there is a law (I believe it’s federal) that if you give all employees benefits you can’t instill a waiting period for pregnant people for those same benefits.

          So if insurance starts immediately for all employees you can’t have a 6 month waiting period for pregnant employees.

          You can say nobody can use PTO for 6 months (which is a dumb rule, but I digress) but if employees qualify for STD and LTD immediately you can’t exclude pregnant employees from that group. But for the most part in the US pregnancy is treated like a horrible contagious disease and it’s shameful.

          1. RUKiddingMe*

            And not to put too fine a point on it but unlike a lot (most?) western countries, in addition to abysmal parental leave policies, the US does not require employers to pay for said leave.

            The only way for parental leave to be paid is for employees to take sick leave/PTO/vacation ( however it’s structured) or through the largess of their employer’s policies.

            There are no federal laws of which I am aware, requiring pay for any kind of leave and only a few states have them.

            Here in Washington state we have requirements for X sick time per Y hours worked. I can’t remember it, but I pay people who make sure we comply, plus I/we already have our own way better than any laws policies. Even that is pretty recent as I understand things.

            By “pretty recent” I mean the past couple of years only. Try getting that in BFE, Arkansas* or somewhere.

            *No offense to Arkansas. It’s beautiful there and …full disclosure…I know nothing about state laws.

            It just seems like a place …to me… that wouldn’t be chomping at the bit yo give employees extra protections. I could be completely off base though.

        2. Ann Perkins*

          Employers would generally at least go by how long a doctor would take you off work for – which would be 6 weeks for a vaginal delivery and 8 weeks for a c-section. It’s not enough for most, but it’s at least something.

          1. Clisby*

            That was the case when I had my first child – but that 6 weeks was predicated on my having accumulated 6 weeks of sick leave. (I had accumulated a lot more than that (we got, if I recall, 18 days of sick leave per year and any unused rolled over), so no problem for me – but if I hadn’t had that bank of paid sick days I’d have gone straight to unpaid FMLA.)

      4. Frankie*

        Yeah, this right here is something people don’t think about. The pregnant person has to go through at least a few months of essentially not knowing whether the pregnancy will go to term, and has to continue with life plans as if it won’t.

      5. Quill*

        That struck me too, she may legitimately not have known / known it was actually a viable pregnancy until after her first day!

    8. OhGee*

      I’ll second this and add, when I read the question, I immediately thought, “You absolute ghoul.” Get educated on this stuff, yesterday.

      1. juliebulie*

        Yes. I am amazed by Alison’s cool and tactful reply, because that question made me froth at the mouth.

        1. Jadelyn*

          Same. Right up there with the manager who wanted to scold their employee for quitting when she wouldn’t let her go to her college graduation. Like…do you hear yourself? Do you not realize how bad your own words are making you look to everyone else right now?

    9. steal*

      I agree with the anonymous commenter. I think some personal development courses in being an empathetic manager as well as being up on the laws would be helpful. It also wouldn’t be bad to make good relationships with your HR business partners (assuming they are good HR pros). There are lots of good courses on your LMS (assuming you have one) or thru AMA on managing with empathy. You can also check out SHRM (society for HR management). You need a subscription but again – your HRBP May have have access.

      I’ve worked in HR for over 15 years and this is what I spend a ,majority of my time coaching managers on. Admittedly it frustrates me because there shouldn’t Hagen to be laws to tell people to treat people with respect. But then again if these types of things weren’t commonplace I wouldn’t have a job.

      And Allison I’d like to thank you for your response- it was rather curt and direct which IMO was necessary. I guess it just frustrates me that we need to tell people the importance’s of just doing the right thing as a human.

    10. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

      I gasped when I read #2. And I had both my children while living and working in a country where what OP wants to do was perfectly legal. (Which derailed my career quite a bit.) But, I assume OP is not in that country, and either way, my children are 24 and 26 so a lot has changed worldwide in how we treat pregnant employees. I honestly thought I’d somehow stumbled into a time portal and was now in the past when I saw OP2’s letter.

      OP, if it makes you feel any better, you couldn’t have asked her at the interview if she was pregnant without getting into a world of trouble. And, if you *did* ask her, then this is a bigger problem than I thought.

      I googled “illegal questions in an interview” and this is the very first result that came up. Please memorize it, OP. You wouldn’t want to come back to AAM next year with a letter saying “I thought he was 40, but he’s 50, can I fire him?”

      What interview question topics are illegal?

      Race, Color, or National Origin.
      Religion.
      Sex, Gender Identity, or Sexual Orientation.
      Pregnancy status.
      Disability.
      Age or Genetic Information.
      Citizenship.
      Marital Status or Number of Children.

      1. TheFacelessOldWomanWhoSecretlyLivesinYour House*

        I thought all these things were legal to ask but illegal to base a decision on?

        1. fposte*

          Mostly, yes. Federally speaking, it’s illegal actually to ask about disability; that’s the big ringer. Federally speaking also marital status and parenthood are not protected categories, but there’s some guidance on avoiding those because of disparate impact; sexual orientation/identity is also evolving in guidance. States have tighter rules about some of these, though.

          Aside from my general pedantry, though, I don’t have a problem with somebody who thinks those questions are illegal and therefore doesn’t ask them. There’s no reason to ask them, and if incorrect belief is what discourages somebody, then that’s folklore as a force for good in the world.

          1. Lance*

            All of this. Basically: they’re not illegal to ask, at least for the most part, but you shouldn’t ask because it can easily lend to the image of illegal activity in any decisions made thereafter.

              1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

                That is my thinking, too.

                I’m also thinking, once you’ve asked and received an answer, you’re in a place where people might *suspect* that you have factored the answers in, even if you didn’t. Better off not asking.

                1. Jadelyn*

                  Exactly this – once you’ve asked, you’ve opened yourself up to discrimination lawsuits because once you know, it’s assumed you’ll use it in your hiring decision. You can’t use what you don’t know, so it’s safer legally to just avoid even asking or hearing about those protected factors.

              2. SheLooksFamiliar*

                Sometimes, in very narrow circumstances, some of those topics *are* relevant and can be considered during hiring. There’s such a thing as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ), and an employer can base their hiring decision, in part, on things not normally considered:
                If you work for a religious school and are hiring a teacher, a candidate’s religious beliefs become a hiring factor;
                If you work for the government and are hiring for a civil service role with mandatory retirement at a certain age, a candidate’s age becomes relevant;

                And so on. Again, this is a narrow application, but this is why there is no law that bans asking these questions outright.

                The only truly illegal question right now, in certain states, is about salary history.

                1. fposte*

                  And disability. That’s illegal to ask about by federal law.

                  BFOQs are their own special hell, but most people who are in fields where they’re viable are at least familiar with them (as with the acting example elsewhere).

                2. SheLooksFamiliar*

                  My in house and outside legal counsel have both advised me and previous employers of mine that this is not an illegal question. There are rarely valid business reasons for asking, and they strongly advise against asking.

                  However, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability (ADA), as it should be.

                3. Natalie*

                  @ SheLooksFamiliar:

                  Literally directly from the text of the ADA:

                  (2) Preemployment

                  (A) Prohibited examination or inquiry

                  Except as provided in paragraph (3), a covered entity shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.

                  (B) Acceptable inquiry

                  A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions.

            2. Oh No She Di'int*

              Right. This is also why everyone involved in the hiring process at any level must be briefed on these practices. My workplace typically has a group or peer interview as part of the second interview portion. These tend to be more casual and chatty. It can be very, very easy for an current employee to say something like: “I have 2 kids and I find it really easy to schedule my work around them. Do you have any kids?” or “Hey, I went to Jackson High, too! When did you graduate?” Not out of conniving malice, but simply because they are getting along so well. Caution is required.

              1. Anonna Miss*

                This. A lot of people do know better, in theory, but get to making small talk during a more casual part of the interview, like lunch. “Oh? You just got back vacation in China visiting family? What city? My husband’s family is from Shanghai, and I’m going for the first time over New Year’s.” “You coach little league? How fun! Do you coach your own kids – how’s that?” Etc. No malice intended, or even decision making, most of the time. But those conversations can take a left turn quickly, so it’s definitely best that people don’t ask, but people can err whilst being human, after all.

    11. YouCanGoHomeAgain*

      I went on a job interview many moons ago and got the job. I started the following week. I wasn’t pregnant when I went on the interview, but was when I started the job. Lol. Luckily, they were fantastic and super supportive.

    12. Bee Eye Ill*

      If #2’s employee had cancer instead of a pregnancy, I bet they wouldn’t say a word. Things happen. People have lives outside of work. Employers quite often fail to recognize or even care about that.

      1. juliebulie*

        I would not take that bet. I’ve had bosses who resented employees for getting sick, and you can find plenty of examples in AAM’s archives.

        1. Jadelyn*

          Sadly, I’m with you. We always like to think “you wouldn’t say that in X situation!” but…time has amply demonstrated that a horrifying number of people would, in fact, say that in X situation, for literally any value of X.

      2. Autumnheart*

        It’s common to magically get fired if you get cancer, because the cost of your treatment uses up the premium pool for the entire company.

    13. Dust Bunny*

      I second/third/whatever this and I do not and never will have children. You employ humans. They sometimes produce other humans. Don’t be That Boss.

      1. wittyrepartee*

        And if you’re nice enough about it, they may become your most loyal employees. I’ve watched how my division treats pregnancy and parental leave (well, the best I’ve ever heard of or seen outside of some big tech companies). I’m much more likely to stick around because of it.

    14. Parenthetically*

      This is a very kind way to say what I was trying to say. Any manager who doesn’t realize it’s against the law to discriminate against a pregnant woman absolutely needs more education and development.

    15. DeeS*

      I am currently pregnant and working at organization that Is happy to accomodate almost anything (leaving early when sick, working from home etc.). And note, that in my country, parental leave is paid up to four years (most parents choose to stay home for three years), so my organization is not doing it with the image of me being back few weeks after childbirth.

    16. JoJo*

      She’s five months pregnant, which she didn’t disclose. She’s also just one month into her 90-day probationary period. If there is any other major business-altering thing she’s not being upfront about maybe she should be terminated on those grounds. Seriously.

        1. Pomona Sprout*

          I know, right?? I’m even more aghast at that comment than I was at the original question (which is saying quite a bit)!

          Read before replying, people, lol!

      3. Namelesscommentator*

        Wow. Absolutely not. Pregnancy should have absolutely no consideration in probationary parents. Pregnant people owe you NOTHING with regards to information about their pregnancy.

        Sincerely hoping you are not in a position to hire/fire/manage.

      5. Hills to Die on*

        The law and morality don’t always align but they do in this case. You are not a nice person and neither is the OP.

        1. ampersand*

          This was my thought, too. OP can review the law and receive training on why this is not okay, but…I think they’re still not a nice person for even asking the question. For the most part, you can’t educate/train someone into being nice.

      6. JSPA*

        JoJo and OP:

        She’s pregnant, not incompetent. The state of one’s uterus is not, ever, an appropriate line on a resumé, so there was literally nothing to disclose when applying. And in fact, if she’d disclosed while you were hiring, you’d have set yourself up for a discrimination lawsuit by not hiring her, so she did you a favor by not sharing. (As has been covered at length here in prior questions.)

        Whether you see this as a life event or a medical issue, the one thing that it ISN’T is any sort of fraud. (Heck, some people don’t even know that they are pregnant until several months in. Not going to go into the biological details of the several ways that’s possible. People can google. It’s not rare.)

        Anyway, if this is in the US, she’s unlikely to be out for more than 6 weeks, and quite possibly only for a couple-three of weeks. Not out of line with other unexpected medical events that happen to employees. Basically, it’s not only going to be offensive to most people, as well as probably illegal to fire her; it’s also going to register as being pretty deeply weird to think that her reproduction is any of your business. Or to take it personally, or to even make noise about wanting to fire her.

        I don’t want to say that this is misogynistic, because we don’t know if OP would try to do the same for a new hire who’d found out that his back pain required surgery and 6 weeks of rehab. Which would also register as hugely problematic, but not misogynistic. But really, most people don’t want to work for a business whose finances or staffing are so iffy that accommodating a blip like this would be a problem. Or one where the manager would take normal personal privacy as some sort of lie or personal affront.

      8. Jadelyn*

        …well, that was appalling to read. Do you really think that all applicants have an obligation to disclose the status of their reproductive organs during a job interview, such that it’s acceptable to fire someone for not having made that disclosure pre-hire?

        If there is any justice in the universe, you will never be a manager in a position to make these sorts of decisions. Seriously.

      9. Autumnheart*

        Would you fire a man whose wife was 5 months pregnant, and who didn’t tell you in the interview that he’d be adding a newborn to his health insurance, and taking family leave?

        Except for the actual health considerations of childbirth, the situation is almost as much of a burden on a male employee as a female one.

    18. Curmudgeon in California*

      Waaaay back in the 80s, before we had the laws to protect pregnant people, the company hired a gal who almost immediately after she started tested as pregnant. She was worried about being fired. She was shocked when the department held a baby shower for her, and held her job open for when she came back from leave.

      That was a year before the merger where they treated us all like dung and laid us all off. The culture comes from the top.

  4. Fortitude Jones*

    OP #3: In my line of work, we use carrots and the word “ClientShort” to denote a placeholder (e.g., <>). I also highlight that placeholder in yellow in Word so I remember to go back to it or other writers who use the boiler will know to change it after inserting it into their drafts. This could be an option should you decide to stop using Xs because your coworker is overdramatic.

    1. Fortitude Jones*

      Ugh, this site changed my comment – the clientShort would be in between two carrots on either side.

        1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          Yes—they’re the greater than and less than signs (< and >). But because Alison’s site uses basic HTML for comments, the carrots won’t appear unless you use their HTML character codes, in this case (without spaces): & lt ; and & gt ;

        3. Actually*

          Actually (programmer here) the caret is this symbol: ^

          these are angle brackets, or less than and greater than symbols.

          1. bookartist*

            And here I thought that was a typographical detail that only I noticed. I don’t have a ton of exposure to coders but I’m on the Product team at work, and the ones I know call angle brackets, as you note incorrectly, carets.

    2. fogharty*

      I often use XXX as well; never considered it might be porny. Lorem ipsum is my favorite for large amounts of placeholder text, although this once confused a supervisor who was unfamiliar with the practice (wanted to know why I suddenly was writing in a different language) and I just had a conversation with a co-worker about emphasizing text that will have to be changed; she prefers yellow highlighting vs. red text.

      Probably should come up with a standard method.

      2. Seeking Second Childhood*

        I’ll point out that color is often not searchable, which makes it dicey in long documents.

        1. Annisele*

          Colour also falls over when the colleague you ask to review your document turns out to be colour blind. I’ve learned my lesson on that one!

        2. fogharty*

          Color and highlights are searchable in MS Word, though.

          Never thought about a collaborator being color-blind… that’s a very good point.

      3. Slanted & Enchanted*

        I always use Lorem Ipsum for placeholders that are a sentence or longer—shout out to http://www.lipsum.com for generating all the Lorem Ipsum I’ve ever needed. I’ve grown to delight in the number of confused people who come back to me saying, I don’t understand why this paragraph suddenly went into Latin… :)

        1. Allonge*

          In Word, you can also type =lorem() and insert in the brackets the number of paragraphs you want. Hit enter!

    3. Neosmom*

      I have always used three identical letters to indicate a particular placeholder. In addition, if I need more than one, I use different identical letters. “Please write to the XXX to request YYY service as well as the associated ZZZ .” Would your co-worker think I was both porny with XXX and sleepy with ZZZ?

    2. Sleepy*

      I once used XXX as an email placeholder when I couldn’t remember the recipient’s name…then I saw it in my drafts folder and thought, why is this in drafts? Send! So yeah, my email to a scholar of Chinese calligraphy began “Dear XXX,”…

    3. Mockingdragon*

      An RPG company I work with has a specific note in its style guide that we use XXX for our placeholder, and not XX, because it’s just possible that a fantasy or sci-fi setting might have a name or word with double Xes in it, LOL

    4. Jennifer Thneed*

      SO many years ago, my boss questioned my use of f/u in notes (meaning “follow up”) and then told me not to use it because it looked to her like I was saying, well, “Eff You”, and she worried that someone else might also think so. I was a little baffled but I agreed and went on with my day. Later that week she came back to me and said that she now knew that it was an incredibly common abbreviation and everyone used it the way I used it and I should just go right ahead and keep on using it.

      I learned a couple of things that week: acronyms are not universal, and my boss was a really good egg.

  6. StaceyIzMe*

    It’s really hard to believe that somebody would write in asking if they can terminate someone for failing to disclose a pregnancy or for being pregnant. It’s so misogynistic that it’s hard to believe that anyone wouldn’t consider this an overtly hostile act. Law may allow for termination of employees in some circumstances (or not disallow for it, as Alison cites). But- WOW is that hostile! That reminds me of the anecdote about the dentist who fired his hygienist because she was too attractive and he and his wife didn’t think it was very prudent to employ her. Now, mind you, she’d never done a single improper thing, but her inconvenient femaleness was apparently such a danger to his ethical equilibrium that he had no compunctions about dismissing a skilled employee that he’d already hired because something improper MIGHT occur in HIS brain. It’s the same thing here. “You’re pregnant and that inconveniences me. So- out ya go!” Really? Oh my stars and garters…

    1. Acornia*

      Right? He’s asking what HIS RIGHTS are. As if he has any rights over someone else’s pregnancy.
      Her pregnancy = not your business = you don’t have any rights.
      Just be a decent human being and employer, and stop thinking you have rights over your employee’s bodies.

      1. valentine*

        This pregnancy discrimination is very different from casting an employee as a Jezebel, and OP2 isn’t necessarily a man.

        2. Falling Diphthong*

          I read OP as a woman.

          And the whole reason for the law is that “Jane is pregnant? Inconvenient–fire her” is a thing that has happened. A lot.

      2. JamieS*

        OP isn’t saying anything about having rights over someone else’s body or pregnancy. Their question is on employment rights. They’re asking if they have rights in regards to employing the person and are most likely asking because it’s a new employee who won’t even be trained before they have to find someone else, train them, and then probably re-train the current employee when they get back.

        Regardless of OP being in the wrong, they’re not in the wrong by virtue of trying to control someone else’s body and approaching it like that’s what they’re doing is neither accurate nor helpful.

      3. ACDC*

        Unless I missed something in the letter, we don’t know that OP is a man. I’ve seen this kind of behavior from female managers towards pregnant workers, so I don’t think it would be fair to assume gender in this scenario but I understand the impulse to do so.

    2. Ask a Manager* Post author

      In fairness to the OP, the thinking isn’t usually “I want to fire someone for being pregnant.” It’s “four months after she starts, she’s going to be gone for months; she’ll barely be trained yet and I hired her because I needed someone doing the work that now she won’t be here to do.”

      Obviously it’s not okay regardless, but it’s useful to know where it’s coming from.

      1. Phil*

        Yeah, I think it was more of a blind-sided thing than anything. Obviously he’s still in the wrong, but I like to think he really wasn’t as douchey as he (hopefully inadvertantly) made himself out to be.

        1. Pomona Sprout*

          Your willingness to give OP the benefit of the doubt is admirable. However, the fact that he seemed to be majorly offended that she didn’t tell him she was pregnant before accepting the job made him seem pretty darned douchey to me!

          As far back as the 80s (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I am old), I can remember being advised not to ever bring up anything about childbearing plans with a prospective employer, and to do my best to avoid answering questions about the topic if an interviewer was ill-advised enough to bring it up. That this employer seems to think he is ENTITLED to such information before hiring someone kind of blew my mind and leads me to suspect that he somehow missed a few memos along the way about the way pregnancy in the workplace is supposed to be handled in the 21st century.

          1. Jen S. 2.0*

            Yeah, his comment didn’t read that way to me. It read as, “she didn’t tell me she was pregnant, and I feel lied to. Can I ditch her for lying to me?”

            It was indeed firing her for being inconveniently pregnant, but hidden under a firing for dishonesty. Never mind that she had no obligation to disclose, and therefore was not dishonest.

            1. Media Monkey*

              exactly. i read it that they are claiming that they don’t like the fact that she lied, when actually they just want cover to sack someone for being inconveniently female.

              OP – would you have hired her if you had known she was pregnant (and so hadn’t lied)? If not, that is why she didn’t disclose.

              1. Jen S. 2.0*

                Not for nothing, she did not lie. Unless he specifically asked her whether she was preggo and she said that she was not, the idea that she actually lied is moot.

                3. Rusty Shackelford*

                  @captain radish, it’s not *illegal* to ask. It’s discouraged, because it’s illegal to use that information in a hiring decision.

                4. Parenthetically*

                  YUP. And his response is just one giant confirmation that she was 100% right not to disclose it unprompted, because this guy absolutely would have broken the law and used this info against her.

            2. EPLawyer*

              Can’t imagine WHY she would not reveal something so personal to someone who is pretty clear would not have hired if she had revealed this incredbily personal thing.

              LW, I think its time to rethink your office culture. If this how you react to finding out something that an employee had every right to not tell you until absolutely necessary, what else are you holding against employees? What other perfectly normal behavior on the part of your employees makes you feel “betrayed?”

            3. JSPA*

              in fact, disclosing would have put OP in hot water, if they had not hired, possibly on that basis. She did OP a favor, not a disservice. Not to mention we’re assuming she was even sure at the time of the interview or acceptance. (Google “cryptic pregnancy.”)

          2. Barbara Eyiuche*

            At the job interview for my first job out of law school, the senior partner asked if I had children. When I said no, he wanted to know whether I was planning to have any. I decided to answer, but I knew he wasn’t really supposed to be asking that.

            1. Mutt*

              I would have loved to hear a story about replying to that question as if it were a test regarding the legality of asking questions like those in a job interview. Like “ha, I know that one! You are so clever to roll questions on legalities and discrimination into the interview to see how applicants would respond!” and then reply with how you know that although asking is not illegal, it’s illegal to take into consideration in the hiring process, blah blah. Although that would have moved you to the NOPE pile for sure. No way to win.

          3. Thankful for AAM*

            Back in the 80s (I’m old enough to remember too!) the director of the mental health center I worked for did not want to hire a 20 something married woman to run the domestic violence shelter children’s programs bc she might get pregnant someday.

            Joke was on him. She got her doctorate in divinity while being married and having 2 kids and moved up the ranks to run the place. And was great at it.

          4. ACDC*

            Just want to reiterate that we do not know the OP’s gender. I’ve seen female managers act in this same way.

        2. Devil Fish*

          Nah, some of the most blatantly sexist behavior I’ve dealt with at work has been from other women.

          They don’t usually have to go all cloak-and-dagger with it like sexist men because women can’t possibly be misogynists by definition—“I’m just trying to help you because all us girls are in this together!” (vom)

        3. Tin Cormorant*

          I did too! I wasn’t even considering that it might have been a man until I came to the comments.

          1. JamieS*

            Yeah, I think it’s a female too based on the wording. There’s a habit among many in the commentariat of assuming someone is a male if the behavior is especially egregious. This happens even if the commenter usually uses female pronouns so not really surprising most are assuming OP is a male.

        5. Mazzy*

          Yes. I think it’s a way too simplistic reading of the letter above. The point is, is someone “forgets” such important information at the interview phase, they’d killed their credibility and trust with the company, all laws aside

          1. Czhorat*

            Nope.

            It’s illegal to discriminate against a pregnant person. There is no reason for the applicant to disclose it, and every reason not to.

          2. Detective Amy Santiago*

            Are you implying that the pregnant employee did something wrong? Because, wow. If that’s how you feel, I really hope you are not a supervisor of people.

          3. Emily K*

            She didn’t “forget” she was pregnant anymore than she “forgot” her religion or her chronic health condition or her salary history. There is no pretense of forgetting when the interviewer has no right to expect disclosure.

            1. EPLawyer*

              thank you. If you are not required to disclose something and it is illegal to ask about it, you don’t have to bring it up. it is not a lie by omission. It is not forgetting. It is not discussing something that is NOT RELEVANT to whether or not the applicant is qualified for the position.

              Now there are some jobs that knowing someone is pregnant is very very relevant (think working with dangerous chemicals, x-rays, nuclear stuff, not regular office work). But those people in that field, who are applying for jobs know this. This does not sound like that field.

              1. President Porpoise*

                Even then, the employer can’t make the employee work in another role unless the employee states that they are pregnant. Personally, I’d rather take some time doing less risky work than risk my child might get exposed to something terrible, but some people might feel differently (because of potential pay decrease, poor hours, risk of looking like not a team player, being unwilling to disclose for fear of retribution by the employer, or even just not being ready to share that they’re pregnant – which is super fun, because that first trimester is the worst time to have your baby exposed to that crap).

                For context, I used to work at a training center where we taught people how to handle radiological material, among other things, and this was a frequent question.

          4. BRR*

            Looking at it from a different perspective, I think it would come across poorly (maybe not the right word) if a candidate said in an interview, “oh by the way I’m five months pregnant.”

            1. doreen*

              I had someone tell me during an interview last week that she’s about 8 1/2 months pregnant. It really annoyed me because it was an internal interview for a transfer , and the way things work around here , it wouldn’t take effect for at least a couple of months so the only reason I could think of for her to say that was to “set the stage” for a discrimination complaint if she wasn’t chosen. And it was very likely she wouldn’t be chosen , as she’s been passed over multiple times before when she wasn’t pregnant

              1. sunny-dee*

                I’ve actually wondered about this. I’ve been approached about an internal transfer, but the hiring manager who approached me doesn’t know I’m 5 1/2 months pregnant (my immediate manager does and told me not to say anything). I know he can’t ask, even if someone tells him (it’s not a secret), and I’ve wondered if it would be more fair to him to let him know.

                (I also love my current manager, so I’m on the fence about moving. My project team is the worst, which is the only reason I’d consider moving because my management team and peers are awesome.)

          5. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

            Hahaha, no.

            Then again, I don’t disclose my age and health status in interviews, either. Don’t care what you think that says about my credibility.

            1. Quill*

              I don’t tell people that I have specific shoe requirements for medical reasons during the interview either!

              Not telling employers that you’re a human with a body that doesn’t always work exactly as planned isn’t deception.

          6. Aquawoman*

            Why does it kill their credibility? That presupposes that the person owes it to their employer that — what? they need to prioritize the employer over everything in their personal life?

          7. Fuzzyfuzz*

            Hard disagree. As a matter of course, pregnant women at early stages (or any stages for that matter) usually don’t tell everyone they meet that they’re pregnant. It’s not a matter of dishonesty or conveniently omitting a fact, it’s a matter of privacy and providing information relevant at that moment.

            I’m currently pregnant and had a miscarriage earlier this year. During the “danger phase” this time I was certainly not telling anyone at work–and certainly not anyone with the wet-mop level of emotional intelligence that the OP is displaying. Having to “untell” would be that much worse.

            1. LegallyRed*

              As someone who has had multiple miscarriages, including one in the second trimester when I was supposedly past the danger zone, I can say that no one is getting any information about my next pregnancy until I am ready to tell them. Being overlooked for a job due to pregnancy is one (terrible) thing; being overlooked for a job due to a pregnancy that eventually doesn’t make it would be on another level for me.

          8. Parenthetically*

            Wow. No. Absolutely not. She has no obligation to disclose her reproductive status to anyone and it is illegal for OP2 to factor that into a hiring decision even if she did disclose it.

          9. atalanta0jess*

            No. Any reasonable company understands that people choose to disclose or not disclose their personal medical information at various times for lots of different reasons. They would also understand that it would be very odd (and not that wise) to disclose pregnancy during the interview process.

            A company that doesn’t understand that loses credibility. You’ve got it backwards.

          10. Starbuck*

            It’s certainly not ‘important interview information’ because it has no relevance to the hiring process, is what I think you meant to say.

          12. JSPA*

            She saved OP a pile of problems by not setting him/her up for “illegal discrimination in hiring” by happening to mention it. Same as for all the other things that are problematic to bring up before the offer is made. (assuming USA)

      2. Devil Fish*

        It’s so weird how many different ways there are to read this! I read it as the OP asking if they could fire the new employee for lying (by failing to disclose the pregnancy) rather than the obvious concerns any manager should have in this situation.

        I’ve had a lot of employers who seem to think they can fire people on the spot for lying—regardless of the context or scope of the lie—because it’s “an integrity issue” or whatever, and this is what the letter sounded like (with the bonus of not having to find coverage for the new employee’s mat leave, so win-win, right?).

        Oh hey, speaking of the new employee’s mat leave: will she have any? FMLA won’t apply because she won’t have been in the job for a year before she needs to take leave (unless there’s a pregnancy exception I’ve never heard of before). Does she have any options beyond relying on the mercy of her employer? I’ve worked with women who worked up until they went into labor, then were out for like 2 days before coming back to work but that was rare (and it was always a purely financial decision lining up with very good luck).

        1. Beatrice*

          The Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires US employers with more than 15 employees to treat pregnancy the same as any other serious medical condition. So the amount of time and the level of accommodation you’d give someone off if they needed their appendix removed or needed surgery/ongoing treatment for cancer, for example, needs to be matched with what you do for a pregnant person.

          1. Beatrice*

            The nice thing about the Pregnancy Discrimination act is that it’s more likely to apply than FMLA, and so it affords some additional level of protection to a broader group of people.

      3. Dr. Glowcat Twinklepuff*

        We actually had this discussion during a training recently: two guys were firmly convinced that it was unwise for an employer to hire young women because they were going to get pregnant at some point, which would mean a loss of money for the company. They were also convinced that this was a standard and accepted view, and were very surprised when the rest of the room went “WTF???”. The coaches shut that down immediately, but it was sad to hear such things from two intelligent and otherwise nice people. It’s like the ideas that “women are not really meant for work” and “employing women is inconvenient” are so ingrained in our culture that even good people never think about it. Of course, if you look at it from the financial point of view, they were right… but isn’t it time to admit that the human point of view matters more?

        1. Mary*

          In the UK, there’s a grudging acceptance that MAYBE it’s OK that large companies aren’t allowed to discriminate against pregnant employers, but WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. It annoys the heck out of me that we’re supposed to be positive about small businesses as job creators, great places to work, full of opportunities, don’t just look at the big companies, but there never seems to be any pushback from small companies when their business leaders and spokespeople keep appearing in the media basically saying, “ugh, workers rights, so expensive, can we just not.”

          1. Mazzy*

            That’s because it’s not clearly a rights issue for a small business. In any situation, if you’re hiring someone to do work and then they aren’t going to be there, or they’re horrible at the work, it defeated the purpose of hiring the person.

            1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

              If it’s in the US, they are going to be back there in three months. Why, was the OP not planning on their business to be around for longer than three months?

            2. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

              How is it not clearly a rights issue for a small business? Does working for a small business mean that employees are less deserving of basic protections?

              1. fposte*

                I interpreted Mazzy as meaning “not *simply* a rights issue.” IOW, it’s a logistics, economics, management issue, etc. And I would agree. I work in a small unit in a big employer, so we do, of course, observe the various legalities about protection. But a maternity leave is hell on the other employees here. There’s no such thing as a temp in this area and no budget to hire one if there were.

                I don’t begrudge people their rights and I’m delighted with the ensuing children, but a pregnancy announcement is an “Oh, eff, that’s months with evenings and weekends working.”

                1. Mary*

                  “no budget to hire one if there were” –This is very much a decision that your employer is making, of course.

                3. doreen*

                  The “no budget to hire one” is certainly within the employer’s control but “no such thing as a temp in this area” may not be. There are certainly some jobs where it is easy to find a temp – but I suspect there are plenty of situations in small businesses where it would be both impossible to find someone to fill in on a temporary basis and also impossible to spread the work around. I mean, my dry-cleaner might love to be able to hold the tailor’s job for 12 weeks of FMLA but that doesn’t mean they will be able to find a tailor willing to take a temporary job.

                4. oldposteron7th*

                  “But a maternity leave is hell on the other employees here. There’s no such thing as a temp in this area and no budget to hire one if there were. ”

                  Ick. I wouldn’t work anywhere where the work of employees out on maternity leave is shouldered by other employees rather than the company financially

                6. Mary*

                  @doreen—I mean, I’d say that’s part of the argument for longer leave. Most people take 7-12 months in the UK, which means that it’s normal to hire or promote someone to cover the gap. Smart organisations use it as an opportunity to test out good employees in a higher-level role, or as a way hiring people on fixed-term contracts and then making them permanent when the pregnant employee returns.

              2. Quill*

                If you can’t afford to pay your workers a living wage / you get bent out of shape that they’re going to continue being human outside of work hours, or that humans have imperfect health, hasn’t your business model already failed?

          3. Crivens!*

            We get this in the US, too. We really overly fetishize small business owners.
            My answer is always “if they can’t afford to give their employees basic rights, salaries, and fair treatment, they don’t deserve to exist.”

            1. Mary*

              Exactly–and they certainly don’t deserve any support or protection. The absolute basic quid pro quo of “but we are job-creators!” should be that those jobs are decent, properly paid and give their workers basic rights. Otherwise you’re not a business, you’re a subsidised hobby.

            2. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

              I guess I have a skewed perspective on this, because the only small business owner that I knew closely (an ex) was a decent human being, who made a point of treating his employees like decent human beings; even when that came at a financial loss to him. So to this day, I am puzzled and bewildered when I hear from small-business owners who think and act otherwise. If it comes to one as a shock that their employees are humans who have human life events that sometimes interfere with their work, then my thinking is that this person cannot afford to have employees.

              1. Mary*

                I think there are lots and lots of small business owners who are absolutely decent and take this stuff completely in their stride! I also remember one friend whose dad ran a small business, and his line was that if you were a decent, flexible employer who supported your employees when they were pregnant and/or looking after small children, you would probably get a level of work loyalty back that would far surpass the initial investment. I just think it’s crazy that organisations which represent the interests of small businesses basically go on the news all the time to say, “hey, we are terrible places to work” and everyone just acts like that’s normal.

                1. Gazebo Slayer*

                  Yeah, publicly going on record about how much of an imposition basic employee rights are is… not exactly going to endear you to potential applicants. Or, in many cases, customers. “Shop at Bill’s, we’re stingy jerks who want to fire anybody who gets pregnant and whine about having to pay minimum wage!”

              2. Linzava*

                Small businesses are a reflection of the owner. I’ve worked at a lot of small businesses and many are run by people who can’t work for others because of their bad personalities. I work for a great small business currently.

            3. JSPA*

              I presume that in the UK, the employer is not also potentially taking an indirect hit on their health insurance costs, due to there being a public health system for the actual costs of the birth?

              1. Mary*

                Yeah, no health costs at all. You have to pay maternity/shared parental pay (90% of full earnings for six weeks, + 20 weeks at £140 a week), but smaller employers can claim something like 105% of that back.

          4. Parenthetically*

            WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

            Yes, jaysus, this is my parents’ entire argument about worker protections. They’re like, “But our friend’s small-town cafe isn’t profitable enough to be able to afford to pay workers $15/hr, they’d go under” and I’m like “SORRY BRO you cannot expect MY tax dollars to supplement YOUR inability to pay your employees a living wage, owning a business isn’t a right, if you can’t afford to run your business without relying on SNAP and medicaid and other government benefits to make up the difference for your employees maybe you can’t afford to run a business and should make other plans, you’re the one who said you liked the harsh realities of capitalism *shrug emoji*”

            2. Curmudgeon in California*

              Bingo.

              My take is that “If your business plan doesn’t allow for enough to hire employees at a living wage with benefits, then you either need to rethink your business plan, or not be in business”

              Disclosure: I own a very small business, part time. I can’t hire employees, I can’t afford it.

          5. JKP*

            As basically a sole practictioner with only one employee other than myself, I still managed to give her maternity leave and continue to pay her salary while she was out. It’s a short term hassle, and for a small business with fewer employees, something they won’t have to deal with nearly as frequently as a big business with many employees.

          6. Nephron*

            I got into a argument about how the ADA was evil because think of the small businesses needing to build ramps, and have aisles that are big enough etc. It was so annoying because either the business has been around and ignoring the law for 30 years or is opening just now and wants to selectively ignore federal law that has been around for 30 years. Is a 30 year old law a surprise to them?
            They get so upset when I ask if small businesses also need to ignore FDA regulations that prevent poisoning, or if they can ignore anti-fraud laws and just mail empty boxes rather than their products. Oh, is the ADA especially evil as a federal law or do you only care when the law being ignored could impact you?

          7. Gumby*

            I obviously think small businesses need to offer the same protections as larger businesses, but I can also see the other side.

            If you are a business of 4 people, and 1 is out on leave, that is 1/4 of your work force. Paying leave and hiring a temp ramps up your operating expenses by a much larger percentage that large companies deal with (unless your 1000-employee company somehow has 250 people out on maternity leave at the same time which maybe says good things about your hiring practices for women but really makes me question the obvious age-ism). Though the absolute cost may be roughly the same, say $10k, that impact is very different for a company with an annual budget of $1M vs one with an annual budget of $1B+.

        2. Queen Esmerelda*

          My husband’s brother (an engineer) went off about hiring young women engineers because “they get married, then they get pregnant, then they want to come back to work part time.” He wanted his company not to hire women because of this. The attitude is still out there and probably more prevalent than we know.

