should management be included in a company raffle, NSFW music on a work laptop, and more

by Alison Green on January 9, 2024

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

1. Should management be included in a company raffle?

Our company has about 90 full-time employees in production, shipping, and other non-management roles, plus about 15 temps. Management includes another 25 people, including product managers, who don’t manage people.

Our holiday party this year included a raffle with some rather generous items: a couple of large TVs, a mini fridge, etc. There were also a few less expensive things like bath and body gift sets.

Out of the 35 or so items, four of them, including one TV and the mini fridge, went to managers. Another couple went to temps who have only been with us for a week or two. Everyone received a grocery gift card for $50, regardless of if they won a prize.

It feels off to me that managers were included in the raffle, especially with them walking off with some of the better, more expensive prizes. I didn’t say anything about it, but there was definitely some grumbling after lunch. Should management be included in something like this? No, I didn’t win anything, and I don’t think it was rigged. LOL

Yeah, it’s a bad look for big prizes to go to management! High-level managers’ names really shouldn’t be included in raffles at all — but if they are and a top-level manager wins a big-ticket item, they should decline so another name can be drawn. (That wouldn’t normally include product managers who don’t manage people; we’re talking high-level execs here.)

Related:
HR rigged our company raffle

2. Why is my corporate credit card affecting my personal credit?

I am the administrator of a veterinary clinic, and I have been added as the authorized user of one of our business credit cards so I can easily purchase what we need. I’ve never had a business card before, and I was under the impression that since it was a business card, it would not affect my personal credit score like a personal credit card would, as I’m not the one paying it off.

Now in the last few months, we’ve been carrying pretty high balances on all our business cards, including the one that I have. As one of the perks of my own personal credit card, I can monitor my credit score without requesting reports all the time. My credit score has dropped almost 100 points since being added as a user for the business card!

This worries me because I’m younger without a lot of credit history of my own. I was an authorized user on my mother’s card, and have a personal credit card of my own now. I also had student loan debt, which I managed to pay off entirely about a month ago. That didn’t even have an effect with how much the score has dropped, due to business activity.

I’m not the one controlling our payments, and I have no sway to increase our payments and lower the amount of debt that the business carries on these cards. Is there anything I can do to reduce the impact that business activity will have on my personal credit score, other than being removed as an authorized user? Is this common in smaller businesses, to use cards that will affect their employee’s credit score? What’s the etiquette for this situation?

You wouldn’t think being an authorized user on a corporate card could affect your personal credit because you’re not the guarantor (the person promising to pay the balance if the primary cardholder defaults) — but as you’re seeing, it can. Although you’re not personally liable for making payments on the card, the card’s usage will sometimes still get factored into your own credit. The big way that happens is around credit utilization; if your employer is carrying a large balance, that can ding your personal score. If they miss payments, most credit reporting agencies say they won’t include that on authorized users’ credit reports (although some even do that!)— but that credit utilization figure can get factored into your score.

That’s all controlled by the credit bureaus themselves, rather than being the way your company chose to set it up (assuming you are indeed just an authorized user and not the account holder).

If you’re thinking this is nonsensical and unfair … yes. One option is to have yourself removed as an authorized user and agree on another way to handle work-related payments, but how feasible that is will vary from job to job.

3. Can I play NSFW music on a work laptop?

My company is fully remote and I work from home. When I’m working on boring tasks, it helps me stay focused if I put on uptempo pop music in the background. I use Spotify for this — I have the Spotify app downloaded onto my work laptop. Uptempo pop is often NSFW (swearing, sexual lyrics, etc.). My work laptop is company-provided and doesn’t currently have software to track my activity, but will soon. When that happens, should I stop playing pop music on my work laptop? My phone and personal computer also have Spotify, but I try to keep them out of sight while working to avoid distraction. Spotify does not have an option to filter/only play clean songs.

You should be fine. If your company objects to you using Spotify from a work computer, they can tell you that (and that would likely just be a simple notification to stop, not something you’d be in any real trouble for, assuming you don’t have an existing policy against downloading non-work apps). If they’re fine with Spotify in general, it’s highly unlikely that they’ll pay attention to the specific songs you’re listening to at home, let alone object to them.

4. When to give notice when my new job doesn’t have a firm start date

I’ve been offered a job with a new company that I’m going to accept. The issue is that the offer did not come with a start date. The start date will likely be 3-4 weeks from now, so plenty of time to give proper notice.

Should I give notice to my current employer now so they have time to start making adjustments, or should I wait until I have a firm start date?

Wait until you have a firm start date! Until that happens, there’s too much risk that it’ll get pushed back for some reason, and the offer isn’t 100% firm until there’s a start date attached.

If you still don’t have a start date a week or so from now, let the hiring company know you’re waiting to give notice until you have one, and that you’ll need X weeks once the date is finalized so that you can give enough notice. (In other words, they can’t wait three weeks to come back with a proposed date and expect it be the following Monday.)

5. Crossing the line in Love Actually

I know that you occasionally answer questions related to movie or TV tie-ins, so I thought I would ask you to weigh in on a discussion my husband and I recently had while watching “Love Actually.” The debate was about where exactly Alan Rickman’s character crossed the line with his admin assistant.

We quickly got into the weeds of debating whether the line was in a different place cheating-wise versus work-wise, but this led me to another question, which is: we all know that he should not have done what he did, but what should he have done? Ignored her flirtation? Shut her down? Had a very serious talk about her behavior that could potentially lead to firing her? (And if he did, should he have met with her in private with a door closed, or kept the door open, potentially allowing other employees like Karl to listen in on a disciplinary meeting?) Does he need to think about the optics of possibly firing a direct report who was openly flirting with him in front of other employees?

I tend to think he could have shut her down without a big awkward conversation, just by having better boundaries and pointedly keeping their conversations business-only. For example, when she made that suggestive comment about how at their office party she’d be hanging around the mistletoe, waiting to be kissed, he shouldn’t have gulped and looked uncomfortable, but should have more decisively shut it down — like by saying something like “hopefully not by a colleague!” and then turning away. Instead, he let himself seem intrigued.

There’s a ton you can signal — and shut down — just through your demeanor, particularly when you’re in a position of power (as he was, as her boss). Not always — some people will barrel right through those signals — but often. If that didn’t work, he might have needed to move to a more direct “we don’t have that kind of relationship and this is inappropriate” conversation, but I suspect he wouldn’t have needed to if he had handled it better from the beginning.

You may also like:
{ 489 comments }

{ 489 comments… read them below }

  1. Viki*

    #3 with the very obvious caveat that if you’re every supplying the computer for a meeting/townhall etc, you play a SFW playlist.

    Speaking from experience when WAP came out of my coop’s speakers when he was presenting to my manager.

    1. FashionablyEvil*

      Hahhaha. I will say the radio edit of that song (“Wet and Gushy”) is only MARGINALLY better.

      1. Bexy Bexerson*

        I haven’t heard the radio edit version, but the title alone makes it sound FAR WORSE. Gushy?! NO THANK YOU.

        1. Database Developer Dude*

          Now imagine that as someone’s ringtone, going off in the middle of a training session in an auditorium full of people.

          1. Elizabeth West*

            I’ve said this before, but Bullyboss at OldExjob had a song as his ringtone — every once in a while, the office would be quiet and then all of a sudden you’d hear, “ROOOOOOOOOOOOOXAAAAANE….you don’t have to put on the red liiiighht…”

            We were lucky it wasn’t something worse, I guess.

      3. Salsa Your Face*

        But wait, there’s more: a kids’ version of the song called Waffles and Pancakes.

      1. Ashley*

        This also helps with some ads you get when you are listening to Spotify / Pandora free versions at work.

        1. Dawbs*

          my teenager had to toggle that on the day i can to talk to her about homework and the commercial that came on was… not for stuff legal for her to purchase.

          she turned an adorable shade of pink. and i only laughed a little.

    3. Willow Pillow*

      Seconding from experience at a Payments Canada hybrid conference… Also listen to all of the songs first, just in case!

    4. Dust Bunny*

      A friend borrowed the flash drive full of music I keep in my car. I warned him to check which folder he loaded VERY CAREFULLY or else he ran the risk of opening his presentation with P.J. Harvey screaming “50-Foot Queenie”. Which would have gotten everyone’s attention, sure, but probably not in the way he wanted.

    5. A Poster Has No Name*

      Aaand this is why I’m glad I tend to stick to YouTube lofi streams for background music. Highly unlikely anyone will be offended by some mild beats if they come out the speakers by accident.

    6. lilsheba*

      You don’t have to have the spotify app to play music on your work laptop, you can link to it via their web page, which is how I listen to spotify on my work computer. On that note I play whatever I choose, I’m at home and no one else hears it.

    7. Anonynonybooboo*

      Speaking from experience when WAP came out of my coop’s speakers when he was presenting to my manager.

      I work in IT and let’s just say, we all have the humor of a 12 year old when talking about wifi access points now.

    9. AnonInCanada*

      I guess I’m a bit old and out of touch, wondering “what’s so offensive about WAP?”

      Until I Googled it. ((.)-(.))

  2. Maleficent*

    Alan Rickman should have absolutely shut her down. But instead, he was a jerk who chose his secretary over Emma Thompson! I like to think she dumped his sorry behind.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      Yeah, he literally could have done anything differently and it would have stopped it: Been less of a helpless deer in the headlights, had some (any) boss energy, not bought her expensive jewellery (!), looked grumpy when she flirted, said “that’s a really inappropriate joke”. Wow, I really hate that film actually.

      1. Storm in a teacup*

        Ugh I also hate that movie, especially the Keira Knightley storyline. It’s so creepy.
        Actually the only storyline I like is the Emma and Alan one as it feels the most realistic and shows the impact on Emma, plus she’s an amazing actor (and the HG dance scene).

        1. Snow Globe*

          I agree with every one of your points. Emma Thompson was amazing in this movie, but the rest of it – ugh.

          1. MsM*

            I kinda have a soft spot for Bill Nighy’s character and his manager, but they’re also not a model of professionalism.

            1. Bunny Lake Is Found*

              But also, in those sorts of relationships between artists and their agents/reps, there is a level of personal involvement and intimacy that wouldn’t really track to a normal professional relationship.

              Same with the nude stand-in pair in “Love Actually”–like none of that would be OK in a traditional workplace, but the two actually do maintain a very professional demeanor. Though I suspect that was less to show relative professionalism for working actors and more to show that sex scenes in movies are really not all that sexy to film.

          2. RVA Cat*

            The scene with Emma crying to “Both Sides Now” *breaks* me every time. Tremendous acting, but you know a lot of her heartbreak from Ken’s cheating was there.

          3. Princess Sparklepony*

            Great scene. I’m with Emma there, just leave them hanging.

            The headmistress is played by the great Anne Reid and her lover is played by Frances de la Tour. Both of whom have played so many roles through the years. You’ve likely seen them in something.

        3. miss_chevious*

          As a Wisconsinite, I love the storyline where Colin goes to Milwaukee and immediately meets slutty cowgirls (as every woman in Milwaukee dresses like slutty cowgirls in the middle of winter OBVIOUSLY) and goes back to their apartment where they all share one big bed with no pajamas (in Milwaukee we don’t believe in multiple beds or pajamas OBVIOUSLY). It’s just a hilarious take on Wisconsin, made even more hilarious by the fact that the set dresser has spent some time in midwestern bars, because (with the exception of the brand of beer, which I assume was product placement), that set is *perfection*.

        4. Bruce*

          I enjoyed some of it, but the Alan Rickman cheating on Emma Thompson part grossed me out. He was a fantastic actor playing a very pathetic man.

          1. Humble Schoolmarm*

            That’s my favourite story line too, especially the “Titanic” as romantic problem solving bit (I mean, bad idea, but it’s sweet).

        6. Random Dice*

          Cinema Therapy has an amazing analysis of the unhealthy dynamics in Love Actually.

          (Cinema Therapy is a YouTube channel with a therapist and a movie producer, best friends who talk about movies – production and interpersonal dynamics. It’s amazing and great for sparking thought and conversation.)

        7. Moonstone*

          The storyline that drives me absolutely mad is everyone saying that Natalie is fat – I still get irrationally angry about it!

          1. Princess Sparklepony*

            I don’t blame you! It’s annoying.

            I’m in the minority, I know there are things that are bad about the film, but I still like it. Parts are so cute. Keep in mind that one of my guilty pleasure movies is What a Girl Wants with Amanda Bynes, so I have a high tolerance for bad movies. (And I will recommend Euro Trip for a fun time out – Scotty Doesn’t Know song is great!)