          1. Doc in a Box*

            Definitely prevalent in medicine! Medical training is pretty intensive from about age 22 (entering medical school) to age 29-30 (finishing most residencies), so many women defer having children until they are in their early 30s, aka looking for a permanent position. The assumption, at least here in the South, is that you are going to go on maternity leave within a year or so of hire and then come back part-time. It’s really frustrating for those of us who don’t have or want kids, but are constantly being passed over for opportunities.

            1. Anononon*

              I’m sure it’s also frustrating for women who do plan on having kids. I’m not sure what the difference is.

              1. JSPA*

                The proper distinction is between “really wants part-time and fewer responsibilities” vs “really wants full time and more responsibilities,” not “intending to procreate vs not.”

                But in general, making two tracks that don’t interconnect flexibly is a waste of good employees, and of employee goodwill.

                It’s worse if you then assign people to those tracks without their say so. But it’s sub-optimal, regardless.

            2. Fikly*

              I imagine it’s really frustrating for those who do have or do want to have kids, as they shouldn’t be passed over either!

            3. MOAS*

              In my home country, there’s a huge issue of women enrolling in to medicine programs but never actually using their medical degrees or working; the reason for enrolling is so that they appear more attractive as marriage candidates (arranged marriage FTW! /s). I feel like that makes it harder for women who actually DO want to practice medicine. It’s messy.

            4. Certified Scorpion Trainer*

              this! let’s not forget Tokyo Medical University altering women’s admission test scores for years in order to exclude women, because in their minds, all women would get married and have kids and not come back to the medical profession. I can only imagine how many women’s careers were derailed and/or ended before they had a chance to even begin because of this BS.

              link for those who haven’t heard of it:
              https://www.npr.org/2018/08/07/636480117/tokyo-medical-school-apologizes-for-test-scoring-practices-to-keep-women-out

            5. Veronica*

              I work in a hospital. It is true that young female doctors often get pregnant in their first few years here. However, most of them come back to work full-time.
              Also, we have managed to cover more than one maternity leave at a time. When necessary we hire temporary doctors on an hourly basis. It can be done. It’s a question of motivation!

            6. TheFacelessOldWomanWhoSecretlyLivesinYour House*

              Plenty of doctor opportunities around for anyone who wants one. Make great money too. You need to work in the unserved, rural areas.

          2. BadWolf*

            One of the many reasons that I wish we had more parental leave (maternal and paternal leave). If both men and women were potentially adjusting time for children (on leave, part time, etc) then it would become normal and not such an “ugh, women.”

            2. Kasia*

              I’m 18 weeks pregnant now, and my husband will be taking his full allotment of allowed sick leave when the baby is born, which is the same as mine. I earn more time off so if we need some additional time before we can get our baby into day care I might shoulder that rather than us splitting it evenly, but the difference between his baby time off and mine will be pretty minimal. I wish this was more the norm, but my male coworkers usually only take about 2 weeks with their newborns.

        3. mcr-red*

          I know a WOMAN who doesn’t want to hire women of child-bearing age because “they will be off having kids and taking off all the time or leaving early for sick kids, doctor appointments, etc.” I told her I work with a bunch of men who have young children and do you know who is off all the time or leaving early for sick kids, doctor appointments, etc.?

          1. MatKnifeNinja*

            People act like it’s only men with this attitude. I’ve heard it plenty of times from women managers.

            I would be easier to count how many jobs I had that were supportive of pregnant women, and didn’t make their lives hell.

            Out of all my jobs, only one acted like it wasn’t a hassle.

            1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

              Oh, absolutely.

              A childhood friend’s wife was interviewing for her first job out of college and the *woman* interviewing her asked “so you just got married, are you pregnant?” “no”, “are you going to be soon?” “No”. And this hiring manager, who was a woman, responded with “Oh you all say that” and my friend’s wife did not get the job.

              In absolute cruel irony, it turned out that my friend was medically unable to father a child. Took them years to find out. His wife did not get pregnant or have children until several years after he passed away (when they were both in their mid-30s).

          2. Blueberry*

            It somehow seems extra horrifying when women are misogynist, not least because the first defense always is “I’m just telling the truth! I’m a woman! I know!”

            1. Gazebo Slayer*

              True, and yuck. I’ve also had a broworker use the male equivalent of that argument: “I have daughters, I know how women are.”

        4. Gazebo Slayer*

          All this BS attitude about pregnancy, plus they didn’t want to hire ANY young women because they MIGHT get pregnant?

          If I were those guys’ supervisor, I’d likely have fired them on the spot. That’s probably not a viewpoint that one training can change, and I have no more patience for this crap.

        5. Starbuck*

          “sad to hear such things from two intelligent and otherwise nice people.”

          In 2019 there’s no excuse for such blatant sexism, and we have GOT to stop giving guys like those the benefit of the doubt – they’re not nice people, they’re misogynists.

      4. counterweight*

        My read on OP2’s letter is not that “four months from now, she’ll be unavailable for the job she applied for.” It’s more “An applicant deliberately misled me, but I can’t do anything about it.” Without getting into the pregnancy politics, a similar situation would be if someone lied on a resume about a skill necessary for the job. It’s a question that goes to the fundamental reason anyone gets hired: To work. If someone can’t do the job, but lies to get it, that’s a difficult situation.

        1. Dr. Glowcat Twinklepuff*

          I think the two situations would really be similar only in an ideal world, though. The woman here lied not for lack of integrity, but because in this very non-ideal world one can be rejected for being pregnant (or even just engaged: anyone remembers the old letter about wearing engagement rings at an interview?). This is a consequence of a very diffused mentality, and if we don’t like women lying about their pregnancy status, we need to stop penalizing them for disclosing it.

          1. Czhorat*

            Yep.

            You also don’t need to disclose your religion at a job interview. Your sexual orientation. Any one of a number of reasons for which you’d be unethically or even illegally discriminated against.

            The applicant did nothing wrong. OP needs to learn about workers’ rights and, to be honest, ethics in general

            1. Charlotte*

              Exactly! Presumably the employer didn’t ask directly if she was pregnant (I really hope not, surely that would be illegal) so she didn’t lie about not being pregnant. She just didn’t mention it, as she was under no obligation to do so. The LW is trying to make it about she “lied” to them when really the LW just wants an excuse to get rid of a pregnant employee because it’ll be inconvenient for them.

        2. Liane*

          Also, ” Are you pregnant?” (even if it isn’t an outright illegal question) is deep into “only asked by really stupid folks who don’t mind revealing both they and the company suck” territory.

          So not at all the same as “Do you have a BA/BS in Labrador Retriever Petting?” or “How many years experience coding in Persian Cat?”

          1. Seeking Second Childhood*

            I could have earned a related bachelor’s in Spaniel petting, with a minor in ball throwing.

        3. Lizzy May*

          She didn’t lie and framing not disclosing something that often leads to discrimination to actually lying about your qualifications is unfair.
          Lying about your qualifications is wrong. Not disclosing a pregnancy isn’t. She isn’t incapable of doing the job.

        4. Rusty Shackelford*

          Without getting into the pregnancy politics, a similar situation would be if someone lied on a resume about a skill necessary for the job.

          I don’t understand your logic on this one. “Are you likely to need some time off in the future” is not even remotely similar to “Do you have the skills required to do this job.”

          1. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

            Right?! “Not getting pregnant” is not a skill. See also “not getting seriously ill”.

        6. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          Bullshit.

          She didn’t lie. Disclosing a pregnancy (and especially as people pointed out upthread, it’s likely she was closer to 3 months along at the interview, which is the earliest point many pregnant people are willing to disclose to anyone) is not required at an interview, and is in fact generally considered inappropriate. The OP was not entitled to that information, and it’s certainly in no way comparable to lying on a resume about job-relevant skills!

        7. Quill*

          Being non pregnant is not a skill, though. Pregnancy is a medical condition that leads, ideally, to the happily anticipated birth of a healthy new human, and you don’t get to base your hiring decisions on medical conditions.

          Plus, five months? During the application and interview process she may not have known she was pregnant!

        8. aebhel*

          The applicant didn’t lie. The applicant chose not to disclose personal medical information that was not the company’s business and that may have (clearly would have, in the OP’s case) caused the company to illegally discriminate against her. It’s not even remotely comparable to lying on one’s resume about job skills.

        9. JSPA*

          People get hired because they’re qualified and committed to the work, in general and ongoingly. We have ZERO indication that this isn’t so, here.

          She’s worked a month. There’s no reason to expect that she won’t continue working for another 3.5 to 4 months.

          At which point, there will be what is (from the employers point of view) a medical event that is neither less nor more inappropriate than any other medical event.

          If this is the US, let’s guess that the leave policy is “meh,” and expect her back in another month. And then the employer has her and her qualifications on the job for the foreseeable future.

          Employer is mistaking her private life, her medical condition and/or the state of her internal organs as some sort of work-appropriate topic; it simply isn’t one.

          Now, if this were specifically for, say, tax season at an accountant, and she had been hired with specific attention to availability for extended hours during the upcoming tax season, had expressly stated her willingness to work long, punishing days in the lead-up to April 15th….and she was hired in December and due in mid-march…you could make a very limited argument that she should not have explicitly promised extreme availability for the six weeks from march 1 through April 15. But we have absolutely ZERO evidence for this sort of scenario. Looking at common busy seasons, just for the sake of argument, she’s due well before tax day, and (unless the letter has been sitting in the queue), she’s also not having the kid just in time for pre-holiday retail season, either. Anyway, there was no mention of a “busy season.”

      5. Septemberisalmostover*

        I think I may be a little annoyed if I were the employer, but I obviously would never do anything. Number 1, its illegal and number 2 its just plain awful.

        1. fposte*

          I think the OP should really think about this. I’d say it’s human and okay to be annoyed that there’s extra work coming down the pike. But separate that out from what you actually need to *do* here to be legal and to be decent. I mean, I’m also annoyed when there’s road work that makes me detour, but I understand that it’s all part of a broader necessity.

          1. Parenthetically*

            For sure. An “argh, this is going to be such a pain” response is totally natural and normal. But hopefully OP2’s human decency impulse overrides that.

      6. Goldfinch*

        I completely understand this exasperation. LW has a small business to run, and a new employee unable to do the job she was hired for. This commenter pile-on isn’t going to accomplish anything other than make LW dig in to their viewpoint out of anger and frustration.

          1. SomebodyElse*

            Usually not… I think it’s generally a better approach to say something like… “Yup it sucks and didn’t work out like you’d planned. But there’s nothing that you can do at this point and you should get over it and move on”

            Calling someone names and dog piling (as has happened in these comments) usually shuts the conversation down and turn the OP defensive. It’s also a little interesting that the people jumping on the OP and telling them that they need lessons in empathy don’t seem to have any themselves.

            Hiring sucks… training sucks… yes it’s part of the job blah blah blah… but that doesn’t make it suck less. Having a new hire not work out for whatever reason sucks, and this new hire will not work out in the short term because of needed leave, potential to not come back, pregnancy fog, exhaustion when they return, and the fact that they won’t be available to work for at least a short period of time.

            So yes, OP needs to get over it and move on to plan b for the time that the new hire will be out and hope that things work out in the end. But, yeah, I can understand and empathize with the frustration.

            1. ElizabethJane*

              Eh, it’s one thing to bitch about it when you get home or among friends. It takes an entirely different mindset to write in to AAM. One is a gut thing that you do in the moment, and I empathize with that. The other takes at least a little bit of planning and seems like the LW is at least considering following through with the desire to fire the employee. And I don’t empathize with that at all.

              Also, when we start considering the feelings of the person in the wrong over the person who has (potentially) been wronged we’re not in a great place.

              1. SomebodyElse*

                “Also, when we start considering the feelings of the person in the wrong over the person who has (potentially) been wronged we’re not in a great place.”

                And that my friend is how nothing gets solved…

                …wanders away from this topic after that comment in disbelief

                1. ElizabethJane*

                  Nope. if a person is going to do a crappy thing I’m not going to be nice in telling them they are being crappy. I won’t be deliberately cruel. But I’m not sure what we are trying to solve. There is no “both sides” to this. The LW is straight up wrong.

              2. fposte*

                It’s not considering their feelings *over* the person who got wronged, though; it’s realizing that it’s more effective to convince people to change by considering their feelings than by piling on or bullying. Often we have to choose between venting our frustration the way we find most satisfying and changing things for the better, whether we’re talking with kids, romantic partners, or strangers on the internet.

                1. ElizabethJane*

                  Conversely, the LW could have chose between venting their frustration in the way they found most satisfying and being a decent human….

                2. fposte*

                  But we don’t have control over that choice. We just have control over what we do in response. Do you want to respond in the way that’s most personally satisfying to you or in the way that makes the OP least likely to discriminate?

                3. VeryAnon*

                  Sometimes hearing that you’re behaving badly is humbling and humiliating. Often we still need to hear it. Sometimes “no, you’re entirely in the wrong,” is exactly what you need to hear.

                  Coddling people like OP, and commiserating with them, and making them feel like they’re in the right is exactly why laws protecting pregnant people had to be passed in the first place, and why people still fight to dissolve those laws.

                  It’s not about satisfaction. It’s about treating people like adults – adults know they aren’t right all the time and know they need to hear it.

                4. fposte*

                  @Very–That’s a straw man. Nobody’s saying that he shouldn’t be told he’s in the wrong. I’m saying that a pile-on makes it less likely he’s going to do the thing you want him to do. It doesn’t make a difference how righteous your cause is; the effect of a group pile-on is the effect of any bullying.

                  And if you can only empathize with people when they’re in the right, that’s likelier to be projection than empathy.

                5. VeryAnon*

                  Fposte: Empathy is when you can understand where the other person is coming from. I cannot fathom where this person is coming from, therefore I cannot empathise with them. ‘Projection’ is where you Attribute your own feelings to another – where for example, you feel guilty so you insist the other person is feeling guilty. I have neither wanted to fire a pregnant person or been fired for being pregnant, so projection does not apply.

                6. fposte*

                  @Very–but empathy is a choice and a skill, not just something that happens to us. That’s why reading fiction increases it in people–you get to be inside Bigger Thomas’s head, or Rodion Raskolnikov’s head, so that we understand how they came to make the choices they did, even if we consider them terrible choices. It doesn’t mean we think they’re swell people.

                7. VeryAnon*

                  Also fposte – I’m getting rather tired of the fact that whenever people confront bullies they get called bullies. Only one person here is proposing to deprive a woman of her livelihood for being pregnant. If you see someone hit a person, and step in and hit that person back, you are not a bully, you are defending victim. Acting as though every act that mildly inconveniences a bully is in fact bullying comes pretty close to Paradox of Tolerance territory. Telling a person to stop behaving badly is not bullying, it’s society.

                8. VeryAnon*

                  Fposte: also if empathy is a choice, why are you choosing to exercise it towards him and not his potential victim?

                  And FYI, I read 2-4 books a month. I have a lot of empathy for a lot of people’s failings. But this person is behaving like an Ishiguro villain, who cannot see their own failings because their position of insulated privilege means that they are never forced to empathise with others – a situation that leads to an increasingly calcified and cruel world view. I wish you luck in getting this person to reconsider their behaviour through empathising with his feelings. I think he needs a wake up call instead, but I doubt we’ll agree on that.

                9. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

                  This is an interesting discussion. Honestly, I think I can be able to think like someone who is considering firing a pregnant employee for “lying” about being pregnant. Growing up in a sexist culture and years upon years of being immersed in sexism and internalized misogyny from pretty much 99 out of 100 people I interacted with in my childhood, youth, and young adulthood, should make it easy for me. But I don’t see how either I or OP would benefit from this thought experiment. It would not make me a better person, and might convince OP that people are agreeing with them. I agree that a wake-up call is what’s needed. OP would not have written in if they were not convinced that this line of thinking is normal. We will really need to shout it from the rooftops that THIS IS VERY MUCH NOT NORMAL for the message to get through.

                  And yes, I have read a few books in my life where the narrator turns out to be such an awful human being, you want to take a shower when you’re done reading. “Despair” by Nabokov comes to mind. Fortunately OP is not at the level of those books’ characters yet, because few people are. I am not sure whether the authors meant it for us to empathize with the characters, or to be horrified by how these characters exist on a completely different plane without even realizing how horrible their words and actions are, “there but for the grace of God go I”.

                10. EventPlannerGal*

                  @ I Wrote This In The Bathroom – “But I don’t see how either I or OP would benefit from this thought experiment. It would not make me a better person, and might convince OP that people are agreeing with them.” This is very well expressed and I agree entirely.

                  @fposte – there are some situations where a bit of “I see where you’re coming from, but…” is helpful. In others, the more appropriate response is “absolutely not, what the hell are you thinking?”. This person asked a question in a public forum with a lively comments section, and they are getting their answer. Perhaps the “pile-on” (aka people responding to the question that this person chose to ask?) will be a bit of a wake-up call.

              3. Pomona Sprout*

                I completely agree with this comment. Also, as one of those who have (admittedly) piled on, let me just say that any empathy I might have had for the OP went out the window when they asked if it would be legal to fire a woman for not disclosing the fact that she was pregnant at the time of being hired for/accepting a job. That question seems absolutely outrageous to me, so much so that I had to bite my tongue to keep from saying what was actually going through my head when I replied. (And I will not say what that was, except that it would have rude enough that Alison would have probably taken it down immediately.)

                Reading through the comments here, I can see I’ve led a sheltered life, because attitudes like the OP’s are evidently much more common than I realized (ugh). All things considered, though, I honestly don’t regret anything I’ve said in this or any other thread related to this OP’s letter.

            2. Blueberry*

              God forbid we have empathy with the pregnant woman whose boss wants to be rid of her for daring to be pregnant, not least if we’ve witnessed or experienced similar situations.

              1. fposte*

                I think that’s the kind of misreading Somebody Else is talking about, though; at no point does SE say that it’s inappropriate to empathize with the pregnant person. It’s that empathy isn’t the same thing as choosing sides.

                1. VeryAnon*

                  However morality is often about choosing sides. What OP wants to do is morally repugnant. I am simply incapable of finding any empathy for them whatsoever. And they need to know that that is the reaction their question has prompted so that they can revise their behaviour going forward. If we act like he has a right to his feelings, he’ll just do it again!

                2. JSPA*

                  VeryAnon
                  Even when difficult, we’re asked to label the behavior, or the way the behavior will be perceived, not the person posting.

                  The OP is on the cusp of making a very bad choice. It would be bad for the world, but also bad for the OP, to go through with that choice. We help the OP, and the world, by letting them know how back the choice is, and encouraging them to walk it back. We even help the OP by letting them know that they’ll be judged very harshly by their employees and by people they actually know (and potentially by the law and the courts).

                  We do not help the OP by telling them that a bunch of people on the internet think that they’re a garbage human being and waste of oxygen for coming up with the idea in the first place. OP at least has a dim sense that this might not be acceptable, which means that they actually are teachable.

                3. fposte*

                  @JSPA–right, and we *want* people to write in before they do something like this, rather than saying “Eff that crowd with their pitchforks” and not writing in at all. Let’s not discourage improvement here, people.

                4. VeryAnon*

                  He wasn’t writing in because he thought it was bad though. He wrote in looking for a legal loophole to do something he knew was wrong. It’s not like the guy had qualms.

            3. VeryAnon*

              I find the idea that people actively trying to hurt others deserve empathy rather bizarre. People who want to break laws set up to prevent gender discrimination don’t deserve empathy.

              1. fposte*

                Empathy isn’t a reward; nobody “deserves” it. It’s a way we understand humanity. Some people seem to think it’s the same thing as approval, and that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.

                1. VeryAnon*

                  I don’t even know what that would look like. “Oh, accidentally hiring a pregnant person must be terrible for you. I totally empathise with your desire to fire her because it might be inconvenient for you. But have you considered that might make you look a teensy bit mean?”

                  How can you empathise with a person like that? How could you even write something like that without wanting to vomit?

                2. JSPA*

                  I empathize with their level of frustration, panic, or sense of being blindsided (these are sensations, not beliefs or rational ideas).

                  I sympathize with anyone who’s in a managerial role with zero-to-inadequate training on how to be a manager (including the relevant laws).

                  I sympathize AND empathize with anyone who’s ever mistaken “I wish I had known” for “I should have been told.” In ways both personal and professional, I still have to talk myself off of this ledge on a regular basis.

                  Ditto mistaking actions (or silence) for things that are being done “at” them. Or “on their dime / on their time.” Or having a general tendency to catastrophize, when facing an unexpected change of plans.

                  OP is asking about doing a crappy thing that people should not want to do. I’m willing not to presume that OP is automatically horrible. OP could be a person who over-imagined the future, is having trouble when life gives the lie to that vision, and whose emotions and reactivity are completely eclipsing their better judgement. Heck, OP’s business could be one pay period away from failure, with zero flexibility remaining. We don’t know any of this.

                  OP needs to hear that actually using the bed of Procrustes on their employees to fit their lives to OP’s vision = bad management (and probably an illegal act). And that it’s simply wrong to have had any expectation that the employee would disclose her pregnancy.

                3. VeryAnon*

                  JSPA: And mostly, that is what has happened. The majority have simply said that this boss is behaving badly. Which according to you is acceptable. From my perspective, it seems that a lot of opposing comments are just tone policing. People – minorities- are justifiability angry with this person because this person wants to hurt them. Demanding that minorities engage in emotional labour in order to educate and improve their oppressors / abusers is a common but unpleasant tactic.

                  To give an example common on Prudie and Dan Savage, it’s always the gay teen being pressured to mend fences with the homophobic uncle. No one ever expects Uncle Pete to back down, apologise or face the consequences of his actions. Or put another way, everyone pressures the reasonable one to dance around the unreasonable one.

                  God forbid a LW who literally wants to fire a pregnant employee be made to feel uncomfortable in any way, and if any commenters are angry at his behaviour, they’re the bad guys who should be more empathetic and should be building bridges and engaging in free emotional labour so that he can improve himself at their expense, without ever having to feel bad about his actions.

          2. Goldfinch*

            No, I don’t think that’s a realistic outcome at all. I think this commentariat can be very idealistic, and while that can be a good thing, it can also miss the forest for the trees. If I were in LW’s position, a horde of people telling me how the world should be (despite not having experience running a business) would make me see red.

            1. Blueberry*

              How do you know that people here have no experience running businesses, or that anyone who has run a business would necessarily come to the conclusion of treating women, pregnant or not, as disposable? People here talk about being managers, business owners, etc, all the time. Some of those people even think women are human beings as well.

            2. VeryAnon*

              Saying it’s illegal to fire a pregnant person isn’t idealistic, it’s accurate. Also, sometimes when we are frustrated we all say awful things. It can help for someone else to say “Woah. That is a horrible thing to want to do.” We all need that reality check from time to time.

            3. aebhel*

              So you would suggest….. what, exactly? That we all lie to the LW and tell them that what they’re contemplating is totally legal and ethical because otherwise LW might feel bad? It’s not ethical, and in most situations it’s not legal. Those are the facts.

              Also, what makes you think that none of the people on this site have experience with management or running a business?

              1. VeryAnon*

                Yeah. We coddled people like OP for centuries and the result was appalling, widespread gender discrimination. There seems to be this bizarre misconception that rights are won by being ‘nice’, when in every historical situation they were demanded, fought for and won.

              2. JSPA*

                “don’t do that, it’s a douche move” ≠ “you are a douche.”

                “don’t do that, it’s illegal” ≠ “but if it were legal, it’d be fine.”

                “don’t do that, it’s illegal” ≠ “and you’re clearly a douche.”

                “your expectations were off, and you’re feeling lied to because of how you’re looking at the situation, not because you were lied to” ≠ “you are clearly unfit to manage people.”

                “don’t do that, it’s a douche move, and probably illegal” = “you’re responsible for the last few thousand years of gender inequality, and we will not progress as a species unless we remove people like you, and you specifically, from any management position, ever.”

                Yes, the attitude expressed exists in, and derives from, a larger social context.

                But the person submitting the question is a single human being–albeit a person in need of both information and an attitude adjustment). Not the embodiment of all patriarchy.

                1. VeryAnon*

                  No one said this person was the embodiment of the patriarchy. They are, however, engaging in the exact behaviours that motivated the passing of anti discrimination laws.

                  Being nice to people who behave that way does not improve society or their behaviour. It implies you condone and agree with their thoughts.

                  At best they might go away thinking “Darn it, if it weren’t for that law, i’d fire Jane tomorrow!” And proceed to continue discriminating against pregnant people. Whereas a clear, unequivocal “this behaviour is legally and morally wrong” might make them rethink their attitude.

                2. aebhel*

                  …I’m sorry, telling someone that what they’re considering is both douchey and probably illegal is the same as telling them that they’re responsible for all gender equality? What??

                  I’m really hoping that you forgot a tag there, but regardless: I don’t think anyone has said that LW is the embodiment of all patriarchy, or anything even remotely along those lines. What people have said is that what LW is considering is unethical, probably illegal, and likely to drive away qualified people who have other options.

                  Although, yeah, I am actually willing to say that someone whose immediate response to a staff member’s pregnancy is to try to figure out if they can legally fire her for it should not in fact be managing other people. Sorry if that makes me mean.

        2. ElizabethJane*

          We don’t actually know that the LW has a small business to run. For all we know they hired one of 75 data entry people at a massive call center for a Fortune 500 company.

            1. Nephron*

              Yeah and if they want to retain people in those desperately needed positions they should listen to the commenters pointing out they would leave or avoid a company that fired a person for being pregnant.

              Anyone that might need FMLA in the future for themselves or for caring for a family member is going to look at this and be worried which is going to decrease worker retention and recruitment.

        3. aebhel*

          So you would suggest…. what, exactly? ‘Oh, yes, actually it’s totally normal, legal, and acceptable to discriminate against pregnant employees, anyone would do the same in your position’? One, that’s not true, two, there’s no indication that the employee in question isn’t able to do her job.

          LW gets to be frustrated. If LW had written in being a bit frustrated and asking for advice on how to handle the workload/training while their employee was out on maternity leave, they might have got some useful advice. LW did not do that; instead they asked if it was legal and acceptable to fire their employee for being pregnant. The answer to that is a resounding ‘No.’

          1. JSPA*

            Label the proposed action, not the person, for starters.
            It’s IMMATERIAL if the OP is otherwise kind (and had a single terrible idea) or otherwise a total monster.

            They wrote in here. We can guide them in not going through with a terrible idea. Or we can tell them how horrible they are. Alison has picked the former, as she always does, and as she asks us to do. Presumably because it’s more constructive, not because she does not value kindness and morality in the workplace.

            1. VeryAnon*

              And yet, when I labelled the behaviour was illegal and unethical, I was told I wasn’t ‘empathising’ with the guy. Of course I’m not. I don’t understand why they behave the way they do.

              You know there was a guy who wrote into Slate’s care and feeding column about how he let his kid run wild around a restaurant. He was kindly but firmly told he was completely wrong and should never do that again. I don’t see how that was a terrible response. Sometimes adults need to hear that they’re wrong, and that’s why they write into advice columns.

            2. aebhel*

              I mean, I don’t see anyone calling the OP names? It’s a long thread, so I may have missed it, but most people are rightly labeling the *behavior* and *attitudes* as appalling.

            3. EventPlannerGal*

              I’m not really sure what you’re looking for here. Could you perhaps provide a sample response or template to demonstrate how you feel we ought be responding to the OP’s question?

    3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      The difference with the hygienist issue is that some courts have found that it’s lawful to fire someone based on their attractiveness (as if that’s not related, in your anecdote, to discrimination on the basis of sex). But firing someone for being pregnant, or declining to hire them for that reason, is always illegal if you’re covered by the PDEA.

      But yes, I think OP is over-focused on feeling “betrayed” and on the inconvenience than on the bigger picture. I suspect OP knows it’s illegal and not ok to fire someone for being pregnant or for failing to disclose their pregnancy in a job interview. I hope Alison’s letter provides a helpful wake-up call that the request is really really terrible, and this is an opportunity for OP to reframe and recalibrate.

      1. Tau*

        Yep, from the “I feel lied to” it sounds as if OP has latched onto the idea of “she should have let me know in the interview!” But… no? She’s under no obligation to disclose? Especially because, y’know, if the information would have made no difference in OP’s wanting to hire her then what would the point have even been… and if the information would have made a difference, that would have been illegal!

        Also hoping this will be a wake-up call because OP’s attitude is just flagrantly not OK.

      2. Kalandra*

        I once hired a teacher for a very small private school I owned, and after I hired her, she let me know about a chronic stomach condition she had that meant she’d be ill and missing days during the school year. My internal response was that she waited until the right time to tell me. It was none of my business during the hiring process. Besides, I’d hate to know something like that before I made a hiring decision. I don’t want to wonder if I allowed the information to sway me, even unconsciously.

      3. Jen S. 2.0*

        Of course OP knows that you can’t fire someone for being pregnant.

        That’s the reason for the mad search for another semi-plausible reason.

    4. Batgirl*

      I found it both shocking and not-shocking? You never hear employers say it out loud any more but you sometimes see it on their faces.
      I think OP should be glad she didn’t know during the interview as it sounds like she would have been highly tempted to do something illegal.

    5. The Original Stellaaaaa*

      It’s common in small business and it’s probably why the laws don’t cover them. You don’t want to fire women for getting pregnant, but you can replace them if the job really needs to get done. It sucks, but the US decided a long time ago that it valued entrepreneurs and small businesses.

      1. Mookie*

        Imagine the strides “small businesses” in America could achieve if the government offered substantive assistance in helping them to meet the not-very-lofty labor protections it (kinda sorta) enforces on larger enterprises.

        1. Liza*

          This is what has often baffled me. I can understand wanting to help out smaller businesses when they have to compete with huge monopolies for both customers and employees, but to do so by denying their employees basic protections just seems totally counter productive. It allow practices such as LW’s proposal to simply go unchecked, and would, I imagine,
          make potential employees wary of working for small businesses for fear of being subject to treatment that would otherwise be outright illegal.

          1. Gazebo Slayer*

            Oh, I know I have been wary of working for small businesses for *years* because of the crap a lot of them pull.

          2. aebhel*

            Honestly, I know some good small businesses must exist, but literally every small business I’ve worked for has been a nightmare, and that’s been the experience of everyone else I know who’s worked for one as well. I’m very, very cynical about the ‘support small businesses! lifeblood of the community!’ stuff you see because of that.

          3. Pommette!*

            Yup.

            Providing certain employee protections and benefits is legitimately onerous for small business owners, in a way that would not be true for larger employers who can pool risks across more employees. If you only have one employee, offering paid parental leave means doubling your salary expenditures while having to deal with staff turnover, for as long as the leave lasts. That’s a big deal. I get it, and I sympathise.

            But it seems pretty straightforward that the solution should be to set up programs that help small business owners meet their obligation towards employees, not to absolve small business owners of those responsibilities.

        2. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          The problem is that the “but small businessssssss” excuse only ever gets used when it’s about labor protections, never when it’s about the growing mega-conglomerates, “zombie small business” arrangements, or other practices that are much more detrimental to the actual small business world.

          1. VeryAnon*

            It also seems to be used as a fig leaf to protect large corporations from providing worker protections. “Demanding minimum wage will drive mom and pop enterprises out of business!”
            “Probably why that rule only applies to companies over a certain size.”

            Like they pretend you want to drive Mr and Mrs Jones from the local diner out of business, whereas really you’re suggesting McDonalds and Walmart pay their staff enough to live on.

              2. JSPA*

                I remember when a fairly recent past president (who shall not be named under the politics ban) gave a small business award to a business which shall most certainly be named: Home Depot.

                For the non-US readers: The Great Orange Place is many things, but a Small Business ain’t one. They have ~2200 stores now. It can’t have been fewer than 1200 or so, at the time of the award. At an average of over 100,000 square feet per store (i.e. 2-1/4 acres or nearly a hectare) that’s at least 1000 hectares-worth of store, at the time.

                1. VeryAnon*

                  The fact that I’m not from the US and know that Home Depot is ubiquitous speaks to the fact that it’s not a small business.

    6. Rexish*

      I find it a bit baffling why it’s such an outrage since the maternity leave is only few months in the states (if that). Since this is a new employee it’s unlikely that they have any other type of time off yet. I mean, I understand that it is inconvinient to find a replacement immediately (if it’s needed) but still.

      I wonder if in companies that have generous paternity leave policies if they are upset that the new hire didn’t tell about their partners pregnancy.

      1. Tinuviel*

        Yeah it’s what, 8 weeks? It’ll take half that to find someone and get them up to speed. Probably took that long to find this person in the first place. Just chill out and remember that handling this correctly will leave you with a fully trained and talented employee who feels trusted and supported by her new employer, and higher morale and engagement in everyone who sees how she is treated.

          1. JSPA*

            She’s too new to be FMLA covered by time of birth. So it’d down to state protections. Which are hugely variable. And FMLA is UNPAID leave, anyway, which not everyone can take. And the workplace may be exempt.

            Family Medical Leave Act provides 12 weeks of unpaid job-protections [unpaid matters] and requires employers to continue health insurance benefits on the same basis as working employees during this time. However, it does not bind every workplace nor does it cover every employee at a covered workplace.

            And remote workers do not count against the “50 employees” head-count, which makes remote work a double-edged sword for employee rights.

            Employers:
            Employ 50 or more employees for at least 20 work weeks at
            one or more work sites within 75 miles

            Eligible Employees
            New hires – worked for the employer ≤12 months.
            Part-timers – worked for that employer for at least 1,250 hours over the 12 months
            Small businesses – location with 50 or more employees (in ≤75 miles)

      2. Myrin*

        As far as I can see, we don’t know that OP is in the US, though – where I am, maternity leave is at least a year, and the employee would have to be off six weeks before the birth, too. (Obviously doesn’t change the answer, but it might change your bafflement, Rexish!)

        1. Liza*

          This is true, but countries with longer parental leave also tend to have different ways of dealing with funding for this. For instance, in my country (UK) a company is entitled to reclaim some or all of the costs of maternity leave back from the government, depending on the size of the company. As such, the employee on leave would not cost the employer much, if anything, and they would simply hire cover on a temporary/secondment contact for the duration of the period of leave. It’s really common to see job listings for a one year contract as maternity cover.

          1. WS*

            For Australia, the maternity leave is paid by the government (and this is a very recent and welcome development!), but the business does have to pay the other worker who takes their place. Maternity leave contracts are very common here too, and they’re often an important step into (or back into) the workplace for young grads or returning parents.

          2. Myrin*

            That’s absolutely true! I read it as the letter writer focusing not so much on any financial disadvantage but rather as feeling inconvenienced by having to start another hiring process soon as well as being annoyed she was “lied to” – that could of course be conjecture on my part, though, as we don’t really have much to go off of given the letter’s length.

        2. Shiny Onix*

          Would have to be off 6 weeks before?! My goodness. I went off 3 weeks before my baby was due and I know people who’ve worked right up to their due date. I’m in the UK, I’m really surprised to hear people go off so early in Germany.

          1. Myrin*

            I mean, you can “explicitly declare” that you want to work until closer to your due date but I’ve personally never known anyone who did that and it’s kinda par for the course that you won’t.
            (I do have to point out, though, that in my specific area most jobs are either purely physical or at least have a physical component to them, so it’s much more the case that people literally can’t work the way they normally would. I could imagine that people in more “office-heavy” areas view this a bit differently, but I have no data to back that up.)

          2. Cambridge Comma*

            Where I live it’s completely illegal to work in the last eight weeks of pregnancy. It’s to protect women doing manual labour.

            1. Arts Akimbo*

              But… what about poor women who need the income? Does your government provide for them somehow, or make the companies they work for give them PTO or something?

              1. JSPA*

                The standard required leave isn’t unpaid, like in the USA. In some, there’s direct government stipend, in most, the employer pays (and gets a reimbursement, perhaps against taxes) from the state. That’s why other countries are fiercely protective of their social safety nets, even if there’s an up-front cost: they visibly, directly, immediately, thoroughly, seamlessly and reliably benefit an incredibly broad swath of the population.

                1. Tuckerman*

                  But is it paid at 100%? I can’t imagine being forced to stop working 6-8 weeks before my due date. I enjoyed working because I needed to keep busy and I needed the full income.

        3. Rexish*

          It is very true that we don’t know if OP is in the USA. But I guess I made the leap from Alisons answer. I guess it was also just a general bafflement for the situation in the US since I’ve read a variant of this question/topic on many employment forums. I’m sorry for being off topic.

          Where I’m from we have relatively generous maternity/paternity/parental leave. You can stay home for 3 years without it effacting your employment and it is encouraged to split between the parents. In this case I can imagine being slightly annoyed if I employed someone and they awere off for 3 years, but I wouldn’t be outraged since the governent would pay me back their salary for whatever is the complex math behind it. Me and my friends all started our “careers” as a maternity leave cover.

          1. Double Take Commenter*

            I’m sorry, 3 YEARS? That’s more than relatively generous, that’s a miracle. Lucky country.

        4. Venus*

          And in those countries with good parental leave, they allow the fathers to take a lot of leave as well. The idea of avoiding the hiring of young women in order to avoid the problems of pregnancy doesn’t work well when the last few people I’ve known to take 9 months of parental leave were men…

          The more fathers who take leave, the better the world will be.

      3. Overeducated*

        Yes, I’m in the US and i don’t really get this either. I work for a particularly slow and lumbering employer so this is a bit if an extreme, but my boss retired last June and it’s still an open question as to whether his permanent replacement will be on board by the time I get back from my maternity leave this winter. 12 weeks pales in comparison to 18 months, maternity leave is often shorter than hiring timelines.

    7. Annie*

      Playing devil’s advocate but it really depends on the job. There are a few jobs (eg those involving exposure to radiation) you really can’t do while pregnant, and a very tiny business (like a shop with one or two employees) could easily go under if they had to pay for maternity leave for someone new.

      I work in the film industry and once had to fire an actress for not disclosing her pregnancy. She was playing a Holocaust survivor but would have been between six and eight months pregnant during filming. Obviously you can’t have a film where someone who was just liberated from Auschwitz randomly has a massive belly that grows and shrinks from scene to scene.

      So in that one specific situation (which obviously is completely different from
      the LW) it was not misogynistic because pregnancy meant the person physically could not do the job.

      1. Hekko*

        Although if the job involved being exposed to radiation, wouldn’t the employee be interviewing in bad faith (at least from the point where start date is discussed)? She’s going through rounds to get a job she currently can’t do.

      2. BWooster*

        “Playing devil’s advocate but it really depends on the job. There are a few jobs (eg those involving exposure to radiation) you really can’t do while pregnant”

        An employee needs to request that accomodation, btw. You can’t decide for them that they can’t do it.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          Sometimes you sort of can. When I worked for a veterinarian, pregnant women weren’t supposed to take x-rays or help in surgery (because of the gas anesthesia). I guess technically we couldn’t physically force them out of the lab or the surgery, but I suspect it would have, at the very least, opened us up to some liability if anything had gone wrong. (And vet’s offices are small business that are very often staffed largely by women of childbearing age, so, yeah, this could have an effect on being able to actually get work done. But they still didn’t ask about kids/pregnancies at interviews or complain about them later.)

        2. President Porpoise*

          YES. You can’t force a woman not to do those jobs just because you suspect she might be pregnant – and you can’t ask her if she is, either. You can educate the woman about the risks and pray she makes the right choice.

          Can you imagine how awkward it would be if you quietly removed someone from x-ray duty on the assumption that they’re pregnant and it turned out that she’s just putting on weight that centers around her stomach? Some people just look pregnant.

        3. Annie*

          Who on earth said anything about “suspect they might be pregnant”? The comment thread is about an employer’s responsibilities once an employee discloses a pregnancy.

      3. Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss*

        Gal Gadot filmed Wonder Woman while increasingly pregnant: they CGI’d her belly out.

        1. Janie4*

          Wonder Woman had a huge CGI budget, and she was the star – it was worth it to CGI her belly out for her. Depending on the budget for the production, and the role and its prominence, CGI may not be an option.

        2. TotesMaGoats*

          can someone CGI my non-pregnant belly out right now…everyday? It’s 2019, why is this not possible? :)

      4. Quill*

        I work in a field where radiation and teratogen exposure is a concern and while it changes your duties and affects when people actually end up out for maternity leave, it ends up as an accommodation instead of a hiring criteria, and the burden of risk assessment is on the employee.

        … For example, you can be instructed to disclose if you have a penicilin allergy because you work in a building where it’s produced, but not everyone knows if they have one. Uncertainty is the cost of physical bodies.

      5. amianai*

        There’s no mention of paying for maternity leave. In the US, maternity leave is typically short and unpaid.

      7. JSPA*

        I’m about to link a piece titled, “This midwife at Auschwitz delivered 3,000 babies in unfathomable conditions.” It’s not clickbait. It’s from the archdiocese of Lodz.

    8. Fikly*

      100% not surprised. Appalled, yes. But can easily believe it.

      I have invisible disabilities. They can, sometimes, affect my work. I would never in a million years disclose before I have a signed offer in hand.

    9. Harper the Other One*

      Much as I hate to say it, this attitude lurks even in people who would surprise you. I know someone whose department was recently brought up to full staffing, but then the new employee disclosed pregnancy. I’m sure some of it was driven by stress about the situation (she’d been trying to fill the key responsibilities of multiple positions and lots was falling through the cracks) but still, she made comments about how the new employee shouldn’t have been interviewing while pregnant because it “wasn’t fair” to her new company.

    10. Lynca*

      I don’t find it that hard to believe. While no one outright said it to my face, some people were very clear that my absences during and after pregnancy were going to be a burden. That cut deep and I don’t have the same opinion of them as I had before.

    11. blackcat*

      Having been a pregnant woman, and having interviewed for jobs while my child was quite young (and therefore needing to pump every 3-4 hours), I find this 0% surprising.

    12. Lady Blerd*

      I agree with this. That said, I was on the hiring comitee for a position, not in my section, and almost as seen as the employee started, she announced that she was pregnant. I just laughed because we’d been trying to fill that position for months. Not only that, she was pregnant again when she came back so within her three year contratct, she was physical on the job maybe 18-20 months (I’m in Canada). I myself went through this when one of my reports was on medical leave without warning for 6 months. I get that this manager is upset about losing his employee almost as soon as she’ll start but the fact that they are thinking of firing the new employee is still out of bounds.

    13. blackcatlady*

      Three days after I was offered a job I found out I was pregnant. I called the person I would be working for and offered to back out, he said no I want to hire you. I’m still working the same job after 33 1/2 years!

    14. MatKnifeNinja*

      I give the letter writer props for writing what I heard men and women say about a new hire who is female and between the ages of 18-35. I hope she doesn’t hurry up and get pregnant.

      My niece has a new hire teacher, who is 7 months pregnant. Parents are livid. Kids are doing everything to get out of that class. Some are dropping it, and will pick it up during the summer. Some are pleading their way into another class by offering to drop electives. My niece is staying because she’s been to this rodeo before with teachers leaving for maternity leave, and not coming back/comes back late into the year. The school does not hire another teacher, but a series of long term subs that can only work 90 days, because after that they get a bump in pay. My niece had 3 teacher for 3ed grade.

      Heck, I know people who dropped their OB/GYN because they didn’t want a pregnant doctor during their own pregnancy.

      I’d rather have the person write point blank how this infuriates her, than give lip service on how wonderful it is to have a new employee who is pregnant, and and soft ball the same question.

      I guess I’m surprised people are surprised this still happens. Non degree needing jobs in my area, treat pregnancy like a life style choice, and make it as miserable as possible for the mother.

      1. Quill*

        A statistically overwhelming number of teachers’ children are born during the fourth quarter of the school year, especially in districts where your leave is going to be, at maximum, 90 calendar days.

        .. I know this because my mom spent a long time as a long term sub. Also in our district, any absence of 5 consecutive school days was considered a long term substitute arrangement.

      2. BananaPants*

        Our 1st grader’s teacher had a baby right before the school year started, so her class has a guest teacher (long term sub) for the first 2 months of the school year. It’s not ideal timing but babies arrive when they arrive, and a teacher’s family planning is certainly none of our business.

        The teacher gets much-needed time to recover and bond with her baby before heading back to her 20 “kids” at school. A brand new teacher (the long term sub) has the opportunity to gain real classroom experience and work with/learn from with experienced teachers. There hasn’t really been any negative impact on the kids, although I’m sure there will be an adjustment when the classroom teacher returns in November.

        I can’t imagine angling to have my kid moved to another class because their teacher is going on medical leave. Do these parents not realize that teachers can go out on medical leave for many other reasons with little or no warning? At least when it’s a maternity leave, there’s usually ample time to plan and prepare to minimize disruption for the students.

    16. Frankie*

      Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who think that it is crappy for someone who is pregnant to seek and take a new job. I can absolutely see someone writing this in as a genuine question.

      There are still plenty of people who think that pregnant women searching for jobs are being deceptive or somehow entitled.

      But the model of employment in that mentality is one of maximum resource extraction from a person as opposed to an ongoing relationship where contributions aren’t necessarily “came in 8 hours and churned out a constant stream of measurable work.”

    17. CanuckCat*

      I don’t know if I’d even necessarily chalk it up to misogyny or just really, really short-sightedness. My last job (which was a dumpster fire for numerous reasons, but this was one of them) was run by a woman and in the time I worked there, employed only women. One of my co-workers, who similarly was relatively new to the job (about two months in) mentioned to me in passing one morning that she’d just found out she was pregnant but was planning on working for as long as humanly possible. I believe she went to ask our boss (again, a woman) about maternity leave policies (spoiler alert: my work had none outside of what was mandated by the government) and suddenly an hour later she’s quitting. What exactly my boss said to her in that hour, I don’t know, but it was a HUGE red flag to me that she went from “I’m going to work through the pregnancy, everything’s good” to “I quit” in that short amount of time.

    18. Dagny*

      The case you mentioned was not what you are making it out to be. The plaintiff claims it was about her attractiveness; the dentist succeeded in persuading the court that it was actually about marital issues.

      1. StaceyIzMe*

        In no sane world is a third party’s presence in a professional setting a good reason to fire her for ANY reason pertaining to marriage other than an overt attempt to interfere in said marriage. So call it attractiveness, call it marriage issues, call it Pixie Dust Dispensed by the Angels of Timothy Leary- it doesn’t change the fact that she was dismissed for something that she basically had no interest in, no responsibility for and no obligation to have entertained. I don’t think that the language used alters the basic transaction. Somebody had an issue in a relationship. She was not in said relationship. But they projected their issue onto her. And she was fired. Which, in my estimation, is wrong.

  7. The Original Stellaaaaa*

    OP4: If you’re not in finance, I can understand why you’d have stronger standards for resumes. However, finance people are in such high demand that job offers aren’t hard to come by. I’m not suggesting that he do away with basic style and formatting, but iffy resumes aren’t a deal breaker when you’re applying for entry level finance jobs.

    Try to convince him to move the Mormon mission and the Katrina cleanup to his cover letter. The Eagle Scout thing is fine. Depending on how many details/years are on his resume, it’s sometimes better if a new accountant seems like he’s 22 and took the normal track after high school (I’m not talking about looking young or maintaining a lie. I’m just talking about getting the interview). There’s a weird bias in accounting against people who don’t go into it as soon as possible.

    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      I wouldn’t put them in the cover letter either! In fact, I’d oppose them even more there — the cover letter should be all about why he’ll excel in the job

    2. Snuck*

      I’d personally drop the Mormon mission… or put it into some sort of catchall “Interests and hobbies” if he is fluffing out space (but if he’s fluffing out space… why? UGH … don’t fluff resumes out)…. A resume should only be a couple of pages (I’m in Australia, if a longer form of information is needed we tend to use a CV which is substantially longer, and might include extra information)

      Another thought on this is … if he is so determined to leave it on, why? Does he think having it there improves his chances? Does he think this will self select out highly unpleasant workplaces? Is he using it to pre-set up an understanding of ‘who he is’ for a workplace? Why does he want it out there? What is he trying to signal?

      Leave it off, or leave it on, if the signal needs to be super strong… but know that if it’s on there it might turn some employers off – not necessarily anti-Mormon ones, but anti-Religion in the workplace, anti-‘anything that stands out’ etc… Stating you are part of a strongly opinionated religion on a resume can cause people to wonder about wider team fit…

      1. moql*

        We team fit: not really going to be a problem in Utah. People really underestimate the number of Mormons and their cultural dominace here. I’m more worried that he thinks it will give him a leg up.

        1. Christy*

          Yeah, @Snuck, have you been to Utah? I would honestly bet that putting his mission will give him a leg up in job applications (in Utah). My coworker who moved to Utah seriously considered converting, not because she had Mormon beliefs, but because the Mormons in her office had more power than the non-Mormons.

          1. Quill*

            Since moving to Utah my mom has joked that if my dad didn’t have his weekends locked in as saturday & sunday she’d apply for a job that worked Sunday because she might get a pay bump since none of the mormons would take it.

      3. Don't Ask This Manager*

        I work remotely for a company with HQ near BYU in Utah, that has a workforce that skews toward more recent graduates. (There is a concentration of tech companies sometimes called the “Silicon Slopes”.) I can tell you that putting missions on resumes seems the norm. I would say the majority of resumes I see list the mission.

        Personally, I think it may be a vehicle for de facto religious descrimination, as it functions as a way for candidates to flag that they are of the majority religion in that area.

        There are a lot of connections between Scouting and the LDS church as well, and service is very big there. Honestly all 3 of these things may well be plusses on a resume in Utah. I don’t like it, but I think OP’s husband may be in the right.

        1. CMart*

          I would also think that depending on the person – and especially for recent grads – their mission is some of their only “work” experience

          My husband just extended an offer to someone who listed their mission on their resume. We’re in Chicago. He thought it was a little odd (since, idk, who cares?) but the considered that other than a single internship and the college degree, there wasn’t much else for the applicant to point to as far as work ethic, skills etc…

          But Husband also served with Americorps for a year or so, and therefore tends to view mission work in the same vein. I’m sure people wouldn’t think twice about a Peace Corps* assignment on a resume.

          *I’m ignoring the proselytizing aspect of LDS mission work here, I know Peace Corps and these missions are apples and pears.

          1. SubjectAvocado*

            I always included my LDS mission in my resume as work experience and just took out the overtly spiritual aspects of it. There’s a lot of organizing, planning, leading, and coordinating that go on with missions and the only people who do it are the missionaries. Then again, it was some of my only work experience and I was still fluent in my mission language. I don’t live in Utah and employers loved it, even ones who didn’t know much about the church. It’s about phrasing, in my opinion, and if the resume writer treats it as a serious experience with relevance to the performance of an employee, the employer probably will too.

            In this case I’d take it off since he’s not fluent in Portuguese anymore and it was over 10 years ago. I was pretty fresh off my mission when I used it, but like I said…people loved it.

        2. Falling Diphthong*

          I, also, think all 3 are probably okay on a resume (neutral to mild positive), and likely a plus in Utah.

          And as an agnostic not in Utah, the Mormon mission work mainly reads to me as “has adapted to living in a different culture, and learned another language to do it” which depending on field is neutral to a strong plus.

      4. Parenthetically*

        As a religious person I sympathize with the desire to know right off the bat if my workplace is going to be hostile to me because of my beliefs. But yeah… Utah is a whole different ball game.

    3. Mazzy*

      I wanted to say, I might not know how relevant these bullet points are, but the OP also asks if they are too old. I don’t think so. 32 is still very young to many people and I don’t think random stuff from the late 2000s is old enough that it’s weird on a resume. If it was in 1992, maybe. But not 2008

    4. Doc in a Box*

      I’m not in Utah, but as a non-religious person, I would view the Mormon mission on a resume more favorably than the Eagle Scout award. Two years navigating an unfamiliar culture is a big part of your life and personal development! Whereas I have no context for Eagle Scout — it sounds like a great service project for a HS student, but I’d expect it to drop off the CV by college. Leaving it on in your 30s sounds like leaving Varsity quarterback on.

    5. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      The problem is they’ll figure out he’s not a fresh graduate one way or another and still probably pick a graduate over him. Since you’re right, it’s hard to break in as a later in life graduate. I’ve seen a few accounting degrees rot due to their age so I’m not comfortable even saying that they’re handing out jobs so willynilly like that. You still have to grind your butt off to get into the first door.

      1. CMart*

        IDK, I was a non-traditional “recent grad” (restaurant industry to accounting) and started my accounting career at entry level at age 31. I had multiple offers from Big 4, regional public firms, and corporate positions before I graduated.

        After getting my first degree in 2008, it really felt like jobs were just falling out of the job tree this time around. It was honestly astonishing.

        1. The Original Stellaaaaa*

          I agree. I have about another year left in my accounting program and it’s shocking how easy it is to get finance jobs and paid internships. I had to learn to turn them down, since a lot of businesses expect their finance people to engage in sketchy stuff.

        2. The Man, Becky Lynch*

          It’s most likely a regional thing, as well as the fact I originally come from a very small area, where you have to leave if you want a real job that pays you a damn thing unless you know someone special.

    6. CMart*

      Yes, I really think OP4’s husband will be fine.

      Does he have a good major-GPA? All he needs is one halfway decent internship (and since those are paid, they’re very well worth pursuing) and to get his 150 hours with that Master’s and his resume can be basic and boring. Especially if he targets corporate accounting jobs and not the Big 4, he will likely have no issues in securing interviews/offers.

      Perhaps I sound overly optimistic, but I do speak from personal experience. Thanks to campus recruiting, I was invited to interview for something like 10 positions (out of the maybe dozen I applied for), and was offered 6 of them. I was 31 years old and 8 months pregnant. All of the companies were just hyped that I had a 3.9 GPA in my Master’s program and was CPA eligible. They also really enjoyed my decade-old nod to my state debate championship from college. This was 3 years ago.

  8. Phil*

    #4 Caveat to “religion and resumes shouldn’t mix” – if it’s completely relevant to the job/industry and translates to employable skills. Eg, my college education was through a creative arts college run by my church, which included a LOT of practical experience volunteering in church services (camera operation and directing, and also leading a team of about 15 for young adults services, which includes all the cat-herding that is involved in rostering around people’s availability). Getting into the tv industry, this ticked a lot of boxes, and invited a lot of follow-up questions from my interviewers (who are most definitely not Christian) and ultimately led to an offer for a slightly higher role than that which I interviewed for, which became available shortly after my interview.

    Having said that, the LW example… probably not going to have any bearing on a company’s hiring decision.

    1. mark132*

      One of the main advantages of many Mormon missions is linguistics skills. It was a key factor in my first job out of college.

        1. Samwise*

          She’s being…difficult…about the language skills. That can come back pretty quickly unless he has a lot of trouble learning foreign languages. (Says the person who studied French 40 years ago — when I’ve been back to France every ten years or so, it takes me a couple days to understand well, takes about a week to ramp up speaking skills.)

          2. Tinuviel*

            That’s… also not good enough to work in that language, and therefore not really good enough to advertise on a resume.

      3. nonymous*

        But couldn’t he list the language skill without highlighting the fact that it was a missionary? I mean, missionaries go all over the world so it’s not like you can swap the language skills learned in Portugal/Brazil with what someone picks up in Sweden.

        My point is that unless the main benefit is Mormon-signaling, husband can still list his experience, but from a skill perspective. Who knows, maybe the company has an accounting team to deal with international firms with US operations? His cultural experience could be of value there.

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          Living in a different culture where you have to know the language to obtain coffee is very different from studying that language in a classroom. (Nothing helped my kids’ Spanish like a 2 week trip to Costa Rica.) I wouldn’t put vacations on a resume, but jobs where you lived in a different culture for two years? Even if you were there as the trailing spouse, or trailing child.

          The mission is why he was there, and indicates how much interaction he was expected to have. (He didn’t live in a compound where he could speak only English.) “I lived in Brazil for two reasons, but don’t want to say why” is a weird way to put things–just say why you were there. Catholic Charities, your parents were Baptist missionaries, you were with the Peace Corps, your spouse had a two year contract with the Hague.

          1. Falling Diphthong*

            Ah. Not obtain coffee is it’s a Mormon mission. Still, it’s immersion in another culture, which is challenging, and if few people speak English you need to be able to construct “Do you know what time the bank will open tomorrow?”

        2. SubjectAvocado*

          As an LDS person, I think there’s a benefit to Mormon-signaling, as you put it. I never wanted to accidentally get hired on where people were going to be bigots about my religion. It was as much of a screen for employers, for me, as it was for me demonstrating my skills. People are weird about Mormons and I didn’t want to deal with that if I didn’t have to. I was always clear I was a missionary but on my resume I focused on what I did from a secular viewpoint– I never used religious terms aside from the name of the church.

          I’m not from Utah, though…I imagine employers may be pretty blasé about missions there. I don’t think it’ll necessarily give him a heads up since most of his competition will likely have also served.

    2. Emily Spinach*

      It sounds like yours is an example of directly relevant work (and/or education) in a way that having gone on a mission, on its own without more detail about accomplishments, may not be. People who attended religious universities of course will have a reference to religion on their resumes, or who worked at a church/religious org, but you should be highlighting the education or work versus the religion itself (ideally).

    3. Laura H.*

      I volunteer as a faith formation teacher in my parish and have done so since 2013 and it’s a constant through my lack of employment or work gaps. It’s under my volunteer section, and while it does use religious terms as necessary, I bullet it as if it’s another “job”. It can be included tactfully… it’s just a fine line.

  9. mark132*

    The Mormon mission thing depends on where you are. In the Mormon corridor, I would leave it in. However applying for a job in San Francisco, I would probably leave it out.

    1. MissGirl*

      Utah Mormon and former missionary here, who looks at resumes. I would take it off for two reasons. One, employers may feel uncomfortable at seeing it because it introduces the appearance of bias. Two, it just reads young. I usually only see it on resumes from new grads starting their careers. It should be replaced by more relevant work history.

      But in your husband’s defense, college career counselors used to emphasize putting it on there. When I went back for my MBA ten years later that had changed.

      I wonder if he’s had his resume viewed by his new counselors. The good news is my alma mater has a 98% career placement rate for MACC majors so I don’t think any of these will be deal breakers.

      2. Anancy*

        Utah non-Mormon here, and I just commented below completely opposite for my area of Utah. I wonder if it is my area or my perception that is different. I’m curious enough that I’m going to ask some people their thoughts tomorrow. (To be clear, I’m glad to read your response, and would like to see this change.)

        1. MissGirl*

          I’m in my mid-thirties and I haven’t had my mission on there since my first post-college job. Now I want to go pool my department too to see if others keep it :). But the good news is my department is incredibly diverse. If anything we have a bias toward Michigan grads.

    2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      If he’s really unshakeable on this issue, he can always include a section at the end of the resume entitled “community service” (or something to that effect). But it can backfire—if all of your service activities are over 10 years old, then it begins to look bizarre to keep a section so they can stay on.

      I think Husband should cut all of the activities described, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      1. Samwise*

        If he has more recent community service, then list that. But then he’s starting to get a substantial chunk of resume dedicated to non-work-related experience…

    3. Kendra*

      There are parts of Arizona, too, where this wouldn’t hurt your chances. The problem is that the reason it doesn’t hurt your chances is because it’s a sideways way of saying, “yes, I am LDS,” without coming right out and saying it, and you expect that to mean something positive to your prospective employer. You’re essentially asking your hiring manager to engage in religious discrimination in (what you hope will be) your favor, and that’s just as wrong as doing it the other way around.

      I absolutely get that it was a major life event for him; it still doesn’t belong on a resume.

    4. RoadsLady*

      Utah Mormon here as well.

      I’d take it off.

      Source: totally queried my brother who is employee by Mormon church offices on the matter.

      His response: No one really cares.

      If there is some particularly cool experiences from which to bring to the table, there are better ways to list them on resume.

      1. PookieLou*

        Agreed. I served a mission. I learned a grew a lot during that time, and accomplished a lot of things that would look good on a resume, as I’m sure OP’s husband did too. But if that was over 10 years ago, he should have other experience by now that highlights those same types of growth/accomplishments without going into mission territory. Don’t be that guy who peaked on his mission!!

        Also in Utah, it doesn’t make you unique. Especially since SO many other missionaries also served in Brazil.

        Overall, the potential benefits of keeping it on his resume are minuscule and the possibility that it will hinder his job search is much greater. Why take the risk and why take up valuable space on his resume?

      2. MissGirl*

        Yes, and it reads a little immature to have it in there years later. (Not sure if immature is the right word word). Like you think think it should help you.

        PS I work across the street from the church office building. Your brother and I are neighbors.

        1. rayray*

          Hey! I work down the street, hi neighbor :).

          I personally think he should take all that stuff off since it was over 10 years ago, but he could practice his Portuguese using duo lingo or conversing with others in Portuguese. Listing Portuguese as another language spoken could give him a leg up. He could save the Eagle Scout thing for thr application when it asks about other skills or he could mention it in his interview. As for the hurricane clean up, just leave it. You’re 32 now, and that was as a teen. It’s irrelevant, most teens do service projects.

    5. Bagpuss*

      If he wants to leave the mission work in, can he put it in his job history as 2 years of voluntering overseas at the relevant point, chronologically?
      And then consider what, if any, skills or experience he used during that period which are relvant to his current application.

      I would not put the hurricane cleanup on a resume simply becuase it is not recent enough. It also isn’t work related.
      Similalry, the Eagle Scout thing isn’t something I would see as relevant on a resume except for someone applying for entry level jobs at a time when they have no work experience. If he thinks that there are specific skills he gained as a result of that experience, then list them.

  10. Adub*

    As an Eagle Scout myself, I think it’s a super good thing to leave on your resume. It shows dedication and commitment, the ability to work with other people-both people your own age, people older and younger than you and adults, the ability to work through problems and solve them. Most people start working on it at 11 and don’t earn it until 16 or 17. Just staying committed to one thing for that long at that age-amazing! It’s something only 3% of scouts earn. I for one will never ever take it off my resume.

    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      I agree it’s fine to leave it on, but I don’t think this really explains why! Some people do other things that show equivalent commitment at that age too, and they wouldn’t be considered acceptable on a resume. The Eagle Scout award is in its own unique category and so be it, but I don’t think it quite stands up to the same scrutiny we’d give another activity from that age.

      1. Poppy the Flower*

        It may be what he was taught, too. I have my Gold Award (Girl Scout equivalent) and was told it should always go on my resume as it’s a lifelong honour. If I think too much about it, I can get why it might start seeming irrelevant. At the same time, I’ve gotten positive responses from employers about it and it’s literally one line/mention listed after other honours (I make sure to list anything more recent or relevant first) so it’s not taking up too much space.

        1. Alli525*

          Who told you it should always go on your resume? If it was someone affiliated with Girl Scouts then their opinion should probably be taken with a grain of salt…

          1. Poppy the Flower*

            Girl Scouts. That was my point… this person may have heard the same thing from Boy Scouts. Not that it’s necessarily GOOD advice but that they may have received that advice. (I’ve kept it on because I work in a field that seems to like that sort of thing, and like I said it doesn’t take up that much room).

            1. fposte*

              Yes, I think that Scouts value Scout stuff more than non-Scouts. It’s therefore somewhat of a dice roll; it may excite a former Scout but turn off all the non-Scouts.

              1. CMart*

                I do think this is the heart of the point – who values it and how much, and what the value may be outside of those people.

                This reminds me a lot of bartending school, actually. Bar owners/managers who have been to bartending school love to see potential employees who have also done it. Prefer to see it! A small section of that population don’t particularly care and give more weight to experience, but won’t write an applicant off. And a shockingly large portion of the hospitality industry think being duped into going to bartending school is a sign of having bad judgement/means that person has bad habits and toss those applications straight into the trash.

      2. Lucette Kensack*

        Right!

        Here are some other things teenagers that I know have done, which are similar in scope and very admirable… but not relevant to an adult person’s resume: established and coached a sports team for younger athletes; led a 4-H club; cared for their younger siblings while their parents worked 2 jobs; etc.

    2. Jand*

      I’d be super turned off by the Eagle Scout thing. As an outdoor professional, my dominant stereotype of former Eagle Scouts is “excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect”. Including it in the resume would reinforce this even further.

      1. Jand*

        I wouldn’t necessarily not interview them, if their materials were otherwise strong, but it would certainly raise a flag to look for other places they may be over-impressed with their own knowledge and/or skills.

        1. Kristine*

          I know many Eagle Scouts and “over-impressed with their own knowledge and/or skills” is the perfect way to describe them. Will that be true of every Eagle Scout ever? No, but it’s a stereotype for a reason.

      3. Quill*

        I shouldn’t have laughed but this perfectly describes the teen component of the troop my brother was in during elementary. Neither my mother (a girl scout all the way up to cadet), nor my father (who wasn’t a scout himself, but in a similar organization as a kid.)

        When my brownie troop dissolved my mom pulled my brother from cub scouts and put us in museum led naturalist day camps instead. I don’t know the names of a lot of knots but I do know how to identify poison ivy and the field treatment for exposure to it. :)

    3. Jess in Ohio*

      The conventional wisdom is not to include anything that reveals your religion or politics unless it will be a plus (for a political job or a nonprofit that would be a link to their mission/culture). When I read Scouts, my first thought is religious and homophobic. Same thing for Mormon Missionary trip. I know that not every person affiliated with these groups have that value system, but both the Scouts and LDS are based on these values and prejudices. I know it’s legal to base hiring decisions on this, but I would be concerned about how this person would treat and talk to other staff and customers. That’s really hard to screen for in an interview. Putting these on a resume also shows questionable judgment Scouting is also an odd choice for an adult to put on a resume. It’s old and not relevant.

      1. Tinuviel*

        I know it’s [NOT] legal to base hiring decisions on this
        (emphasis mine)

        It’s a good point to bring up to your husband that he’s inviting people to make a judgment of his skills and character based on his religion, and that judgment can go either way, as shown here. Either way it’s illegal, but it’s not always helpfully illegal.

    4. Beth*

      As a woman with a brother who’s an Eagle Scout, I can’t get behind this attitude. Yes, it shows that as a child you sustained involvement in an activity for a long time. Yes, it’s a major achievement for a teen! Yes, it’s something that could reasonably feature on an 18-22 year old’s resume, when they’re working their first job or two and don’t have a whole lot else to put on there yet.

      But frankly, there are a ton of activities that children do that are equally difficult and require equal commitment. I saw all the work my brother had to do over the years to get there, and it was a lot! But I also saw how much work my classmate who rode horses put in, and that required more training and endurance than he put in. I saw how much an acquaintance who was first chair in violin in our (very large) school orchestra put into that, and that required more daily practice and commitment than he put in. I saw how much work my other friend put into making costumes and sets for various theater groups she was involved in, and that required so much problem solving and skill. What my brother did was impressive, and finishing it was definitely an achievement, but it wasn’t that unique among our peers.

      I don’t say this to devalue his achievement–he did really good, it was a lot of work, he kept at it even when it was a lot of stress and work, he deserved acknowledgement of that. But none of those other things are achievements that would have a place on your average adult resume, not once the person had more than a couple years of professional experience. I don’t understand why the Eagle Scout achievement is different. I accept that it is, because people choose to treat it that way, but I can’t see any logical foundation for it beyond that. It seems unfair to so many people who did other difficult, amazing things.

      1. TechWorker*

        Agreed – I think my resume still has some teenage accomplishments listed near the bottom (which is similar – grade 8 music exams are a decent amount of commitment, as were the other ‘professional level’ hobby exams I did). But this thread is making me think I should remove them!

        1. Solar Moose*

          What sort of “professional level” hobby exams? I’m inclined to think that qualifications are qualifications no matter when they’re earned. If you have an amateur radio license or something, that’s worth listing, because that’s a general qualification.

          Eagle Scout awards, however, are very specific to an age range. Once you’re out of that age range, you’ve probably accomplished other things – and if you haven’t, then it’s concerning that you’re living on old glory.

        2. A*

          Depends on how old you are / how long you’ve been in the work force. I never had anything on my resume from before high school. I removed my high school accomplishments around age 25, with the exception of national awards. Removed those by ~26. I’m 32 now / in workforce for ~9 years, and have removed everything from high school and only mention of college aged activities is noting honors graduation and clarifying my major/minor. I have a notable internship from this time I include *if* it is directly relevant to the job I’m applying for.

          Sometimes the things I’ve left off will come up in interviews at which point I’ll explain more. Otherwise I generally assume my employer doesn’t really care that I was the editor-in-chief of my HS yearbook and graduated valedictorian. What matters is what I’ve done with those skills since.

          Honestly, 8th grade is a stretch even for a new college graduate. Maybe if you’re entering the workforce right out of college it’s ok to keep on for the initial search only.

      2. Tinuviel*

        This. All these seem like fillers for a 22 year old who doesn’t have many other achievements to brag about. Why does your 32 year old husband want people to know that he was very dedicated as a child and adolescent? What has he done in the last 10 years to prove that has stuck?

        1. Snuck*

          Good summary…

          If it’s been a decade… what has he done in the last few years that show these same capabilities?

          2. CMart*

            I honestly wouldn’t be too hard on the guy. The letter said he’s moving out of customer service. If he’s been grinding away trying to stay afloat in dead-end retail jobs for the last 10 years I don’t think it’s that wild that the last “big” things he’s accomplished were a decade ago.

        2. Quill*

          Speaking of which, I gotta check if I still have my camp councilor and 17-19 year old volunteering experience on my resume, that was a decade ago now.

      3. Seeking Second Childhood*

        I vaguely resent the focus too. I as much admire the friend whose near-daily work in the family business kept it afloat during a recession.

      4. Lucette Kensack*

        Thank you for this comment — you’ve expressed my reaction much more clearly (and generously) than I have.

      5. Manon*

        This is what bothers me most about the glorification of the BSA/Eagle Scout Awards. Very few, if any, other achievements for youth carry the same weight despite similar levels of effort and dedication, and why? Because the BSA is associated with “good upstanding Christian American men” and focuses on activities generally considered “valuable”.

    5. PookieLou*

      I think being an Eagle scout is commendable, but if someone older than their late 20s has an accomplishment from their teen years listed on their resume, I would wonder if they peaked early in life. I’d rather know what they can offer as an adult, than who they were as a kid.

      1. RoadsLady*

        Good point. I said elsewhere it’s probably okay for a resume, but likely not when you’re in your thirties. More like when you’re in your early twenties trying to get your foot in the door.

        1. CMart*

          I think part of the problem is that he’s 32 years old and is starting over at the same spot as a 22 year old. I had the same issues as a “career changer” (very similar to the LW’s husband: service industry to Master’s in Accounting). He is trying to get his foot in the door. When you entered your 20’s at the beginning of the great recession I don’t think it’s terribly far fetched that the last decade has been spent being overworked and underpaid at non-“professional” resume-building jobs. The letter says he’s moving away from customer service.

          Living that grind for the last decade doesn’t really leave a lot of room for resume-worth achievements. Why not mention the last notable thing you were able to do?

    6. Solar Moose*

      A 30-year-old man should have more recent items on a resume showing dedication, commitment, and ability to work. I’d be highly suspicious of someone who didn’t, and relied on some award earned at 18 to convey those traits. It doesn’t belong on the resume of anyone past 20.

        1. Solar Moose*

          A 12-year gap of meaningful work in a resume would cause any employer concern. There are certainly reasonable explanations, but it’s definitely an oddity that would need to be addressed in a cover letter.

            1. Solar Moose*

              I agree! Which means he should have more recent experience that shows the traits he wants to show. Adding a youth leadership experience at 32 is kind of weird. Becoming an Eagle Scout may very well have formed the type of man he is, but if it has, he should have recent evidence to show, and not need to waste the space on his resume with something he finished at 18.

              1. pleaset*

                Maybe I’m not getting what you’re saying – no one claims that Eagle Scouts covers for everything else – it’s trying to add something, not replace something.

                Yes it’s a waste of space, but having it make you suspicious seems odd.

                1. Solar Moose*

                  I think you’ve misread my initial comment. I didn’t say that listing the award was the sole cause of suspicion.

                2. A*

                  And the waste of space part isn’t unimportant. I’m the same age as OP’s husband, and I have to edit my resume extremely carefully and cater it to each specific job because I have too much to list to fit on one page. Not because I’m some amazing superstar… but because it’s been a long time.

                  I would question why the individual has so much space left to fill that they are throwing things out there from over a decade ago.

                3. CMart*

                  @A – there really shouldn’t be a question. He’s a career changer going from customer service (retail or call centers maybe?) into accounting. There is very, very little from that work history that potential employers care about.

                  Yes yes, you talk about the soft skills you learned from all that work in the interviews and perhaps the cover letter, but “Footlocker – Sales Associate 2009-2014” just doesn’t have much to add to an accounting resume.

              2. CMart*

                I can promise you – no one hiring an accountant cares if you’ve spent the last 12 years doing customer service jobs. In their eyes it may as well be a 12 year gap and will be looking for something else “worthy”. Getting his Master’s in Accounting will solve most of that for him.

                I speak from recent experience having done nearly the exact same thing. The places I interviewed were not interested in the least that I spent the prior 10 years bartending 50 hours a week to support myself. They liked my degree, my GPA, and were actually really curious about my college debate championship title that yes, was nearly 10 years old by that point.

              3. BananaPants*

                I agree that it’s kind of weird and a little sad to include a youth leadership award on a resume when it’s a decade or more out – it’s like HE doesn’t think he’s accomplished anything more noteworthy or relevant in the intervening years.

                If he’s currently or was recently involved with the BSA in a volunteer role as an adult, great – it should absolutely be included on his resume.

    7. BananaPants*

      Including an Eagle Scout on your resume after your mid-20s is not nearly as impressive as you seem to think it is.

      The typical Eagle project in my area involves the Boy Scout collecting cans and bottles as a fundraiser for materials, and then he and his dad and several friends spend an afternoon building a bench at his family’s church. I’m sure they’re very nice benches – but it’s just not going to be meaningful in a professional context many years after the fact.