            1. Moonstone*

              Scotty Doesn’t Know is one of my all time favorite songs ever! And I love Euro Trip! Also, I actually agree with you – as much as Love Actually drives me a bit nutty, I do still kinda like it overall. But my husband also claims I have terrible taste in movies and he teases me about the ones I call classics. I can’t help it if Die Hard is amazing and an absolute classic! ;)

      2. bamcheeks*

        The whole film feels like various of Richard Curtis sexual fantasies. Attractive younger woman came on to me, the boss, and I was helpless! HELPLESS I TELL YOU! I couldn’t do a thing!

        Also still can’t believe it came out in 2003, nearly ten years after Four Weddings had a completely groundbreaking gay couple, and didn’t have a single queer storyline.

        1. Audrey Puffins*

          They apparently did originally have a story about a pair of older lesbians but ended up cutting it out. One of them was terminally ill, so a real case of Bury Your Gays whether they kept it in or not, alas

            1. Nobby Nobbs*

              If it’s the only queer people in the film, it falls under the umbrella of bury your gays. One of the big problems with bury your gays is that for decades, tragedies were the only stories we got.

              1. Bruce*

                “Bury your gays”? Will have to ask my son about that trope, he is gay and teaches high school literature :-) I guess 4 Weddings and a Funeral is a prime example…

              2. Bunny Lake Is Found*

                Yeah, I sort of understood it like fridging. There is nothing wrong with killing a character who is female or who is queer when it is to serve that character’s own arc–it is when you kill of a character who is female or queer in a particularly tragic manner so that the main character (almost always a straight male) has a tragic experience. It reduces the deaths of individuals with less power in society to how such deaths make those with more power FEEL.

                Along this line the trope about Black characters getting killed off first in horror–these deaths are reduced to “Bob had to die so that the audience know that Becky and Chad are in REAL danger”

          2. General von Klinkerhoffen*

            It is unfortunate but it’s also a really lovely story. I wish they would release a full version with the extra stories intact (including Bernard’s essay) because it would have been a much richer script and given good context to some of the other stuff that was retained.

        2. bamcheeks*

          haha, I’ve just gone and read my 2003 review of it in my Livejournal, and 2003 me’s take was that the whole film was made for the American market but then it didn’t feel British enough so they added some anti-Americanism to British it up.

        3. LunaLena*

          Eh to be fair, I think the secretary’s attraction was more about “what kind of expensive stuff can I milk this guy for” than actual love. Agatha Christie stories are rife with gold digging secretaries going after well-to-do middle-aged men, so I assumed it was a common British trope. I always thought that that’s why, when Emma Thompson confronts him about his infidelity, Alan Rickman says “I’ve been a fool, a classic fool.” In other words, he realized he’d fallen for the classic gold digger’s act.

          1. Bruce*

            Christie had her own experience with a husband who could not keep his pants zipped up around a younger woman, though in that case it was someone he met socially and who he stayed with until she died. But I can see why Christie would mine that vein…

            1. Bunny Lake Is Found*

              I read it as a response to the comment that this reads like Richard Curtis’ sexual fantasies. LunaLena is saying it might not be that Curtis is writing his own fanfic about how younger women are just besotted with bumbling older British dudes, but more the sex comedy trope of “sexy secretary seduces old dude boss–he’s deluded himself into thinking she’s into him, but what she is really into is the fancy gifts”

        4. Formerly Ella Vader*

          Ooh! Besides the main gay couple in Four Weddings and a Funeral, there was also the “why be dull” older lesbian at one of the weddings, that had me and my then-partner rewinding to be sure, and grinning at each other.

      3. SheLooksFamiliar*

        Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson could have read the phone book out loud to each other and I would have paid to watch them do it, they were so good together in this film.

        1. AskJeeves*

          So true. The scene where she’s listening to Joni Mitchell in the bedroom gets me every time. Interesting IRL parallel, Kenneth Branagh cheated on Emma Thompson and ended their marriage.

          1. ten four*

            Ah but in a happy ending, Emma Thompson wound up getting with the smokeshow who played Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility and they have been married for decades!

    2. Won't Get Fooled Again. Maybe.*

      When Emma Thompson opens her gift and realizes the necklace wasn’t for her…what a punch in the gut. Gets me every time.

      1. Elizabeth West*

        Omg, the first time I watched it, I ugly-cried.

        My favorite part is when Sarah is with Hot Karl and she hides in the hallway and does the silent freak-out of joy. I could relate to that so much, haha.

        *sigh* Hot Karl. :3

        2. Humble Schoolmarm*

          Yup, the Sarah story line is so frustrating, because I think she’s a lot less trapped than she believes herself to be, but the not at all subtle mega-crush, the freak-out of joy and the emergency room cleaning were all an “I’ve been there” moment.

        3. Princess Sparklepony*

          Good news – in the Red Nose Day update that they did she did get a happy ending.
          .
          .
          Spoiler alert

          Don’t read any further if you don’t want to know…
          .
          .
          .
          .
          She ends up married with kids with Patrick Dempsey who adores her but she still works too hard.

      2. Fluttervale*

        The whole “what would you do, if you knew your life would always just be a little bit worse” line gets me and just perfectly sums up the entire thing.

      3. Kelsi*

        That scene really gets me too because–if she didn’t know about the necklace, that would have genuinely been a lovely gift. He picked up on her earlier comment about how Joni Mitchell “taught your cold English wife how to love,” and I think it’s safe to say that if he didn’t already know that about her, then she didn’t already have a copy of the album (I think it was a greatest hits IIRC?) It was a gift that showed he was paying attention to something she loved and would want, which makes the betrayal somehow hurt even more–this isn’t the asshole buying his wife a frying pan (or worse, something HE wants) for Christmas. It’s still the man she loves and made a life with, only now she knows that man doesn’t love her quite enough to stay faithful, and it’s absolutely gutting.

    3. Generic Name*

      A meme going around my facebook feed in December said: If you watch Die Hard after Love Actually, you see Alan Rickman get punished for what he did to Emma Thompson. :D

      1. Taketombo*

        Hans Gruber’s failure to fire Karl after he was first insubordinate (prematurely cutting the phone lines with a chainsaw) allowed further insubordination and the ultimate failure of the project. He was a great boss – “yes, there’s been a change in plans, just lock him in the elevator room.” Exactly what you want to hear when things are off the rails – yes this is messed up, but I have a plan to fix it.

        But did Karl do lock him in the elevator? No.

        (If you watch die hard backwards it’s a heist story gone horribly wrong because of a degraded zombie cop)

    4. Crumbledore*

      He also advises Laura Linney’s character to do everyone a favor and shag “hot Karl” for Christmas. While I admit I’m rooting for her to do exactly that, that’s a super-inappropriate conversation as well (and nothing she asked for from her boss)!

      Later, he loudly assumes to her colleagues that she’s hungover after the party. Class act, this guy.

  3. MK*

    #5, I think it’s important that we first meet them when the relationship has already gone several yards pass the line of what’s appropriate.

    1. Alexander Graham Yell*

      Given his whole speech to Laura Linney’s character, it’s safe to assume business norms and appropriate behaviour have never been his strong suit.

        2. Evergreen*

          In fairness, they seem to be booking a venue about 2 weeks out so there wouldn’t be a lot of choice at that point!

      5. Tammy 2*

        It’s very “we’re a family here.” The kind of thing that pushes a movie plot forward (his relationship with Laura Linney’s character) but is a nightmare in real life.

  4. Eric*

    #1, I can see the issue with like the CEO winning the raffle. But as OP defined it, 20% of the company is management. There is no need to exclude all of them from the raffle, and the fact that they won 10% of the prizes doesn’t seem unreasonable, when they are such a large proportion of the employees.

    1. Lily Potter*

      Yeah, I agree. The non-supervisory Product Managers shouldn’t be excluded from participating. Also, if you’re going invite new employees and temps to the party, they need to be eligible as well. It sounds like employees at LW1’s workplace would only be happy with scenario where all prizes were awarded to the 90 permanent, non-managerial employees.

      I do like the idea of “C-suite” employees agreeing ahead of time to throw their names back in the hat if drawn for larger prizes (no big deal for them to accept bath & body gift baskets, IMO).

      1. Gen-Like Flame*

        Yes, I saw that happen at the agency where I used to work. There was a raffle with some very nice prizes at the holiday party, and I saw a couple of high-level executives either not participate or quietly discard their winning tickets. In the end, line staff members won the prizes and everyone felt that the raffle had been fair.

        Even when a raffle isn’t rigged, having the best-paid staff members winning prizes that they could easily buy for themselves is likely to cause resentment among those employees who could never afford to buy that huge TV or luxury appliance. They know that, for the CEO and VPs, those are like change for a nickel! The executives can’t appreciate them as much as the line staff would, and having the former carry off the best prizes only highlights the widening income inequality gap. Not exactly the moral booster that company parties are SUPPOSED to be!

        1. Gem-Like Flame*

          Sorry, there’s a typo in my comment: the last line should have read “Not exactly the morale booster that company parties are SUPPOSED to be!”

        2. Snow Globe*

          I like the idea of just quietly discarding their tickets, rather than making a show of refusing the prize so someone else can have it. Have a rule that you must be present to win, and everyone can just assume that whoever had that ticket has left.

          1. Sloanicota*

            It shouldn’t be hard for the top five or so staff positions to not participate in the raffle. Call it noblesse oblige …

          2. darsynia*

            The linked story at the bottom included some discarded names, though, resulting in the appearance of being rigged (and it almost certainly was). Discarding names would leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, IMO, but so would picking the names where the attendees couldn’t see! Maybe a middle ground, a gimmicky consolation prize if you’re in upper management/an exec and your name is called, like a sticker or something that fits the company culture (like a doofy crown would be perfect for some companies, a lapel flower for others, etc.) for participating, name’s discarded, and another one is drawn.

            It’s tricky! I wonder if the best way to go about it is to ensure everyone’s on board for planning, to set up something that doesn’t put the bigwigs in the company in a collective name-draw in the first place.

            1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

              I’m used to raffles where each winner is announced and goes up to choose their prize. This would allow management to choose the chocolates/plush toy and leave big ticket items for others.

            2. Huttj*

              So the “discarding their ticket” I read as the sort of raffle where it’s not a name drawn, but a number, that the attendees then check their ticket to match the number. Along with the expectation that everyone’s there during the drawing to check their tickets (I often see it at events where it’s designed to encourage participation, so you get the raffle ticket on entry and the drawing is at the end).

              So in that case it’s not the draw-r discarding the ticket, but calling out “9675309? 8675309? Anyone? Guess they left early, drawing another” as the winning ticket holder drops theirs in a flowerpot discretely.

        3. ferrina*

          This is the way to do it. At our work the executives and the HR team quietly don’t participate when possible (their names are removed before the raffle). Mid-level managers don’t have the same obligation- they are included along with everyone else. When there are things the C-Suite/HR can’t quietly step out of, they take steps to make sure that they aren’t winning big ticket items. For example, at our white elephant the CEO chose to steal something that was a $20 item anyone can get at Target. The two HR people stole quirky items that no one else was into (our HR is pretty quirky to begin with, so it wasn’t out of character)

          *Important to add: this is a well-paid white collar firm where entry level is $50k+. When we’re talking about people whose paycheck isn’t as high, the calculous is different. If you can easily afford to buy it yourself and a strong number of people (not majority, but significant minority) can’t, quietly step away. (discard ticket, decline with “oh, I don’t know what I’d do with it”, etc). Optics matter.

          1. Cmdrshprd*

            I am curious how the advice changes if any for a professional services firm with support staff, where the professional staff are almost certainly paid multiple times more than the support staff. But the professional staff are the focus of the company.

            Like an engineering firm with 500 engineers and 1500-2000 support staff, most staff are lower paid, and engineers earn between $250k-$450+. There can be a division between staff engineers and partner engineers.

            Should only support staff be eligible, support staff and staff engineers but not partners and other C-suite staff?

            1. peanut butter*

              I used to work at an engineering firm, but without salaries quite that high, and the answer is: don’t have a raffle. they are not integral to any holiday, and clearly can cause resentments. Put the money you would have spent on better cookies.

              1. Smithy*

                I think this is also a case where not every kind of end of year celebration will work for every kind of industry. So whether it’s HR, a holiday committee that includes at least one senior staff member, or some other group – but truly some genuine thought around what would work best for our workplace to support morale and joy. And avoid as much resentment and irritation as possible. Knowing that hitting 100% in both categories is impossible.