      A professional including a high school scouting award on his/her resume decades later is not an automatic “circular file” move, but it’s a bit of a red flag for me as a hiring manager.

  11. Sleve McDichael*

    OP#3 somebody said that to me once when I was in high school. I’ve been using XXXX or ZZZ ever since because I was paranoid and thought that most people saw XXX as ‘dirty’. Your letter to Alison has made me realise that most people DON’T actually think like that. I will now be going forth to liberally scatter my documents with XXX in future and I give you permission to do the same!

    I think your co-irker might just need to get her mind out of the gutter.

    1. Devil Fish*

      To be fair, I started using XXX as a placeholder in middle school because of that implication (what? I was like 14! we were all kids once!) and I thought it was funny that teachers could never call me out on it.

      (Story: I had one teacher pull me aside after class and point it out to me once as a friendly heads up or something and I just tilted my head and said “What is porno?” I was one of the “advanced” kids and so totally lacking in obvious guile that he blushed and said “Never mind” and sent me on to my next class.)

      1. Devil Fish*

        (Also this was in the 90s and the only porn we had access to back then was 1) behind the velvet rope and curtain in the back of the video store, 2) scrambled on the pay-per-view channels, 3) on dial-up. (god I’m old))

        1. Seeking Second Childhood*

          I had none of that growing up in the late 70s/early 80s… but movie theater listings were in the local paper on a daily basis. Those titles&ads were an education in themselves.

    3. Mr. Shark*

      It’s just really so ridiculous to think that XXX in this use has anything to do with dirty movies. I’d actually just laugh out loud if someone said something like that to me.

      It’s a placeholder, that’s all. Geez. Grow up.

    4. Allison in Seattle*

      I’m just here to comment that I love your username! I have that a screenshot of that meme saved for when I need a laugh.
      Signed,
      Rey McSriff

  12. nnn*

    There’s a mischievous little part of my brain that would be tempted to pretend not to know how XXX could mean porn. Or perhaps even not to know what “porn” means. I doubt this would be productive though.

    1. Batgirl*

      I’d definitely be tempted to quiz co-worker in a very puzzled way “What do you mean?” “Are you sure?” “Where have you seen this?” ” Why do they use Xs?”
      ….but I’m pretty sure it’s a terrible idea!

      1. London Calling*

        I must be a horrible person because that’s what I’d do, as well. ‘Porn? oh really? where have you seen that, then?’ and watch her wriggle.

      2. Pomona Sprout*

        Like many things that come up here at AAM, this is the kind of thing that’s loads of fun to fantasize about but not a good idea to actually do! XD

      3. Quill*

        I’d do it but I have extensive experience in making people squirm + occasionally I am tempted to use my fairly obvious ace aura for evil. :()

  13. Anancy*

    #4: I live in a rural-ish area of Utah, and am not Mormon but in a very highly Mormon area. And I honestly think he should leave his Eagle Scout and Mission work in, and even possibly his volunteer work. Especially the Eagle Scout and Mission would be expected to be listed by employers, since both are very very common male accomplishments in this state. And while I agree that religion and employment should not mix, there is sort of a Mormon culture here that regards volunteer work very highly, and that by leaving all three in, he is tapping into that Utah culture. That will help his job offers in a majority of the state. (There are a few pockets where adding them won’t matter.).

    1. Kathleen_A*

      I (also not a Mormon) grew up in a town outside of Utah but with a very high Mormon population, and I also think leaving his Eagle Scout and mission on his resume almost certainly won’t do any harm, at least not in Utah, and might actually do some good. Rightly or wrongly, they are signs of Good and Responsible Malehood (women sometimes do missions these days too, though, don’t they?), so if I were him, I’d leave them on there.

      1. SubjectAvocado*

        We (females) do go, and quite often! I went and as a recent grad always included it on my resume, just didn’t allude to the religious nature of the work beyond acknowledging it was missionary work for a church, and naming the church. Employers loved it. 10 years down the road, I probably won’t include it, but as a young person it definitely set me apart. Then again, I didn’t (and don’t) live in Utah (more like Utah’s backyard– everyone knows a Latter-Day Saint, but there aren’t so many of us as to be remarkable).

  14. Aphrodite*

    OP #1, I found myself bristling a little at learning that your co-worker makes the assumption that someone else will always drive. Even though you are going to the same place, or there and back to work, it’s annoying as hell to have someone always with you. True, it’s no additional dollar cost but what you are doing is helping your co-worker save money because he never has to bring his car, spend the money it takes to operate it (maintenance, gas, insurance, parking, general expenses) or just always have people sitting there while you drive. Many of us get tired of feeling like chauffeurs because even when a regular passenger is generous in payment. I suppose it’s because it becomes expected, and expected services are no longer voluntary. (Office driving stories tick me off in the same way that office food stories do for others.)

    1. Lonely Monster*

      I completely agree! I had a co-worker who would follow me to the cafeteria for lunch load up her tray and hurry to the check out. The first time it happened, I didn’t think anything of it, until the cashier rang my purchase up, it’s was TWICE the price of my $3.00 sandwich. The cashier informed me that my “co-worker” told her that I was paying for both of our lunches that day. I refused to pay, and left. Apparently my “co-worker” does this to everyone to get a free meal. She also steals snacks, sodas, and anything else she can gorge on. (BTW she makes three times what I do, so it isn’t about money)

      1. valentine*

        BTW she makes three times what I do, so it isn’t about money
        I think it partially is, especially since you don’t know what she does with her money. I can’t believe the cashiers keep letting her do it.

        If I couldn’t unload the entitled coworker, perhaps by leaving for the meeting from elsewhere, I’d at least draw up a rota.

        1. Devil Fish*

          Disagree. I’ve only known like four people in my life who were hurting for money and would be that brazen about trying to steal from other people, compared to the dozens I’ve known who were too broke to feed themselves and had to be talked into taking a little charity that they desperately needed. (This shit is really embarrassing to most people. I’ve been there and I went hungry rather than begging or stealing.)

        2. Anonymous Water Drinker*

          Also disagree. True, we don’t know what she is doing with her money, but she has no right to expect us to use our money to feed her. I’ve had some pretty hard financial times and I never tried to freeload off my coworkers.

        1. Media Monkey*

          also surely the check out person would want to confirm with you first before letting her leave with food?

    2. Seven hobbits are highly effective, people*

      As someone who generally took transit rather than drove for a combination of convenience and (non-immediately-obvious) health-related reasons, I will say that it’s really aggravating when a company decides you suddenly need to go off-site and just assumes that everyone drives to work every day and that they don’t need to make any kind of travel provisions so that non-drivers can attend off-site meetings. I remember a previous job where they’d time schedules such that I needed to be at an off-site meeting across town in a much shorter time than I could get there on transit after my last on-site scheduled thing even though the job description for my position did not include a requirement to have a driver’s license or a car, and a complete reluctance on the part of anyone in management to solve this problem in any way other than me driving myself anyway. (I usually ended up trading around on-site responsibilities with co-workers so I could catch a bus in time, which was also not a great way to solve this but work wasn’t going to pay for a cab, I didn’t feel I could safely drive some days for medical reasons, and, again, my job description did not include the ability to drive and I habitually took the bus to work. I wouldn’t have taken a job that required driving.)

      I feel like it’s the company’s problem to solve rather than the co-worker’s, but it’s not fair to non-drivers to assume everyone can drive if that isn’t part of the job description, and the occasional off-site meeting expectation like this can make it really hard for people who can’t drive (or who can’t afford to buy/insure a car, for that matter) to hold down jobs they can otherwise do.

      1. whingedrinking*

        I’m utterly baffled by your company’s refusal to pay for a cab. How frequent were these meetings that it would have become a significant expense?!

        1. Seven hobbits are highly effective, people*

          About once a month. I’m sure the logic was a combination of “no room in the budget” (which was probably true), “if we got a cab for Seven Hobbits, everyone would want one and we don’t want to set a precedent” (unlikely, but presumably any other transit-users would also want one so it might have been several cabs from various sites, I suppose), and possibly a side of “Seven Hobbits is being difficult and doesn’t want to have to go to these meetings and is looking for an excuse not to go” (not really – that job paid you for the extra hours if you had to attend a meeting outside your regular work day, so I didn’t mind evening meetings particularly). It was pretty unusual for people to take transit to work at that job (which is weird, because it was on multiple buslines, you could buy bus passes pre-tax through payroll, and the bus near that work site ran pretty much all hours so I could always grab a bus home even if I had to work really late), so I think it was a lack of pre-existing plan and them not being interested in doing something “special” for one employee.

          This is also the job where my boss ordered a pitcher of beer for the table at a work party once, and then tried to pressure me into drinking the whole thing once she realized that everyone but me was driving home and had already ordered a beer if they wanted one, so, you know, an interesting place to work all around. (I did not drink the entire pitcher of beer. I did have a second beer since it was free, but I didn’t want to get completely plastered and then have to find my way home in the dark from a bar in an unfamiliar part of town on public transit. I am also really not the “drink an entire pitcher of beer” type, let alone the “get puking drunk at a work party type”, which is presumably what would have happened if I’d chugged an entire pitcher of beer, plus the glass I’d already ordered, in about an hour during a work dinner.)

      2. tamarack and fireweed*

        I agree with Seven hobbits […] general approach. It seems to me that if regular or occasional offsite work is part of the job, then someone at the company (their boss or grandboss, or maybe collectively the managers of the teams involved, or maybe a designated admin person) should be in charge of keeping an eye on the transport situations and ensuring everyone has access to the necessary tools to resolve the transport issue smoothly.

        We don’t know whether the offsite work situation has been going on as long as co-worker is in the role, or whether it was sprung recently on the team. We also don’t know whether and how it was brought up when the co-worker was hired for or assigned to the role. It is possible that having a driver’s license and being able and willing to drive yourself was formally part of the requirements, and the co-worker is now just reneging on it. Or whether there was some sort of assumption on the part of the company. If the offsite location is in the general direction of where most co-workers live, they may even appreciate being able to drive from downtown to the periphery during the quiet mid-day hours and then to be able to take off straight home when the day’s over. (To be sure, the company shouldn’t require, in practice or formally, driver’s licenses when a situation can be easily resolved by, for example, contracting with a cab/vehicle service or similar.)

        But I still think that the co-worker’s handling of the situation is somewhere between crummy, graceless and rude. They shouldn’t kick the ball into the OP’s and the other colleagues’ laps. The ball should go back to the employer.

        As the OP, two things come to mind to move this ahead:

        – Talk to their manager, bring up the transport question. Maybe from the reimbursement angle. Like “I haven’t put in mileage expenses in the past because [offsite] is right on my commute between home and the office. But not every team member has transport, so I keep finding myself driving Fergus back to town. Which means that instead of avoiding evening rush hour traffic I have to go through it twice, and instead of getting home by X it’ll be Y. By the way, I don’t think I can always be available for Fergus’ transport. This makes me wonder: What resources are there for those of us who sometimes don’t come into the office by car? Would we be free to call a cab, or is there a vehicle service we can use?””

        – And to Fergus, a calm, really friendly, matter of fact “Hey, there’s something that’s been on my mind for a while – can we talk about this thing?” conversation. Like, you couldn’t help notice that he never asks for a ride to the offsite but just assumes someone will give him one. And that this wouldn’t be a big deal if it was only TO the location. But that he never seems to be arranging a ride back into town / to the nearest bus stop. And that you’ve calculated that on bad rush hour days, you’re home X min later than you otherwise would be. You could invent a change of evening routine. You could (facetiously, or hypothetically) suggest that you, too, might like to do parts of your commute by bus or bicycle — would they be willing to trade off driving duty?

        End by saying that you really have to stop driving back into rush hour traffic and suggest the co-worker talk with their boss about getting a cab ride expensed.

        1. Yorick*

          I wouldn’t talk to the manager about transport issues. I’d tell Fergus I couldn’t drive him and suggest he talk to the manager.

          I say this as a person without a driver’s license. He can ask for rides, but if no one’s available then he has to figure it out himself.

          2. Nessun*

            Agreed. I also don’t have a driver’s license, and I would a) never assume anyone will drive me anywhere, b) never assume that a ride out means a ride back, and c) speak to my manager about arrangements if it’s part of my job, not rely on anyone else to do so for me. Fergus should speak to his manager about his options; no one has to drive him anywhere, and certainly not if he can’t ask like a polite adult and find his way home like one too!

        1. Half-Caf Latte*

          The OP clearly says though that his wife uses the car. So he doesn’t have a car just freely available on off-site days.

          2. JSPA*

            Yeah, but car planning is for OP (or OP and wife) to navigate.

            Maybe she can swing by and pick him up from the off-site.

            Maybe they can trade days with the car, so he has it for the off-sites, at least occasionally.

            Maybe he checks the bus schedule. (Maybe wife does.)

            Maybe he uses a rideshare app. (Maybe wife does.)

            Maybe he takes up biking / gets an e-bike. (Maybe wife does.)

            Maybe he asks work to cover a taxi or rideshare. (Maybe wife does.)

            Maybe he finds 3 other convenient spots where people can drop him, instead of driving back to work. (Maybe wife does.)

            Maybe he at least recognizes a FAVOR for what it is, and asks, instead of presuming.

            “My planning does not include me having a car here, nor any other plan besides assuming that the person I designate will drive me not only there but back” is pretty entitled. On the other hand, if someone says, “I have no intention of driving back, but your wife / friends / Uber / Lyft is welcome to pick you up from my porch, or any convenient place between here and my house,” that seems very fair, as far as your coworker duty to him.

            1. Half-Caf Latte*

              I hear what you’re saying. I was pushing back more on the idea that – he has a car therefore he should just drive himself.

              Much like the letter writer who was pushed to give up the wheelchair van needed to transport family, the company doesn’t get any say in how he manages his transportation. He needs to find a way back – but, and I’m calling it out ’cause I’m surprised there aren’t more comments about it- the company needs to pay for his way back.

      5. The Man, Becky Lynch*

        They should have paid for a cab wtf.

        My boss doesn’t drive unless he has to. So even he just takes an uber to off site places for meetings. We figured that with parking and mileage reimbursement that it’s not much different cost wise!

      6. ToS*

        I work with people with disabilities, and it’s one of the great unfairnesses in car-centric areas that getting around from site A to site B can almost make driving or owning a car mandatory. Some employers maintain company vehicles, which takes the pressure off of personal use, but is VERY hard on non-drivers. Setting up off-site work occasions might mean that it’s scheduled for more than one person, and the person who drives gets mileage both ways (as in, returning to the home office), but only one way if the driver goes home from the remote site. For the passenger in the letter, they should be exploring additional transportation options, however they might claim (if it’s the case) that the driver is getting reimbursed for the round trip, so it’s expected behavior.

        Most non-drivers figure out with the job description if driving is part of the essential function. Others will connect with their local department of Vocational Rehabilitation to see what additional services are available to them when work travel is involved. There are not *tons* of selections.

        Many, many people with disabilities use app-based transportation to get around, in addition to taxis, Mass Transit, and Mass transit mobility options.

        How employers are more disability-friendly in this area is to use technology to access remote locations, or manage required transportation so it is inclusive of any involved employee that might request a travel-based accommodation. I can’t speak for not reimbursing for a cab, it sounds like the prior employer was pre-ADAAA, small, or did not have a great employee accommodation process. I hope it’s better now!

        I

    3. Dan*

      In my line of work, “downtown” meeting costs (mileage, parking) would be expensed to the project. We do government work, so project funds are paid by the taxpayer at the end of the day. So “carpooling” is better for the environment, a benefit to the taxpayer (all of us), and for the immediate project, more money to spend on project stuff.

      In my line of work, in no way is any one person spending/saving more than another.

      1. Dancing Otter*

        But it’s not just about cost in this case. It’s about rudeness, and expecting coworkers to go out of their way to return him downtown afterwards when they have no reason to go that way.
        Besides, whoever gets stuck driving him back is making another entire round trip between job and meeting site, so where’s the savings from car-pooling?
        In Chicago, if the job is downtown and the meeting in the NW suburbs, that favor could easily entail three hours, round trip, in rush hour. I *might* do that for an immediate family member, but only if we couldn’t figure out an alternative. For a co-worker who doesn’t even say please or thank me? Ha! It’s to make a cat laugh!

        1. RUKiddingMe*

          Exactly. Even when Husband or I fly out we will drive each other to the transit center to catch the airport express so that no one has to deal with driving there, parking, traffic, etc. We do the reverse coming home.

          For a coworker? Potentially multiple *hours* in rush hour, downtown? One who has a car but takes transit most if the time? It’s not like he *can’* drive ir doesn’t have a car. It’s a preference to impose on others.

          Oh hell no.

        2. tamarack and fireweed*

          You’d still have a benefit from carpooling if the co-worker took a cab back to a convenient spot on the public transport network.

          Also, I think everyone agrees it is rude, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t underlying issues to consider. The way the OP wrote it, it reads like “someone is choosing a very bad and inconsiderate way to deal with something that clearly also needs to be addressed on the management level”.

          1. RUKiddingMe*

            I don’t see a benefit for anyone but the coworker who just presumes, never says please or thank you, demands a return trip to downtown in rush hour, never offers gas money…

        3. Lonely Monster*

          It would also creep me out, if a male co-worker starts following me to my car without prior agreement of getting a ride, and stands by my car waiting for me to unlock it so he can hop in.

          It’s the “he never asks for a ride, but follows you to your car” bit that concerns me. What if he did this to a new employee who had no idea he does this. I’d freak out

          1. Jadelyn*

            I’m just picturing this and yeah, that would weird me right the hell out. All I can think of is stopping and staring at him over the roof of my car. “Can I help you…?”

            I’m not saying this sort of thing is *why* I bought a coupe and don’t keep the passenger seat clear enough to have anyone riding with me…but it certainly wasn’t a deterrent to doing so.

    5. Green great dragon*

      He’s clearly being annoying/presumptious about it, but the starting point is he doesn’t drive to work (which is a reasonable choice) and enough people do that there’s always someone to car share with. I wouldn’t expect a co-worker to unnecessarily pay out all that extra that you’re mentioning just so I didn’t have to endure being with co-workers on company time?! The company wants him to be at XXX, you are employed by the company and going there on company time so yes, give him a lift. None of this is requiring anything extra from you; if you don’t want to bring a car in then don’t, if you don’t want to go back downtown afterwards then don’t, and it’s up to the company (or him) to sort it out.

      Not to mention the environmental benefits of not taking an extra car – and if you don’t care about them, consider he’s reducing congestion in your local rush-hour.

      2. Rusty Shackelford*

        I’ve worked with this guy before – the person who always grabs a ride with someone and never offers to drive. And yes, they’re right; you’re already going there, it doesn’t require any extra effort or expense on your part for them to ride along. But always-riders need to show some appreciation, and in my experience, they generally don’t.

        And I’d absolutely refuse to go back to the office just so this guy can catch public transportation. If I were in the LW’s shoes, I stick with “you can ride out there with me, but I’m not coming back, so you’ll need to get a ride back to the office afterward.”

        1. Quill*

          I avoided offering to drive at my previous jobs because my then-car was embarrassing. (My brother had previously used it to transport his entire band… and 100 lbs of oily bike parts… etc.) Of course, not knowing the area was also a pretty good reason for someone else to drive, but I always said thank you!

      4. House Tyrell*

        As someone who didn’t have a car until this year (I’m 23) but has been working since I was 17, I always needed rides to offsite work and I was always deeply uncomfortable asking, and since I started reading this blog my anxiety about asking for rides only doubled because everyone seems to hate it! I walked 2 miles each way for pretty much every shift at my first serving job because the girl who lived 1 street over from me made such a fuss about giving me a ride, even when I said I would walk to her house, and I only asked when we were scheduled for the same shifts. She’d literally drive past me on my walk there.

        When I got another job that said having a car wasn’t a requirement and then later started scheduling regular off site meetings, I had coworkers who knew I didn’t drive offer me rides before I even had to ask and it was the best feeling in the world! Your coworker shouldn’t be paying you when you go to the same location and are being reimbursed for gas. They should be kind and polite, as I always was, but not everyone can afford a car and it’s better for the environment and traffic to carpool as often as possible anyway.

        1. ToS*

          It’s pretty impressive that carpooling, mass transit use, and other ride sharing are becoming mainstream. I’m on a college campus, so we never assume that people routinely drive!

          The other thing that I press back on is people making a big to-do about walking reasonable distances. My son will occasionally walk home from school (we’re semi-rural, and he’s a young teen) and Holy Cow – if someone I know sees him, they talk to me like it’s a big to-do. I just remind them that if they are such a terrible driver that they think they might hit him on the grass berm, there is supplemental driver’s ed. Most days, every.single.car.I.see. stays on the road.

          1. House Tyrell*

            I don’t think 2 miles is an unreasonable distance, but I live in Texas so summers are brutally hot and then I had to make myself unsweaty before I could serve people. And when I was scheduled to close and couldn’t leave until 2:30am, walking home alone at that time as an 18yo woman could be stressful when my parents couldn’t get me since they were sleeping before going to their own jobs. The other closer and manager acted like giving me a 4 minute ride home was a huge burden to them so I just stopped asking.

            My other jobs were on a college campus and everyone was considerably nicer, as your experience also reflects.

            1. JSPA*

              Oooof, those are the long and miserable flavor of two miles. (But it sounds like the guy in question here has rather more in the way of resources and options.)

        2. Lonely Monster*

          For me it’s not about money, it’s the fact this co-worker “never asks and follows people to their cars,”.

          I’ve had co-workers who couldn’t drive due to age (too young), health problems, or couldn’t afford a car. But the ones who I refused to give rides to we’re the entitled jerks who thought I was their personal chauffeur and it was my job to drive them.

          If you’re nice and considerate, I’ll drive you. If you’re an entitled jerks, no way!

        3. Jennifer*

          I think a lot of people are judgmental toward non-drivers for some reason. I don’t get it. But glad you have a job with people who are more understanding.

      5. Mr. Shark*

        The company wants him to be at XXX…

        I think you meant to say, “The company wants him to be at ZZZ…” I don’t think the company wants him at any places that have porn. That’s inappropriate. Please edit your comment immediately.

      6. Jadelyn*

        “just so I didn’t have to endure being with co-workers on company time?!”

        …the problem with this, is that my car is not a workspace that my company is entitled to, even if I’m driving somewhere for work purposes. My car is mine. It’s my personal space. I have zero desire – and unless I was hired *as a driver*, zero obligation – to share that personal space with people I may or may not even particularly like. It being company time doesn’t make my car a company car.

    6. Slow Gin Lizz*

      Co-worker needs to take an Uber or a cab back home after these meetings if everyone else is heading in a different direction. There is no reason his co-workers should be inconvenienced that much. The company should pay for his transportation back to his home if he is going to an off-site meeting, so he wouldn’t be out any extra cash for this.

      I agree with Alison that OP or someone else should tell co-worker that he should learn to say thank you for these rides and to not assume he is going to get them (in a nicer way than this but I can’t think of the words right now). That he doesn’t is pretty rude for a grown adult.

      And you should all be submitting for reimbursement for the driving if you’re not already. It shouldn’t be about the money, the company should 100% eat that cost.

    7. Jennifer*

      What in the world? Did you ever consider that maybe someone can’t afford maintenance, car insurance, and all the other things you mention and that’s why they use public transit? There are also many people who don’t drive for medical reasons. We aren’t all scammers looking to take advantage of our coworkers.

      Companies that know there are people on the team that don’t drive to work should reimburse them for the cost of an uber or a cab back to the transit station or make other arrangements to get them to and from offsite meetings. If having a reliable car and a current license aren’t job requirements, this is the company’s responsibility.

    8. Tisiphone*

      I knew someone who was just like that guy. The worst offense was after a meeting that was in walking distance for me. The weather was fine and I didn’t drive. My “taxi passenger” followed me half a block before I noticed. By that time everyone with a car had already driven away.

      “So…how are you getting home? I didn’t drive. I walked. But there is a bus stop just a couple blocks past my house.”
      “Will you drive me?”

      2. Kat*

        And then what happened????? Don’t just leave us hanging? How’d you react and then what did your coworker say?

        1. Tisiphone*

          This was a long long time ago. I ended up giving a long ranty rant about asking and not just following someone home who lives in the neighborhood. That rant included how my car was in the garage.

          If it were today, I’d refuse to give the ride. Unfortunately, I caved.

          I never again gave that person a ride anywhere. Last I heard, this person was pulling the same crap, but was begging for a ride (after turning down offers from sober people leaving early) from people who had a few drinks.

    9. kittymommy*

      Oh gosh, so much this. I have a couple of co-workers who do this, one has a car, just doesn’t want to be the one to drive, and the other doesn’t. Sure it’s not costing me anything extra and doesn’t present an undue effect on me, but it’s just the assumption that of course they can ride with me, no need to ask. Just be polite people!

  15. nnn*

    Another option for OP#4’s husband would be to include or exclude the Mormon mission depending on what people at the prospective employer do. (On their LinkedIn, on any official bios on the company website, based on what you can find out through other means that might be available to a Mormon living in Utah.)

    Or you could keep it in as a screening tool, if you want to end up with an employer who values the same things.

  16. Beehive State*

    Non-LDS Utahn here. The mission thing is tricky. A lot of the things that Alison brought up about Eagle Scout awards also falls into the same category as Mormon missions for people who are LDS – it’s just one of those things that’s practically an automatic conversation starter and it’s considered impressive that at 18 you were willing to leave your family for two years and possibly learn another language to go preach about religion. ‘Where did you do your mission’ and subsequent discussion will be one of the things that comes up for the rest of your life.

    Are you in an area that is predominantly Mormon? If so, I would probably leave it on for a lot of reasons listed above – odds are that his bosses/coworkers are also Mormon and it won’t be seen as a negative thing. If you’re in an area where you’re likely to be working with just as many LDS coworkers as non-LDS coworkers, then I would consider taking it off but I also don’t think that having it on there hurts tremendously – to quote Anancy above, doing a mission is a very common male accomplishment is this state. Alison is right that it won’t necessarily be universally well received – but maybe he does want to work at a company that shares some of those personal values, so if that’s the case I admit I can’t disagree with his reasons for leaving it on.

    1. jb*

      I’m not a Mormon, nor am do I live in a pre-dominantly Mormon area. I hire a lot of recent college graduates. I’m fine with missions listed on resumes: they tend to lead to good job skills: talking to people you don’t know, persistence (grit), dealing with less than polite people, and ability to adapt to new environments.

      1. blackcat*

        I think it’s one thing for someone who is fresh out of school to list it. At that point, it’s 2 years of “work” experience. But it’s >10 years ago now, so I think the general guideline of nothing before college graduation makes sense here.

        1. rayray*

          That’s exactly what I was thinking. I’m 30, Utah LDS. I think for a kid just out of college, the mission is very relevant, especially when answering a question about your work history or what you’ve been doing the past few years. At 32, definitely list if if you’re bilingual and if they ask, you can say you served a mission.

  17. Sarah*

    As someone who has been pregnant before, I would be VERY unhappy about having an employer who mistreated other pregnant women. I feel passionate enough about this that I would definitely raise a stink at work. I love it when I see people accommodating pregnant women (or others who need it, of course).

    As someone who was the product of a pregnancy, I’m surprised the OP is even asking this question. What does he think– that he was the product of an immaculate conception?

    1. valentine*

      As someone who was the product of a pregnancy, I’m surprised the OP is even asking this question.
      There’s no reason to connect the two. There’s no universal truth we agree on, especially regarding pregnancy. I’m glad OP2 asked because seeing the tide roll in may cause them to push for accommodation and chip away at the discrimination.

      1. Jadelyn*

        …you don’t think “people who are bringing forth new life from their own bodies shouldn’t be punished for doing so” is something we can universally agree on? Regardless of one’s own fecundity or reproductive plans, we all came from someone who had to go through the process of pregnancy in order to bring us into being. Thus, that should be something we can universally respect.

    2. Sleve McDichael*

      100% agreement. As an Auntie, daughter, first cousin once removed and best friend to a pregnant woman, I too would be VERY unhappy about having an employer who mistreated pregnant women.
      Where is your empathy, OP#2? I believe you are capable of better than your letter makes you sound.

    3. Tin Cormorant*

      “What does he think– that he was the product of an immaculate conception?”

      Clearly their mother was a stay-at-home mom the whole time and never had to work while pregnant.

        1. Pomona Sprout*

          I was just going to say the same thing! AND as I alluded to elsewhere, OP is way behind the times, and needs to do some catching up. In this day and age, expecting a potential hire to share her pregnancy status is completely inappropriate. Thinking that you even MIGHT be entitled to amke hiring and/or firing decisions based on said status is not just inappropriate but downright offensive!

          I can’t help wonder whether OP works in a traditionally male-dominated industry and therefore hasn’t had many female reports prior to this. If not, it’s really hard to fathom how a manager could be so drastically out of touch with workplace norms, not to nention the law.

    4. Dan*

      I know this blog tends to skew “right thing to do” over “legally required” but bear with me.

      I’m a single white guy with no kids and no plans to have any. If I caught one of my managers pulling shenanigans like this with a pregnant woman, I’d be the first person in HR’s office. I bring up my demographics because I’m happy to play my privilege card to get management to follow clear laws on the books, and I have enough standing to not get too much heat. That said, I hope I don’t work at a place like that, because if they’re willing to cut those corners, god only knows what else they’re doing.

      1. Blueberry*

        This comment gives me hope. (I mean that in all sincerity.) Thank you for your willingness to use your privilege to fight bigotry.

      1. Rusty Shackelford*

        Very few people understand that Mary herself was the immaculate conception. It means born without sin, not born without intercourse.

        {insert “the more you know” graphic}

        1. Quill*

          I clearly didn’t pay enough attention in sunday school…

          In my defense, I was busy using the chinchilla to explain evolution to my classmates in the back. :)

            1. Quill*

              I remain the world’s worst Catholic. (According to the extended family yes, I can’t get out of it, I was born into it… :/)

              Eventually I was allowed to leave for other, only semi chinchilla related sins, and I spent my now free monday nights smuggling Harry Potter and other banned books to my fundamentalist neighbor.

              My younger brother doesn’t know how good he has it because after me, sunday school teachers were content to leave him completely alone to draw on things, and then he got to quit before he finished 5th grade.

              1. Tina*

                >I spent my now free monday nights smuggling Harry Potter and other banned books to my fundamentalist neighbor
                Speaking as the child of somebody’s fundamentalist neighbors, who had to smuggle her own damn’ banned books (mostly from the public library) – thank you, you are doing [insert benevolent deity here]’s work.

    6. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      I caution the use of the idea of “you’re a product of pregnancy as well!”

      This is problematic. And leads to a huge rabbit hole others would go down.

      That aside. As a human who doesn’t stand for discrimination, I too would flip out if a company tried it. Including the fact I would quit if they ever fired a woman for being pregnant.

    7. DAMitsDevon*

      Right?! And it also makes you think, how else would they mistreat employees if they were already willing to illegally discriminate against pregnant employees? Like, if someone had a medical emergency would they have to worry about their boss trying to fire them if they didn’t instantly recover? Or if they needed to use FMLA to care for a sick parent?

      1. A*

        “They didn’t tell me during the interview that they were going to get into a car accident the next week! The nerve.”

  18. SAHMReader*

    Couldn’t he get around the religion thing by putting on his resume or his cover letter that he speaks Portuguese? That’s what my husband puts on his- just that he is fluent in Spanish. It keeps the religious aspect of how he learned the language out of it and f someone asks he can just say he lived in Chile for two years.

    1. T3k*

      The OP stated he’s no longer fluent in it though, so it might no longer be viable to even have on the resume (I’m assuming it means he probably remembers some random words and phrases, but would have to retake lessons to get back up to conversational level).

  19. Marzipan*

    #2, you’ve tried to sidestep the idea that this is about wanting to fire someone for being pregnant by phrasing this in terms of ‘but she liiiieeeeeeed to meeeeeee’ and I am very much not here for that.

    Even at my most generous, I find it quite difficult to believe that this is really about some sort of moral outrage around truthfulness – the idea that you would have totally hired her had you known about her pregnancy, but that you’re so hurt by her lack of openness that now you want to just go ahead and fire her, does not really stand up to any scrutiny.

    You’ve even cited, in your letter, her reason for not mentioning her pregnancy at interview – she was concerned you wouldn’t hire her. Your letter makes it sound a lot, lot, LOT like she’d have been right about that.

    Here’s what you’re going to do next if you want to be (and be seen as) a good manager:

    You’re going to look back over all her application materials and remember why she’s a great hire, and you’re going to commit to making her welcome in your workplace and showing her she’s valued. You’re going to make sure she gets all the training and opportunities she can and should get. If – through your words or facial expression is anything else – you showed any upset about her pregnancy when she told you about it, you’re going to graciously apologise. You’re going to make sure her maternity leave and return to work are handled well and properly. You’re going to treat her the way you’d hope to be treated, if you were her.

    Will her pregnancy inconvenience things at all? Maybe a bit. But so do lots of things that happen in the lives of human beings. You can deal with all those things, and you can deal with this.

    1. Farrow*

      Leave should be applied to everyone fairly, it is discrimination to have provisions for maternity leave and not the same leave provisions for non-pregnant people. All other leave is equal – sick leave, annual leave and carer’s leave. Why is maternity leave separate? I should be able to access a similar type of leave. It is almost 2020 after all, not everyone of working age chooses to have children.

      1. Ask a Manager* Post author

        In the U.S., maternity leave is typically medical and/or caretaking leave, and you have exactly the same rights to it under FMLA if you have a medical or caretaking situation that requires it.

      2. Terrysg*

        Maternity leave is for the medical needs of the mother and child. By denying it, you are denying care for someone who isn’t an employee and who isn’t able to access medical care independently. Most pregnancies are straightforward, but not all of them.

      3. Foreign Octopus*

        Maternity leave isn’t a gift for having a baby. Maternity leave is to give your body time to heal after a major, sometimes traumatic, experience.

        To call it discrimination when these rights have been hard won and still don’t offer enough is disingenuous, out of touch, and risks making you sound very bitter.

        (And this comes from a single woman who will never have kids.)

        1. Tiny Soprano*

          Exactly. I know several people who’ve suffered severe tears in labor, which can put you out of action for months, like no walking, no lifting anything, nada. They are literally using their maternity leave to recover from an injury as well as care for a small human. And you don’t know beforehand whether you’re going to be one of those people, or one of those people’s partners, or that you’ll need a C-section. As someone who will never have kids, I think someone who’s willing to put their body on the line like that deserves all the extra leave they can get.

          1. Lady Phoenix*

            Don’t forget about women who had c-section births. Where they cut right into your abdomen.

            Don’t think a lot of ladies are gonna get over that in a day.

          2. President Porpoise*

            My sister recently had her fourth child. She was found unconscious and bleeding in the shower, was rushed by ambulance to the hospital, and gave birth to her son via C-section. However, she also had a placental abruption, and they couldn’t stop the bleeding.
            She had an emergency hysterectomy, and was airlifted to another hospital with better facilities. We all were expecting her to die. Most of my siblings flew or drove to her bedside. Meanwhile, her son started to have seizures, so he was also airlifted (separately) to the same hospital.
            Six blood transfusions later, my sister was out of the woods. Her son stayed in the NICU for weeks. Thankfully, her husband had stellar health insurance, and they weren’t bankrupted. Thankfully, she was a stay at home mom, and didn’t have to worry for her job. But if she were? I’d hope that her employer would have some compassion. We are all so grateful that she survived, and she named her son for the doctor who performed the hysterectomy and saved her life.

      4. Marzipan*

        The way to apply parental leave fairly is to allow it to be divided between the parents, though – so it’s not purely for pregnant vs non-pregnant people, but does apply to the specific situation of a new child entering the family. (I *think* that’s how it works in my workplace, but I don’t personally care ‘cos I’m single so I haven’t read it in detail tbh.)

        Like many of the other types of leave you’ve mentioned, though, it does apply to a specific circumstance. You presumably aren’t arguing that because Marmaduke in accounting had a month off to recover from major surgery, you should be able to have a month off too if you feel like it, because those are not the same thing. Parental leave falls into that same space, and I would suggest you’re misunderstanding it if your perception of it is just having a nice long chunk of time off.

        1. Quill*

          And there should be ENOUGH for both the parent who gave birth to recover and for their partner to be able to actually help care for them and the baby!

      5. Tinuviel*

        I’m confused about how this fits in with the letter or the response above it. Is anyone saying that maternity leave is the only type of leave available? I’ve never heard of a country or company where that was the case.
        it is discrimination to have provisions for maternity leave and not the same leave provisions for non-pregnant people
        Is this a joke?

        1. Czhorat*

          It’s “all-lives matter” style BS aimed at labeling any benefit not directed at them as being “discriminatory”.

          Maternity/paternity leave has an obvious and important role; arguing against it is a bit like saying “sick leave isn’t fair because I don’t get sick very much”. This is thinking so clearly went y it’s not even worth arguing; just roll your eyes and move along.

          1. Rusty Shackelford*

            “My coworker got a month off for cancer treatment. How is that fair? Why don’t I get a month off too?”

          2. JSPA*

            Suspect you’re misreading it.

            Sounds to me like this is an adoption or second parent / paternal leave statement–and good news, all of that is already recognized under the existing law! Non-pregnant parent(s) also qualify.

        2. JSPA*

          Fathers (or the other mother) can use FMLA leave for the birth of a child and to care for a spouse who is incapacitated (due to pregnancy or child birth).

          Both parents can also use it for adoption.

          Remember, this is unpaid. It’s both recovery time and time for the process of physical bonding between parent(s) and child.

          Medical leave for other sorts of recovery do apply equally to all employees.

          If you have a documented need to bond with a child outside of an adoption or birth situation (?) I suppose that should be equally fully covered. But I can’t think of how that would apply.

      6. TechWorker*

        Alison is right – it’s also true that in some countries maternity/paternity is more generous than other types of leave. It’s also true that if you choose not to be a parent you don’t access it. But that is a pretty crap argument imo because fundamentally – (and as stated above) everyone came from a pregnancy – sure you personally might not benefit from a good leave policy *now* but everyone benefits from a good leave policy in the end. I find it about as ungenerous as people who don’t believe in sick leave because they’ve never needed it.

        (I don’t have children and may well never have children, I have fought for improved leave policies at my company regardless of whether I’ll use them)

        1. Allonge*

          + 100
          I am in Europe, with fairly generous maternity and parental leave options (also for adoption). I find it really strange that people complain about this as if it were discrimination. Is it discriminatory that my parents (retired) get a pension, while I don’t? That my colleagues – who don’t yet have all qualifications they need but I don’t – get training costs reimbursed? That I get reimbursement for glasses others don’t need?

      7. Snuck*

        Farrow you are kidding aren’t you? This is sarcasm?

        Having had a couple of children, both by c-section (the first one got VERY stuck, the second we didn’t even bother doing a ‘natural’ attempt)… it takes about 3 days for milk to come in… before that it’s colostrum… Then it takes about four months for milk supply to establish… to remain stable enough you could pump and skip a feed occasionally without killing your supply outright.

        During a c-section (which a LOT of births are these days) they cut through SEVEN LAYERS of your abdominal, tearing your abs apart (a torn muscle repairs more smoothly than a cut one apparently) and while the actual “getting the baby out” part is only a few quick minutes, they spend about 45mins sewing you back together. You then… hobble around not able to lift anything heavier than a half quart of milk for a few weeks, gradually building up… ‘Nothing heavier than your baby” is the rule. Including prams…. Driving is also off the cards because as you go to push down on the pedal you suddenly remember all your abs were pulled apart, and your body isn’t ready to stabilise while your leg pushes forward, and your ability to drive is impaired probably by the pain killers you are on for major surgery in the first few weeks.

        If you do a ‘normal’ birth, then there’s a good chance you are spending the first week groaning as you sit and stand, sitting on frozen pads to help ease pain and swelling, and you are generally going to take a few weeks before you are ready to spend four hours at the local Westfield shopping for cute outfits. The milk stuff all still applies… it is an easier birth to recover from, but it’s not like it’s a common cold.

        Then there’s this tiny, defenceless human, that can’t be lumped into child care, because it doesn’t actually have an immune system yet, and needs to literally feed every two hours… for about six weeks.

        This is all stuff most people don’t talk to other people about… because… none of us really want to spill to first time mums… And because ther’es lots of GREAT things to talk about, so why waste time on this stuff with the inexperienced?

        But yeah. Maternity leave. They deserve it. So very very glad I live in Australia. Oh yes I am. If you haven’t worked at a company for 12mths here then there’s a government safety net version you can access so long as you’ve worked a chunk of the last 12mths… it’s yeah… important.

        And there’s other kinds of leave you might never take – bereavement leave, chronic illness, study leave, Family leave etc…. if your employer doesn’t provide the right benefits and coverage for your situation… and you aren’t happy with the package… find one that will… but please don’t water down the already crazily anemic American maternity leave rights.

        1. Parenthetically*

          “And there’s other kinds of leave you might never take – bereavement leave, chronic illness, study leave, Family leave etc”

          Exactly! It is some fully bonkers, Grade-A r/childfree anti-breeder nonsense to claim that all leave needs to be applicable regardless of life stage. “What if I never get a serious illness! That means I’ll never be eligible to take long-term sick leave! How unfair!”

      8. WS*

        I mean, I have a chronic medical condition and use most to all of my sick leave. Is that unfair to people who aren’t sick? Should they maybe break a leg towards the end of the year so they get their fair entitlement?

      9. Green great dragon*

        It’s leave which you spend looking after a tiny baby. It’s no vacation. I think your point is that if people with kids are entitled to time off to look after their new bady, you should get an equivalent amount of time to do whatever you want? No.

        Equally, if your co-worker is out for a few weeks because they broke their arm playing sport, or a few days bereavement leave, you do not get to ‘access’ a similar amount of time off just because you don’t play sport, and are estranged from your family.

      10. Media Monkey*

        with a charitable interpretation of your comment (which i am not convinced is how it was meant) in the UK, non-pregnant people such as those who adopt are also entitled to maternity and paternity benefits.

      11. Mookie*

        The words boo and hoo spring to mind. It is almost 2020 after all, so I don’t know why anyone bothers humoring these bad-faith attempts at re-litigating the personhood and attendant rights of pregnant people.

      12. Lynca*

        Maternity leave is not extra vacation for pregnant mothers (or paternity leave in the case of fathers). And your argument doesn’t even have an iota of merit.

        It’s the same as sick leave/carer’s leave for a major surgery/medical treatment/caring for a loved one. You are healing after the birth of your child. You are caring for a baby. So you have an equivalent form of leave you can take for what you need. It just happens to be under a different name.

      13. blackcat*

        “I have taken a employee on and after four weeks work she has told me she has cancer, which she has known about this entire time. In another two months, she will need to take off work to have a second surgery. She did not say so at the interview because she’d been told that no one would employ her. I feel lied to. Do I have any rights in this issue? Can I terminate her or legally do I have to keep her on until her surgery?”

        There. Made it medical. ADA applies. No firing cancer employee because they didn’t tell you about cancer. No firing pregnant employee because they didn’t tell you about pregnancy.

      14. Elizabeth Proctor*

        One can’t use sick leave if they’re not sick, one can’t use carer’s leave if they’re not a carer, one can’t use parental leave if they’re not a parent…No discrimination there.

      15. Charlotte*

        What? Everyone should be entitled to maternity leave, regardless of childbearing ability? That makes no srnse.

        1. JSPA*

          Sure it does…and actually they are…IF they’re becoming a parent by some other method than giving birth themselves.

        2. Snuck*

          In Australia generally parental leave covers adoption as well, and there’s (in large corporates and government) often some allowance also for taking in a new foster child or blending in emergency situations new families. Maternity and Paternity leave provisions are generally based on who has primary care of the child – one parent will get up about two weeks, and the other will get six months fully paid with an option to take it half paid for a year… (or variations on this). Usually it’s the mother taking leave, but occasionally fathers do… and have the same legal rights to extended leave as the mother – only ONE parent can take the leave, but it can be either.

      16. Lady Blerd*

        Oh FFS. Depending on the jurisdiction, there is parental leave for the second parent regardless of gender or if they thave a uterus or not, in Canada it’s 37 weeks with parental leave allowance and then there is an additional 6 months of parental leave without the allowance. If there is none in yours, you should lobby your representative at the government level that could enact it into law.

      17. Yorick*

        “My coworker got 2 days of bereavement leave when his dad died. My parents are both still alive, but I want 2 days off too!”

      18. Frankie*

        You are confused. Medical leave is there for when people need it and is taken unevenly because people have different needs and circumstances.

        Maternity leave (which I think should be parental leave, but it’s worse to have no leave for pregnancy whatsoever) is there to recover from the burden, dangers and trauma of pregnancy and birth, and any complications that develop alongside. If your pregnant coworker uses it, it is due to medical need. It’s not a vacation. BTW maternity leave often S.U.C.K.S. You’re bleeding everywhere, exhausted, can’t sleep for more than two hours at a time around the clock because of newborn sleep/feeding needs, trying to stay alert for any post-partum developments like blood clots or mood disorders. And that’s if everything actually went smoothly.

        But sure, you should get a vacation because your coworker is suffering the above and isn’t at work when you are.

      19. aebhel*

        You do. It’s called FMLA and/or sick leave. When I took maternity leave, I used up my accrued sick leave and vacation time, which was a benefit that every other employee also had access to.

        I can’t tell if you’re being serious here or not, but it’s really ignorant to treat maternity leave as, like, extra vacation time that only pregnant women get. It’s medical leave, just like if you needed to care for a sick parent or get surgery.

  20. Allison*

    XXX person — you could use “tk” like we do in journalism and publishing. It stands for “to come” (you can google why, but the main idea is just to pick letters that don’t frequently appear together so that you or the copyeditor can search on page and make sure they’re all addressed). Or perhaps XYZ?

  21. Sun Tzu*

    OP #3: I sometimes use ??? as a placeholder; it is easily searchable and will stand out even during an eyeball search. Any string that you don’t use for normal text will work fine.

    But yes, in case this wasn’t clear enough, your coworker is ridiculous and using XXX is fine.

      1. JSPA*

        Can’t you just use a tilde (~) in front of each “?” in the string, so that it doesn’t count as a wild card?

  22. HugsAreNotTolerated*

    I actually have to admire the complete and utter audacity of OP #2 that they would even write this letter to a workplace blog in 2019 and expect any answer other than a resounding “No”. Besides the fact that this person is absolutely in NO WAY ever obligated to share her personal health information with an interviewer, it is entirely possible depending on how long your hiring process is that she may not have even shared the news with family & friends if she hadn’t yet completed her first trimester!
    Frankly OP is actually really lucky that new hire disclosed this info as early as they did, giving OP more than enough time to plan for backup coverage.

    1. Dan*

      Heh. I’m a single guy, no kids, and no plans to have any.

      I read the title of that post, and said to myself, “nope.” I then looked at the length of AAM’s answer and thought, “dang, that’s the longest ‘no’ I’ve ever read to something so cut and dried.”

      1. Allypopx*

        Sometimes you need to drive a ‘no’ home with “also you’re a bad person and you should feel bad.”

        1. Rust1783*

          Yes, let’s make people feel bad for asking questions. That will ensure that in the future, other managers will simply fire the person because it’s the first thing that pops into their head. The pregnant person has essentially a 50/50 shot of even knowing she has been illegally discriminated against, and the manager has only a marginally better shot of knowing they’ve done something wrong, because while people who frequently read this forum know a lot about workplace discrimination laws, the general population does not, full stop.

    3. Mazzy*

      It’s really easy to virtue signal on the internet, but it’s completely different and understandable, for someone on the management side to feel lied to and annoyed of someone leaves out such important information at the candidate phase. I’m seeing the lying as the big deal here. The OP didn’t say they would hire them. It’s that feeling of being blindsided. Yes, a woman can feel this way to, because it’s about the lack of transparency and not about the thing. You’re making it about the thing

      1. RoadsLady*

        I looked elsewhere on the internet. It’s a tough call when your legitimately worried, but it seemed a lot of places did advise bringing it up as a matter of good will.

        1. blackcat*

          I do not know where on the internet you are looking, but every piece of advice I have ever gotten is bring it up *at the offer stage.* Not before.
          And people I know who do hiring prefer that it’s not addressed at all at the interview stage, even if the woman is obviously pregnant, because they do not want it to turn into a legal thing. If it’s never discussed, there’s plausible deniability of “Huh, had no idea she was pregnant.”

          1. RoadsLady*

            I was looking at Forbes, I think.

            It may have been the offer stage.

            They just mostly gave tips on how to smooth it over or work it in your favor.

      4. Teyra*

        She didn’t actually lie, though, it’s not like he would have directly asked if she was pregnant. She did him a favour by not putting him in an awkward position of being potentially accused of discrimination if she had told him she was pregnant and he had, for genuinely unrelated reasons, not hired her. Keeping silent was a service to them both.

      6. Quill*

        But, it’s not lying. She’s under no legal obligation to disclose, and there’s no guarantee that she KNEW about it prior to the offer.

        People search for jobs when they intend to have kids, people search for jobs when they know they might need surgery, people search for jobs when they have chronic conditions. The entire reason that people can’t be forced to disclose that is so their workplaces can’t make hiring decisions based on the status of candidates’ health.

      7. Parenthetically*

        She didn’t lie and she has no obligation to disclose a pregnancy.

        Calling other people’s objections to breaking the law by discriminating against a pregnant women “virtue signaling” is the silliest thing I’ve seen in this thread, and that’s saying a LOT.

      8. ElizabethJane*

        The only way the employee *might* have lied (other than the obvious of stating “no” when directly asked if pregnant) would be if during the interview the LW asked “Do you have any plans for time off in the near future?” and the interviewee answered “No”.

        I interviewed for a job when I was about 16 weeks/4ish months pregnant. It was December, I was due at the end of June. Late in the interview stage the hiring manager asked “Do you have any PTO plans coming up?” and I responded with “I’m hoping to take some time off around the 4th of July to be with family”. That wasn’t a lie. I answered the question.

        If the only questions were “Tell me when you handled an irate customer” and “What are your biggest strengths and weaknesses” then there was no lie.

      9. Blueberry*

        A woman could certainly feel this way too, and if she then went ahead and fired her employee for being pregnant she would be engaging in a misogynist action and discriminating against her employee. People can feel however they want. What matters is the actions they take, and taking the action of firing this employee for her pregnancy would be wrong.

  23. Dan*

    #1

    It’s 2:45am, there’s almost 100 posts and #1 isn’t getting much love, so I’ll throw in my two sense.

    I’m that guy. I own a car and drive it to work every day. Our office is in the suburbs of a major metro area. Our primary client is all government stuff. Sometimes we have meetings “downtown”. My apartment, the office, and “downtown” are all the same subway line. I drive to the office because the subway out in the burbs is expensive and slow, and between my apartment and the office, I have to pay my own commuting costs. “Downtown” is a whole different story… many of our government clients are easily transit accessible, and given traffic and parking expenses, the subway isn’t a bad option. Travel expenses (mileage, parking) between the office and the client site are all reimbursable by the project/government/taxpayer.

    I never drive downtown out of personal preference. I always take the subway. However, many of my colleagues drive due to personal preference. If we’re coming to/from the office, I will always ask to hitch a ride. If they’re also coming to/from the office, they’re more or less “obligated” to say yes. If they’re heading straight home or whatever, “no” is a perfectly acceptable answer and back on the subway I go. If they’re taking the subway too, then guess what? We’re all taking the subway.

    The key here is that mileage and parking costs are never coming out of an individual’s pocket, so it’s not about saving *my* money and making someone else pay. In theory, a colleague could say that they prefer to drive alone for the peace and quiet, but in my office that would come across as super chilly and probably cause for a “sit down with management.”

    1. Tinuviel*

      “The key here is that mileage and parking costs are never coming out of an individual’s pocket, so it’s not about saving *my* money and making someone else pay.” I think this is a big difference. If it’s just carpooling to/from a work thing and people are reimbursed or otherwise fairly compensated, that seems fair.

      But if it’s a frequent thing that one person has to bear the burden for consistently, then it’s not fun anymore.

      1. Professional Merchandiser*

        Tinuviel, you made a very good point. I do merchandising work, and go out of town frequently. The company I work for pays drive time and expenses for this. I used to have a co-worker without a car who would always want to ride with me when we worked sets together. She got the same reimbursement I did without having to use a personal vehicle. It used to irk me to no end.
        I only did it for two reasons: One, this was a really nice person so I enjoyed spending the time with her, and two, she never expected me to go out of my way for her. She would have someone drop her off and pick her up at a convenient stopping point along the way.

        1. Nessun*

          She got the same reimbursement?! That makes zero sense to me. We have a mileage reimbursement, and you book your time (and meals, if needed). Someone driving would get the mileage, someone hitching a ride would get…a ride.

          1. doreen*

            People where I work used to do something similar – five people would drive in one car and five people would all get the full mileage reimbursement. Management didn’t usually even know who was carpooling. The difference was at my job, the five people split the cost of the actual drive – in large part because if anyone had tried to stick the driver with all the expenses, they would have been driving themselves in the future.

    2. Kam*

      Agreed. Carpooling to go to external meetings and office social events (e.g. teambuilding) is quite common in my office and if you are heading in the same direction anyway, it’s seen as a bit weird to say no to someone who wants to hitch a ride, which people sometimes do even if they do own a car. You are allowed to claim mileage / transport costs in my company, so it’s seen as a cost-saving measure. I don’t drive, so oftentimes I have to hitch rides with my colleagues if they are going to/from the office. I think the difference is, I only do so if it is convenient for them and we’re heading to/from the same place ANYWAY. Otherwise I just get cabs/public transport, I would never dream of asking my colleagues to go out of their way just to pick me up/drop me off somewhere.

    3. Bagpuss*

      I think the difference here is that you *ask* rather than assuming, and that your co-worker is getting their mileage reimbursed.

      Evcen of OP gets their mileage refunded, it’s reasonable for the co-worker to ask rather than making assumptions, and common courtesy would dictate that they say ‘thank you’ as well.

      1. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

        This. It’s more the principle of it all. That and the fact that not only does he assume he will get a ride to the meeting, but he assumes someone will take him back to the office when everyone is heading home. I would have no problem telling him no, or at least saying up front “I can take you to the meeting, but I’m not coming back to the office after so you’re on your own.”

    4. Myrin*

      I don’t think you are that guy, unless the way you comment here differes drastically from how you conduct yourself in real life.

      Because the thing is, OP seems to take issue with her coworker’s demeanour much moreso than with the bare deed of driving in a car together.

      She says “It’s one thing to give him a ride to a meeting from work because we are going the same place”, which I assume means she herself thinks that that’s quite reasonable (it is indeed, as your comment points out as well).
      It seems like this guy not only “never asks” but really doesn’t comment about it at all, not even a breezy “Hey OP, I’ll ride with you again, right?”, he just silently follows whoever has struck his fancy that day like the faceless thingy in Spirited Away.
      OP also identifies as “[t]he worst part” the thing where he expects his coworkers to drive him back and inconvenience themselves, as well as the fact that he “gets upset” if people don’t react the way he wants them to.

      The expression OP uses for all of these instances is “he assumes” and I assume (ha!) that that’s what’s grating on her most of all. There’s a difference between being able to reasonably assume (and even come to expect) inside your head that you’ll carpool with someone – which is totally the case in many situations; like you say, your coworkers couldn’t really say No to you because of office expectations and practicality anyway – and actually expressing that by just hovering around a coworker’s car and throwing a fit when no one is willing to drive you out of their own way. It’s never wrong to be polite and ask instead of taking things for granted, even if you technically could.

    5. Hedgehug*

      Hi Dan! This has nothing to do with the topic, but the first sentence of your comment…I don’t know if it was a joke, or an autocorrect…but the expression is “my two cents” as in two pennies. Not ‘sense’. I’m sorry! I’m a word-nerd!

    1. Unemployed in Greenland*

      Hahaha – via pneumatic tube! whooshing into the series of tubes that is the Internets.

    2. Seeking Second Childhood*

      Perhaps through the Namiya time portal? (See the Jackie chan movie if you haven’t. It was a delightful surprise.)

    4. Quill*

      Clearly OP somehow managed to enter AAM!Allison from their early IBM workplace. My question is how the modern internet routed it here.

    6. Rust1783*

      I am really astounded that people on this forum think everyone has the same relatively sophisticated understanding of workplace protections as they do. No, you don’t necessarily get trained in this just because you’re a manager. People’s self-righteousness around this simple question is pretty gross. As I said elsewhere, it seems everyone would prefer the question had not been asked. Probably what would happen then is, the pregnant person gets fired, potentially does not even know what their legal rights are, and then nobody is happy.

  25. Georgia*

    #1. One of my coworkers live 1/2 miles from work and walks to work. If we’re going to a meeting together of course I will give her a ride. I’m not expecting thanks or gas money, we’re going to the same place. If after the meeting I’m not going back to the office I would tell her before we leave. “you can come with me but I’m doing xyz after so you’ll have to find your way home, etc.” She’d have to take public transit or spend money on a lyft/uber. And no, none of us are getting money for mileage or anything like that, it’s a nonprofit.

      1. Georgia*

        You’re absolutely right, I just wouldn’t expect it. It just sounds like OP has never actually SPOKEN to this dude and laid out the issues/problems/challenges, which they should do.

          1. Parenthetically*

            Ha, yes, “Just use your words, okay?” is a fair summary of a sizable proportion of Alison’s advice!

            1. Jaydee*

              I think it’s more like “Just use your words, okay? And if you aren’t sure what words to use, here are ideas.” I know the scripts and examples Alison gives (and the commentariat too) are a big part of why I come here.

    2. Lena Clare*

      Non-profits still have to pay for work expenses though, and attending a meeting elsewhere counts as a work related expense and you should be eligible for claiming it.

          1. Georgia*

            LOL yeah no one at my job is doing that even remotely nor would it occur to us, it’s a small non-profit, I’m lucky my paycheck goes through.

            1. Rusty Shackelford*

              If your employer isn’t reimbursing you, you can claim it as a work expense on your tax return. But this is probably a moot point, because it probably doesn’t add up to an amount you’d actually be able to deduct.

              1. Rusty Shackelford*

                Whoops – according to the next comment, it’s not even a moot point any more, it’s just plain incorrect!

            2. Angelinha*

              Depending on your state it could be illegal for them not to pay this. Just because it’s a nonprofit doesn’t mean they’re not required to pay you for your work.

                1. just a random teacher*

                  Interesting. I’ve never known anyone to claim mileage for off-site meetings. I don’t think we even have a form for that. If it matters, this is a public, unionized workplace (public school district) rather than a private employer.

                  Does it make a difference if it’s an all-day meeting (so you’re basically “commuting” to a different place) or a partial-day meeting (so you’re definitely driving on the clock between your regular worksite and the meeting location)? I’ve never heard of claiming mileage for either of those, but I could see a distinction being made.

                2. Half-Caf Latte*

                  @ just a random teacher but out of nesting:

                  The way everywhere I’ve ever worked has handled the all-day meeting thing was to presume your start was from your normal office location, and give you mileage from there to the site and back.

                3. doreen*

                  Another way to handle it is “lesser of” – for a beginning of the day meeting my employer reimburses mileage from either my normal worksite to the meeting or my home to the meeting- whichever is less.

                4. NonProfitArtsAdmin*

                  Fascinating! We always put in for parking reimbursement at offsite meetings, or cab/ride share. But no one has ever put in for mileage reimbursement. It’s never occurred to any of us, and given our organization’s budget, would be a real burden. We generally take as few cars as possible to the location. If we are all going home after, then we take all the cars.

                  Anyway, you’re saying I should be getting reimbursed for this? It’s…dozens of miles a week.

      2. CDM*

        In the US, businesses are not required to reimburse employees for expenses such as mileage, and under the current tax law, unreimbursed business expenses are no longer tax deductible.

        The IRS standard mileage rate is simply the max amount employers can reimburse without it being considered taxable income to the employee. My former employer only reimbursed part of the IRS rate, and tried to spin it as an advantage that employees could (then) deduct the difference between their rate and the IRS rate. Like paying for your business expenses with pre-tax instead of post tax dollars is some sort of benefit.

        1. Shiny Onix*

          Wow, really?! I’m in the UK and I thought this was a very normal thing in the US as well. Consider me educated!

    4. Starbuck*

      Huh? I also work at a small non-profit, and we always get paid for mileage. Enough with crappy non-profits taking advantage of their employees! Besides, they don’t pay me enough to not claim my mileage and expenses.

      1. Grapey*

        I’m not Ginger, but as someone up thread alluded to, it’s usually mothers that organize the work behind big scouting projects. Any kids that actually had the discipline/know how to execute a good project almost always have something more appropriately recent.

        1. Agnodike*

          The phrasing of the statement seems unduly flat and general if that’s the concern, but thanks for your opinion.

      2. Seven hobbits are highly effective, people*

        The option to participate in scouting is not evenly distributed among members of several minority groups (until recently, you could not be gay and be a boy scout, and they still exclude atheists), so it’s not something I’d want to see taken into account when hiring since it filters on things that employers shouldn’t be filtering on.

    3. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      In the UK it’s common to mention outside interests on your CV unless it’s very crowded, and a person still involved in Scouting as an adult (that is, as a leader) is demonstrating skills transferrable to the workplace. I would be surprised by someone deliberately leaving it off in that context, unless they were sufficiently senior that their direct work experience superseded it. Similarly, major awards are at the very least a conversation starter.

      I would agree that decades-old hobbies that you’ve since discontinued have no place on a resume or CV.

  27. MomMD*

    I hid a pregnancy for almost five months because I knew my then employer would be upset. You should not have to in this day and age.

    1. Lynn Whitehat*

      Yeah. I was laid off in the economic meltdown of January 2009. Remember that one? People were predicting a second Great Depression? Well, I was two months pregnant at the time. I covered it up and searched as hard as I could for a job. When I got one, I continued to hide it as long as possible so I could prove myself at least a little before the “big reveal”. What else was I supposed to do? We needed the money!

      In case anyone reading this ever needs to conceal a pregnancy, the general idea is loosely flowing clothes around the waistline, and also crucially, loud and busy stuff going on at the extremities. Carmella Soprano is your fashion role model. Big hair, flashy nails, big jewelry, bling-y shoes. Yeah, all at once. You’re trying to survive in a hostile world, not win some non-existent best-dressed award.

  28. Betty*

    #2: would you feel the same way about someone who revealed they had surgery scheduled for five months time, or a pre-booked holiday? Maybe! But you can’t expect people to either put their life on hold entirely for work, or put their work on hold entirely for life. Your employees are always going to have out-of-work stuff going on, and an employer who respects that and is pleasant about it will build a dedicated, loyal workforce.

  29. Alice*

    #2, I’m finding it very hard to believe you’d want to fire the new employee for “lying” as opposed to for being pregnant. She simply didn’t disclose a condition during the interview process, which is perfectly legal and it’s what everyone in her circumstances does because otherwise crappy employers wouldn’t hire them. Note that I’m assuming here that she she wasn’t flat out asked in her interview if she was pregnant — that would have been a whole other can of worms. But you never know; I was once asked, after the routine where-do-you-see-yourself-in-5-years, if I had any plans of having children. I don’t recall what I answered (and as a matter of fact am childfree) but I noped out of that entire interview process so fast.

    2. Tiny Soprano*

      Plenty of people won’t disclose a pregnancy earlier than five months anyway if they have an elevated risk of miscarriage. I wonder if the manager would still see it as ‘lying’ in this case? Though seeing as they don’t seem to have much empathy…

    3. rayray*

      Makes me wonder if this guy disclosed his full medical history, list of current medications, relationship status, etc when he was hired. I bet no. Therefore, #2 you are a dirty liar. You misled the people who hired you. How dare you.

  30. Clarification*

    Re #2 (pregnancy discrimination)

    FYI, even if OP is a small enough employer that federal employment law doesn’t apply, there is a possibility that state or county law may prohibit OP from discriminating against a pregnant employee. Some state anti-discrimination laws apply to employers with a single employee. There’s also the possibility of common-law abusive discharge claims in some states, which don’t require a minimum number of employees.

    I don’t want small employers who are inclined to discriminate to read this blog and come away with the impression that anti-discrimination laws don’t apply to them– it really depends on the law where you live.

    1. MT*

      I think the real issue to come up is when they start taking leave. Depending on the state, they may not be entitled to any FMLA leave. If that is the case, this employee may run afoul of the companies attendance policies.

    2. irene adler*

      There ya go!
      Kinda makes me wonder why porn is the go-to thought of the senior co-worker. That XXX would be considered “porny” would never have occurred to me.

  32. Seeking Second Childhood*

    Op3 I do the same thing. I’ve noticed it and moved on. One thing I can say is don’t use # or * for your markers because some programs restrict those and you may find yourself with odd problems. Access & Robohelp let you use the characters in text & notes, for example, but search & filter & formatting can be affected. If she has hire/fire/raise power, try using “TBD” .

  33. Birch*

    #1, The question I have is, are all these meetings at places which are accessible by public transport? And is he the only non-driver? I could see the coworker assuming they’d get a ride if the locations are not accessible, but the lack of gratitude does sound grating. It’s definitely a more eco friendly option to carpool–can you institute a rotating carpool and tell him he’s responsible for the return journey? Otherwise he should talk with his manager about getting compensated for taking a taxi or something if necessary.

    #4 I think I’m in the minority on this, but I really don’t think volunteer work has any place on a resume unless it’s relevant to the actual job, e.g. coordinating fundraising events. I think including it gives an unfair disadvantage to people who might not have the ability or time to volunteer but can’t put the reasons for that on their resume, like caring for family members or a disability. And listing volunteer work doesn’t say anything about how you behaved or what you actually contributed–there are issues with people “volunteering” to do things like build houses in foreign countries when they come with no relevant skills and end up doing more damage than helping. I get why people want to include it–it looks like you’ve got a team mindset and like to help–I just think this kind of thing will come out with time and personal interaction at work in more of a “walk the walk” way. If a hiring manager really likes to know about this kind of thing they can always ask, or the interviewee can bring it up naturally as an example of a time they solved a problem, etc.

    1. Betty*

      Oh my goodness, you cannot seriously think that you shouldn’t include volunteer work because it is only for the privileged. In that case my CV would be BLANK because I guess I can’t include any jobs because I might have got them because of my university reputation and connections and I went to Oxbridge and surely I only got in because I went to private school which is an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE (which was 100% my parents decision and out of my control). I agree with volunteer work not necessarily telling you that much about a person, but the whole point of a resume is to list the advantages you have over other candidates (aka “reasons they should hire you”) and you can’t start handwringing about which are unfair and which aren’t and handicapping yourself accordingly (as long as they are generally within the realms of professional norms).

      1. Harper the Other One*

        That’s a bit unfair. Birch said it probably didn’t belong on a resume unless it directly pertained to the job, and made some good points about why things like mission trips both have an extremely variable degree of commitment and why many volunteering projects are out of reach of a lot of people.

        Your university degrees and work experience are pertinent experience and whatever privilege allowed you to get them doesn’t outweigh the actual work you did, and Birch never said it would.

        1. Betty*

          Well quite. Birch made two points related to why volunteer work should be on a CV. I agreed with one and my jaw dropped at the other (which was actually put first).

      2. Birch*

        That’s not what I said at all–I wasn’t thinking of it in terms of being privileged, but in terms of–the arguments for volunteer work on resumes are that it shows things like teamwork and chipping in, etc. but you have no idea what the context is–how involved they were, what their roles are, etc. It gets more complicated if it’s for a religious organization because that’s going to give a more positive sense to some people and a less positive one to others. The disadvantage comes not only from not being able to volunteer (at all or in a way that’s public facing) but also that a lot of people do things that show the same values but that you can’t put on a resume. Like unpaid caregiving, childcare, helping out an elderly neighbor, etc.

        Tl;dr There’s a lot of reasons people can’t or won’t volunteer in ways that look good on a resume (some of them having to do with privilege, some not) and the only way to know the details of the volunteer work is to have that conversation with the interviewee in the first place, so it should be left to a conversation rather than on the resume to avoid the confusion of being subject to so much fuzzy interpretation.

      3. A*

        Holy run out sentences batman! Honestly, take a step back and relax. It’s not healthy to 100% internalize a generalized statement made on the internet. I’d encourage you to speak with someone. It sounds like you have MANY thoughts and feelings about being perceived as privileged – and that in and of itself is indicative of something.

        I say this as someone who had to go on a similar journey.

    2. LGC*

      …For LW4, I get what you’re saying, but I think most of what you say can apply to paid jobs as well. And I don’t think the issue is that volunteer work is an unfair advantage (and should be excluded), but that leaving the workforce to care for someone is an unfair disadvantage (and shouldn’t be penalized).

      1. Birch*

        True, but my point is that the hiring managers don’t know any of that background, they only see one resume filled with volunteer work and another completely empty and draw their conclusions from that. It already puts the empty resume at a disadvantage in comparison to others.

        About paid jobs–also true, but I think it’s different because 1. in most fields there’s some at least fuzzy idea of what tasks and titles mean (and you can be held accountable for claiming things that aren’t true), and 2. hiring managers are probably much more likely to call a professional reference to verify job related claims than to call a personal reference (if one is even given!) to verify your claims about your volunteering. Maybe it makes me generally suspicious but it seems far too easy to inflate volunteering experience.

        1. LGC*

          This is late but…I feel like you’re making some very wild assumptions. It seems like you think:

          1) volunteer positions are given equal merit to paid work on a resume, but aren’t verified as seriously. I’d like to see where you’re coming up with that.

          2) the solution to discrimination is for…people who are more fortunate to kneecap themselves.

          2a) also, that you should hire someone with a blank resume over someone with volunteer experience, or at least give equal weight.

          3) volunteer positions are especially prone to abuse in a way paid positions aren’t.

          4) resumes should only have directly relevant experience, otherwise discrimination.

          I completely agree with your points about financial privilege allowing for volunteer opportunities, and the fact that privilege is highly institutionalized. I think your conclusions are wildly off base, though – I can’t help but think that if all of this is true, then resumes don’t matter. (Which honestly, I’d respect more as a conclusion.)

    3. Seven hobbits are highly effective, people*

      Eh, for volunteer work I’d say it also depends on the level of responsibility as well as how relevant it is to the job. I mean, I’ve been the head of programming for a science fiction convention several times. My day-job field isn’t particularly related to books or event management, but I oversaw a team of 10+ other volunteers who put together a 3 day schedule with over 15 simultaneous events most hours that involved over 200 panelists, so I could see bringing it up if I were applying for a position managing people or organizing large tasks in general.
      On the other hand, I probably wouldn’t put on the convention that I worked shifts at the operations desk, since that was pretty much a matter of dealing with walk-ins, logging lost and found items, and generally being a point of contact for people who needed something from the operations team. (If I’d done that for many years rather than a weekend or two and was applying for a job as a front desk worker somewhere I would, though.)

    4. Pommette!*

      I think that your concerns about the ways that listing volunteering could exacerbate inequalities in hiring is valid and worth considering. Especially when you consider that some of the most useless/harmful voluntourism can sound particularly impressive to people unfamiliar with it.

      At the same time, most of the better volunteer programs I’ve encountered carved out opportunities for people from the populations they served, and many of the most hard-core, impressive volunteers I’ve met were people who had little paid work experience (because their disabilities, differences, and personal responsibilities/commitments made it hard for them to find and keep paid work).

      My take on listing volunteering is that you should treat it like a regular job: include it when it’s relevant and appropriate (as you suggested), and always include a meaningful description of your accomplishments in the role. An accountant who spent a couple of weeks doing unskilled construction work a couple of years ago should probably leave that off; an accountant who regularly leads/manages a team of builders could definitely include it.

  34. LGC*

    Lw2, I ask you to re-read your letter, specifically the part where you say that she didn’t disclose her pregnancy because she thought no one would hire her. You are proving that right now. (And I get that you have roughly 200 people already yelling at you about how much you suck, which is difficult to hear! But also – dude, THIS IS WHY she didn’t tell!)

    Anyway.

    LW1 – I’m in agreement that he shouldn’t be providing gas money, that’s the company’s job. I do think that he kind of takes you for granted – yeah, you’re going the same place but you’re also doing him a favor. And you can refuse to go out of your way for him. He can get downtown on days without meetings, he can do the same when there is a meeting.

    LW3 – it’s only porny if you work at Steele’s, in which case that’s probably the least unprofessional thing happening. (And hopefully the car park was repaired quickly.)

    LW5 – you’re asking to take two weeks off (or rather, one off and one remote) three months from now during a very desirable period. By all means, you should ask now!

    Honestly I’d LOVE to have that sort of notice.

  35. justcourt*

    The federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating against pregnant employees applies to employers with 15 employees, but LW could live/do business in a state with its own pregnancy discrimination law that apply to employers with fewer employees.

  36. Waffles*

    My two cents on letter 4
    As someone who hires in the finance industry, I see a lot of resumes with very similar education and experience. A candidate with something different on his/her resume would stand out, and sometimes that’s the foot in the door that he/she needs. Assuming the items you named are actually unique in Utah.

    Also, mostly came here to say that LW4, you sound like you don’t respect or support your husband. The tone of your letter is mean, in my opinion. Job searching is hard and most people don’t do it often. Have some kindness.

    1. RoadsLady*

      “Assuming the items you named are actually unique in Utah”

      Utah Mormon here. The thing is, they just aren’t unique here. It comes off as… Kind of blah.

      I personally support mentioning the Eagle Scout. The mission, not so much, at least as so direct. It’s better to list specific highlights gained from the mission so it has more of a point to it.

    2. LGC*

      I’ll admit I didn’t even see that LW4 said they were in Utah at first – I just saw “Eagle Scout” and “Mormon” and just assumed that’s where they were from.

      LW4 didn’t sound THAT dismissive to me – maybe a bit when they said their husband’s resume looked like something their 13 year old brother would write. I do think that LW4 is missing a small detail – depending on the type of work their husband was doing, that might actually BE his first “real” resume! (They say he worked in customer service, but I can definitely see that as code for “retail, but I don’t want to admit it.”)