                I used to work at a children’s hospital where for a bit, each department would have trees to decorate and I believe there was a contest for best decorated theme. Because this was a children’s hospital – the themes were like Sesame Street, Sponge Bob, etc. There was a hospital provided budget for the tree decorations, the trees were genuinely about creating a festive and welcoming environment for kids, and some mild competition between departments was overall low key.

                I took this idea to a completely different workplace, and it was a hyper competitive nightmare. The biggest difference is that unlike the children’s hospital, there was no secondary purpose of the trees (i.e. to decorate the space for kids and their families in the hospital) so it was only focused on the competition. We weren’t given a budget for decorating, so who spent what out of their own pockets on decorating was a big issue – as a whole it just did not work.

                Doesn’t mean the approach at the children’s hospital was wrong, but worth acknowledging that a very different workplace would take a similar idea and it just wouldn’t work.

            2. ferrina*

              If you’re excluding 500+ people, that’s not going to boost morale. The goal is to boost morale.

              You have the raffle with everyone except the C-Suite (and possibly partners? I don’t know enough about the structure there). The impact of optics isn’t as bad because 1) Odds are more support staff than engineers will win, and 2) in a company with 2500+, you don’t know everyone and won’t be tallying whether support staff/engineers win. You will recognize some individuals, which will give you positive/negative about them winning but won’t be seen as a reflection on the company.

              Of course, it also depends on how everything is run. Would this be an online raffle that everyone is automatically qualified for? Do people need to opt-in? If people need to opt-in, are the lower-paid staff given the information and time/resources needed to opt-in? We had one story about a company where the website opened at a certain time and the earlier you could log in, the better stuff you were likely to get. You also need to be very intentional about information dissemination- assume some managers won’t tell their staff/take necessary steps (because that happens with any admin task), so how are you going to ensure the staff with that manager are still included? It’s important to think through these details, because this is what will set the tone for morale.

            3. MigraineMonth*

              I’d say skip the raffle and give a thank-you gift to each of the support staff. I’d lean close to money, such as a $500 cash card, for example. If desired, you could also give the non-C-suite professional staff something symbolic like a branded blanket or coffee-cup-warmer.

        4. Bruce*

          I agree that top level people do well to quietly not take the prize. I remember one time the CEO’s admin was doing the drawing and pulled her own name out for the top prize… there were some jokes but everyone loved her so it did not create serious grumbling. If the CEO had won it would have been a different thing…

      2. Umami*

        When we have raffles, everyone gets a ticket. But the higher-level management just … don’t check their tickets. I would not agree with anyone but the individuals deciding which level managers should get a ticket (or prize) or not – just because someone is paid at a higher rate doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to participate in a giveaway. I don’t condone a process that makes assumptions about people’s personal budgets.

        1. Ashley*

          It is not just personal budget but optics. As a reader of AAM I know the stories all to well about well paid folks taking all the food. I think not entering C-Suite into the raffle is a good practice, and if people aren’t sure about new temps winning large prizes you could fairly easily due different fish bowls with different names where they could win smaller prizes. With minimal effort upfront it is fairly easy to rig some of those things to keep certain people out.

          1. Boof*

            I think umaniisn’t referring to c suite but “all management” – op seems to be implying that all management and all temps shouldn’t be in the raffle (apologies if i am wrong lw but I’m really not sure who you’re trying to exclude because you mention a bunch of groups) – abd most management is probably not being paid an order of magnitude or more than everyone else. Just keep it random and only top brass should decline

          2. Umami*

            I agree with excluding C-suite – I don’t think ‘managers’ at large should be excluded (at least not how managers are defined where I work, because there is a wide range of salary levels there). I would hope that if the company solicits feedback, and a significant number of people provide negative feedback about this practice, then a company decision can be made around it. But on its surface, the way this particular raffle was run doesn’t sound problematic. I like what someone said above about it hitting differently if employees generally feel they aren’t being treated fairly, but also, this raffle has way more prizes/employees than any I’ve ever participated in!

            1. Uranus Wars*

              I agree with you as well. I am a manager – we have several non-management that make more than I do annually. I am fine with that, but also think that when it comes to a raffle it’s fine to include managers and exclude executives, either by default or by agreement that if they are chosen they will have “lost” their ticket or some such.

            2. MigraineMonth*

              Agreed, and I think it would be particularly odd to consider product managers or project managers part of “management”; the latter usually refers to managing other people.

          3. Lenora Rose*

            Why not temps? Temps are often even more broke. And these days, there are temps who have been around for 2-3 years in some companies because the transition to permanent was made harder.

            And if you mean “only been here a month” why make the line between temps and permanent staff and not all staff who are brand new?

            I had been a temp for 4 months (not all consecutive, I’d done July and August then November-December) and my husband was out of work, when I won a $500 gift card for a local mall and it paid for pretty much 100% of Christmas. Should I have felt bad for somehow depriving someone else when most everyone else was probably in a more financially stable place?

            1. Elizabeth West*

              It’s not really that difficult to be nice to temps. When I was temping last year, the company included me in all the food orders and the breakfast meeting, which was just everyone sitting around talking about non-work things while they ate. (Had this company offered me a job, I would have taken it, but they didn’t have one — I was covering someone who was on vacation.)

              I can see not putting their names in for the big-screen TV, but I like the idea of smaller, still-nice prizes for the temp pool. It makes them feel appreciated.

            2. MigraineMonth*

              I work for an organization where some of our “temps” have been here 5+ years, it just takes forever to get approval to make their positions permanent.

            3. rebelwithmouseyhair*

              Yeah at some point it’s looking like staff were moaning about anyone who wasn’t “them” getting a prize. Supposing management and temps were excluded, I imagine they’d all be miffed at the cleaner getting a prize (which we’ve already seen here, the cleaner won a car and people were outraged). And then you exclude the cleaners, and they’d be miffed because Judy in Accounts got the TV when Muriel in Marketing had her heart set on it.

            4. Random Dice*

              It’s pretty crappy for anyone to spit downhill. FTEs are uphill of temps and should be kind.

    2. John Smith*

      I dont think Alison is suggesting managers be necessarily excluded, only that they decline the bigger prizes, otherwise it looks along the lines of gifting up, accepting cash gifts, benefitting from charitable donations from less well paid staff etc etc that have been covered on AAM in the past, and it’s not a good look.

      The decent thing to do, especially with charity raffles, would be to pay over the odds for a ticket and donate back any valuable prize won. Use jest if you have to (“I’ve already got 5 TVs but Ive got no soap!” or whatever).

      1. ferrina*

        Love the philosophy, disagree with the wording. Don’t say “I’ve got 5 TVs”. That isn’t likely to land well. If I’m struggling to pay my Netflix subscription, I’m not going to be amused that you have multiple TVs so nice that you don’t need this one.

        Maybe: “Sorry, I’m in love with the scent of this soap and I am going for the big one!” (pointing at the soap)
        Or: “I don’t know where I’d put it.”
        Or: “Nope, if I bring that home my teenager will demand a TV in his room, and I’m not looking to start WW3 over that. Someone else needs to take this!”

    3. TechWorker*

      Right, if there’s 25 employees ‘in management’ in a 115 person company maybe max 5-10 of them are ‘high level execs’

    4. Emmy Noether*

      I must say I don’t like raffles with prizes of very disparate value at work in general. It’s a recipe for resentment and jealousy, AND all the problems with impersonal gifts at work. Just use the money for bonuses! I don’t want random soap and I don’t want the hassle of selling a TV either! But maybe I’m just grumpy because I never win at this kind of thing (it’s fine, I’m lucky in test-taking in exchange for being unlucky in draws, which is more useful anyway).

      My company has a raffle for vendor gifts we’ve received over the year, where they make sure that everyone gets something and the values are not too different. That one’s fun, because it’s low-stakes and no money was diverted from potential bonuses for it.

      2. Testing*

        Yeah, this. Use the money on something fair and useful instead of essentially introducing gambling into the workplace, with prizes that may or may not be interesting or appreciated. I mean, I already have a TV — I wouldn’t be particularly excited about winning a newer, shinier, bigger one.

      3. cabbagepants*

        If you win a TV that you don’t want, I’m sure your colleagues wouldn’t mind if you decline the gift and leave it for someone who would be thrilled to have it.

        1. Umami*

          Yes, this. It may be the difference in purpose behind the raffle. When we have holiday raffles, it’s designed to encourage people to attend an event and have the opportunity to get a bonus prize (you must be present to win, and tickets are free. Higher-level management donates most of the prizes at personal cost). It’s meant to be entertaining, not as a way to show appreciation. If you aren’t interested in winning a prize, just enjoy the event and ignore the raffles. But a lot of people get excited about the potential of winning a prize and will stay. It seems like a weird thing to decide to be jealous or resentful about.

          1. Lily Rowan*

            I think this is another example of how things hit different depending on how you feel about your job overall. If you feel like in general things aren’t fair and you aren’t treated well? Everything feels like a slap in the face.

          2. Emmy Noether*

            The letter we are discussing is literally all about being resentful about a raffle!
            It may be weird to you, but it’s reality (and if the managers are supposed to sit out, now we have the question of who counts as a manager. Do project managers count? Some managers may also be paid less than some ICs. What about them? Do personal finances and dependents matter? It only works if everyone is nice and reasonable, and if people were that, this blog wouldn’t exist)

            1. Umami*

              Yes, and my take is that it’s kind of silly to have such strong feelings about free gifts? I don’t think the organizers are the ones who should determine who gets to participate, and they certainly can’t control which ticket ends up winning which prize. The letter writer just feels overly invested in the raffle outcome. They are even resentful about new, temporary workers getting to participate, so I’m not sure what they would consider fair, TBH.

            2. Random Dice*

              But I’m guessing this letter is about a workplace with perceived injustices even before the raffle. There are always malcontents, but if most people think a situation is broadly fair they don’t get traction.

        2. Emmy Noether*

          This could depend on how it’s organized. Can I decline quietly without making a show of myself, and will I be in the running for something else or will I then get zero? The raffles I’ve seen one can’t decline, only trade after the fact, and picking someone to trade has it’s own problems.

          If it’s the type where one can pick a prize, that seems better.

      4. Falling Diphthong*

        I think the right approach–common at fundraiser raffles–is to give everyone, say, 5 tickets. Then you can put all 5 in for the fancy chair, or 1 each in the top 5 things you like, or weight your tickets toward the prizes with a low number of tickets in the bowl so your odds are better.

        This works best if the C-suite has recused themselves, and if people feel this is a fun extra game rather than an in-lieu-of-bonus.

        1. Loredena*

          That’s how my previous small consulting firm handled it! Everyone looked forward to the raffle and I never heard grousing. We did also all receive a cash bonus.

      5. Antilles*

        Just use the money for bonuses!
        I get the sentiment, but the math for “bonuses instead of prizes” is pretty stark. The TVs are probably somewhere in the $500-$700 range, mini fridges cost about $300, then the other smaller gifts stuff like Bath and Body Works baskets cost like $50 each. If we add up the entire prize budget excluding the gift cards (since those go to everybody, they effectively ARE a $50 bonus), we’re likely somewhere around $3,000 all told, possibly less.
        Split over 90 employees and 25 managers, that doesn’t go very far. If you split it evenly, that’s about a $25 bonus. I wouldn’t turn down a $25 bonus of course, but let’s not pretend like the company raffling off a couple TVs and a mini fridge is having any meaningful impact on the bonus pool.

        1. Rusty Shackelford*

          I’d rather have a guaranteed $25 than a 10% chance at winning a nicer gift, but that’s just me.

          1. Emmy Noether*

            yeah, me too. I’m not really a gambler though, and I generally prefer things to be equally distributed.

        2. MCMonkeyBean*

          Especially since they did give everyone $50 regardless. 35 prizes and a guaranteed $50 sounds like a pretty great raffle to me!

        3. Umami*

          Honestly, this sounds like a really good raffle! Everyone got $50, and then about a third of employees got raffle prizes. We have hundreds of employees and only can raffle about a dozen gifts! I wonder fi this is why it seems a little less fair – so many people got prizes that those who didn’t felt even more disenfranchised.

        4. YetAnotherAnalyst*

          Contrariwise, if the gift cards were the ONLY bonuses, splitting the raffle budget evenly and putting it on gift cards would have given everyone a 50% larger bonus.

    5. GythaOgden*

      Agreed.