      I’m not trying to dunk on LW4 – just providing some context.

      1. RoadsLady*

        I think I read the letter your way. Last time my husband did up his resume (and no, he did not include his mission) I was somewhat annoyed with it (and I totally blame Allison and her resume advice for my annoyance, she’s clearly ruined me).

        It’s not really a lack of respect and support, but if he’s not familiar with better resume skills, well, we wives can have our opinions.

    3. A*

      Whoa, I didn’t get the impression that OP doesn’t support or respect their husband. Interesting. I thought the 13 year old tidbit was a bit unnecessary, but that’s the extent of it. OP is writing into a blog seeking assistance to increase her husband’s chances of being successful in his job hunt (and helped rework the resume) – sounds supportive to me!

    1. Plush Penguin*

      I yelled at a guy in the Ars Technica comments section for saying something similar (specifically, not wanting to hire women because they can get pregnant). Sadly, it’s more common than we think.

      1. Frankie*

        Oh man, Ars has such good journalism and such a terrible, terrible comment base when it comes to gender.

        The problem is because it’s a technical site everyone commenting thinks they’re the most educated and rational thinkers out there–but it’s clear many of them have no idea how culture work and have never had to talk about it. And there’s so, so much pseudoscience and gender essentialism being peddled there. So sad.

        1. Plush Penguin*

          It’s even worse at Slashdot. At least I feel like there are Ars regulars who have my back on gender issues.

          1. Gazebo Slayer*

            I used to read Slashdot back in the mid-aughts and any mention of gender sounded like an MRA or incel site. A lot of the same talking points you see on the far right today were common there already. It’s disheartening to know it’s still a tire fire.

            1. Plush Penguin*

              There are reasons I don’t go to Slashdot anymore.

              I will say that my mental health and self esteem improved after quitting it :)

    3. Blueberry*

      So true. So very very true. I mean, there are even commenters above defending LW#2! I usually don’t comment here but that one just broke me today.

    4. Anonya*

      I can tell you that very recently, my FIL and I had a conversation about pregnancy and maternity leave that irreparably damaged his relationship with me, the mother of his two grandchildren. As a retired small business owner — who never had a single employee OTHER THAN MY MOTHER-IN-LAW — he is just appalled that women are allowed to take time off after having babies and leave those poor small business owners in a bind. Because they have to hire a temp AND possibly pay the woman on leave. He is adamantly opposed to paternity leave of any kind.

      I wanted to scream and cry. Thank the moons and stars above that my DH does NOT think this way and wanted, badly, to have a longer paternity leave.

      1. LuckySophia*

        Oh, Anonya, your FIL makes me want to scream and cry too! That said, let me offer a different perspective:
        As a small-biz owner, one year a key employee was out for 3 months, and then only able to work 24 hours per month, for another 8 or so months….(not due to pregnancy, but a medical crisis). Partway through those months, I had an accident that left me working at maybe 25% capacity for 2 months, and maybe 50% capacity while doing physical therapy for another 6 months or so. Due to the nature of our work, it wasn’t possible to bring in temps or other hires to maintain the level of business we’d previously handled. The business was running solidly in the red for a year-plus. Had I not had a really good financial “cushion” built up, it would have sunk us.

        The smaller the business, and the more specialized its services, the more vulnerable it is to “unanticipated” absences (for any reason, whether pregnancy, hit by a bus, or ‘”I just won the lottery… see ya!”.) So while OP wanting to fire the pregnant lady is repugnant, his focus on “she lied to meeee” is probably just a very mis-directed expression of his true feeling — which is probably “my business is now at greater financial risk, and more vulnerable, which is the exact opposite of what I intended to happen in hiring this woman.” Not trying to excuse the OP, but I think I understand their emotional (although highly illegal) reaction.

        2. Ok, but*

          That’s capitalism, though. A small business not able to survive a person living their life is not the fault of the employee.

    5. Rust1783*

      Yeah except 99.9% of them don’t ask for a second opinion. I don’t know why people feel such a need to drag this person.

  38. Asenath*

    I’m a non-driver, although I have been a driver in the past. I remember attending a public activity in the evening, and at the end, another non-driver asked everyone if they were going to a particular area of the city. No one was. I don’t know how she got home. I never go anywhere without knowing how I can get home – and if someone does offer me a lift, I take it only when needed (so as not to be a routine inconvenience) and thank them. If it is any distance, I offer gas costs. You are not out of line in expecting more courtesy for your co-worker, and unless your company has some policy regarding carpooling that might affect this, your aren’t required to give him a lift. In no case are you expected to go far out of your way to get him to his home. Your employer might organize travel for all employees who want/need it, though. It is, however, not unknown for some non-drivers to assume that drivers can and will always take them places. It’s well-enough known that I decided I would never be one of these people. You are not alone who knowing people who do this, and you don’t need to follow through on his assumption that you will drive him.

  39. Reality Check*

    #2 I worked 3 jobs when I became pregnant, 1 FT and 2 PT. Two of them fired me, both for being pregnant. One boss informed me that “No one wants to look at a pregnant bartender,” and the other boss said, “As a mother of two, I know we don’t pay enough for you to afford daycare so why don’t you just leave now.” I wasn’t able to find a new job because I was already showing. This is how people end up on food stamps. For any men reading this, thinking this is ok, I ask you this: wouldn’t you like to have children one day? If yes, is this how you want your wife treated? Do you want this to spell financial ruin for your house before the child is even born?

    1. Grapey*

      Nothing wrong with food stamps – they are a needed safety net in the same way that anti-discrimination laws are.

      1. Seven hobbits are highly effective, people*

        There’s nothing wrong with people who need use food stamps. They’re an important part of the social safety net.

        There is, however, something wrong with employers who don’t hire pregnant people who would like to work and are capable of doing so, thus requiring them to go on food stamps when they would otherwise be able to afford food without them.

      2. Rusty Shackelford*

        Yes, food stamps are there as a safety net. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to throw people off the trapeze.

    2. Rusty Shackelford*

      My mother was fired for being pregnant in the 60s. She worked in the kitchen of a boy’s dormitory, and when her boss found out she was pregnant, he called her… all sorts of bad things for letting college boys see a (not visibly) pregnant woman. If she hadn’t been married he probably would have called the police.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Gross. Both of these stories. So appalling. This is why we have laws about this nowadays. It was perfectly legal in the 60s to fire women for being pregnant, and even (I think?) married. Or being too old – weren’t some airlines allowed to put an age limit on stewardesses (which is what they were called then, not flight attendants)?

    3. Frankie*

      Honestly, it’s also on ALL men, EVERYwhere, regardless of childbearing/rearing intent, to realize that to a certain extent all women of childbearing age are impacted by this kind of thinking, and that they as men will NEVER have to deal with someone factoring that into their job potential.

  40. RoadsLady*

    #1. I keep thinking about it. Looking back at my work history, cultures have been relatively casual. In my Scouting days (as an employee) driving each other around was a norm. Yet, we were reminded to turn in receipts.

    Right now I’m a teacher. We sometimes have meetings at our district office–15 minutes down the country road, not even a turn. If we are returning toward the school, yeah, we carpool.

    But these are established cultural norms for those workplaces. I don’t do well with mooching. Perhaps if this coworker requested this help from the getgo (“I just don’t really drive in this area, mind if I hitch a ride to meetings when it’s not an inconvenience?”) I could then accept it as part of my workplace norm.

    In other words, it’s not really the action, it’s the social skills.

    1. LGC*

      Yeah, that’s where I came down. I think what’s bothering LW1 is that Fergus is being kind of rude – and if he just asked instead of expecting, they wouldn’t be bothered as much.

      Right now, it seems like he doesn’t appreciate how much easier his coworkers make his job (even if it’s not that difficult for them).

      1. RoadsLady*

        The hovering about the car got to me.

        You’re an adult. Communicate your needs in a thoughtful manner.

        1. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

          The way he acts would make me not want to help him solely on principle. He’s an adult – USE YOUR WORDS. I have zero issue helping people out if I can. But don’t make assumptions. With that said, if traffic in OP’s area is anything like around here, there is no way I’d drive co-worker back into the city after the meeting if I wasn’t headed back there to continue working. I would have no problem telling him he had to find his own way home, and that would be something for him to work out with the boss.

          1. Slow Gin Lizz*

            Same re: traffic. I assume that since OP1 mentioned driving into the city that the OP is also in a city and cities generally = traffic. No one – I repeat, NO ONE – should be required to drive out of their way through large amounts of traffic to get a coworker home. That’s what Uber/taxis are for. And the company should definitely pay for the taxi if it is an offsite meeting.

            And if for some reason coworker doesn’t want to take a taxi all the way home, CW could take the taxi to the nearest subway station and take the subway from there. Or mayyyyybe ask for a ride to the subway station. But definitely not all the way home through rush hour. That’s a job for someone who is getting paid to drive and not just reimbursed for gas mileage.

            1. Salamander*

              Yeah, there is no way I’d take a co-worker out of my way like that. Would I take the co-worker from the workplace to the offsite meeting? Sure. But they’re on their own for figuring out a way home if it’s out of my way. The co-worker doesn’t get to unilaterally decide that it’s no big deal to add more time and hassle to my commute. I don’t enjoy driving. I find it very anxiety-inducing, but I do it because I have to. I really would resent someone who feels breezily entitled to my time, money, and energy like that.

        2. Kat*

          My key fob for my car has the ability to unlock the driver’s side only, and not any of the other doors. If this guy just hovered by my car I’d be so tempted to not unlock the passenger side and just get in. If the coworker is so bad at being basically polite, he probably wouldn’t ask “can I get a ride?” but probably say something like “aren’t you going to unlock the door?” to which I would reply “Nope!” And drive off. Muahahahahahaha.
          That would probably make the whole mess worse but it’s funny to think about ways to prove a point to someone who’s really rude they can’t ever say “please” or “thank you”.

  41. Lauren19*

    Op2
    Don’t fire her. It’s her business not to tell you if she is expecting. Has she expressed if she’s taking maternity leave? You can always get a temp to cover her and yourself when she does give birth. That way her job is left open for her on return. Don’t fire as it’ll end in tears for you.

  42. Carolyn Keene*

    Turns out my husband also received a complaint/comment about “XXX” in rough drafts at work, from someone who feared it would slip through to a customer who might be offended; he’s switched to “ZZZ”. (I read selections of Ask A Manager to my husband over coffee in the morning and I thought he would find the complaint of the senior coworker as silly as I did, but turns out this one was super relatable…)

  43. PookieLou*

    I’d get rid of the mission on the resume. If he’s been back for over 10 years he should have experience that’s much more relevant that doesn’t go into religious territory.

    I put my mission on my resume because at the time I had just returned, I was job hunting in Utah, and I didn’t want to explain a large gap in employment. It helped me get work in my desired field, which is language related, so it was also relevant. If I were looking for non-language related work today I would leave it off because I now have more typical work experience. I can imagine in an interview: “Oh, you served a mission in Brazil? Do you speak Portuguese?” “Not really anymore” and the interviewer feeling like they were led to a pointless dead end, because why else would it matter?

    I also served my mission with college and some work experience behind me, but that’s very unusual. OP’s husband was probably 19 or 20 with little, if any, college when he went, and employers in Utah will know that. To me he might come across like an Uncle Rico-type who can’t move past the glory days of his youth. It’s Utah, so after he is hired nobody will find it offensive or surprising when he makes break room chat about that funny thing that happened on his mission in Brazil (especially if he went to BYU!) He doesn’t have to pretend like it never happened, or that it wasn’t an important part of his life; it’s just something that doesn’t have a place in the hiring process.

    That being said, I still have my mission on my resume because I am a freelancer targeting clients for mission language-related work, and it’s important that I can back up how I know a notoriously difficult and obscure language. (A trusted industry professional confirmed that people will assume my mission anyway as an American who speaks the language in question, and that it’s best to keep it.)

    1. PookieLou*

      Oops! I meant that to be a separate comment, not an unrelated reply to this one! Is there any way to move it?

  44. Akcipitrokulo*

    OP1 – It occurs that your company should be arranging transport and he should ask them. Then it occurred that it’s entirely possible he did! And the answer he got was “Oh, it’s policy just to get a ride with someone with a car.”

    So he might be under impression that you’re all being reimbursed and it’s part of the arrangements already made. He still should say thanks as part of normal human interactions, but it might be worth asking him “Hey, did you realise … ? ” as an opening question.

    1. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

      That’s not the point. He’s an adult and he needs to use his words, not hover around and follow people to their cars just assuming they will drive him.

      1. Akcipitrokulo*

        Agreed he needs to be more polite – but it’s very possible he *did* ask what arrangements there were for transport, and was told “oh, just get a lift with whoever is going”.

        I know a lot of people whose HR/management would have said that and not bothered to tell the people they had just lumbered with that job!

        1. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

          And again, if that’s the case he needs to use his words. People aren’t mind readers. And honestly, OP and others need to use their words as well and ask questions. Nobody is communicating here.

    2. CM*

      Yeah, I obviously can’t see the exact attitude he’s doing this with but, on its face, it doesn’t seem weird to me that he assumes he’s included in the travel plans. The part that seems weird is that this organization seems to have taken the attitude that each individual employee is completely responsible for transporting themselves everywhere and bearing the full cost of it. If they’re getting ripped off like that, I understand why they’re impatient, but he’s not the one making it weird in that case — it’s their bosses.

      (Also, even if the company were reimbursing him to ride the bus, I think it would be super rude for everyone to drive away and leave him if they’re all going to the same place as part of their jobs).

    3. Dust Bunny*

      Okay, my job is located separately from the main campus, and employees of a certain level sometimes have to commute to the main campus for meetings (commute is about five miles one way). Public transport is available since it’s in the city but would take far longer than driving. One of my coworkers does not drive but she’s at a lower level and doesn’t do anything that would require her to be at the campus by herself. I rarely need to be there on my own. Our superiors have a lot of events and meetings and are very often away from our office.

      However:
      1) People know when they are hired that they’re going to need to do this.
      2) Events that require it are virtually always known well in advance. We’ve had three last-minute emergency meetings in the 16 years that I’ve been here; literally everything else was known at least a week ahead of time.

      If it’s an event that the whole department needs to attend, we carpool because a) we’re going to be back long before we need to leave for the day, and b) parking at the main campus is limited so 1 car is always preferable to 1+ cars. But if somebody is staying later for another event, leaving directly from the main campus, etc., they drive themselves/make other plans.

      So . . . the LW says this guy could drive, he just chooses not to. But unless these events are sprung on him without prior notice, he is doing this entirely by choice, both in the immediate situation and in the larger scope of having a job that he bloody well knows requires travel away from the primary location. And that means it’s on him to arrange his own travel accommodations that don’t rely on pestering coworkers for rides.

  45. Mel*

    I think the missions trip on the resume is sort of a “know your audience” situation.

    When I was younger and had less work history, I included helping out with a church youth group under, “volunteer experience”. In the area I lived in, it was pretty likely to go over well as most people are religious or have pleasant feelings about it even if they aren’t.

    I wouldn’t include something like that now, I’m in my mid-30s, but it wouldn’t be totally crazy to include a relevant, church related volunteer experience, because people here are SO community minded. They don’t care if it’s with a church, they just want employees who “give back”. But, it would need to be relevant… and recent.

  46. Asperger Hare*

    I’d never heard of an Eagle Scout so for me it was just a really weird way of saying “I was in the scouts”. It would strike me as quite odd.

          1. ElizabethJane*

            I know what it is – I even know how long it takes. I just wouldn’t care at all. My response would be a very sarcastic “Oh wow! Yay for you! Here’s a Gold Star (TM)” muttered under my breath when I read the resume.

            (33 year old white woman here)

            1. Rust1783*

              …why do you feel the need to tear down other people’s accomplishments? I grew up hating the scouts because I’m gay, but I am not compelled to denigrate people who achieved things through the scouts.

        2. Rust1783*

          I do think most people know this, and it’s definitely not just white men. Anybody who grew up in a cultural milieu where scouting was common – which as far as I know is everywhere other than in big cities, and even there it has some presence – will at least be aware of what an “Eagle Scout” is. Plus, it has a really prominent place in American culture at least insofar as most people will be familiar with it and have a general sense of what it means (i.e. you were a Boy Scout for a long time and did some big project.)

      3. The Man, Becky Lynch*

        Well yeah because you have to pledge your life to Scouts is why. You can’t become an Eagle Scout until you’re old enough and have done your time in just regular scouts.

        The hard work is just “sticking with it” and “living the principals” more than anything, it’s no harder than someone who becomes a youth group leader in their church after spending their childhood growing up in the program.

    2. Allonge*

      That is actually a good point – I would not know what on earth an Eagle Scout is without some google-ing. Does not take away from the achievement, but think about the presentation if the audience is not likely to be in the know.

    3. Jamie*

      I knew it was a thing some people are proud of, but I thought it meant being in Scouts until you aged out – didn’t know it was a particular accomplishment until this thread.

      I know nothing about Scouts though (except that thin mints are delicious.)

      1. JustaTech*

        Thin Mints are sold by Girl Scouts.
        Eagle Scout is a rank achieved in the Boy Scouts.
        The Girl Scouts of the USA has no association with the Boy Scouts of the USA. (Outside of the US depends on country and if it’s Scouts or Guides.)

        As far as I know the Girl Scouts doesn’t have an equivalent to Eagle Scouts, although there are college chapters of Girl Scouts.

        2. Elsajeni*

          The Girl Scout rough equivalent is the Gold Award — similarly, it can only be earned by Senior Girl Scouts (high school-aged) and requires the scout to do a self-planned and self-directed service project after meeting some other requirements.

    4. Caramel & Cheddar*

      Yeah, until this comments section I had no idea it was A Thing, and not just an age-based level used within the larger Boy Scouts aparatus (e.g. in Canada we have Beavers, Cubs, etc. and I assumed Eagle Scout was the level for older kids).

      1. Rebeck*

        I can guarantee there’s an equivalent award in Canadian Scouts. In Australia it’s the Queen’s Scout (Queen’s Guide for Guides), and it’s a LOT of work and I’m still jolly proud of my Queen’s Guide.

  47. Anon for this one*

    #5 keep in mind that as the newest person (I assume) you may be the last to get your choice of time off over Xmas if they need ‘skeleton staff’ (depending on what you do, of course) so you may not have the option to choose to take the week off or not – just something to consider about ‘how’ you bring this up to the boss.

    I don’t know your setup so may be speaking out of turn, but I see a few assumptions in your question about free choice of being able to take that week off, to be able to work remotely because it suits you, etc. Hopefully this is all fine with the culture in your workplace but you may want to just re-check those ‘assumptions’.

    1. Sloan Kittering*

      Yeah I have my fingers crossed for OP! But this can be quite complicated in some offices and you definitely should never assume you’ll be able to take holiday week off as a new employee until you find out what the deal is, unfortunately.

    2. CM (LW5)*

      I absolutely understand where you’re coming from but in my line of work I do pretty much have free choice to take the week off, and there’s not really a need for skeleton staff anywhere. But would definitely be something to keep in mind for someone that does!

      I updated in a comment just now, and my boss is totally fine with what I was planning to do – everyone takes that week or both weeks off.

      1. Sloan Kittering*

        Oh good, this is what I was hoping for you!! I have had jobs where they close the whole office and nobody needs to work (yay!) and offices where they insist they need “coverage” although they arguably don’t (boo!). Glad you are with one of the former.

  48. agnes*

    RE: pregnant employee. Although I do not recommend this, you are also not obliged to provide her with any additional leave other than what she has available to her.

      1. Nicotene*

        Yeah that’s your “revenge,” I guess, OP, if you want to be a jerk about it. Yeah, she can’t be fired, but she probably doesn’t have much leave yet and she probably isn’t eligible for FMLA, so a mom and newborn baby are likely more screwed than your business … yay? (This was sarcasm)

    2. blackcat*

      Depends on the state/locality. If this employee is on the job for >4 months (which she could be), they would probably be eligible for 8 weeks unpaid leave in MA.

      1. nicotene*

        Yeah but unpaid leave is probably not that helpful – and does it always mean that you can keep the same insurance coverage?

        1. blackcat*

          Sometimes, but the main thing is that she would legally be entitled to come back to her job after the 8 weeks are up.

          1. nicotene*

            Yeah, just saying that while OP may really begrudge having to hold a position (I think it can even be a substantially similar position, not the exact same) for this woman, this isn’t even a huge benefit for someone who has to give birth and recover in our expensive society. In other places women receive, you know, salary. Especially if you can get screwed with insurance.

            1. Pommette!*

              Knowing that you will have a job to go back to in 8 weeks would actually be a huge deal for many people! It means not having to job search while taking care of a newborn/ healing from birth, and it means knowing that you won’t have to spend more than 8 weeks without a salary.

              It’s definitely not enough, but it’s also definitely not meaningless!

  49. Gay Tridentine Catholic Rastafarian*

    Wow, Allison. An Eagle Scout badge is not only an extraordinary achievement, by definition it’s a lifelong honor. Your light, in-passing tone of mild contempt is revealing, and not appreciated.

    Former Scout here. Didn’t make Eagle. Oh yeah almost forgot, I’m gay. Just in case this thread is going there.

    1. Solar Moose*

      It’s impressive, and any 18-year-old should list it on a resume.

      A 30-year-old should have more recent accomplishments to point to.

      1. Detective Amy Santiago*

        TIL that 30 is not part of your life. Cool.

        There is nothing to suggest that this man does not have additional accomplishments, but you’re missing the point of a “life long” honor.

        1. Solar Moose*

          I’m not sure how you got “30 is not part of your life” from my statement.

          They’re certainly entitled to feel like it’s a life-long honor, and feel good when they go to BSA events and get acknowledged as a holder of that honor. It’s foolish to think that employers will care much about what you did at 18 when you are 30.

        2. A*

          Resumes are abbreviated summaries of accomplishments – not everything can fit on one page. Keeping it on there comes at the sacrifice of other things. At 32 that could be concerning.

    2. Iain C*

      The thread did not go there. And I don’t think being gay belongs on a CV either…

      I’m not sure if the award should be on a CV, and I lean towards “you should have more relevant things after 30”, but that does not take away from the effort required. You can be proud of many things without putting them on your CV.

    3. MissDisplaced*

      Becoming an Eagle Scout is an accomplishment.

      But honestly, it’s not something most big corporate employers really care about, and thus Alison’s answer is right. But for certain applications it might make sense to leave it on, because it will be seen as being important or saying something about the applicant that adds to their whole package as a potential employee.

      I think it’s one of those: ‘know the company you’re applying to things.’

    4. Fikly*

      It is a great achievement! But there are many other equally impressive achievements that teens can do that do not have the same name recognition as Eagle Scout, so why are we promoting/giving preference to Eagle Scouts?

      1. Nicotene*

        Yeah TBH I feel like there’s some weird cultural value in this that doesn’t make a ton of sense. Of course it’s a lot of work, but there are SO MANY OTHER THINGS that are a ton of work … this is the “white dude one.”

    5. Teyra*

      I’m not American, but I don’t think it matters about ‘lifetime honours’ when we’re talking about a resume. It depends on relevance to the work, and relevance to who you are now. Ten years is a long time to lose (or gain) skills and abilities, anything that talks about something from ten years ago without anything more recent to support it is kind of irrelevant. It would make me assume they hadn’t done anything since, nor had continued or developed those skills further in the last decade.

      1. Quill*

        “Lifetime honors” = College application & first internship resume fodder. Everything else is going to be built upon degrees and industry relevant work or volunteer experience.

      2. Rust1783*

        …except presumably, the resume has 10 years worth of all the stuff they have done since

        I still list my college degree even though I received it well over a decade ago

    6. Allonge*

      I hope I can put this kindly: it seems (reading up on it now) that it is indeed a lot of work and something to be proud of, at any age.

      But it is a ‘lifetime achievement’ because the Scouts say so. On a much smaller scale, my high school had programmes that fed into national level things that we were told are The Best.

      There is no objective Comparative List of Achievements in the World. Some teens might have to put twice as much effort into just staying in school (or, in a more extreme case, alive) as the Eagles do. How do they list that in a CV?

    7. Jamie*

      is not only an extraordinary achievement, by definition it’s a lifelong honor.

      Only to people who consider it such.

      1. Myrin*

        I was gonna say – I was about to ask what “lifelong honor” means because I feared there might be a language problem on my end but now that I’m reading this I’m thinking… well, it sounds like something giving you a great sense of honour for the rest of your life? Which is nice and all but not really tangible. Or is it something more concrete?

        1. A*

          You are understanding it correctly. The Boy Scouts of America have declared that it is a life long honor. This is true in that the accomplishment never goes away – and they will always have the title of ‘Eagle Scout’. Whether you agree with the definition of ‘honor’ and ‘accomplishment’ is a whole other bag :)

      2. mcr-red*

        I know zero about Eagle Scouts, I was in 4H, so I’m afraid if I was looking at their resume, I’d be like, “Um, good for you?” For a recent graduate, I would understand, for someone who might have more recent and relevant work experience, I would probably question why they thought it was necessary. I’m not saying I’d count them out, I’m just saying it wouldn’t be a plus.

    8. Allypopx*

      Lot’s of things are toted as lifelong honors and resume builders in high school. That doesn’t mean they are actually relevant on your *resume* after a certain point, it means they’re a pride point and give you a place of importance in that particular community. The workforce is not the scouts and it’s not contemptuous to expect more recent achievements from adults 8-10 years into their careers.

      1. Quill*

        I was Battle of the books captain two years running, got more than seven fives in AP tests, and was so good at spanish that I got selected to be sent to a linguistics conference. None of these belonged on my resume, just on my college application.

        Honestly I’m getting old enough that my college graduation honors & research assistant-ship shouldn’t count on there any more, but the reality of my industry is that I don’t get a chance for more recent achievements due to constant contracting! (and my college graduation was only 5 years ago, so when people say “list your last 10 years of work experience,” at some point I have to come up against the fact that I have practically no job experience before I, you know, graduated.)

        1. Seven hobbits are highly effective, people*

          Yeah, I graduated high school in three years instead of four. That was certainly something I played up on college applications (“I can handle the increased workload of this program because in high school I did additional for-credit independent study work in these areas (allowing me to graduate a year early) on top of a full course schedule, being editor of the school paper, volunteering with the state parks department in the summers, and singing in a regionally-known, auditioned non-school choir”), but all of that has long since dropped off my resume. I would bring any of it up as a “hook” in a cover letter if that particular bit were relevant to the specific job somehow, but otherwise I realize that companies are planning to hire current-me, not time-traveler-17-year-old me, so they’re much more interested in what I’ve done lately.

    9. Policy Wonk*

      Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State and CEO of Exxon-Mobil always listed that he was an Eagle Scout on his CV.

        2. Politico*

          Because he is someone who has had a very successful career, and this is supposed to be a blog about careers, and OP asked about whether listing the Eagle Scout award would bolster her husband’s career.

    10. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

      My Regents high school diploma is also, by definition, a lifetime achievement: if you called my high school today they would be willing to confirm that I earned it, and when.

      The question is whether that achievement from when someone was 17 or 18 still matters for resume purposes when they’re 30, or 50. I might not think much of it either way if a 30-year-old included “Eagle Scout” on his resume; I do wonder about the judgment of someone who expects everyone to take it as a given that of course that one achievement is a “lifetime honor,” when “high school class valedictorian” or winning a high school athletic event isn’t.

    12. Fabulous*

      Anyone who has not participated in the Scouts would not know the supposed honor of this accomplishment.

      I was a Brownie for a hot second and I wouldn’t give it a second look, and honestly would react the same way if I saw it listed on a resume. To me, Scouts are a “kid” thing.

    13. neeko*

      There are plenty of achievements that are not appropriate for your resume. Alison also doesn’t recommend that you put that you graduated with honors. It’s just not relevant to a resume in your 30s.

      And that’s great that you had a good experience as a gay scout – I’m certainly not trying to take that away from you. But that doesn’t negate that others (some that I know personally!) didn’t share your experience.

      1. Politico*

        “Alison also doesn’t recommend that you put that you graduated with honors.”

        And I would disagree with that. If you graduated magna or summa cum laude (especially from a prestigious institution) or were a member of an organization like Phi Beta Kappa or Order or the Coif, you should absolutely list it. In the legal world, people tend to list law review membership throughout their careers.

    14. The Boy Out of the Bubble*

      “by definition”

      Whose definition? And … so what?

      It’s also by definition a teenaged accomplishment. I was a National Merit Scholar, amazing distinction, also a “lifelong honor” by definition since once granted it’s never removed. Does it belong on an adult workplace resume? Absolutely not.

      If Alison’s tone (btw, +1 for misspelling her name) was mildly contemptuous (which is entirely a matter of interpretation and as like as not only a “you” problem), it’s because it’s a little befuddling when people miss pretty elementary judgment calls.

    15. Book Badger, Attorney-at-Claw*

      There are many things I did in middle school and high school that I consider great accomplishments that took a lot of hard work and talent, and no one can ever take those accomplishments away from me. I often bring them up when talking about things that drove me to succeed, or things that taught me discipline, or things that made me feel proud. “I broke an academic record so hard they stopped tracking it” is meaningful to me.

      However, I would not list them on a resume, because they’re not relevant to my work now and I have done more impressive things since then. It doesn’t stop being important, but it does stop being relevant. And just because it’s still meaningful to me doesn’t mean it has anything to do with my current skills, work ethic, or talents, or that other people are obligated to find it meaningful.

      Heck, even some things that are current might still not be meaningful to other people. I know my exact bar exam score and I know I’m in the top percentile of scorers, but the bar exam is pass/fail – no one knows or cares what your score is, only if you are admitted in a state or not. Knowing I got such a high score gives me a little burst of pride, but ultimately it’s not relevant to any jobs that I apply to. Sometimes things that we are proud of aren’t that important to our working lives, and that’s fine.

    16. Starbuck*

      As you can see from this thread though, non-Scouts don’t really have the necessary context to appreciate the achievement (I sure don’t) so it’s going to look childish to most people to list something on your resume that you earned as a child.

    17. A*

      Yes it is an extraordinary achievement. Yes it is a lifelong honor. That doesn’t mean both those things automatically translate to ‘lifelong professional accomplishment’. A resume is not a comprehensive list of everything you’ve achieved in this life – it’s meant for relevant experience. This may, or may not, be immediately relevant to a job.

    18. MormonPersonNotInUtah*

      Oh, please. An “extraordinary achievement”and “lifelong honor”? Both of my brothers have their Eagle Scout award. They have it because their scout leaders and church leaders held their hands and walked them through all the requirements and merit badges. They were forced to go to Scouts every week whether they wanted to or not, and my mom basically planned and executed their entire eagle projects. It may be an “extraordinary achievement” for some people, but since there is no quality control and no way to distinguish between the boys that really stepped up and took the reins and did all the work themselves and demonstrated true leadership and community involvement, and those whose mothers were living vicariously through them and did most of the work because they live in Utah and it looks bad on a Mormon stay-at-home mom if her sons don’t all get their Eagles, the award is pretty meaningless.

  50. Rose's angel*

    OP2 im not going to rail on you. So many have stated why firing your employee is a seriously bad idea. I hope you will read the comments and take them to heart. I hope you update about what your decision was.

  51. Spartan*

    Regarding #2 I do agree with the answer 100%. Even when viewed from the most generous viewpoint to the OP there is no firing someone for being pregnant. It’s wrong on so many levels. But I do find it interesting that so many people jumped from using the she pronoun to describe the OP as is the norm here to using he. I have worked mostly for women in my professional life and I have found they carry just as many prejudices about maternity leave as the men. Those who have had kids sometimes question how long someone really needs off because they only took x amount of time. Unfortunately discrimination of this sort is not gender exclusive.

    The main complaint of I hired someone put in 3.5 months to train them and then they will be off for 8-16 weeks wherein I now have to find ways to get those duties done and potentially retrain them afterwards is annoying but many many things in the business world are. I just trained you and you left for a better job or I just paid for you to go to a conference and you left before we were able to get the benefits from it. That is the cost of doing business. A CFO might look at the cost of training and say what if we spend all this money on training people and they leave, but a good CEO will ask what if we don’t invest all this money in training our people and they STAY!

    1. Reality Check*

      Yes. People should not assume OP 2 is male. In my post above, I told about being fired for being pregnant by a female boss.

    2. Jennifer*

      This is absolutely true. The women can be even nastier. I imagined it was a woman writing in. I remember a woman in another forum complaining about a woman her company had hired that was 3 months pregnant. She was no nasty about it, even joked about spraying her ice with Lysol.

      1. Nicotene*

        There’s also really a phenomenon where, if you as a woman had to leave the workforce to care for your children or really struggled with childcare in your career, you can bitterly not want the people who come after you to “have it easy.” That whole ‘paying your dues’ phenomenon like we see in student loans, unpaid internships etc.

  52. MissDisplaced*

    Triple X: this is fine, it’s a common filler. You may want to put them in brackets though.
    The rain in Spain falls at a rate of [XXX%] per year.

    Pregnant new hire: Seriously? People get pregnant. Don’t be a jerk. But you’re not obligated to provide more time off than what is allowed under the law. And I think that info needs to be relayed to new employee to set the expectations. Who knows? She may become a fantastic worker for you if given the chance. You chose her for a reason, I presume?

    Resume: I think the case to include some of these things might be determined by the type of company being applied to. I can see that some mission-based nonprofits, higher-ed, etc., would like to see things like Eagle Scout, while it’s probably not at all important at typical corporate jobs.
    So, maybe create two resumes for this purpose?

  53. Katie the Fed*

    I’m on maternity leave right now, which I went on a few months after starting a new job. I didn’t disclose my pregnancy in the interview. I also hired someone the year before who was pregnant and didn’t disclose it. It’s very, very rare for people to disclose it because:

    1) people like the OP who won’t want to hire them because of it
    2) their pregnancies might not carry to term and they’re not telling anyone
    3) It’s not anyone else’s business

      1. Katie the Fed*

        Thank you! I know I haven’t been around much – life got a little crazy :) We thought it would take a lot longer to get pregnant with #2. A LOT longer.

    3. Professional Merchandiser*

      Congrats, Katie!! I was just thinking of you the other day and wondering why we haven’t seen you on here lately. I always enjoy reading your comments!!

  54. Detective Amy Santiago*

    As a non-driver for medical reasons, #1 irritates me. Yes, if we’re all leaving from one place and going to another, I expect that I can catch a ride with someone. In fact, I’m appalled that everyone drives themselves instead of carpooling. I agree that saying thanks is not too much to ask, but are people seriously implying that this person should be paying gas money for something like this?

    1. Carlie*

      I’m more appalled by the lack of asking than the lack of thanking. He just walks behind someone out to their car and gets in? That’s awful and a bit creepy.

      1. Allonge*

        I was thinking that this also depends on how often it happens. I mean, sure, ask, but if this is every week, I would, as a driver, feel uncomfortable that people need to ask. Of course they can ride along.

        Now the part about driving them back if that means going out of your way, that is different.

    2. Seeking Second Childhood*

      My two problems with this are:
      1. This nondriver isn’t asking for a ride or thanking them for it — or even figuring out ahead of time if his coworkers are going back the way he needs to go. (Eg maybe he lives west of work and everyone else lives east.)
      2. The company isn’t considering nondriver’s when planning these events. They should put them on a bus line or offer taxi fare back to bus line to nondriver. I have no problem with them not offering gas money to employees who live on the oposited side of the event from office.

    3. The Cosmic Avenger*

      Well, if the company isn’t reimbursing for travel, then they are definitely mooching off of the OP! I would say that if it’s no additional expense then it’s mostly about the rude assumption that they’re happy to do a minor favor. Imagine someone walks into your office and uses your pens, without asking or even a pleasant word to you. You’d generally let a coworker use your pen, of course, but in that manner it would be really grating! And beside the fact that they’re not saying thanks, they’re expecting to be driven all the way home, which makes it egregiously offensive and obnoxious, and why would you want to do even a minor favor for someone like that?

    4. JoR1*

      Well- yes.
      If it’s costing me gas money, and you are catching a ride- I’d expect you to offer half the cost.

    5. PharmaCat*

      Of course you offer gas money, unless the company is reimbursing. Why wouldn’t you? Owning and operating a car is a significant financial burden – maintenance, insurance, purchase cost, taxes, etc.

    6. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

      I agree. If I’m driving to a meeting, and I take an extra person, it’s not costing me any more for gas than if I was driving by myself. Whether I get compensated for gas or mileage from my company is irrelevant, since I’m not incurring any additional cost by giving my co-worker a ride.

      1. Nicotene*

        Except for the part where he expects you to drive back into town if that’s not where you’re headed. I had this for YEARS with the various interns I drove around for work – and while very understandable, it can truly be an extra hour or more, uncompensated, to drop someone off across town during rush hour and get back to your house. Dude needs to learn how to use a rideshare app

        1. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

          That’s not my point. OP also needs to learn to say no. Seems like nobody in this situation is communicating at all.

      2. doreen*

        It might be true that it doesn’t cost you any extra – and I can see where asking for gas money for a short, occasional ride would be weird. But aside from the lack of asking or thanking or even making sure people are going back to the office , I get the feeling there’s also potentially a lack of reciprocation. Like I said , I can see how asking for gas money for this kind of ride can be weird- but if someone is regularly giving me a ride , even if our employer is reimbursing the costs, I’m going to reciprocate somehow- but I get the feeling this person doesn’t do so much as buy the OP an occasional cup of coffee.

    8. Bagpuss*

      I think it depends on the situation.

      If employees are reuqired to travel between offices as part of their job, then it is not unreasonable to expect them to car-pool, but it is reasonable for them to share that work and polite for any passenger to be courteous to the driver, which includes thanking them.

      If employees are not reimbursed for that travel, then yes, it is appropriate for a passenger toat the very least offer to chip in for the travel costs. After all, whil the sums might not be large, the person driving is nevertheless doing so at their own expense. If the driver is reimbursed then that is not necessary.

      In this case, it appears that the employee LW is asking about can drive, but choses not to, and that he gets angry when people don’t want to make uniecessary extra triups for his convenience, which I think is the key part. at that point, it is not unreasonable to expect him to make his own arrangemetns, whether that measn getting a bus, or an uber, or arranging with his wife that he will ned the car on certain days when he has to travel out of the office.

      And of course, in many cases, for short tips, the answer when an offer of gas money is made will be to tell the offeror not to bother.

    9. WellRed*

      He can drive, he chooses not to and gets upset when people won’t go out of their way for him. He should drive his own car on days he knows he has to go offsite. Problem solved.

    10. Alianora*

      The difference is that the coworkers are going directly home from work, not back to the office. So it’s logical for everyone to drive themselves.

    11. Dot*

      Why? Cars, gas, insurance, registration all cost money. If you don’t have those expenses, you should be able to afford a Lyft. “Appalled” is a pretty strong word for not getting a free ride on someone else’s dime and effort.

      This is exactly the attitude from non-drivers that annoys drivers. Dude, it’s not free, and it’s not yours for the asking.

      1. Salamander*

        Exactly. Owning a car is a giant hassle. Driving is a hassle, and I find it unpleasant and anxiety-provoking. Driving out of my way is even more of an inconvenience. I drive when I have to, and do not want other people making the decision for me that it’s no big deal to drive them across town in rush hour when it’s not on my way. It’s no big deal to them, sure, but it’s a major PITA for me.

    12. Kix*

      Re: #1
      I’m a cranky old trout, but I don’t routinely carpool to meetings with co-workers. I don’t want to be handcuffed to anyone else’s schedule and I use the quiet time en route to meetings to decompress.

      If this fellow was my co-worker and he followed me to my car with the expectation of a ride, I’d have to hurt his feelings.

      1. Kat*

        My issue is the presumption by the coworker and possibly the employer that they are allowed to make assumptions about the use of MY time and MY personal property (my car). It’s not about the cost or who pays, it’s about what happens in MY car is MY business and only I have the right to decide who accompanies me in my car. And my decisions can be arbitrary or dumb but since it’s MY car, I get to decide.
        Employers can require you to drive and have access to a vehicle but I have NEVER seen a single case where you can be required to provide transportation to other employees (unless your job is a driver) since I assume there’s a whole lot of liability issues that could come into play there.

        If I didn’t offer a ride first, then yes you need to ask me every single time. I don’t care if it was every month or every week. Ask every time unless I’ve offered first.

        There’s 100+ reasons I don’t want someone in my car with me:

        Sometimes I try to use time in my car to make personal phone calls (handsfree) so I have privacy which I don’t in the office.
        Or I want to listen to an audio book.
        Or I want to run an errand on the way and don’t want anyone with me.
        Or I might not be 100% familiar with the area we’re going or hate downtown driving and I don’t want my anxiety made worse by feeling like I have other people in the car judging my driving abilities.
        Or I don’t want people eating/drinking in my car (yes I was once that person).
        Or EVERY INCH of my car is covered in dog hair which is super embarrassing.
        Or I love to drive with the windows down but my passenger wants the A/C on (omg I hate this!!)
        Or I use the time to dictate (handsfree) to do lists/reminders to myself.
        Or I just want to be completely and totally alone in my car because it’s the only alone time I get in my entire day.

        I am 100% in favour of carpooling to reduce carbon emissions, saving tax payers money (I too work in government), but some days my mental health or personal priorities come first.

        I honestly think that the OP doesn’t NEED to have any justification for their coworker or employer. They just need to use their words and say “sorry I’m not able to drive you/Fergus any longer. You/they will need to make other arrangements”.

        If the OP is honestly good with driving the coworker but wants some acknowledgement then yah tell the coworker it’d be nice if they acknowledged the favour. But if the OP just doesn’t want to, they don’t have to. They can just say no.

        1. Evergreen*

          I think the OP should at least be prepared to hear that the boss has decided that the company are not willing to pay for mileage or taxi fare for multiple drivers to make the same trip (especially as this would look very bad in my industry to have members of the same team arrive separately to a midday meeting). This may not be the coworkers first choice for arrangements either, which would partly explain the absent ‘thanks’

    13. Book Badger, Attorney-at-Claw*

      I was a non-driver until this year (yay, financial independence! but also boo, no public transit!). I’d always hope that I could catch a ride with someone to an event, but I’d always at least ask and say thank you. Or, if I couldn’t get a ride or didn’t want to be tied to someone else’s schedule, I’d take public transit, even if it meant adding hours to my route.

      I certainly wouldn’t awkwardly stand outside someone’s car waiting to be invited in like some kind of vehicular vampire.

    14. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      I won’t lie, I’m a little “LOL what?” over the idea of him needing to offer gas money. I don’t think offering gas money is required, unless you’re trying to set up a carpool situation or you’re asking for a favor [going in the other direction and therefore using more gas than was originally planned for]. Since everyone can also double dip on this, since if the company isn’t reimbursing mileage, a lot of people are itemizing their deductions and writing it off on their taxes. So there’s ways to recoup these costs.

      But the problem is really that the coworker chooses not to drive, they’re not just a non-driver. I’m a whole lot more understanding when someone simply doesn’t drive, I have plenty of those in my life! Than when they decide that they’ll just jump into my car and then get salty when I’m not going the way back that they need me to to get them home! I’ll take him there all day long but if I’m not going back and he wants to get angry about it, then I’m not taking him there at all either, since I don’t reward bad behavior and attitudes.

      I say this as someone who literally goes out of their way all the time for others and all I want is common courtesy and acknowledgement that I’m doing them a solid. A “thank you!” goes a million miles and I don’t need gas money.

      But when you are rude about it, presumptuous and just downright salty when you don’t get your way using my property, you can start walking, we’ll see you when we get there.

      Everyone drives themselves because it’s the end of day, nobody is going back to the office! So they’re just going that way before they leave for the day.

      If they were all going back to the office, if it were mid-day or morning, I’d be a lot more inclined to be 100% on your side here.

  55. SW*

    A Queer person for #4: if I saw the Mormon missionary thing on a resume I’d be inclined to remove a candidate, mostly because the Mormon Church is so anti-LGBT. I would rather not take the chance and find out that at best this man is ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner.” Plus I’ve lived in poor areas and have been repeatedly pestered by wave after wave of Mormon missionaries looking to convert me.

    1. Teyra*

      I’m curious whether this would count as religious discrimination. Would it be wrong to remove a Muslim candidate for similar reasons, based on assumptions about their beliefs?

      I’d be less inclined to hire based on the missionary work, to be honest, but if they were a good candidate (and had done it recently) I’d still interview and ask some questions. Having done it so long ago puts me off more.

      1. RoadsLady*

        I would bet it would count as religious discrimination. You’re hiring someone to do a job, not making broad assumptions about their behavior or taking a stand against a church.

      2. SheLooksFamiliar*

        It absolutely would be discrimination, Teyra, unless the specific doctrine of faith is a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOQ). For example – if SW works for a publisher of Sunday school materials for the Luthern church, and is hiring for a writer or editor, the candidate’s religion becomes a factor because of ‘essential job duty.’ Likewise for a religious school or college; applicants for a teaching role should expecet their religious belief to be a relevant factor.

        But a candidat that meets the minimum qualifications for a job cannot be removed from consideration because of their religion. Proving it may be impossible, which is a whole other issue.

      4. Elspeth Mcgillicuddy*

        And Mormons are a religious minority too! With a smaller percentage of the US population than Jews. Discriminating against the majority is also illegal, but this is extra yuck.

      5. M*

        I know what you mean. I am strongly against religious discrimination but at the same time as a Jewish lesbian I would be a bit wary about going into an interview with someone who is devoted to an organization that has a history of treating my people poorly.

    2. Jamie*

      Fwiw Mormon missionaries door knock in affluent and middle class areas as well – it’s not an income thing.

      And while I don’t think it’s great to put religious experience on a resume unless you know it will be a leg up with your audience, I think it’s worse to rule someone out based solely on their religion.

      What if it were legit work experience like years in accounting or head of marketing for Catholic Charities or B’Nai B’rith? Should they leave that off lest it telegraph their faith?

      Many people are identify with some religion and for the vast majority its a non-issue at work.

      1. fposte*

        Yes, there’s an irony today in that one question is about the desire to illegally discriminate against an employee, and some people are responding to another question with the desire to illegally discriminate in that situation.

      2. Quill*

        Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are both more of a regional door knocking hazard than an economic one.

        Excuse me, sir or madam, I’m an atheist, and you’re worrying my dog. Yes, my dog is also an atheist. Have a good day.

        1. SMH RN*

          I once had JWs let my fat tabby cat out, watch me chase him around the yard in my pjs, and then ask how I felt about the state of the world. The answer: not as good as I did 15 minutes ago lol.

    5. Blueberry*

      As another queer person I totally hear you. I’ve been cruelly treated by the church I was raised in and not a few other religious people, including Mormons.

      It is out of that fellow feeling and recognition that I say that it is not right to exclude a qualified candidate on the basis of their religion. It’s not ethically right, it’s illegal, and it also provides fodder for the victimhood many religious people want to claim. “We may say you’re going to burn in hell and we may work to keep you from being allowed get to married or to adopt children, but this person here won’t hire religious people so that’s JUST AS BAD IF NOT WORSE” is the reasoning, you know? We shouldn’t give them any evidence in support of that. We need to not sink to their level.

      To relate #2 and #4, this is why I agree with not including the information on the resume, or in the interview. It’s easier for an employer to not illegally discriminate if they don’t have the information with which to do so.

      1. M*

        It’s hard because I feel like as a Jewish lesbian I wouldn’t be able to be unbiased. I do not believe in religious discrimination but know that I would have a hard time being unbiased to a person who openly declares their devotion to an organization that doesn’t believe that I and others like me should exist. I would probably have to defer to someone else.

    6. SubjectAvocado*

      This is EXACTLY why, as an LDS person, I included it on my resume. I don’t want to work for someone who is going to make bigoted assumptions based on what they think they know about my religious beliefs and it would be far worse to find out someone would bully me or assume I’m a bigot based on my religion after I began employment. As it is, I have worked really hard to rid myself of biases and be an ally and friend to the LGBT+ community. You can’t know what a person actually believes or what their relationship with their faith is.

      1. SubjectAvocado*

        Also, going on a mission means that you were exposed to a LOT of different beliefs and ways of living, and I would argue makes a person significantly more tolerant and able to work around and with people with significantly different views and lives.

      2. M*

        I’m a lesbian and don’t make much of an effort to hide that (not like I talk about my personal life but I have very short hair and a more butch aesthetic so people generally guess), and I agree with your premise. Ultimately I would rather be myself and lose out on an opportunity because someone doesn’t like it than get a job and have to hide who I am to appease bigots.

        At the same time, how is it unfair that people assume you follow the stated doctrine of your religion, especially when you appear to be devout (IE not just culturally but its a major part of your life)? It’s not as if Mormonism is ambiguous on their feelings towards the LGBT community.

    7. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      As another queer person, I find this pretty awful and sad that you’re at this stage that you’re acting out in discrimination, even though we experience so much of it. That’s now how we break the cycle. We make friends with these people and put a “face” and a “person” behind it, that pulls more people into the ally catagory than shunning people who are often just ignorant and need to see the humanity behind the scare quotes that their churches may or may not have tried to teach them.

      There are homophobes everywhere, most supremacists are actually not church goers and don’t identify with much spiritually wise.

      They have “areas” and spread out through all of them, it’s not about socioeconomics of any region.

      These people were driven out of their homes and had to find refuge in Utah, where they were still made to change their beliefs to become a frigging state. Do I believe anything they’re preaching? No. Does it upset me about the stories about abuse? Of course it does, it upsets me that all religions and sects have abusive vultures among them.

  56. Jennifer*

    #1 I have a little sympathy for this guy because I rely on public transit to get to work. It’s annoying how some companies advertise being near public transit as a plus but people get an attitude about giving you a ride to offsite meetings.

    That said, he should be more polite about asking for a ride and thanking you. If the bus doesn’t run near the offsite meeting, he may be stuck having to uber back to the city. Sucks.

    #2 Despicable

    1. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

      I’ve taken public transportation to and from work in the past so I get it. But this is an issue he needs to solve with his manager and stop making assumptions.

    2. Mockingjay*

      #1. Cars are expensive. The costs to purchase, maintain, insure, and fuel a vehicle are built into my personal budget. Both my personal schedule and job requirements are such that public transportation is not an option for me, as much as I would like it to be. If a coworker is going to ride with me routinely, they should offer me compensation, especially since my company does not reimburse local mileage.

      (Note: We bill to a contract, which specifies reimbursement conditions. We are expected to drive short distances to meet with the client at their convenience, which can be frequent. It is made clear during the hiring process that local travel is a requirement.)

      1. Jennifer*

        I know cars are expensive. That’s why I use public transit :)

        If local travel is a requirement of the job, then it wouldn’t be an ideal position for someone who relies on public transit, so I don’t think your situation really applies to the OP’s.

        1. The Francher Kid*

          I think the point being made is that Mockingjay can’t apply for local mileage reimbursement for travel to meetings, and if this is also the case where OP #1 works, the coworker is just expecting others to bear the entire cost (not to mention time in rush hour traffic) of driving him back into town to catch public transit.

          1. Jennifer*

            But my point is that if the job required local travel, then that implies that you need a car and a driver’s license. The OP didn’t state that these are requirements of their job. If they aren’t, the company should be assisting with getting non-drivers to and from occasional off-site meetings.

            They also didn’t mention anything about not being reimbursed for mileage.

            1. doreen*

              It doesn’t necessarily – most of my jobs have required local travel and public transportation has always been acceptable. The OP doesn’t actually say this person can’t take public transportation to and from the meetings. It does say he assumes the OP will drive him back downtown to get a bus home – but that could because that the bus from the office is more convenient than taking the bus from the off-site location.

      2. ThisColumnMakesMeGratefulForMyBoss*

        You’re driving to the meeting whether you’re alone or have passengers. As part of your job, you’re incurring the cost of driving your car. Why should a second person going to the same exact place offer to provide you with gas money?

  57. Peacemaker*

    LDS, non-Utahn here. I included my mission work on my vita, but without reference to religion, for the reasons Alison mentioned. Something like this: “Two years of volunteer service in Latin America, fluent in Spanish.” I was applying for a tenure track faculty position where, I believe, people care about your willingness to serve in a variety of ways, and for which the fluency in Spanish would be seen as a plus. That having been said, I would still have included it, no matter the position. My reasoning is that being bi-lingual, especially with Spanish as my second language, seems to be a net plus for many jobs, and personally, I wouldn’t really want to work in a place where having a service-orientation is a net minus.

    1. Sharkie*

      My Cousin is a Catholic mission worker in Latin America and she lists her experience in a very similar way, even though she is trying to work in Christian Schools

    2. ACDC*

      I think this is the best way to a mission on a resume. You can take the religion out of it without discounting the accomplishment and potential language skills.

      1. Utahn*

        Yes! very well worded.

        I live in Utah and I am a Mormon and I would also recommend removing the missionary experience. It might be appropriate for newly returned missionaries/new grads with little other experience, but at 32 I don’t think it is appropriate. I would definitely include fluency in Portuguese (if he has kept it up) but that is it.

  58. vanillacookies*

    Follow up question Re: LW2: Suppose a person were to quit their job because they learned their employer was doing/trying to do something illegal. When they get interviews for new jobs, if the interviewers ask why they left their previous job, what’s the appropriate response? Can you just say “They did Illegal Thing so I left,” or is that too blunt? I have little to no interview experience.

    1. irene adler*

      It’s best not to say anything negative about one’s previous employer. They will draw conclusions about your ability to be diplomatic based on what you say about prior employer(s).
      Find a neutral “employer and I didn’t see eye to eye on employment policies” statement. This question is usually an ice-breaker so they don’t want to hear an in-depth characterization of prior employer’s misdeeds. Save it for the water cooler chats.

      1. Quill*

        Got any advice for someone who was fired because their employer found out about their mental illness, and therefore has to explain an employment gap that bumped them from a ‘salaried’ to a contract position?

        Asking for myself and also my ex coworker who got treated the same…

          1. Quill*

            It was a 5 person company, so… unfortunately our boss / the owner would have known EXACTLY who had written such things. Not that I’m encouraging anyone to call him for a reference (or that he’d necessarily pick up the phone to answer if it didn’t help his bottom line) but I worked for him for 2 years, at first it was more than my job search was worth.

  59. Legally Anony Mouse*

    Re: pregnancy:
    1. My close friend was employed through a volunteer local election campaign, and her boss (female) somehow did not like pregnant women and made her life very difficult. Friend ended up stressed out to the max, ended up having her baby 1 month early (both of them are fine TG) but now she’s back at square 1 trying to find someone who’ll hire her, and tells people about her ex-boss. Don’t be her ex-boss. Word travels very, very fast and it’s a very small world.

    2. I left my previous small less than 20 person company because they didn’t have maternity provisions in their handbook despite my suggesting them when the handbook was up for review. A friend there was weeks-pregnant and left at 2 months pregnant because of that. I left months after, because I saw how rigid their thinking was. Majority male/men who had toddlers, but the only women who worked there were in their mid-20s and single. Company president was extremely upset when I left (licensed attorney, degrees up the wazoo, etc.), but I wouldn’t budge; that company hemorrhaged so much good talent (MBAs, legal, IT). Luckily, current company has plenty of working mothers and a very supportive work environment with telework and flex hours that previous company was so unable to provide.

  60. TheFacelessOldWomanWhoSecretlyLivesinYour House*

    If I saw Eagle Scout and missionary–I’d get the negative vibe right there. It flares up a huge religious/against atheists sign. That would be a huge mark down for me.

    1. ACDC*

      I understand why you think that way, but that’s pretty blatant stereotyping. Plenty of people can be religious and not “against atheists”

      1. Kat*

        The fact that someone travels for the purpose of spreading their religion to other people in an unsolicited manner because their religion requires them to actively preach and convert other people to “save them” would concern me about their ability to keep their religion out of the workplace or to accept people of different faiths (or of no faith).

        And let’s be frank: there are religious groups that have a long and well documented history of practices that are built upon subjugating women, raping children, not supporting LGBTQ+ rights, and only conferring rights and authority onto men. How could you NOT worry someone advertising their membership in such an organization as being a good fit in your organization? (that presumably does welcome all people regardless of gender, orientation, religion, etc.)

        Would having those concerns mean I was stereotyping? Yeah sure. But being accused of stereotyping someone based on their membership in an organization that has a well known history of treating other people horribly because it’s what they believe, is something I’d be fine with being guilty of. Being open minded would require me to set aside what I know about these groups and frankly none of us should ever forget the atrocities committed in the name of any “god” since that’s how these heinous acts continue to be committed.

        1. Not All*

          +1

          I wouldn’t throw the person’s resume out completely, but if they made it to the reference stage I’d be asking a LOT of questions about how they treated people who weren’t white Christian cis-males. I’d also be speaking to old coworkers, not just the provided references and past supervisors.

          1. Kat*

            Same. I see this no different than doing a google search or Facebook search on a candidate. If there is stuff online about a candidate that reflects very badly on them that I can find very easily, why would I ignore it? Similarly why would you ignore something on a resume? I wouldn’t base my entire decision on it, but I’d do more work to suss out whether the red flag points to more red flags, or whether it’s a very minor blip in someone’s history. It’s like if you get one bad reference, you check more references to see if there’s a pattern of behaviour or conduct you want to avoid or whether there was maybe one bad fit in an otherwise good employment history.

        2. A*

          ” would concern me about their ability to keep their religion out of the workplace or to accept people of different faiths (or of no faith).”

          THIS.

    2. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      Which is your discrimination coming out in full force.

      My atheist brother used to hangout with a lot of Mormons in school. They’re still friendly to this day. Never have they cared that he’s now a heavily tattooed dude who doesn’t believe in God.

      This is pretty awful to put out there in the universe.

      1. Kat*

        Being wary of discrimination in any form it may take, when someone presents you with facts that suggest they may hold and espouse discriminatory beliefs, and trying to avoid it and avoid associating my company with it, isn’t discrimination. You may not agree with it, but that doesn’t make it discrination.

        I’m sure your brother knew some very nice Mormons. And I’m sure they weren’t evil people committing evil acts. And I’m not saying all Mormons are bad. What I am saying is that I would question how one separates themselves from the bad actions of an organization they not only belong to, but actively participate in. And I would question whether or not they’d bring discriminatory speech or behaviour into the office with them. As much as we like to believe we can compartmentalize our home and work lives, we’re human and our most deeply held beliefs DO affect how we speak, act, and treat other people, even if we try to hide certain values or beliefs from the people we work with.

        Racism, homophobia, ableism, isalmophobia, transphobia, sexism, misogyny, etc. are NOT ok. They don’t get a pass. They don’t deserve the right to present their side of the story. And refusing to grant quarter or give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who belongs to any club, faith, organization, company, etc. that publicly and actively promotes lack of acceptance or hate is NOT discrimination. Bad acts aren’t committed only by evil people. Evil people are able to commit evil acts because a lot of good people stand by and do nothing and say nothing while still reaping the benefits of membership.

        If all personal beliefs were truly equal, people wouldn’t be fired over hateful speech posted on their social media accounts. That happens because as a society we have decided certain beliefs are absolutely not ok. And continuing to employ those people tells everyone we do business with that we must tacitly endorse said hate speech because if we didn’t, we would’ve taken action to sever the employment relationship with someone who thinks it’s ok to say hateful things.

        1. RoadsLady*

          No, legally that is discrimination. You’d have to go through a lot of legal hoops to justify the actions you are suggesting.

          1. TheFacelessOldWomanWhoSecretlyLivesinYour House*

            Exactly, Kat. You declare on your resume you’re happy to belong to two group well known for being discriminatory and actively fight against equal rights? I see no reason to look closer.

          2. TheFacelessOldWomanWhoSecretlyLivesinYour House*

            How is it illegal to look at a resume and decide ‘this person is a member of groups that practice active discrimination’ and toss it? No one is entitled to an interview.

            1. Not LDS, not narrow-minded*

              Maybe you’re also against hiring Jews, because many Jewish people oppose intermarriage, which is discriminatory?

            2. Not LDS, not narrow-minded**

              Maybe you’re also against hiring Catholics, because of the lack of women clergy? Or against hiring Muslims, because of segregated mosques, hijab, etc.?

              1. Gora*

                This is a really interesting thread – I’m swinging back and forth on how I would handle this kind of resume if it hit my desk.

              2. NonaM*

                Surely there’s a difference between ‘religious person’ and ‘religious person who thinks missionary work from a long time ago deserves a place on his resume’, though?

                I’m an atheist. I am very, *very* opposed to missionary work on practical, moral and emotional grounds. I realise that most missionaries probably do mean well, and it sort of makes sense from their perspective. I also have, for the record, friends from a variety of religions, including Mormons. Ironically, perhaps, my Mormon friend is one of the more LGBT accepting.

                Someone who has recently undertaken missionary work and includes it on their resume is not someone whose resume I would immediately discount. They are not necessarily the cliche arrogant evangelical. They may have done genuinely good work with genuinely good intentions and be, rightly, very proud of it. And if it’s the last thing they’ve done, they’d have to put it on no matter what. If they were good enough to interview, I would interview them, and ask them questions to learn more about the work they did there. I’m pretty sure it’d be easy to find out if they were the sort of Christian zealot that I wouldn’t want on my team. If their focus was on saving ‘poor non-believers souls’ versus actually helping people, it would be a dead giveaway, for example. It could be a deal-breaker, it could also be a huge positive.

                But if a potential employee has done missionary work a long time ago and it’s still on their resume, that tells me some other things. Most obviously it tells me that they don’t have much more recent stuff to go on their resume, which is potentially an issue. But I also think it suggests they’re putting undue focus on it, and think it’s a Super Good Thing For Employers To Know. Missionary work is obviously something that should be kept separate from the average job – nobody wants to be preached at after all. So I think I would have reason to be concerned that someone like that might not be a very tolerant and accepting person. Would I, again, discount their resume based on that alone? Not necessarily. If they were good enough I would still interview. But I would want to probe a little and learn more about that.

                I don’t think that’s unreasonable. If an atheist had some sort of atheist-based missionary work where they travelled around trying to convert religious people, I’d obviously have the same concern that they’d harass my religious employees – although, at least as far as I’m aware, no such organisation exists.

        2. Not LDS, not narrow-minded*

          “And I’m not saying all Mormons are bad”

          On the contrary, that is PRECISELY what you are saying. You’re just not willing to admit it.

          1. Kat*

            No I’m saying that people that retain membership in a group that is known for harming people who don’t speak up are on some level ok with someone else committing bad acts but they won’t speak up because they benefit by being part of the group.
            It’s similar to saying not all men are sexist or abusers or rapists. But a lot of men who aren’t sexist also witness sexism at work and say nothing because they benefit by being part of the “good old boys club”. They’re not inherently bad men but their ability to stay quiet and justify that to themselves as somehow ok is troubling.

  61. C-Hawk*

    @OP#4: I’m a professor in Utah (I did not grow up here), and I’ve helped a bunch of my student’s edit their resumes and CVs. It’s definitely A Thing to put mission trips on resumes. I don’t recommend it, but then again I’m an agnostic Jew so I have my own feelings on specifically NOT wanting my employer to know about my religion. I’d tell him what I tell all my students: Putting an LDS mission on the resume is definitely going to result in them self-selecting out of some rolls even in Utah—and many, if not most, when applying outside Utah and Idaho—but… a) in Utah, there will still be a good number of rolls that will either ignore it or actually give them points for it, and b) they may actually want to self-select out of companies that don’t put a premium on religion (yes, Utah is weird).

    Btw, I take a much more hardline view on unequivocally leaving mission work off of academic CVs.

  62. Madame Defarge*

    #2 — Really? You feel “lied to” because she didn’t tell you she was pregnant? News flash: she’s not obligated to tell you, and you’re not allowed to ask. Period. If that’s a problem for you, then you need to go sit in the corner and think about it long and hard.

    1. Quill*

      Thank you for making this comment in non bannable words, because I have deleted similar but with a lot less diplomacy multiple times before I got a coherent comment.

  63. Quill*

    NGL, I assumed LW 3 was writing some sort of ad copy and someone had said “yes, sex sells, but this is a HAMBURGER, turn it down a notch.”

    #2: If this is how you handle pregnancy news as an employer you need to step the heck back on your opinions and reactions. If she’s been there a month and is 5 months pregnant, there is a huge possibility that when she was interviewing at 3 -4 months she may not have even announced it to family. If there was more than a 2 week gap between the offer and onboarding, there’s a chance she didn’t even know when she was first applying and interviewing!

  64. overcaffeinatedandqueer*

    This makes me curious. I was a Girl Scout but did not reach the higher ranks. However, I just attended a weeklong German language program. Full immersion with 3+ hours formal instruction per day.

    I just consider it an enjoyable vacation since it is by the same camp I attended as a child, but I wonder whether it might be useful to talk about at work or list next to languages. Like: intermediate Spanish, fluent German (refresh through annual language program).

    FWIW, the org that puts that together is a college and as liberal as they come. They even gave me my own room for the week after I said, “hey, I don’t want to throw a wrench in your housing setup but I am non-binary.” Totally could have shared like about 2/3 of the other attendees!

    1. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      If you’re fluent, adding your languages is great. But know that by fluent they’ll expect you to be able to converse in the language. I work with Germans and they’ll go all giddy with “oh you speak German!?” And launch off at you in it.

      I only say this because I’ve seen so many people’s reaction when they can’t keep up and it doesn’t do them favors in the end. But if you can have an easy enough conversation with the native speakers it goes a long way to impress them.

      1. overcaffeinatedandqueer*

        I totally know that reaction! My teacher for the program was a native and we didn’t have trouble.

        I can do small talk, medium talk, and discuss ideas and abstract things across tenses. I also know some technical terms related to my field. But, get into physics, chemistry, engineering, or complex political strategy and I’m lost. Doesn’t that happen to people in their native language as well, though?

        1. The Man, Becky Lynch*

          That makes sense and in that case, I’d say you should list it on your resume!

          I’m not too worried about most folks around here given the grasp on this kind of thing. But if I had a dollar for every bad interaction with someone who claimed fluency in languages…they were not fluent in, I’d be a lot better off ;)

      2. fposte*

        Yes, I think “fluent” on a resume means “fluent for using professionally”; I’d expect somebody stating fluency to be able to take a business call in German or interpret for a German client and to follow up in German written communication. It could also mean using German as a lingua franca if there were a client who didn’t speak English but whose German wasn’t native or good.

        1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          Yep, that’s the expectation I’m familiar with, too.

          When I applied for jobs where my fluency in Spanish was a consideration, I was interviewed in Spanish. Since I’m out of practice and no longer sufficiently fluent for job functions, I don’t list it as a language on my resume anymore, although I do list the previous jobs where I used it.

  65. voyager1*

    I see Eagle Scout the same as writing Valedictorian or JROTC Cadet Commander on a resume. Fine for someone who is 18 or 19 but it isn’t relevant by 20 years of age.

    2. Politico*

      What about listing Phi Beta Kappa when you’re preparing a resume at age 32, or that you made law review when you’re preparing a resume at age 35?

      1. Rust1783*

        This just highlights that your resume has to be relevant to the job you’re applying for. All these people being absolutist about not listing something you achieved at 18 after many years of work would probably have a different answer about something almost exactly equivalent that you achieved at 19, i.e. in college rather than before. Then there are people who don’t go to college at all but still consider the Eagle Scout thing an achievement that speaks to their dedication etc.

  66. cosmicgorilla*

    LW3: change XXX to 666 and watch her head explode. The amount of people that are superstitious over this number is astonishing.

    1. Jamie*

      I worked with someone in AR who wouldn’t process an invoice if that number appeared either in invoice # or $ amount. Someone else had to come in and do it.

    2. overcaffeinatedandqueer*

      The spring roll place near my office has 6.66 as a total for three rolls when they’re discounted from 1-2 pm. Cynical me thinks that is on purpose to get people to buy something else or tip!

    3. Notwithstanding the Foregoing*

      There is an Amtrak Keystone train that is numbered 666. I have known people who refuse to take it because of the number.

    4. KoiFeeder*

      I have a small but growing pile of receipts, package numbers, etc. that contain that number for future use.

  67. The Man, Becky Lynch*

    I’ve seen a lot of Eagle Scouts listed on resumes and all it does is make me uncomfortable to say the least. It’s a great program for kids but is troubling that it’s pushed as some kind of life long achievement that at 30 you’re still talking about it.

    It’s still not huge as noted so I would try to get him to see that but really just leave it and focus on formatting if he’s stubborn. It’s his resume in the end and won’t do his chances that much harm in Utah at least.

    1. ACDC*

      I think the age factor is important for the Eagle Scout discussion. If you are new to the work world and don’t have a lot of professional experiences or accomplishments to put on a resume, put it on there! But I agree once you get to 30ish it seems a little weird to be listing your high school accomplishments.

      1. The Man, Becky Lynch*

        Oh completely agree with you on the age factor!

        As a fresh high school graduate, it’s sometimes the only thing you have to fall back on. Along with volunteer efforts. It should fall off as soon as you have legit work history under your belt. So you use it get your foot in the door as an intern or clerk somewhere, then you toss it and put the shiny work experience on there.

        I know some of this is really the fact that these programs really drill it into these boy’s heads that this is a life long achievement. It really stunts a lot of bright individuals and it bothers the crud outta me. It’s essentially the same thought process that makes people think that their church missions belong on their resume. They are told that these badges of honor are going to get you further in professional lives as well as your community, yuck.

        1. Quill*

          Yeah, in many cases I could see it still being on there by the 1st or second “real” (post degree, non internship) job just because it is an accomplishment from the last 5-7 years and a page may look kind of bare if you, say, have “3.0 GPA at College, 3 month internship at Teapots (Summer of sophomore year), worked as cashier for tea shop weekends freshman to senior year,” but at 30 I would think any professional experience, even in another industry, would be more relevant, unless the scouting project was very, very specific to your industry.

        2. LQ*

          This is absolutely where the problem is. You can and should feel proud of it, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else around you always will or should. And programs like this sell it to kids who are bright and want to do something great and have the ability to do so as this is a magic key for the rest of your life. But that just encourages kids to keep thinking that there is a magic key for life (that isn’t being born absurdly wealthy) and if they just do that one thing everything else will fall into place. You have to keep growing and doing new things that you should feel proud of and that’s a good thing.

          Any program/group/school that promises a magic key that everyone else will care about…magic is generally too good to be true. Will some people care? Sure, I suppose. Will everyone and can you be mad about someone going, eh, I don’t care? No.

          1. The Man, Becky Lynch*

            Yes!

            It’s also a good reminder to everyone that no, you don’t peak at 18, wtffffff. Especially when you’re going back to school and headed towards a master’s degree?! Why would you ever want to cling onto that childhood achievement when you’re doing so much better than that?

  69. ACDC*

    Wanted to share my experience on the pregnancy letter… A former place of employment was hiring for a position that was about 60% field work and 40% office work (sometimes more in either direction), and a woman interviewed that was 8 months pregnant. She really was the best candidate from what the hiring manager told me but she couldn’t do some of the basic functions of the job, per her own admission (i.e. lifting at least 50 pounds, frequent 12+ hour days on your feet, etc. etc.), and it didn’t seem realistic that she said she would only need a week off from work to have the baby.

    I wasn’t involved in this hiring/interviewing at all, but was obviously witness to it, but now I’m curious if this is an acceptable reason to not hire a pregnant person?

    1. fposte*

      It is legal to require your employee perform the major functions of the job and not to hire an employee who admittedly can’t. I would still have looped a lawyer in on this one.

    2. ElizabethJane*

      I agree that only a week off seems unrealistic but ultimately you have to trust employees to make their own medical decisions – I wouldn’t base it on that. Then again, if someone said they only needed a week off after having their leg amputated you could probably call them on it (not that pregnancy = amputation, just that we all can acknowledge that serious medical procedures sometimes have long recovery times) so I’m not sure. Still probably wouldn’t make it my sole decision.

      As for the weight thing – you can lift in pregnancy. I went to the gym and lifted my usual weights (more than 50lbs) pretty much up until my due date. Basically if her medical provider said it was OK then it’s OK. There’s also the accommodations thing – if it was a 50lb case of something but there were smaller units in the case maybe a reasonable accommodation for her would be to unpack the box, move it, and then repack in stages. I don’t know your business.

      The standing on your feet thing – any time someone says 12+ hours on your feet I feel obligated to ask if breaks are a thing?

      I mean, if you (general you/hiring manager) went down a list and said “These are the 3 main tasks for the job” and she responded with “I can do none of those, even with accommodations” then you’re pretty much in the clear for not hiring her (not a lawyer… check with one of them first) . But it has to be her making the decision that she can’t do them, not you deciding what you think she can and can’t do.

  70. Lol, no*

    I don’t know if it’s mentioned upthread, but I’ll never understand why employers get worked up over finding out an employee is pregnant if they’re in the states. Don’t they only get like 6 weeks of unpaid leave, and only if they’re covered under FMLA? You really can’t find someone to cover for 6 weeks while someone starts to recover from delivering a baby? People have babies every day all over the world, why get irate and want to punish someone for that? I mean I know the answer but I’m still amazed there are people that will say out loud they want to take away someone’s livelihood when they are most vulnerable.

    1. fposte*

      For a lot of jobs no, you can’t just find somebody for twelve weeks (it’s twelve, not six). It’s a really awkward interval, IMHO; a year-long maternity leave protocol allows for a better employment pool for a lot of jobs, but twelve weeks is too long for the “I’m new and I’m just keeping the lights on excuse” but not long enough to really get to grips with a job.

      It’s also worth acknowledging that this can count against women in countries with generous maternity leave, too; it’s come up in articles and in here that there’s a resultant glass ceiling in countries such as France and Germany and maybe elsewhere.

      1. cosmicgorilla*

        You may not be able to get someone *completely* up to par in that time, but you can get a qualified temp who can take the burden off the other employees. You don’t need to entirely “come to grips” with a job to be a productive, contributing employee. I work for a company that makes frequent use of temps when someone is out on leave – it’s how I got my foot in the door. I definitely understood my job better after longer in role, but they were able to hand me work (and other temps we later contracted with) almost immediately.