      Plus OP seems indignant that the temps were included as well — which as people in insecure employment seems a bit unfair. And…yeah, there are going to be times when a new starter wins a raffle. Given the numbers of temps, it’s plausible that with roughly 140 employees and 35 prizes one or two of them is going to win, and we’re also talking about people who often aren’t included in such things because of the way the law that protects them overall from exploitation also has ramifications on the day to day level to prevent them being included in these kind of quality-of-life things put on by a company.

    6. Audrey Puffins*

      Does a raffle work differently in the US? In the UK, you buy your tickets, and if your ticket is drawn, then you get to choose your prize from the table full of prizes. The way to make it work is to let management buy tickets (our Christmas raffle was to raise money for charity) but they then make sure they choose, say, the big chocolate bar if their number is called, rather than the bottle of fancy vodka. Were these managers so constrained by the format that they *had* to have the fridge and the TV?

      1. Yak*

        This isn’t how raffles always work in the UK. You often get tiered raffles or specific drawers for the top prizes.

          1. Madame Arcati*

            “Congrats you’ve won this specific pair of drawers, in finest silk with lace trim!”
            Lol

          1. Nonanon*

            Ooooh I think this winds up working best; IDEALLY upper levels would put their ticket in the “small prize” bin (there’s always going to be a bad manager/owner/CEO who drops theirs in the “all expenses tropical vacation” bin but that’s a different AAM post), so you get maximum inclusion, people can opt out (I don’t want more junk in my apartment, so I don’t put my ticket in a bin) AND “even” prize distribution.

          2. MCMonkeyBean*

            Yeah, that’s what we do for “basket raffles.” Each team puts a big prize basket together and then you buy as many tickets as you want and put them into tubs in front of each basket.

      2. bamcheeks*

        This is my experience of smaller scale raffles at things like school fetes in the UK, but the big charity raffles are set up with “first prize, second prize, third prize” etc and they are given out in the order that the numbers are drawn. If the prizes for this were things like televisions I would guess that it was a bit more like the big charity ones.

        1. Lexi Vipond*

          I’ve seen the small ones done both ways – either pick your prizes, or ‘and the next number is for this lovely bottle of wine/box of chocolates/cuddly toy’. I think the first way is better for the winners and the second is slightly more entertaining for the audience.

          1. Sloanicota*

            I think I’m confused here because we do raffles as fundraisers sometimes so we have a vested interest in making it entertaining for the audience and we don’t really care who wins, just that we sell as many tickets as possible. If this is intended to be a morale booster for the company I feel like they’d go about it differently. For example, I’m hoping/assuming the employees didn’t buy any tickets.

            1. 1-800-BrownCow*

              Raffles are done for a variety of reasons in the US. Yes, it’s common to do them as fundraisers, I’ve done my fair share of those. But also some companies, mine included, do them for various morale boosters for employees. My previous employer used to do a raffle at our company holiday party in December. You had to be present to win and they raffled off a range of prizes, similar to what the LW mentioned. And you had no choice in what you one, if your ticket was drawn when they were giving away the big screen tv or the box of chocolates, that’s what you got. My current employer is big into community service and really encourage employees to give to one of the local charities we sponsor each year. You can sign up for either a one time donation or choose to have money taken out of your pay each month, or not to give at all if that’s not your thing. For all people who do donate to the charity, we receive 3 raffle tickets and can put our tickets in a box for any of the prizes we’re interested in winning. Then a week later, the company has a special celebration meeting with some food and to share what all we raised during the previous year and then the tickets for the raffle prizes are pulled. Years back when I first started, they used to give extra tickets to those who donates higher amounts of money or those who increased their yearly donation by a certain percentage. But it gave an advantage to the higher income learners as they tended to be the ones who could afford to donate higher amounts, so the company stopped and now everyone who donates gets the same number of tickets.

              1. Charlotte Lucas*

                I think some of the confusion is that people are using the term “raffle” (where people buy tickets) interchangeably with “door prizes” (where you are automatically given a ticket or tickets as an attendee).

                And prizes for either might be chosen by the winner or assigned. (I do like the option of putting your ticket in boxes for preferred prizes, though.)

                1. 1-800-BrownCow*

                  Good point. Although, I do hear “raffle prizes” used quite often when it would be more appropriate to say “door prizes” and the other way around. Recently I attended a fundraising event where you could purchase raffle tickets to win door prizes! They even worded it “We’re raffling off our door prizes.” So it went both ways, lol. I don’t think most people (in the US, at least) think much of it since it’s so common to hear either one.

          2. My Cabbages!*

            Which is why I will stay 100 km away from them. No desire to be crushed by a church bell or poisoned by tea cakes.

        3. londonedit*

          Yeah, I’ve seen it where it’s a smaller raffle (usually at a school fete or similar) and if your number is drawn then you can go up and pick a prize from a table (in which case they’ll all be low-ish value things like wine or chocolates) and I’ve also seen it done as more of a ‘prize draw’ where there’ll be two or three big prizes and then some smaller ones, and it’s specifically ‘the next prize is our fantastic case of champagne’ etc.

      3. Madame Arcati*

        I dunno, it’s not unheard of for raffles in the U.K. to have top prizes and lesser ones and you win a specific thing – “and finally we are drawing for our top prize, this fabulous bottle of champagne!” as as well as what you describe.
        I’ve never heard of a raffle where you don’t have to buy a ticket but tbf I am a government employee and we don’t get any free stuff because taxpayer’s money so the private sector may be different.
        Tangent – does the US have tombolas?

        1. UKDancer*

          Also in the UK and I’ve never heard of a raffle you didn’t have to buy tickets for. I’ve never had one the company has organised either. Usually if there is one it’s because someone is selling tickets for a charity raffle and people buy them or not as they like.

          If your ticket is drawn you get the prize allocated to that number. The only time I won my prize was a really ugly vase.

          1. JSPA*

            Sometimes you get a short strip of tickets with cost of entry, or free as employee appreciation. Especially in states where gambling is or was illegal, which in some areas included paid raffles.

            1. GythaOgden*

              We did this as a raffle tax at our sci-fi club and had bits of old junky geeky tat as prizes. We phased it out once we realised all the best bits had been snapped up and the rest was just won one month and brought back the following month.

              However, there’s not really much regulation of small-scale gambling in this way in the UK. You can’t run a raffle for profit, particularly not on an online marketplace, but what happens at fetes and company parties, even at specific venues, is not policed much beyond that. I haven’t much experience with company raffles, but with school raffles the charity was the school, which was either a public sector org or a registered charity (generally speaking private schools have a foundation set up to pay their costs and subsidise fees; it’s a controversial thing but I’ve seen it mostly from the inside through my mother, and know how a lot of how it actually works in practice, and tbh just like cinemas, magazines and other enterprises, costs probably far outstrip revenue and income streams have to be fairly numerous in order to keep the org afloat).

              However, in the UK and Ireland for all of my career, no-one really minds paying something for a Christmas party or tickets for a raffle. It’s a different culture — I can’t say we’re any more or less egalitarian than the US is in general, but just that some things that have people up in arms here, like workplace giving or the Christmas meal costing a few tenners to attend, is just not a big deal in my reality. (People are very generous to the Macmillan cancer support charity for instance, because many of us have brushes with cancer or see it affect loved ones, and they provide services that couldn’t really be run on a for-profit basis but probably reach more people and circumvent public healthcare bureaucracy by being independent of the NHS, so charity is not ‘oh, you’re poor, here’s a few quid’ but ‘actually, Macmillan were an absolute godsend when my husband was sick, here’s a few butterfly ornaments to sell at the coffee morning and take my £25 to start the pot off now I can afford to be insanely generous’. I pay a £10 every month to the hospice in which my husband died and to be brutally frank they are a much nicer space to spend your last hours than a hospital ward could ever be, and that service is delivered in a smaller-scale, more personal manner than general free public healthcare.)

              The point I’m trying to make is that not everyone here is American or subscribed to American cultural attitudes (and not subject to US laws), and those attitudes may be different in some ways but are not more or less valid than US ones.

          2. Happy meal with extra happy*

            I think that raffle may have a more generic, less specific meaning in the US then. I would call any event or game where either tickets or names are drawn, and that person wins a prize, whether or not the tickets are paid for or the “contestants” are a predetermined group, so purchasing tickets isn’t required. For instance, at a prior job, the company did a raffle at the holiday party, and they just drew names from a bowl that had every employee name in it (obviously not a very large company).

            1. londonedit*

              Now I think about it, I have a feeling that in the UK we probably separate these things into ‘raffle’ (more informal, possibly where if you have a winning ticket you go up and choose a prize) and ‘prize draw’ (more formal, more likely to happen at a big event or fundraising evening, bigger prizes where a ticket is specifically drawn to win each individual prize in turn).

              1. bamcheeks*

                I feel like a raffle has to have a “random number drawn and matched up” element. A prize draw could be a raffle if people had numbered tickets, but it could also be names or business cards being drawn which would NOT be a raffle.

            2. UKDancer*

              Ah ok I’d call the last example a prize draw where names are picked at random from a hat. Raffle to me always means buying tickets. Not that I’ve worked anywhere that did draws but a lot of trade fairs have a “put your business card in the bowl and win a prize” at their stands.

              I think it’s probably just different definitions of the same thing.

            3. But what to call me?*

              US here, and I’d probably only call the version where you buy tickets a raffle. At my last job they called the prizes you get from drawing names from a bowl just for showing up “door prizes”, as in “there will be door prizes at the holiday party”. We wouldn’t have called it a raffle, just announced that that was when the door prizes would be drawn.

        2. JSPA*

          what exactly is a tombola? (we may have the thing… but at least regionally, not the word… I’ve heard it, but don’t know exactly what it means. Google shows me a board game.)

          1. Lexi Vipond*

            Sometimes known as a bottle stall, but it’s not all bottles either! Prizes are set on a table, with numbers attached to them (usually all the numbers ending in 0 and 5 from a book of raffle tickets). Then a full set of raffle tickets is separated and folded up in and put in a bucket, and you pull some out and open them and see if any of your numbers match. and if they do you’ve won those prizes.

            1. Sloanicota*

              Sounds a bit like what we call a silent auction, except there people make bids rather than win with raffle tickets. I have not seen or heard of this precise setup here on the East Coast (I’m sure it exists somewhere).

              1. bamcheeks*

                It’s usually very small scale– I don’t think there is a “big” version of this. Typically it’s a stall at a fair or something, you pay 50P or less for a ticket, and someone (either you or the stall holder) immediately sticks your hand in the bucket, gets 035 and hooray, a tin of pineapple chunks for you! Bad luck, you didn’t get the box of Quality Street but you can have another go if you want. I’ve never seen it used for a larger event or one where the drawing is supposed to be a timed event with everyone watching.

              2. londonedit*

                Yeah no it’s very small scale! You have raffle tickets taped to the bottom of prizes (which will be things like bottles of wine, boxes of chocolates, maybe some sort of luxury toiletries) and then you rummage in a box of folded raffle tickets and pull one out, and if your number matches one that’s taped to a prize then you win that prize. Staple of things like school fetes and village fundraising events. Probably 50p a go or three goes for £1 or whatever. In particularly exciting versions there will be a sort of barrel mounted on a stand and you can turn a handle to spin the barrel and mix up all the raffle tickets before you stick your hand in and pick one out.

                1. Lexi Vipond*

                  I believe that barrel is the ‘actual’ tombola which gives it the name, but I’ve never seen one in real life!

                2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

                  There’s a scene in one episode of Midsommer Murders where Tom (the original) is running the tombola at a village fete. A gentlemen wins a prize — its the same tea cosy as he won last year. He just throws it back on the table. The murder occurs shortly thereafter.

            2. amoeba*

              Hah, that’s interesting – we have the same word in German but it’s the literal translation of “raffle”, so that was confusing! (I double-checked on wiki to see I haven’t just been using it wrong my whole life…)

        3. Insert Clever Name Here*

          If it matches Lexi Vipond’s definition, I have not experienced that in the US. I would’t be surprised if others have though.

        4. Nonanon*

          US-based, learned what tombola was via Neopets. We don’t really have them? We might have some variants but not what our cousins across the pond would consider a tombola.

          1. Schrodinger's Cat*

            It took me an amazingly long time to realize how much of Neopets was based on British things and not just made up. Aubergines (eggplants), courgette (zucchini), scarper (not a misspelling of scamper) and now tombola!

      4. Dr Sarah*

        That’s a good point. Maybe what they had was what we’d call a tombola? (With a tombola, the items have specific ticket numbers on them.)