        1. fposte*

          There are definitely jobs where there’s such a thing as a qualified temp, but there are also jobs where there aren’t.

      2. CA in CA*

        It seems there’s a glass ceiling for women with short term leave policies as well then, no? OP here wants to fire her for not disclosing she’s pregnant. So once again, those with the uteruses can’t win. Short team leave can get you dismissed, long term leave puts the brakes on your career.

        1. fposte*

          I would at least say it’s true that there is no system where taking time off for child-rearing is guaranteed not to hurt you.

      3. doreen*

        The job I had when my daughter was born provided a four year unpaid child-care leave for the first leave and three years for subsequent ones – the agency was constantly hiring so when a person returned in three or four years they would be assigned to a vacant position. But it would have been impossible to hire a temp for a 12 week leave because the job required 12 weeks of full-time classroom training.

    2. Asenath*

      Depending on the job, no, you often can’t easily find someone to cover 12 weeks, and certainly not 6. It isn’t long enough to appeal to those who might take a 12 month maternity leave contract; if you were a temporary contract worker you’d be looking for your next contract as soon as you started – and learning the work. There might be some jobs that require widely available skills that are similar in every office, but a surprising number aren’t like that. And I don’t think people like OP are trying to punish pregnant women, I think they tend to believe that her pregnancy and any issues (like financial ones) related to it isn’t her problem, except insofar as it means she does have a problem keeping her business running.

    4. Rexish*

      I asked the same question above. I totally understan that it’s not easy getting temps but for exaxmple our current recruitment has already taken 5 weeks and the person hired will start in 4ish weeks. So that’s almost the length of maternity leave. We don’t do temps because it’s impossible to get qualified temps. The ammount of time in the USA is really short and likely unpaid. I can completely understand that it is frustrating but I don’t understand the outrage.

      But the cultural factor here is the key. The director of my work place just took 7 week holiday. My colleague was just off for 3 months from illness etc. therefore for us the concept of somebody being off for prolonged period of time is normal and expected at some point.

    5. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      Temps are a blessing and a curse. Most of the time, if it’s something to do filler tasks you can scrape by but you’ll still not be hitting all the necessary things because most people who are temps, aren’t exceptionally experienced in specifics. They also don’t have the same loyalty and dedication to their work quality, since they know they’re leaving at some point.

      But in reality, it’s still a thing that every company needs to be prepared for.

      1. Auntie Social*

        Our old law firm (back in the 70’s) had a “floater”, a permanent temp. Maternity leave got priority. It worked incredibly well. But I don’t think firms would look on that position as necessary now.

    6. Pommette!*

      I suspect that it’s much, much easier to find someone to fill in for 8-12 months than for 6-8 weeks! A one-year contract is a pretty good deal in this economy, especially so for someone trying to move into a new industry or to move up into more senior and complex roles. A 6 week contract is OK if you’re desperate, but not something that most people would actively search out.
      Plus, it takes any new person a while to get used to the specific role they’ll be filling; it may not be worthwhile hiring someone who will spend 4 weeks learning to do the job only to leave after two weeks of useful work.

  71. Sharon*

    I work with drafts as well and I usually correlate the “X’s” with the number of digits that are open. So, for example, if I am waiting on confirmation of the dividend return, which is typically around 8.4%, I would leave it as X.X%. Or if an investment is going to be around $50M, it would be $XXM.

  72. Mainely Professional*

    #3: I’d like to meet the coworker for whom “XXX” conjures up jugs of moonshine rather than porn.

    I use XXX for numbers and TKTK for content, in brackets. Brackets are usually helpful for searching in general.

  73. 1234*

    #1 – I grew up in Big City Known For Public Transit. When I moved to Smaller City (also with decent public transit but nowhere near Big City), I didn’t have a car for the first two years but have a driver’s license. My coworkers knew that I came from Big City. I asked if I needed a car to work at Job in Smaller City at the interview. They said no.

    Anything we did offsite (usually a team building event), someone gave me a ride since they were going to the same place but I never expected it. I also said that people could drop me off at a location convenient FOR THEM near a metro station. I never expected anyone to drive me home even if they are going the same way.

    1. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      And with that attitude, not expecting them to be your ride but being appreciative when they offer is key. I’ve laughed at people who are kind enough to say “Just drop me at the bus station, I’ve got a bus pass.” because it’s sweet and very self aware. Then I take them home because I never mind it.

      Hint I also never let someone in my car that I don’t want in it. So if someone just followed me to my car thinking they were taking a ride with me, I’d be all “Yeah, no, this isn’t going to work. I’m not coming back here or this direction afterwards, you’ll need to figure something else out.”

      1. 1234*

        That’s very generous of you to take them home!

        UGH. One time (unrelated to Job in Smaller City mentioned above), an annoying, lazy coworker asked me for a ride. Unfortunately I lived in the same direction that he needed to go in and his license was suspended at the time. I didn’t want to give him a ride because he annoyed me but felt that I had no choice. Any suggestions for a good way to get out of giving someone a ride if you’re going in the same direction they needed to go in?

        1. Arts Akimbo*

          I like the Miss Manners approach of “I’m sorry, I can’t take any passengers today.” Don’t give annoying people purchase for arguing, which they will do if you give details of why. If they keep asking, just continue along with, “I’m sorry, I just can’t.”

          If you absolutely must give reasons, say you’ve got a lot of errands to run, and then when the lazy annoying person says they’ll just go with you on your errands, just continue saying “I’m sorry, I can’t take passengers. But if you want, I can show you how to install Lyft on your phone!” Said with a big enthusiastic smile, like you’re definitely doing them a huge solid and not at all giving them a tacit middle finger. ;)

        2. The Man, Becky Lynch*

          The less information the better. They aren’t entitled to a REASON to why you can’t give them a ride. It gives them ammo, if they’re really rude and many of them are, to try to negotiate your availability with them.

          Someone asks you for something, anything at all. That’s well within their rights to inquire about.

          “I’m sorry, I’m unable to do that for you.”

          That gut feeling, that dislike you feel for people, that’s usually for a reason. They’re banking on you feeling guilty and being overly nice. It’s manipulative behavior and they are using it to con you into giving them what they want.

          I had someone actually do this awhile back. They were newly hired and weirdly attached to me. They found out I live the direction that they do. And they were a bus rider, so they started making comments about how I could give them rides. My response was “I’m sorry, I’m not able to do that.” Despite the fact that if any of my other coworkers asked, I’d jump at it because we have that kind of relationship. And they also would ask and not be weirdly entitled, which is my tipping point.

          I’ll give you the shirt off my back. Unless you ask for it because you couldn’t be bothered to put one on that morning.

  74. Watermelon lip gloss*

    #2 I completely get from a work perspective being upset and wanting to fire a new hire for being 5 months pregnant. I have dealt with it on my end at a corporate office, and it almost took down my husbands business when he started it and hired a woman that was 4 months pregnant. I’m not going to lie it, it is going to be a hard year for you when you are trying to get a new hire up to speed and know that in a few months you are going to be back in the spot you were in before you hired them only your budget is out an extra FTE that is not there. It stinks, and it hurts so much and I understand the feeling of betrayal. At the same time this is a betrayal and set of thoughts that you need to let go and work around it. This person you hired may end up being the best employee you have ever worked with (my husbands employee has been) or they may not make it either way you can’t be that person that fires a pregnant woman. Honestly you can’t be the person that lets anyone know your thinking it because its just wrong on every level. My personal recommendation is to take a day (not at work) and be pissed as hell, and then then never let yourself think about it again in that context. Get a plan together to work around your employee being gone and what that looks like, a solid written out plan changed things for me.

        1. fposte*

          Yes, that’s my guess. I liked Watermelon’s comment a lot, in fact; I thought it was very understanding of a strong reaction but still made a point about the legal and moral obligations here.

  75. JK*

    1. It would definitely be seen as hostile in my workplace to not carpool with someone if you are leaving from the same location. However, if you are allowed to leave straight from the meeting, no one would expect you to go far out of your way back to the office for a coworker who has bummed a ride. Have you tried just… anticipating this the day before an off site meeting and talked to the mooch? Say “I know you usually need a ride, but I am not coming back to the office after tomorrow’s meeting. You’ll need to find a way back on your own, or drive yourself.” It sounds from the letter that no one is talking about this until the moment they are leaving for the meeting.

    2. We are a small organization (under 15 people, may have been under 10 at the time), and went through a big transition a couple years ago. We were extremely shortstaffed and working crazy hours for nearly a year, and were overjoyed when we finally hired someone to help with the workload. I would be lying if I said that I wasn’t disappointed when we learned that she was 6 or 7 months pregnant. It sucked, honestly. For us, though, it was far better that we didn’t know her status when hiring. It would have been difficult not to consider her pregnancy in hiring, and it would probably have put us in questionable territory.

    3. I was very involved in 4-H. I was president of my club for years, served on leadership council, attended several state-wide events. It taught me leadership and gave me amazing life skills. It is also something that only made it onto my resume immediately after college, then fell off to make room for more directly relevant experience. My point is plenty of people have great experiences in their teens that shape their future selves and potentially make them better employees in teh future. I still think it is bizarre for someone in their 30s to list Eagle Scout, or any other teenage accomplishment, on their resume. I would see that as either out of touch, or as a sign that their resume isn’t strong on actual work experience, so they are scraping from high school experience to fill the page.

    1. JustKnope*

      It sounds like the actual problem is your organization’s leadership left you that understaffed for nearly a YEAR before bringing in help – not that the additional help was pregnant!

    2. Politico*

      “I still think it is bizarre for someone in their 30s to list Eagle Scout, or any other teenage accomplishment, on their resume. I would see that as either out of touch, or as a sign that their resume isn’t strong on actual work experience, so they are scraping from high school experience to fill the page.”

      This is, of course, where the ability to list those magical “other accomplishments” comes in.

  76. JustHereToRead*

    @OP 4:
    LDS returned Depending on where you live, I agree about the mission. It’s common for LDS college students or recent grads to include a mission to explain a Teo year

  77. JustHereToRead*

    @Alison @OP4
    Lds (Mormon) returned missionary here. It’s actually really common for college students or recent grads to include an lds mission under ‘volunteer’ to explain the two year gap in work or school. That said, at 32 I think your husband is too old to keep including these. Lots of people drop the mission part and just include fluency in a second language to their resume.

  78. Catabodua*

    For # 1 – I think the best time to do this is before the next meeting. Tell him, we’re all resentful of you assuming you can ride with us, especially without a thank you. You’ll need to figure out your own transportation to and from the location from now on.

    He’s a grown up, let him figure it out.

  79. LW#1*

    LW #1 here: I just wanted to clarify some things. We have this off site meeting one Friday afternoon per month and we know the date up to a year in advance, so this coworker has plenty of advance notice for him to drive or arrange travel. This meeting is about an hour from our office, but we live in a very large city so it is often longer with traffic. We can receive reimbursement for mileage or taking public transit but not taking a cab. He can get back downtown via public transit from our meeting but it would take awhile. I only get reimbursement driving home from the meeting and if I were to go downtown it could take upwards of two hours to get home. If he were to ask (nicely) in advance I would be happy to take him but for him to assume is just rude. After our last meeting he followed me out and said “hey, you going to take me home?” His lack of respect makes me not want to drive him at all. My coworkers are growing very tired and make up excuses not to take him anywhere. We’ve tried speaking with our manager but no solutions have been offered.

    1. WellRed*

      The solution is the one you’ve already pointed out: He can drive himself on meeting day. You and your coworkers need to tell him “no.” You’re under no obligation to go out of your way for him.

    2. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      He’s a total jerk and when he plays the “You gonna take me home?” card, seriously, without feeling bad about it look at him and say “no.”

      You’re not his friend. You’re not his mother. You’re not his spouse. You’re a coworker and anything you do is out of the kindness of your heart, he has wasted yours and everyone else’s kindness at this point.

      He knows how public transit works and has the itinerary so long in advance, there’s no excuse. He’s lazy and entitled.

      1. Salamander*

        This. He needs to figure this out on his own, and I would feel entirely comfortable telling this dude that he can’t ride with you. He has other options that he can avail himself of, but he’s just not doing it because it’s easier for him to impose on others. I think LW#1 can definitely tell him that this arrangement does not work for him and provide no further explanation.

    3. BadWolf*

      If he starts walking with you to you car for the ride over to the event, I would definitely say something to the effect, “Oh, were you planning to come with me? Fair warning, I’m not coming back to the office after the meeting, so you’ll have to find a different way back.” If he wheedles for a ride home, stick with the basics (don’t give reasons), “I can’t come back to the office after the meeting.” You could toss in a “By the way, I know it’s stupid, but if you want to come with me, could just check with me? Just so I know if I need to make sure the passenger’s seat is clear/etc.”

      You mentioned coworkers making excuses — everyone should try to skip excuses, stick with “You can ride over with me, but I’m not going back to the office.”

      1. Antilles*

        Yeah, this is a situation where you do NOT want to provide a reason. Based on the sense of entitlement described in the comment, I fully expect this is a guy to whom “no, because…” is a problem to be solved and/or something to whine about later.

    5. 1234*

      That sounds EXTREMELY reasonable. Your coworker is lazy and entitled. He can arrange to have his own car one Friday a month and figure things out with his wife. You are not his Uber/Lyft etc. and you are under no obligation to offer him a ride.

    6. Dust Bunny*

      Yeah, no.

      These are predictable events. He’s on his own to figure out how to get home *without* harassing coworkers.

    7. Parenthetically*

      Yeah, I think the simplest solution is for all of you to prep him in advance. “Hey, I live in the other direction from you, so I’m happy to take you to the meeting but I won’t be able to bring you back to the office since I won’t be coming back here afterwards.”

      It makes total sense for me that, if everyone’s going straight home after the meeting, everyone would drive separately.

    9. nonegiven*

      Go ahead and tell him today that you can’t bring him back after the meeting so he needs to make other arrangements or drive himself.

  80. A*

    #3 – oh gosh, I’m having flashbacks! I received similar feedback early in my career – took everything I had to not laugh and to act super-serious as the feedback was being given. I was spoken to about using ‘XXX’ as a placeholder, and ‘f/u’ as an abbreviation for ‘follow-up’. Apparently my legal shorthand courses underestimated the level of political correctness we are now at.

    I only ever got that feedback from one person, and I 100% view it as something specific to them. However, it’s also easy to ‘fix’, so I now use ‘XYZ’ as a placeholder and no longer abbreviate follow-up unless it’s in the privacy of my own notes.

    Le sigh!

    2. Nessun*

      We use f/u in standard commentary on a regular report, and though I completely understand it, I always get a giggle out of seeing it all over the report each month. If anyone were to complain, they’d be told to get their mind out of the gutter and just deal with it.

    3. Filosofickle*

      I only use f/u in notes to myself. It’s a standard shorthand and I know what it means, but not everyone does! There isn’t a good replacement, but it just seems easier to spell out.

  81. ElizabethJane*

    Just a quick thought for everyone cutting LW2 the benefit of the doubt…. I get being frustrated when you realize your new employee is going to be out for an extended period of time. Especially if you think they should have told you sooner. I’ve been the employee that on day 4 told my boss I was going to be out because I was pregnant. So yeah, as someone who has done the frustrating thing, I get it.

    But this LW seems to be beyond frustrated. To me the “understandable frustration” is going home to your significant other and b-tching. It’s saying “Oh this is really annoying, of course just when I hire a new person I have to figure out how to fill in for them”.

    LW2 has gone beyond just vending frustration though. It takes at least a little more effort to think about this and to wonder if they can legally retaliate against their employee. And that’s where my sympathy ends. As humans we have emotions, and sometimes those emotions make us seem like crappy people. But most of us are good people, we think our crappy thoughts and feel our crappy emotions and then make the conscious choice to be decent and move on from there. LW2 has made the conscious choice to not move on, thus making them an actual crappy person and not just a person who can’t control their emotions.

      1. blackcat*

        Plot twist: LW2’s company is Frustrations, Inc, where frustration is 100% guaranteed with product deliveries. A happily pregnant person is not a culture fit with the surly disposition expected of employees.

    2. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      I agree. I always understand someone’s reaction of “Argh, this is a wrench in my plans, how frustrating to have to work around it.” but when you boil over from annoyed/frustrated to trying to seek “revenge” and fire a person, that’s over the top!

      This is much like the times when someone gives notice and the boss decides that they’ve been so personally offended they do the “You can’t quit! You’re FIRED!” sort of thing. Holy overreaction.

      1. 1234*

        Jane at OldJob gave standard 2 weeks’ notice and her manager basically said “Why don’t you just quit now?”

        When I heard that, I thought it was SO unprofessional.

        1. The Man, Becky Lynch*

          A lot of places will tell you that the notice isn’t necessary, so that’s not a bad thing! It’s only awful if you’re not paying them for that time.

          I was cut loose a few days early before my notice period was over but they paid me for those days. So whatever, free from that nonsense and not out any cash.

      2. ElizabethJane*

        Exactly – I have had any number of uncharitable thoughts, beginning with wishing I could just leave my baby sister in the street (I was 5, she was a colicky 3 month old and I didn’t quite understand the implications of what I was saying) and continuing with race/able/sex/age-isms to this day. Even when I’m a member of the group in question. They pop into my head uninvited. Less frequently than they used to because I’m getting better at recognizing my own biases and also at not being an ass.

    3. Rust1783*

      Consider for a moment that LW2 may not have a sophisticated understanding of workplace protections and is asking the question sincerely, from a place of genuine frustration. There are so many accusations of bad faith in these comments, which this forum generally does not indulge in.

  82. Database Developer Dude*

    There’s another reason why we need to know what company this MINO (Manager In Name Only) works: If they’ll do this to a pregnant woman, they’ll do this to a military reservist. I’m a Chief Warrant Officer in the Army Reserve, and I’ve encountered that countless times. I had interviewed at one place, and then the next day I saw their recruiter at a job fair, and he flat out TOLD me that my Army Reserve status was probably going to hurt my chances.

    I know Alison doesn’t like pile-ons, and we’re supposed to be nice, but I would say this deserves to be an exception. Some things are just plain evil, and deserve to be called out like the cancer they are. If I ever worked for this manager, and knew he had these thoughts, I’d be dusting off my resume.

    Thankfully, I work for a company that would NEVER do this in a million years. (Thank you, Booz Allen Hamilton)

    1. VeryAnon*

      I also find it really odd on this site where if a boss or co-worker is being objectively terrible, everyone will acknowledge that, validate the person affected and suggest hardline solutions.

      But if the person is engaging in objective discrimination against minorities then they suddenly get a cohort of defenders. Ones who insist that truthful feedback (often from minorities)is not constructive and that the person engaging in behaviours that actively harm vulnerable populations should have their feelings catered to. It comes dangerously close to tone policing and makes me extremely uncomfortable.

    2. Rust1783*

      Actually I would say this is a perfect example of why Allison doesn’t like pile ons. A lot of commenters are aggressively mis-reading and over-interpreting a very short question with a very straightforward answer. “We need to know where this person works” is the kind of phrase that almost only happens in this type of pile on.

  83. Delta Delta*

    #4 – I’ve known a couple Eagle Scouts. One was a classmate in high school. Now he’s a surgeon. Having had a positive mental association with the work it takes to attain the Eagle designation, I might look at that with interest and say, “hm, that’s neat” and move on. If the project was relevant to the job, and it’s something he’s been fascinated with/passionate about since he was a kid, I’d want to know that, too. I also think I’d want to know about the volunteering after the hurricanes. I’m less interested in the missionary trip. I do not live in a heavily Mormon area, and I think if I got a resume with that on it, it would feel a little tone-deaf. Unless, of course, it was related to the work we were doing.

    I think the distinction I’m drawing is that the Eagle Scout project and the hurricane volunteering are things this person signed up to do on their own. Then they saw them through. The mission trip (and I may be misunderstanding this) is something expected of young Mormon adults. I’d be inclined to leave this off much in the way I’d be inclined to leave off high school graduation.

    1. SubjectAvocado*

      It’s not necessarily expected. It depends more on your family– I was 19 and a female and there wasn’t any pressure for me to go or not go, my parents definitely communicated that it was my choice. My male friends had more institutional pressure but a lot of them felt the same way based on how their family approached the issue– they could go or not go. I also know some that were *heavily* pressured to go (which is ridiculous, it just makes you a bad missionary once you get to your area, in my opinion). I think in Utah it’ll be more of a blasé thing where more applicants than not will have been on a mission, but outside of Utah and as a recent grad, I had a lot of luck with it. You just have to really pull out the secular skills learned and avoid religious vocabulary.

  84. Rexish*

    I’m sitting on my sofa super tired from the scout camp I lead over the weekend. I’m not from the USA but I’ve been a scout for 23 years and have a few medals dangling in my uniform. We have been instructed to emphasise our scouting experience. Not the medals or how they were achieved. If you are in your 30’s and made it to this far in scouttng career. It usually means that you’ve been a leader for decades. It means that you have lead camps. It means that you’ve been to several courses and leadership seminars. It means that you’ve had international experience. But the key is to explain this in the cover letter. In here people in general tend to have positive or neutral opinion on scouts so mentioning won’t hurt. Is Op’s husband still an active member of the organisation? If no, then it might be a bit off. If yes, then I might have it there and other skills learned from scouts.

    I personally don’t know how difficult it is to become an eagle scout but I can understand the significance. We are talking about an international movement that is over 100 years old. It is high profile and accessible by media. There are a lot of positive stereotypes attached to it. Significant number of world leaders are current or former scouts. I’m sure there are significant amount of organisations that does better job at educating the youth but I think this is the reason why eagle scout specifically is considered so wonderful. It has been marketed well.

    I know I mentioned earlier how people in general have positive or neutral impression on scouts, but it is good to remmeber that BSA specifically is quite controversional. Also it’s good to remember not to bang on about scouting if applying to a country where it is banned.

  85. CM (LW5)*

    Thanks so much for your response! I honestly was way overthinking it – I talked to my boss just now and he said he was fine with it. Apparently most people take both weeks off, since they don’t use PTO during the year, but since he generally does he’s usually in the office during those days, though it’s really really quiet. I’m trying to save my PTO since my parents want to take me on a big international trip next year, or I’d just take both weeks off.

    Now I’m mostly unsure whether to take the full week off or just the two days before Christmas, but that’s something I’ll have to weigh on my own. I’m honestly thinking of taking half days Thursday and Friday now, that way I can spend time with family and friends and save more PTO for the big trip.

    1. Nessun*

      Great that you’ve got some solid options to consider! FWIW, being in the office while everyone else is off can be excellent if you’ve got a project you want to bang out without interruption. I kinda love it when everyone else takes the time off and I’m in – so quiet, so productive!

    2. Quickbeam*

      Be aware that in some offices, holiday time off is a loaded, emotion filled issues. So make sure you read the room in terms of how touchy it is where you work.

  86. HereToMakeMoneyNotFriends*

    LW #2 – Maybe I missed it in the comments, but does anybody know what type of work OP does? If it’s in an industry where pregnancy severely affects the ability of the employee to do their job properly, it’s understandable that they would be frustrated. As a high-volume restaurant manager, I’ve had new servers/bartenders get hired, reveal their pregnancy, and then are not able to serve or bartend a couple months in. This results in me having to retrain them for a less-stressful position (no heavy carrying, able to sit down frequently, away from unpleasant alcohol smells, etc), plus hehire for coverage for the original position I hired them for. So I essentially have to train three different times. Had I known I was going to have to immediately put them into a different position, (displacing another employee or cutting back other employee’s hours to accommodate them) I would have spent the resources training them for that position first, then serving once they are back to work after having the baby.
    I can understand OP being frustrated because a lot of accommodations will have to be made for this new employee at the expense of other established employees. Knowing of the pregnancy ahead of time would have given the manager more time to make accommodations and then time to immediately start looking for coverage when the employee gives birth.
    Firing the employee is extreme, but I can’t help but feel like I was lied to each time this has happened to me. The candidate was not upfront about something that seriously affects their ability to the job, while I’ve got a dozen other candidates who can do the job. It’s a crappy position to be in.

    1. Parenthetically*

      Being frustrated is totally fine and normal. But a) candidates are under no obligation to disclose their pregnancy status to you, and b) not disclosing something that would be illegal to factor into a hiring decision isn’t “lying.”

      1. HereToMakeMoneyNotFriends*

        Yes, you are quite correct on both points. I guess I should change my wording to say I would feel very misled if I was hiring a person for a certain job, and then after hiring finding out they were not able to actually do the job because of the pregnancy.
        For example, if I need to hire a server and I hire a pregnant server, in a few months I am going to most likely reduce her hours or responsibilities. That means I will have to put her on the host or cashier schedule. But I don’t need a host or cashier, what I needed was a server. Now I have a new employee who cannot serve, but also have existing hosts and cashiers. I essentially now have an extra employee in a position I was not hiring for. I’m going to have to reduce the existing hosts and cashiers hours to accommodate the server who I hired specifically to serve but now cannot serve. A lot of people are being inconvenienced by this.
        A pregnant candidate is not legally required to tell me they are pregnant, but I feel like in my industry, it’s in her best interest to do so. Then I can plan on a different course for her development BEFORE displacing other established employees to accommodate her.

        1. sunny-dee*

          But what if it were any other medical condition — a broken leg, irritable bowel syndrome, migraines — literally anything else that could affect their ability to work? Would you feel “betrayed” if they didn’t give you a full medical history (which they are not legally required to do — and you are legally required not to use as part of your hiring decisions)?

          1. HereToMakeMoneyNotFriends*

            I did not use the word ‘betrayed’ nor express the need for full medical disclosure. Accidents and illnesses do happen, but those issues are irrelevant to what I’m discussing here. I’m not arguing that candidates be legally required to disclose all medical info. I’m simply empathising with OP as I’ve been in the same position before. I think it’s a bit extreme for him/her to want to fire her, but it’s completely 100% reasonable and acceptable to be upset when this person knowingly filled out an application for a job she won’t be able to do properly.

    2. LGC*

      So, I had to think about it and…it’s understandable that LW2 would be frustrated. But that HAS to be kept from the employee (which I suspect is not being done very well, considering they wrote in to Alison Green of all people asking if it’s okay to break the law).

      Anyway, story about me. One of my employees just up and told me that he was having surgery and would be out for a month and a half two days before he was scheduled to go. I was pretty annoyed, because he works in a production job and that gave me just two days to get coverage together. But also, I know I can’t retaliate against him because 1) that’s against the law and 2) that is an abuse of my power. (And 3) even though I make a LOT of mistakes, I like to think I’m a decent person, and decent people don’t punish people for having surgery.)

      And honestly, I’ve been a bit frustrated with him for not giving sufficient notice in the past, so I suspect that was part of why he waited so long – I didn’t make him feel secure enough. (Company policy is two days before for scheduled appointments and he would regularly just tell us at the end of the day before that he’d be off the next day.)

      So I’ve been working on that myself. Like, yeah, it stinks when my grand plans get messed up. But also, I’m not the one on medical leave, I’m not the one who’s pregnant, so on and so forth. It’s not that I have to bend over backwards to be “supportive,” but my feelings literally don’t matter in this case and are probably getting in the way of what I want and what my company needs.

        1. HereToMakeMoneyNotFriends*

          Yes! Feelings are ok! That’s what I’m getting at. It’s obviously important to control them and behave appropriately (which would include NOT firing this person). But it’s absolutely 100% ok to be upset in this situation.

          1. LGC*

            But it’s absolutely 100% ok to be upset in this situation.

            I actually…completely disagree that it’s okay to be upset. (Okay, maybe not completely disagree.) Even if you’re a restaurant manager or in a similar situation.

            Going back to my situation, Fergus (my employee) didn’t handle the run-up well. But also, what the heck am I supposed to do? Fergus needed the surgery. Fergus is the one going under the knife. Hopefully, Fergus will be better when he gets back. Honestly, me being upset with Fergus for any amount of time is harmful (to Fergus, myself, and our project), and I feel like it was morally wrong for me to feel annoyed – because he wasn’t having his surgery AT me.

            And yeah, that’s really strong language. But I stand by it. Yeah, we’re all human and we make mistakes, but that doesn’t mean they’re always okay.

  87. VALCSW*

    I’d like to put a plug in for Eagle Scouts. While I don’t know many, the 3 Eagle Scouts in my department are 3 of the most hard-working, kindest & ETHICAL people I know. And I have high standards for ethics. In my case, I would want to know if someone is an Eagle Scout.

    1. Not All*

      Funny…I’ve had the opposite experience. Most of the Eagle Scouts I’ve worked with were entitled PIAs.

    2. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      Careful with this kind of thinking. There are bad people in every single walk of life, with every single title and accomplishment.

      It’s just as dangerous to be a bigot and hate everyone in X category as it is to be so gushing about them. This means that someone who’s an Eagle Scout could do awful things and get away with it because people will say “Nah, he’s an Eagle Scout he would never do that.”

      These places tend to be a breeding ground for bad people because they are luring you into that false comfort. This is why people have been abused by people of authority that are held up to these impossible standards.

      Judge people on a case by case basis. Always. Not because of who they know, what they’ve done or what awards they’ve been given.

  88. Beth*

    #1: I feel like this should be your company’s problem to solve. If they’re having mandatory off-site meetings in a different part of town, they should be thinking about transit. That could mean arranging transit for attendees (e.g. renting a private bus), or it could mean reminding attendees that they should arrange their own transit (e.g. “Parking is available here and here; please use this form to submit mileage for reimbursement. For public transit users, the closest bus stops are X and Y; the form to submit for fare reimbursement is attached. If other arrangements are necessary, please contact John Doe for assistance”). It shouldn’t be up to employees to fund transit for business purposes, and unless having a car/drivers license is a requirement for the job and something they screen applicants for, they shouldn’t be assuming that everyone’s able to drive themselves.

    1. 1234*

      I’ve heard that you cannot directly ask people if they have a car specifically but you can ask about “reliable transportation.” It’s is that employers cannot discriminate against those who don’t have a car. A friend of mine who was hiring sales people said he had to figure out ways to determine if candidates drove/had a car without directly asking because the company required that sales people had a car!

    2. Less Bread More Taxes*

      I agree completely. As someone without a car, I deal with stuff like this occasionally. If I’m expected to get to that 2pm meeting on my own, I’ll have to leave the office at 12. If they want me to leave at 1:30 like everyone else, I’ll need to rideshare. Frankly I never thought it was rude to assume I’d be getting a lift with someone because management often expected me to. That may be this person’s experience too. What employer would rather an employee be out of the office hours more than his coworkers?

      In the same vein, I feel like if this employee asked for reimbursement for an Uber instead of ridesharing, any good manager is going to think “wait… why didn’t Jane just drive him?”

  89. Anna*

    For the poster asking about a resume, maybe ask for a resume writing service to help him. That way they can help him address some of the concerns you may be having.

    And then for the person asking for holiday time requests – definitely ask now! The later you ask for special requests, the harder it is to accommodate sometimes (at least it was in my previous job).

  91. LivetoRead*

    My husband is an Eagle Scout and also an attorney. While he hasn’t searched for a job since he was 38, he has always had Eagle Scout on his resume. It actually helped him get a prestigious federal clerkship where competition is high. I think Eagle Scout is an accomplishment that is quantifiable and means something to many people. I totally agree that it is frustrating that there is not an equivalent for women that is viewed the same way and it is also true that there are many, many reasons why someone might not have wanted or been able to participate in Scouts, but it is an accomplishment and is not one that is met by just staying in Scouts for 7 years. Each promotion in rank requires specific accomplishments that include leadership, service, and learning about the community.

    I also think a Mormon mission stands for something as well. Going to another country (not always) and learning another language and/or culture, and living on your own while doing mission outreach are remarkable tasks for an 18- 19 year old. However, there is a bias against the LDS church in some areas and people may make assumptions about your husband because of this. If it is really important to him and he is willing to accept the risks, I would include it.

    1. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      They live in Utah. There’s no bias to worry about while within the state. It’d only be an issue if he was linked back to FLDS.

  92. Heidi*

    Hi OP3. I guess you can tell from all the comments that including these items in a resume will elicit mixed responses. I personally would not include these items, but it sounds like they are an important part of your husband’s sense of self. Maybe he specifically wants to work for an organization that values these accomplishments and would not consider them to be red flags. If this is not the case, perhaps you can suggest including or excluding these items based on his research into the specific organization and its work culture. Tailoring a resume is something he should do anyway. Beyond that, it’s his resume to do what he likes with. If he’s not getting a lot of interviews, however, you might revisit this issue.

  93. LGC*

    …I had no idea that what is appropriate on a Mormon’s resume in Utah was so contentious.

    That is all. I’ve already said my piece. I’m just impressed this has reached the size of a lot of open threads.

  94. Ariel*

    OP#2 Beyond the moral implications, if you fire this person and she sues, she will win. It’s a clear-cut case of discrimination. The legal battle will be far more trouble for your company than accommodating her would be, and you will most likely be fired for causing it.

    This isn’t even hypothetical. I’m familiar with someone who was fired because she became pregnant shortly after being hired, and the company was very quick to settle on generous terms. The manager responsible was absolutely fired as part of the settlement.

  95. OP #4*

    This is so interesting. The range of answers here and that I’ve gotten to this question from people I’ve talked to has been…wide, to say the least. I didn’t expect there to be so many sides to this! I really appreciate all the thoughtful comments.

    I sent in an update to Alison when she sent me the link – briefly: I bribed my husband with cookies and had a chat where I said “I know these are important to you, and that you feel really strongly that they are accomplishments, but they’re taking the focus away from your great professional experience and I think you should focus on that more.” And he agreed. So! Problem resolved.

    (Sorry this is so late in the day! Last day of the month is a little crazy at my office.)

    2. NonaM*

      Can I just say how much I appreciate the * on your name? I *really* wish more OPs would do that. Trying to find their comments, even when I know for a fact they exist, can be incredibly frustrating sometimes. :-|

  97. CAndy*

    #5
    I think your colleagues and manager will think well of you for planning so far ahead and being so considerate.
    Imagine you only started thinking about this in two months’ time, how annoying would that be for everyone?!

  98. Remote Worker and Dog Lover*

    For OP #4 (and see the update up above!), I would leave off that experience mostly because it’s from over 10 years ago and it sounds like from your description that he isn’t lacking with things to include.

    The last time I updated my resume, I trimmed off some things from college and early in my career – and a couple of the things I was very fond of! It just came down to space and relevance. Yes, they were cool and they demonstrated a certain amount of skill in some areas, but I had more recent experience that did the same thing that definitely had to be in there.

    I wouldn’t look down on someone for listing scout work, mission work, volunteer work, etc in their resume, but I would be a little surprised if the person had an already extensive work history. Again, at some point it loses the relevance. I echo some of the points above about highlighting experiences people had as teengers – we grow and change and for the most part, what you did at 18 isn’t really what I should judge you by later on in life, especially when hiring. I did a bunch of things my senior year in high school that resulted in a fairly prestigious award, and I don’t think I ever listed it on my resume, though I am very proud of the work and how many hours I devoted to getting it! I also like Alison’s suggestion about leaving the church part out of it, should you decide to list mission work. Your employer doesn’t need to know what religion you are.

  99. Toothfairy*

    Op#2 Your attitude is why sex and gender-based discrimination laws exist. Her pregnancy has absolutely nothing with her ability to perform the job. Imagine if this was a male candidate and he said “My wife is 5 months pregnant with a high risk pregnancy. I am committed to my job, but there will be times when I will have to take her to appointment.” Would your attitude change? Would you consider firing that person?
    Now imagine if this new hire had a chronic illness that requires regular doctor visits. Would you consider firing that person? Would you have more understanding for their condition.
    Stop discrimination against pregnant women. It’s not ideal, but it is a fact of life. Even if you have hired a male, that male could have a partner who needs help during or after pregnancy.
    There are no guarantees. You laid out the job requirements and this person agreed to them. Give her a chance to prove you that she can do it. I know a female who came back to work 2 wks after giving birth! Sounds crazy, but she planned it that way and had resources lined up.

    1. Rust1783*

      I disagree. I don’t think OP is saying they doubt this person’s ability to do the job. OP is saying they literally do not want to have to hire and train a new temp for X months immediately after having hired and trained this first person, with the likely result of having to re-train the first person after they return from leave. Obviously pregnant people can accomplish almost any job non-pregnant people can. Obviously you should not discriminate based on family status just because of a vague worry that the person will have to leave early now and then to pick up a kid.

      I think OP’s concern is more understandable, albeit from a limited perspective. Alison’s point is that you have to deal with these sorts of situations, even seemingly really crappy situations, when you work with actual human beings and don’t treat them as expendable.

  100. chickaletta*

    #2 – ugh. really?

    #4 – Having old volunteer jobs and awards on a resume can make it appear as if the resume is so complete that the next hobby in line that got dropped off is “Viewed Entire Final Season of Friends – 2004”. Writing a resume is like cooking bacon – you got to take it off before it looks done or else it’s burnt

Comments are closed.