        1. Armchair Analyst*

          In US a roll of raffle or admission tickets is sold to a person at a party supply store. Anyone can buy it.

          So then at party, the HR team will say, “welcome! Here is your raffle ticket!!” The employee gets ticket #234567 and another ticket #234567 is put in the fishbowl or box or whatever. Sometimes the employee can do it, sometimes the HR person. The next employee gets 234568 and does the same.

          At raffle time, the HR person says, “now for this expensive blender I will reach in the box and pull out…” and everyone checks their ticket to see if their # matches what the HR person calls out

      6. Governmint Condition*

        The key difference with a company holiday party raffle, of course, is that the tickets are free. (Unless it’s a government employer and everybody paid for tickets. Then it may involve raffle tickets you buy, or less commonly, leftover party funds.)

    7. Also-ADHD*

      And product managers are generally an individual contributor role. I would think you’d exclude C Suite, or if it was a team raffle, the big managers, but I’d not think anything of a basic middle manager winning something. My role is individual contributor level (no one actually reports to me, though I’m a program manager) and I know I’m paid more than management in some departments. For instance, customer service manager or HR manager on average at my company makes less than me. An IT manager usually makes more. It varies by skill set, role, etc. And definitely the word “manager” (as in product managers, who are individual contributors) shouldn’t be the deciding factor. Anyone in executive level management or C Suite I can see being a bad look though.

    8. Sloanicota*

      Yes, I agree. I think OP’s workplace (presumably the whole workplace) seems a bit too fixated on the divide between management and non-management if they’re counting the number of people who don’t even have direct reports in that Four Whole Prizes. I do understand if the best prize went to the CEO, it was a bad look. But there was something a bit too much in this letter for me.

    9. Quinalla*

      Yes, C-suite or equivalent should either not be included or should defer to others if they win a big prize. My company does something similar and the C-suite/shareholders always defer if they win something big, they sometimes will take smaller things.

    10. WantonSeedStitch*

      I even think that if there are many layers of management, including low-level managers of people is fine. I wouldn’t want to see executive directors winning, but maybe assistant directors, who are three rungs lower on the ladder and only one step up from an individual contributor.

    11. MCMonkeyBean*

      Yeah, “managers” are not necessarily “management” and if the company is this small I am thinking that it seems unlikely 25 of them are high-level management so I’m not sure if OP is off-base thinking *all* managers should always be excluded from this. Some of them might not even make that much more money.

      It’s hard to say for sure without knowing their company structure. Maybe I’m wrong and 20% of them are in upper management. But I know at my company I would definitely not expect my manager to be excluded from things like that!

    12. Brookfield*

      When the company CFO wins the very first raffle prize during the company’s virtual holiday party, and it’s an iPad … and he immediately hands it to his five-year-old and says “Christmas came early for you!” … it’s incredibly tone deaf. Believe me, my team members were pretty annoyed to see this highly compensated executive essentially throw away an expensive gift that they’d have appreciated.

    13. I'm just here for the cats!*

      I agree. And I think it really depends on the level of management. Like were these team leads with really no say in the company and they don’t make much more than their employees, or were these top level managers that make close to 6 figures?

      For example, and a former workplace i wokred at a call center. We had a raffle one year. The top 4 managers (General manager of the site, Opperations manager, HR guy, and I think the top training manager) were not included but everyone else was, including team leads like my direct manager, the quality control guys (the ones who listen to your calls) and some other higher folx that I don’t remember what their rolls were.

    14. CupcakeCounter*

      My husband is a higher level manager and he doesn’t like the fact that he, as well as many of the owners kids who have higher ranking roles plus get additional benefits from ownership, are included. They won’t take his name out though so when his name is called he will pick one of the smaller items (first aid kit one year and a bunch of board games a different year). He was at least able to make a statement about it when one of the other managers (and son of the VP) gave him grief for it a la “dude!!! why didn’t you get the TV or Yeti?” and he was able to make his point that he is very well paid, eligible for a high bonus and higher percentage of the quarterly profit sharing, and can buy his own stuff and those should be reserved for the shift employees.
      Recently they changed to a raffle ticket instead of name so he just “loses” his ticket. There was some grumbling a couple years ago when the President’s future son-in-law won the big prize (a big smoker grill thing) since he was in his senior year of college and lived in an apartment so the prize ended up at the President’s house *for safe keeping*.

    15. Butterfly Counter*

      I just have to say after reading the related post for #1: I desperately need an update!

    16. Reluctant Mezzo*

      I will admit that when I was in the military, a base chaplain won a rather large prize an d there were humorous attempts to point up at the sky and holler “Fix!”.

  5. elle kaye*

    I also think Alan Rickman’s character may have crossed a line in playing matchmaker between his other employees but tbf their reporting structure is not fully clear. (still. I just want to sing the character for being so sleezy)

    1. Sherm*

      Yeah, lots of questionable boss behavior in that movie, not just by Alan Rickman’s character, but Hugh Grant’s and Colin Firth’s as well. Great movie though!

      1. Polyhymnia O’Keefe*

        The healthiest workplace relationship is, ironically, probably the one where the co-workers spend time naked in the workplace.

        My favourite part of the Love Actually discourse every Christmas is seeing online reactions of people who only saw the TV edit growing up watching the full movie and realizing there’s a whole storyline with Martin Freeman that they’d never seen.

        1. Goldfeesh*

          When LA first came out on DVD I recommended it to a coworker. I warned her not to watch it with her teen kids but didn’t spell out Martin Freeman’s part. Just figured she and her husband would watch it. Later she came back mortified and asked why I didn’t warn her. She and her husband watched it- with her parents – oops.

          1. Phryne*

            Well, it is not actually explicit? I’d expect adults to deal with the fact other adults, even the ones they are related to, will have seen movies with some nudity and or sexual acts before?
            I’d have no problem seeing that with my parents. They have three children and were teenagers in the 60ies. They have seen as much if not more than me…

          2. PhyllisB*

            I haven’t seen that movie, but two of my kids and I rented The Buyer’s Club to watch. I already knew that it was going to be pretty explicit, and I told them it was, but they didn’t believe me. (They know I usually go for PG level entertainment.)
            Well, my daughter didn’t make it through the opening scene. My son hung in a bit longer, but he left too, saying he couldn’t watch this with his mother. He also said he couldn’t believe I would want to watch something like this. I told him it was a matter of context.
            Also I remember when the Aids crisis started.

        2. Madame Arcati*

          There’s an edit without Martin Freeman?? They always show it all on U.K. tv ime but I think we have a slightly different attitude to boobs maybe.

          1. amoeba*

            Yeah, the German version is FSK6 (which would probably correspond to PG? Anyway, age 6 and up!) – including the Martin Freeman storyline! Also regularly shown on TV like that. I mean, there are loads of things about that film that I find problematic nowadays, but that’s really not one of them…

            1. MigraineMonth*

              In the US, our rating system is primarily designed to protect our impressionable young children from learning about sex, swear words, and anything about LGBTQIA. Violence is usually fine.

              (I gave my young cousins The Princess Bride for Christmas one year, and their mother called me, very upset that Inigo said “son of a bitch” while torturing and murdering Count Rugen.)

          2. Dek*

            He plays a porn actor’s stunt-double, and he and the actress who plays the other stunt double have completely adorable exchanges while Doing Things. Which sounds potentially fraught, but it’s the one bit where the movie goes out of its way to show them being considerate of each other as actual people.

            (well, that and Liam Neeson and his stepson)

            1. amoeba*

              Oh yes, that one’s great as well!

              I do like the Martin Freeman storyline, I just have serious problems suspending my disbelieve about the account of money they’re spending on porn, even in 2003…

              1. Humble Schoolmarm*

                I think they said in the commentary that it wasn’t supposed to be porn, it was supposed to be a classy blockbuster (with lots of sex).

      2. KathyG*

        Don’t forget Andrew Lincoln basically stalking Kiera Nightly.

        I do like the Martin Freeman storyline, as well as the Bill Nighy one, but otherwise the rest of the movie is almost unwatchable for me.

        1. Audrey Puffins*

          Andrew Lincoln is, at least, not Keira Knightley’s boss. So it’s gross, but it’s only personal/social gross, and not workplace misconduct gross like so many of the other relationships

          1. Le Sigh*

            The thing about that dynamic that I could never get past is that KK is visibly 18 (her actual age at filming) and Andrew Lincoln is quite obviously a decade+ older. I realize that’s not the storyline, but I just can’t get past it. Then again, there’s nothing I like about that movie’s plot, and a great deal that I hate, so I wasn’t in the mood to be charitable by that point anyway.

        2. I take tea*

          We finally watched some time ago and I really disliked most of it and can’t really see why so many love it that much. Most of the people involved were acting stupidly and the casual fatphobia grated on me. But the story-line with the stand in actors was fun and sort of sweet.

          1. UKDancer*

            Yes I didn’t like it much, all the characters annoyed me and I found it dull. 4 weddings I really enjoyed and emerged with a massive crush on John Hannah but love actually did nothing for me at all.

        3. Artistic Impulses*

          Although Love Actually has its faults, I never saw Andrew Lincoln’s character as a stalker. For most of the movie, his character tried to maintain emotional distance from Kiera Knightley’s character, and did everything to keep his feelings for her a secret from her and her husband.

          As opposed to being a stalker, I think he tried his best to be a decent friend under difficult circumstances. He wasn’t chasing after her, and his true feelings were only discovered when she looked at his footage of the wedding.

          Although the scene with the signs was a bit cheesy, it still wasn’t stalkerish to me. It was just his effort to finally acknowledge his feelings, while putting those feelings in their proper place. It’s not like he was trying to get her to leave her husband. and as he was walking away, he said something like *Enough.” To me, he was just a basically decent guy who awkwardly tried to do the right thing.

          Alan Rickman’s character was totally wrong when he got involved with the assistant. He definitely should have shut that down early, but I felt a bit sorry for both him and his wife. The assistant was clearly predatory, taking advantage of a vulnerable middle aged man. Beside the obvious hurt to his wife, he should have thought about the effect this affair was going to have on the morale of the office.

          Of course, this office seemed like one of those you hear about on AAM, that are “like a family,” which is probably why he felt comfortable encouraging Laura Linney to confess her love for her co-worker. He obviously never gave a thought about any fallout if those two got together, then broke up.

          Still, Laura Linney and her co-worker were at least both single, whereas Alan Rickman was very much married. Shame on him for succumbing to his weakness, but he was at least very contrite for his mistake. I always think that he and his wife stayed together, but they were never as happy as before. I pictured the assistant being given a good severance, but definitely being separated from the firm.

          1. Emmy Noether*

            Did you just unironically type the phrase “vulnerable middle-aged man”?!

            Clichés notwithstanding, middle-aged men are not actually a type of teenager.

            1. Artistic Impulses*

              All I meant by “vulnerable middle aged man” was that Alan Rickman’s character was obviously not a player, and was unused to flirting, and rather susceptible to being flirted with by this young woman. He seemed awkward and unsure at every turn. Not an excuse for cheating on his wife, though.

              Some things haven’t aged well in Love Actually, but I confess to still having a soft spot for the film. The characters are flawed, but most are just trying to navigate life as best they can. There are so many love stories depicted, and most of them turn out well in the end.

              1. bamcheeks*

                Alan Rickman’s character was obviously not a player, and was unused to flirting, and rather susceptible to being flirted with by this young woman

                yeah, the thing is that this whole storyline was written by a middle-aged man, and I am very cynical about how *useful* this “poor susceptible powerless middle-aged man at the mercy of a predatory younger and less powerful woman” fantasy is.

                1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

                  In the original script, the lustful secretary is the same woman as cheats on the writer with his brother. I think that makes it clearer that she is set up as an immoral harpy.

                2. MCMonkeyBean*

                  Ugh, speaking of movies with Martin Freeman and “poor susceptible powerless middle-aged men” fantasies I just saw a trailer for Miller’s Girl and I am so freaking OVER it already.

                3. ferrina*

                  See also: Yesterday’s conversations after the “Men keep hitting on the scheduling bot” letter.

                  You don’t accidentally fall into sexual situations. There is no compelling magic that forces you to fall prey to flirting. The “poor middle age man who was tricked into bed because a younger women batted her eyelashes” is passe and clearly an excuse to blame women for men’s behavior. The woman is responsible for her actions; the man is responsible for his.

                  All the men I’ve met who have done the “woe is me! Yonder harpy hath taken me for a fool!” routine had been getting too friendly with a number of women (usually younger and in positions of less power, including waitstaff and customer service reps), just waiting for one of them to reciprocate. Then one reciprocates, he plays along, and when he gets called out it’s “but I am a fool in the ways of the world! I was friendly and taken advantage of!” Note that these same guys are always the ones who brag about how powerful and/or worldly they are at work.

                4. LunaLena*

                  Even middle-aged men are humans with human emotions. It was pretty clear he was basically having a midlife crisis – he had this nice, comfortable life he’d settled into, and suddenly this pretty young thing is flirting with him, something that hadn’t happened in about 20 years. He was flattered and pleased by the attention and succumbed to it – as Dan Savage has often said, New Relationship Energy is exciting and fun. Lots of people do it, both male and female (that doesn’t mean it’s right, just that it’s a thing that happens). It actually reminds me of the letter on AAM from the 40+ year old woman who was openly flirting with an 18 year old employee and got mad when a co-worker called her out on it, except the genders are flipped.

                5. Ellis Bell*

                  I would also really like to see the film were it’s the women who have such paltry social and emotional skills that they behave completely contrary to their intentions. This must be presented in a way that not only are people expected to buy this as plausible, but to be sympathetic.

                6. bamcheeks*

                  @LunaLena I read too many “classic” British and American novels in my early twenties and overdosed on middle-aged men writing about how ~~DIFFICULT~~ it is being a middle-aged man having a midlife crisis in the form of a 20-something woman, and now no longer have any patience for the trope.

                7. Humble Schoolmarm*

                  Ellis Bell – We ran out of threading, but while I don’t disagree at all with the overall point that Alan Rickman’s character is entirely responsible for what went down, I would argue that we have a female character (Laura Linney) in the same movie who lacks social skills and ends up just sort of letting things happen to her with sad results (the crash and burn with Hot Karl).

              2. Ellis Bell*

                Yes, he is supposed to come across as though this is his first encounter with womankind – I just found that really implausible. Like, how did he get a wife like Emma Thompson’s character without dating and signalling flirtatious interest etc? Did he find her in a Kinder egg? He’s also a boss, so you know, he should start with being boss of himself and realising that he’s not supposed to be flirting anyway, so the good news is that he doesn’t have to be good at it? Mind you, do not listen to me, because my ability to suspend disbelief is severely hampered by this film!

                1. Artistic Impulses*

                  He definitely should have been a better boss and a better husband in this scenario. I don’t know how he and Emma Thompson’s characters met, but I got the impression that he was very comfortably settled into a happy marriage. He wasn’t a person who was accustomed to flirting or being flirted with.

                  Of course, he really dropped the ball by not shutting things down with the assistant at the many opportunities he had to do so, but his human frailty tripped him up.

            2. Falling Diphthong*

              Yeah, that seems to really misrepresent the power dynamics. Grown-ass adults are not actually helpless when a person over whom they have power comes onto them.

          2. Snow Globe*

            “As opposed to being a stalker, I think he tried his best to be a decent friend under difficult circumstances. He wasn’t chasing after her, and his true feelings were only discovered when she looked at his footage of the wedding.”

            He showed up at her house while her husband was there, asked her to lie to her husband about who was at the door, and proceeded to pour out his feelings to the woman who was married to his best friend (who had never given the slightest indication that she was interested).

            1. Sloanicota*

              True but doesn’t she desperately ask him why he hates her so much (I can’t recall exactly as it’s been a while?) plus he got caught out with the wedding tape I think? I totally understand why people don’t like the scene but I interpreted it as he had been planning to be standoffish forever and was only doing that because Plan A had badly fallen apart. However, I feel like that’s still going to be pretty awkward for her when they get together in future!

              1. Artistic Impulses*

                Sloanicota, I totally agree that he only spilled out his feelings since his Plan A to remain distant was destroyed by Juliet’s discovery. I took it as him saying, “Okay, you caught me out, and I do have these feelings,” but he never planned to act on them.

                From the scene at the end where the three of them went to meet Colin Firth’s character and new squeeze (fiancee? wife?) at the airport, it seemed that they were pretty at ease with each other. I think Andrew Lincoln was relieved to not have to keep Juliet at arm’s length, and Juliet was relived to know he didn’t hate her. I think it was resolved amicably, and the best friends could remain so.

              2. MCMonkeyBean*

                Yeah, but I’d put “distances himself so much that he makes her think that he hates her” in the bucket of evidence on why he is NOT in fact being a good friend lol

                1. Artistic Impulses*

                  I don’t agree that he was a bad friend. Mark gave Peter a bachelor party, and he went out of his way to arrange the lovely surprise musical send-off at the end of the wedding ceremony.

                  Mark was in a tough position, secretly in love with his best friend’s wife. He did what he thought was best by not getting too close to Juliet, and accidentally betraying his true feelings. It really wasn’t his fault that Juliet suspected that he disliked her.

                  Maybe he didn’t get the balance exactly right, but it was really a tightrope. I think Mark did his best to respect his best friend’s relationship by masking his feelings and acting like everything was as normal as he could.

                2. Bunny Lake Is Found*

                  But at the same time, the other option would have been to cut Peter out of his life. Mark was at least aware enough that he could not be around Juliet without it potentially ending badly. I could see Mark understanding that if he and Juliet spent time together there would inevitably be a moment where she was having a fight with Peter, or was just being super kind and understanding to Mark in a time of need, and Mark might make a move and he could never unring that bell. So he decides to fully cut off any relationship with the girl he is enamored with so he wouldn’t risk losing a more important person in his life–his platonic friend.

            2. Artistic Impulses*

              I think he was just trying to resolve things in an admittedly awkward way with the signs. He acknowledged his feelings, but only after she discovered them.

              I think he was just trying to leave his best friend out of the situation, because he had no intention of trying to come between them, and that would have made things even more awkward.

              No, she never gave any indication she was interested, but before her seeing his wedding video, he never gave any indication of his real feelings for her, either. Before that, he made every effort to keep his distance, to the point that Juliet thought he didn’t like her.

              People obviously see this storyline differently from me. I just see the signs as him admitting that he loved her after she discovered that fact, and trying to let her know in a somewhat humorous way that he would never try to interfere with her marriage. It seemed to me that it was his idea of a creative solution to a knotty problem and get things back to as normal as possible. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but I just don’t see him as a stalker.

              As far as the movie overall, there were certainly a number of questionable work boundaries crossed,with Alan Rickman’s being the most egregious.

            3. Allonge*

              Which is suboptimal, but still not stalking. Stalking is a serious threat to the safety of the stalked person; this was an ew-worthy confession after which the guy walked away.

              1. amoeba*

                Yeah, I wouldn’t call him a stalker either, but I do strongly dislike the “feelings dump” thing. Like, in any context, but I really don’t get how that’s shown as something positive and honest or whatever here.
                At least, yeah, he didn’t do it unprompted but only after he was found out. Props for that, I guess. Still a very weird way.

                2. Allonge*

                  Oh, I am not saying it was a good move! It’s icky. I don’t think it’s meant to be taken as an example of romantic gestures (just as a lot of other things in this movie are not-so-cool relationships!).

                  I liked what they did with this particular one in Red Nose Day Actually, though.

                  But it’s not stalking, just as a lie or two can be really bad but it’s not gaslighthing,

                3. Ellis Bell*

                  I’m with you. It wasn’t anywhere near as serious as stalking, but I really dislike the idea that a man struggling with a crush gets to show up on a woman’s doorstep and present it as a secret between the two of them, or in any way make it her problem instead of just dealing. Go for a run or take a shower or go on some dates or something FFS! Yes, he didn’t do this until she saw the (totally avoidable) face montage of a wedding video, or objected to his (also totally avoidable) shunning of her; but there wasn’t any need to say anything further! I will never understand why she smiled and laughed and kept the secret instead of saying “Oh for goodness sake, put your signs down; honey, can you come talk to your friend about how we all have crushes and it’s no big deal?” “Feelings dump” is the perfect description.

          3. SpaceySteph*

            I don’t mind the Andrew Lincoln storyline but the video he made of the wedding is definitely stalkery. Zoom in close ups of her everywhere… its weird.

          4. Dek*

            Honestly, while I think the signs thing is objectively overstepping, I first saw Love Actually when I was in college and was crushing so hard on a friend that sometimes I cried myself to sleep. But said friend also already had an amazing girlfriend. Like the kind of person you can’t even be jealous of, because they’re such a good couple (still together over a decade later).

            Watching him do the thing where he tells her how he feels, and then walks away telling himself “Enough. Enough now,” was the cathartic moment I needed to get over that. His actions aren’t healthy, but it helped me to watch.

            1. Artistic Impulses*

              This discussion has me thinking way mote about Love Actually than I ever expected to.

              I have come to the conclusion that the film is mostly over the top in a deliberate way. There was occasional realism, but most of it is exaggerated. I don’t think any of the stories were supposed to be taken as a factual depiction. In my opinion, Alan Rickman’s Harry is not supposed to be an all-purpose middle aged man, just a cautionary tale of how a person can blow up their life when they make a really bad choice that they live to regret.

              There were so many over-the-top scenarios. Colin Frissell’s story of finding a beautiful girlfriend anywhere in America was probably the most far-fetched. Billy Mack getting the Christmas #1 hit with his terrible song, just because he appealed to the listeners? Hardly likely, but I enjoyed it.

              Even arguably the saddest story of Sarah and Karl wasn’t that credible. Realistically, Sarah could have taken some time when her phone was turned off so she could have breaks from her mentally ill brother and have some balance in her life. But Richard Curtis wanted to depict a person who was tragically stuck, being accessible to her brother at all times. It might not have been typical, but it was heart-wrenching.

              One of my favorite scenes was hardly based in reality– when the Prime Minister went door to door looking for Natalie. Surely her address would have been available to him. But then we would have missed the delightful scene where the PM and his copper sang Christmas carols for the little girls, and he was so surprised that the copper had such a great singing voice. That scene makes me smile just to think of it.

              Some films are steeped in realism, but Love Actually is not one of them. Just a collection of stories about love from different perspectives.

              My biggest issue in the film was the fat-shaming of Natalie. Even when the movie was first out, that seemed totally unnecessary. The Prime Minister was clearly attracted to her and so was the U.S. President, despite the fact that she wasn’t model skinny. So, I never saw the point of those comments about her size. Even her father called her “Plumpy,” but she was hardly that.

              1. Dek*

                I remember being baffled at the fat-shaming for so many reasons.

                But yes, I love this analysis!

                Sometimes I think a lot of the criticism of Love Actually feels like the “Beauty and the Beast is about stockholm syndrome!” just rehashed, and I think you really nailed what I love about it. It’s so over the top because it’s a fairytale, really. And every actor onscreen is just oozing with charisma and talent.

                Honestly, I kind of loved the bit with Colin because of how utterly stupid and unrealistic it is. You’re waiting the whole time for it to blow up in his face, and then it works out exactly how he thought it would, and somehow that’s just hilarious to me.

                (I was about to say that the Stepfather/Stepson storyline was the most realistic, but then I remembered the kid somehow taught himself drumming in the space of three weeks. Nevermind the gymnastics scene they cut…)

                1. Artistic Impulses*

                  Dek, you really nailed it when you called the film a fairy tale. That’s a perfect description, since almost all the stories had a happy ending. Colin’s story really was ridiculous, wasn’t it? But you have to laugh at the resolution to his ludicrous self-confidence.

                  The Stepfather/Stepson story was so touching to me. Despite the stepfather’s grief, he was so concerned and caring about his stepson’s distress. Yeah, it was a stretch that the kid could become proficient on the drums in three weeks, but oh well. Another fairy tale aspect of the movie, and I didn’t mind it, because the ending beteeen the two kids was so sweet. By the way, what was the gymnastics scene they cut?

        4. A. Nonymous*

          The fact that Keira Knightley was 17 when she filmed that movie/scene makes it even ickier.

      3. Humble Schoolmarm*

        I feel like Colin Firth did okay other than the power imbalance (is he her boss or does she work for the landlady?). Yes, there’s the underwear bit, but it’s the camera that does the slow pan, the rest of the scene is more cute than sexy. They also don’t act on anything before the employment relationship is over and while the big declaration of love happens at work, he does try to do it in private first.
        Sorry, that story, Liam Neeson’s and Martin Freeman’s are my favourites. I’m happy to agree with the messed up bits of the others, but I do love those three.

      1. RedinSC*

        Maybe I’m not remembering it right, but wasn’t the party not at the office, but at a restaurant?

      2. Polyhymnia O’Keefe*

        Do we ever actually see the mistletoe? I’ve seen the movie often enough that I should know. I kind of just assumed there wasn’t actually any mistletoe; she was just being suggestive.

        Or if there was, the party was at the art gallery where Andrew Lincoln’s character’s work was shown, so maybe the mistletoe was a gallery thing, not an office thing.

        1. Sloanicota*

          In the US I don’t think a party at an art gallery of mostly naked or suggestive portraits would fly, but I do think the UK is cooler than us on that point. Plus, I believe it’s a publishing company and they want somewhere “cool.” Even here a small arty place would have different standards IMO.

          1. londonedit*

            Really? You wouldn’t have a party in an art gallery if there were paintings including nudity on the walls? Admittedly I work in publishing and in the UK but that really wouldn’t be a problem here. Probably wouldn’t even be a consideration. Is it a vaguely trendy place? Is there enough space? Can we afford it? Can we bring our own wine? Sorted. I don’t think anyone would even consider what was on the walls – it’s an art gallery, there’s going to be art there and sometimes artists paint/sculpt naked people! Unless it was some sort of disturbing hellscape art then I don’t think anyone would pay the remotest bit of attention.

            1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

              It is specifically an exhibition *about* nudity, though, which I think is different.

              1. amoeba*

                Yeeeeahhh… I mean, I’d find it a bit weird in a case like that. Like, that’s just not something I want to spend hours looking at with my boss and coworkers. And I’m in Europe. Like, of course, an art gallery that has a nude or two somewhere would be absolutely fine. But giant photos of butts all over the place for a company Christmas dinner would fall weirdly here as well.

                But then we’re not young and cool….

                1. UKDancer*

                  Yeah same. I went to a European city with my boss a few years back and we had time for sightseeing. We went to the art gallery and there was an extensive exhibition of female nudes. He and I both felt uncomfortable being there. So we went hurriedly into the landscape section.

                  I’d have no problem having a party in a gallery with nudes with large numbers of people but the combination of it being just is made it feel weird.

              2. Falling Diphthong*

                When I went to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (2019, eagerly anticipated trip) they had an incredible amount of female nudity and virtually no male nudity–eventually I was actively looking for naked men and found a 1-inch high one in the frieze around a door. One nude wouldn’t have fazed me, but the sea of “only ladies get naked” across multiple exhibitions eventually had me feeling uncomfortable.

                The next day I went to the Asian Art Museum, which also had nudity but much more balanced, and I did not feel squicked.

                So I think it’s a fair thing to take into consideration for a work event, if the nudity will be only one subset of the population, implied to be for the viewing pleasure of the more powerful members of the population.

                1. bamcheeks*

                  Of all the galleries which should be displaying homoerotic art, you’d think San Francisco would be up there.

                2. Lenora Rose*

                  Bamcheeks: Does male nudity mean homoerotic, though? Classical art, much more likely, but modern art, not so much.

            2. Salsa Your Face*

              In the US, I think a party at a museum filled with old paintings would be fine. No one cares about a renaissance boob. But modern art nudes, especially photographs, would be a bit iffy.

      1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

        Correct – I’m pretty certain that the reason they have the party there is because she’s organising it less than a month out and nowhere else still has availability.

        1. SpaceySteph*

          Also I think I recall she says her friend works there (Andrew Lincoln, right?) so I she has an in and also helps out a friend.

          1. Sloanicota*

            My point being, we’re to assume she’s the one who puts up the mistletoe in response to the question “why would there be mistletoe at an office party” (and possibly also why she decides photographic nudes are an appropriate theme :D)

          2. Bunny Lake Is Found*

            I feel like that only was in the cut scenes. Because I too recall Andrew Lincoln tearing open the paintings with growing horror at the large format Christmas boobs and bits.

  7. Jillian*

    #1 – I agree with Alison regarding top level management winning expensive prizes. But, especially in manufacturing, middle managers and supervisors who are salaried (exempt) probably make equally to or less than their direct reports. Most production workers can make a significant amount in overtime, weekend bonuses, night bonuses, and holiday pay; salaried workers don’t have this perk. Professional employees – engineers, sales, marketing, etc. – are highly paid and don’t necessarily supervise anyone. It can be pretty demoralizing when a first time supervisor realizes.

    1. Gyroscope*

      Agreed, also I wouldn’t normally think of product managers as “managers” despite the name, but maybe that varies by company

      1. A Simple Narwhal*

        Yes my title has manager in it, think “Senior Toothbrush Manager”, but I don’t manage people, I manage the toothbrushes.

    2. FanciestCat*

      Yeah, places I’ve worked executives always sat out but middle managers participated, and I don’t think it really bothered anyone since middle manager pay was closer to line staff pay than executive pay. If the opposite was true it probably would have been different.

    3. Lisa*

      Totally agree with this. I’m in tech and at my company, at every level of management – except for exec-level – there are individual contributors earning the same salary (although higher levels tend to be more dominated by managers than ICs). I don’t feel that middle managers should be any less entitled to perks like this than I am.

      1. GythaOgden*

        Supervising and managing people is also pretty taxing in its own right. My mum might have been well-paid, but the intensity of the workload even when she was a voluntary school governor (and thus responsible for hiring people to be in charge of children etc) was pretty significant, never mind in her role as school head, where she always gave 110% to the kids in her charge.

        She was well compensated, but I daresay she earned it as well.

    4. Frailty*

      In my cousin’s job the low level managers (supervisors) usually make less than their reports. Usually staff look to these positions when they can’t keep up with the physical demands of the role who often get piece rates.

      In other companies I know, management is a job role and can be less senior in pay than the tech experts they manage.

      I can understand the CEO not being in the draw, but excluding managers just causes a different round of resentment. Manager doesn’t mean rich in many places.

      1. Sloanicota*

        It sounds like this company has a huuuge divide between the blue and white collar workers; I’m picturing the Dunder Mifflin warehouse staff or something. That being the case, the raffle organizer should probably have put more thought into how this would play out, maybe with a special warehouse draw or something. A competitive prize is not the route to mending those particular fences IMO. A secret santa might have been a better choice.

      2. Oof and Ouch*

        I came here to say something similar. We had a raffle at a former workplace that worked out to have a lot of middle managers and professionals win a vast majority of the prizes compared to the guys who worked the floor (I personally won a TV). I was a manager. I was also not making significantly more than my reports and we were all underpaid, so if someone had said “oh sorry, you can’t participate in the raffle because of your title” I would have been very very unhappy knowing there were people who were allowed to participate who also made more than I did.

    5. Falling Diphthong*

      I think for a generic grouping of workers, it helps if the prizes are along the lines of a nice box of chocolates–something people could buy for themselves but often don’t. If you introduce really big prizes–let’s say a flat-out $5000 cash–then you need really good existing bonhomie amongst everyone plus trust in the people running the raffle.

    6. Bibliothecarial*

      I remember being pretty salty one year in the 2010s when my former employer announced they were giving raises for the “production” staff (as they should!) but not for admin as the budget was tight and we admin could afford to skip a year to give it to the production staff. I was admin – an admin assistant – and I made about $10 an hour. I was otherwise very well treated there and they did boost my pay without me asking, but this always has stuck in my craw.

  8. Chris*

    #2, credit scores generally respond to changes in credit utilization fairly quickly (within a month), so you can at least rest assured that this isn’t going to have a long-term impact on your credit score. If you are planning to apply for a loan or do something else that depends on your credit score, ask them to take you off the account a couple of months beforehand and your score should bounce back up.

    1. Letter Writer #2*

      Thanks for the advice! Now that there’s been some time since I initially wrote in- you are right, I do see it fluctuate pretty quickly, trending down when we start to build up a higher balance and coming back up when we do make a payment. Good idea about planning ahead for anything that would depend on my credit score!

      1. AskJeeves*

        Ask if you can be taken off the card entirely! You should be able to use a corporate credit card without being an authorized user.

        1. Just Thinkin' Here*

          Agreed – since OP 2 has no control over repayment this is a liability, not a benefit.

        2. Cmdrshprd*

          100% this, I’ve worked in multiple companies where I have been able to use a corporate card without being an authorized user/having my name on it.

          In one company it was my bosses name on the card. I just had a copy of the CC info, card number, expiration, cvv, billing address, and name. I just had to keep track of the receipts and submit them. In this case I never really had the card, just used it to buy stuff online. On occasion that it required me to have the physical card for an in person purchase the boss would just give it to me and I knew the pin code for the card. I never got carded with it, but I was never making huge in person purchases.

          In another company the corporate card didn’t even have a persons name on it, it just had the company name. Same thing I had a copy of the information and could use it online to pay for things. I then sent the receipts to our AP department.

      2. Bridget*

        You might also be able to call the reporting agency and simply have it removed from your credit report without being removed as an AU. I’m on the peripheries of the “churning” community and this is what they advise when a card listing you as an authorized user appears on your credit report (because number of cards on your report can affect approvals for other cards).

  9. TMcL*

    #2: The drop in your credit score might be because you paid off your student loans! When I finally paid mine off, my score went down, much to my surprise. It turns out the credit bureaux consider the paying-off of student loans as “the closing of a longstanding account” and lower your sore accordingly. The good news is, that drop doesn’t last long, as long as you’re doing everything else right.

    I recommend pulling your own free credit report to see what factors they list as significant to your current score.

    1. Higgs Bison*

      Yeah, counterintuitive results are common in credit scores, especially when you’re dealing with thin credit files (few types of credit in use).

      1. Higgs Bison*

        Also, another reason paying off a loan early can lower your score is that closed accounts won’t count toward your current accounts, meaning that you’ll have less variety in your types of credit (aka a thin file) and a larger ratio of currently owed balances to amount of credit extended. The ways all of this can affect your credit are pretty opaque, but people in certain online communities related to credit have teased out some of the apparent rules.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        I’ve had my score (high, long history) fluctuate for absolutely no discernible reason, since I hadn’t changed my spending. The ostensible reasons were head scratching because, again, no different from what I’d done in the past few months.

        1. Ellis Chumsfanleigh*

          That’s me. I pay my credit cards down to zero pretty much every day but my most recent monthly score went from 824 to 819 because my credit utilization went from 0% to 1% after I went 4 days without paying down one of my credit cards.

          Having a balance of $1600 for four days (out of a total credit line of $55,000 across three cards) dropped my score a full 5 points.

          My only other debt is student loans and a mortgage.

          1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

            This is likely untrue. I think you’re monitoring a ton and concluding that any change has a meaning other than randomness. It’s like reading tea leaves.

            My credit score will fluctuate by 12-15 points when nothing at all changes. I pay in full every month, but don’t care, because the exact number doesn’t matter as much as the category (Good/Very Good/Excellent)

            There is no reason to pay your cards that often.

            1. Damn it feels good to be a government or nonprofit professional*

              You are correct! Creditors typically only furnish data to the credit bureaus once a month. So your score reflects a snapshot of whatever status/balance you had at the moment your credit card sent information to the bureaus. You’re wasting your time logging in daily to pay your bill – just set it to autopay the balance in full every month and don’t sweat the small fluctuations.

    2. bamcheeks*

      Does this kind of drop really make a difference, though? In my experience (UK, mid-forties), REALLY BAD credit scores of the kind that you get from defaulting and missing payments are a major problem, but the kind of general ups and downs you get from paying off loans early or carrying balances don’t really make much difference to your ability to get other credit.

      The only credit I’ve ever had is a student loans, a student overdraft and a single credit card that I rarely carry a balance on, and I’ve been told that I’d have a better credit score if I carried a balance or took out other loans like a car loan or something. But my credit score has never had an impact on me getting a mortgage or re-mortgaging, so worrying about the detail and the specific number seems a bit pointless.

      1. Higgs Bison*

        The thing about carrying a balance is mostly a myth. Technically, having 10 cards and no balance on any of them when they report to the credit bureaus seems to give a slightly lower fico score than having a $10 balance on one, but it’s just a few points.

        Whether or not you have a balance when the statement hits it’s a good idea to pay it fully by the due date if you can swing it (unless you’re taking advantage of a 0 percent promo), but for the currently used scoring models you generally shouldn’t have a major impact from letting a balance under 30 percent of your limit hit your statement, and that doesn’t usually matter much until you’re about to seek a loan or other credit (only exception I’m aware of is that some insurance companies use fico score as one of their factors for underwriting, which still only matters when it’s time to switch or renew).

      2. Phryne*

        TIL the UK has credit scores. I thought they were an US thing. We don’t have them in the Netherlands. You can have bad credit of course, by having outstanding debts, but that is not a score on a scale, it either is negative or positive…

        1. bamcheeks*

          Definitely a thing in the UK, but not something I’ve ever heard anyone *worry* about. I don’t know if ours are more forgiving than the US or whether people just generally carry less debt, though.

          1. londonedit*

            I can never really work out how legit they are. There are all sorts of companies promising to ‘give you your credit score’ and ‘help you improve your credit score’ but I’m never 100% certain which scores are actually used by lenders and how much your apparent score on ClearScore or whatever actually matters. I’ve never particularly bothered with mine and I’ve never had anyone mention it when I’ve come to rent a flat or whatever.

            1. bamcheeks*

              I feel like UK ones are more binary (bad / good enough) than the US ones are? I know people with very bad credit scores get turned down for mainstream forms of credit and having to go to less reputable and more predatory types of lender. But I’ve never heard of this thing of three or four different interest rates depending on your exact score.

              1. Beth**

                In the UK, each lender will have its own criteria rather than there being a single agreed credit scoring methodology carried out by a third party the way there is in the US.

                The lender assessment can definitely affect the amount of credit you are offered and your interest rate. This probably shows up more on credit cards and personal loans than mortgages, where a larger proportion of applicants get the headline rate and the security against the house and affordability checks affect the size of loan, rather than credit scores.

            2. General von Klinkerhoffen*

              I don’t think potential lenders look at your score but rather at your full history. The score is more for regular mortals to get a handle on how attractive they are to those lenders.

              So a bit like where your BMI gives you a clue about your cardiac risk (say) but your doctor wants to measure your actual blood pressure and do an ECG.

          2. amoeba*

            Germany has a similar system as well (which sucks, actually!), but from what I’ve seen on US media, it has waaaaayy less influence on your life than a credit score in the US.
            Most people just have a “neutral” one and for most cases it just gets checked that you don’t have any “bad entries”. (Also taking out and regularly paying back a loan is not actually a negative! Only if you miss payments and it goes to debt collection…)

      3. Snow Globe*

        Paying off a student loan shouldn’t lead to a *bad* score, but if you only have a couple of other accounts, it can negatively impact the score, and could bring it down from, say, a pretty strong score to a medium-high score; still good enough to get approved for new credit, but not quite strong enough to get a lower interest rate.

      4. ecnaseener*

        Sure, it doesn’t matter much if LW’s score dropped from 750 to 650, but if it was previously just okay then those 100 points might be significant.

        1. Credit annoyance*

          I’m in a postion where 100 points would be the difference between getting housing or not. Over the last few years I have grown to hate the system. It’s been one long back and forth battle after having an incident of getting severely sick and losing a month of income. It has been the reason I couldn’t be on the lease due to some Debt that creditors can’t legally collect on. I also had issues in the past where I had a dispute over a debt with a dentist and instead of sending me an itemized bill they dentist sold the debt to a debt collector. I got the debt waived after a class action lawsuit but that ruined my credit for nearly a year.

      5. Sloanicota*

        The UK system of mortgages is so different that I’m not sure how they relate to each other TBH. In the US, your credit score doesn’t matter much until the day you want to take out a loan, but then it can be a really big deal, sometimes with firm cutoffs like “only people above 750 get this rate.” It literally costs you money over the life of the loan, which can be 30 years, to be below that number. It’s not just house loans, it can be a better rate on car loans or credit card offers. I’ve also had it affect my ability to rent an apartment, but that was only when I was first starting out.

        1. Silence Will Fall*

          In addition to impacting your ability to rent an apartment, your credit score can also impact utilities (lower scores may require a large deposit to start service) and car/homeowners/rental insurance (rates will be lower for those with higher credit scores).

      6. YetAnotherAnalyst*

        It really depends! What was the credit score before, what are the current interest rates, how does the timing work with what you’re planning on doing, etc. Depending on what the starting interest rate was, dropping 100 points could mean paying an extra $60-$160k on median house in my state as you land in different interest tiers. On a car loan it may double the interest (or more, if you would’ve qualified for 0% apr). Dropping below a set threshold can mean not qualifying for a desirable apartment, or paying higher insurance premiums (evidently being broke is “risky” behavior). If an emergency purchase comes up, it can be the difference between “0% promotional rate” and 20% financing on your new furnace…. Or, if you had an excellent score to start with, you’re not making any major purchases in the next few months, and nothing unexpected breaks, then it could be barely a blip on the radar.

      7. YetAnotherAnalyst*

        Also, at least in the US, credit score is one of those things we use to enforce class boundaries. A savvy parent with good credit can put their kids as authorized users on a long-running credit card and boost their scores significantly – suddenly your 18-year-old has 15 years of credit history! It makes early adulthood Much Cheaper. Otherwise you have to game the system and juggle multiple credit cards until your score rises “naturally” in your 30s.

        1. Super Duper Credit Card User*

          Just last night my college aged son was telling me that his friends don’t believe him when he says he has an 800+ credit score. He’s very good with money on his own but it’s partly because I added him to a 20 yr old credit card with no balance and a high limit.

          Unrelated, what kind of kids are flexing their credit scores on each other?!

          1. Database Developer Dude*

            Flexing credit scores on each other is a GOOD thing. It motivates them to take actions that will raise their scores. I’d rather see people flexing their credit scores than flexing stuff that encourages foolish actions…

      8. Jezebella*

        It can make a difference, yes. For example, my last landlords didn’t charge me a full deposit because my credit score was over XXX. If it had fluctuated below that number that week, I would’ve had to pay the deposit.

    3. The Cosmic Avenger*

      It’s a great idea to check, as you can get 1 free credit report per bureau per year, or one every 4 month if you rotate. But it’s likely their employer’s credit affecting their score, since it’s common advice to parents of college students to add the student as an authorized user on the parents’ credit card in order to help them build their own credit.

    4. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      It most likely is the credit card. I am the authorized user on one of my husband’s cards. I am not a co-signer. My score fluctuates in direct connection to when he pays the bill. We don’t carry balances and pay off our cards, every week to 2 weeks. So I can see the direct effect.

    5. just here for the scripts*

      Yeah it’s not just the credit/usage ratio but also the type of credit. Our credit ratings went down once we paid off our mortgage! Like by 30-50 points each! We were told that the “timed” loan of a mortgage is ranked differently from credit card debt (I’m also assuming secured nature of a mortgage vs the unsecured nature of credit card had something to do with it too).

      1. Old Cynic*

        Absolutely correct. Credit Karma keeps telling me that I can raise my FICO score by adding a car loan and a personal loan to the mix. (I only have a mortgage and a couple credit cards.)

    6. Letter Writer #2*

      Thanks for the advice everyone! Great comments in this thread. As another poster said above, I do notice the fluctuations tend to cycle with payments, dropping when we get to a higher balance and rising once we pay it off, but paying off the student loans definitely could have been a factor that I didn’t even notice. I didn’t even think of that in the initial panic of “oh no my score is dropping and I don’t know why!”. And that’s good to know that credit reports will tell you which factors are more important/significant than others!

    7. Lurker*

      Was coming here to post the same thing. When my student loans were forgiven via the PSLF, my score dropped about 40 points. I didn’t have any other debt and always pay my credit card balances in full every month. That was literally the only thing that changed. It’s been over two years any my score still hasn’t gone as high as it was. (We’re talking 800 and above, so obviously not a major problem, but still a bummer to me.)

    8. But what to call me?*

      Yes, something similar happened to mine, though not by 100 points. I’m so annoyed about it! I have less debt now and therefore a worse credit score. It’s ridiculous! And now each month one of the top “problems” listed on the credit score my bank provides is the lack of recent installment loan payments… because I have no more installment loans, because I paid it off. You’d think paying off past debt would be a good sign about your ability to pay off future debt, but apparently not.

    10. KED*

      This happened to me when I paid off my loans– I was surprised and dismayed at the time, but it didn’t have a long term impact on my scores

  10. IT Person*

    #3 – I recommend running it from a web browser, not from the app.

    Most of the time, it’s not going to matter in the slightest, and you would have to have VERY badly configured tracking software to trigger from any NSFW music (unless it had a very gratuitous title).

    Unless you work for a very micro-managing company, most aren’t going to care you accessed YouTube or Spotify from it, regardless of the content. But definitely do it from the browser rather than the app.

    1. bamcheeks*

      Why is that? Most work computers I’ve had wouldn’t let you download the app, but one did and I found that using Spotify through the app seemed to be less memory heavy than going through the browser, so that’d be my preference.

      1. MCMonkeyBean*

        A lot of companies just don’t want you downloading any apps onto your work computer without permission. Pretty common to have blanket rules like that to try to minimize the risk of people downloading malicious software.

        1. bamcheeks*

          Oh yes, I understand that part. I was just wondering why IT Person was recommending using the browser if downloading apps *isn’t* banned and the user has the choice.

          1. Cmdrshprd*

            Not IT Person but just because OP was able to DL does not mean it was banned. Also even if it is not banned may not be a great idea.

            I once had a computer that had full admin privileges, it was not supposed to, the person who set it up forgot to set it. All other computers at the company had admin restrictions. But mine was able to DL programs without permission. I never downloaded anything unless it was necessary and used browser version of apps if possible.

            Plus from a HDD side, using the browser takes up less memory on the computer.

            I do this on my phone also, if possible I try to use web browser logins for most “apps” instead of wasting my phone memory downloading store specific apps.
            Think mobile banking apps, pharmacy store app, restaurant online ordering etc….

          2. IT Person*

            Just because you *can* doesn’t mean you *should*. The fewer unnecessary apps you have installed on your computer, the better. You know why we want you to do updates all the time? The application has a security issue and it needs to be fixed.

    2. lilsheba*

      That is exactly what I do, I run the web browser version of Spotify, I have for YEARS on my work computers. No problem at all it works great!

    3. Baffled*

      From Alison: “If your company objects to you using Spotify from a work computer, they can tell you that (and that would likely just be a simple notification to stop, not something you’d be in any real trouble for, assuming you don’t have an existing policy against downloading non-work apps).”

      From IT Person: “Unless you work for a very micro-managing company, most aren’t going to care you accessed YouTube or Spotify from it, regardless of the content.”

      Do not. repeat, do not stream on company bandwidth or download apps to company equipment.

      Maybe you could get away with this in a small business or non-profit, but middle-large-F500 companies subject to any kind of regulations will absolutely monitor such things. Every company I’ve worked for has included caveats about streaming and downloading in company handbooks. Some have blocked the ability to download apps across the board, and even blocked streaming web browsers.

      My current company monitors the calls to common streaming services from the company network, cutting them within a few minutes of stream start. You bet repeat offenders are elevated to managers. It can become an HR issue subject to termination depending on your role and your proximity to secure systems and data.

      Security is important. Bandwidth costs money. Equipment costs money. If you wanna listen to Spotify that’s fine – just stream it from your device using your data.

      1. OP #3*

        I don’t think I’m using company bandwidth (though I don’t know much about IT so I could be wrong). My computer is not a VPN, it’s on my own home wifi which I pay for. I’ve never had any issues with things loading slowly or anything like that as a result of playing music. And my organization doesn’t work with any highly-secure data or anything like that. Our security protocols are the basic, commonsense “don’t email draft/sensitive documents to random people outside the company.” But I may be missing a nuance here!

        1. David*

          It’s primarily the internet connection you’re on that determines whose bandwidth is getting used. So as you suspected, it’s your bandwidth, not the company’s.

          If the computer is connected to the company’s VPN, then that might complicate things because the VPN can “redirect” internet traffic to go through someone else’s internet connection – either the VPN provider’s connection, or your company’s – but a lot of VPN software these days is “smart” enough to exclude regular websites from that kind of redirection. (Sometimes it will even give you a choice: typically “split” means that non-company websites will skip the redirection and come straight from the internet, whereas “full” means they will be redirected.) So basically, if a VPN is involved then it depends on how the VPN software is set up, but there’s a decent chance you’re not using your company’s bandwidth anyway.

          Personally I think Baffled’s take on this is quite alarmist. As they said, some companies (especially larger ones) are very strict about this stuff and others are not, but you have a straightforward way to check which case applies in *your* company, namely by checking their IT policies and/or asking their IT or security team. And once you find out, there’s no sense in getting hung up on how some other company does it. (Though, it is still a good idea to be careful with what you install on a company computer, or any computer; there are lots of shady apps out there that are e.g. computer viruses in disguise. But something as well established as Spotify – as long as it is the real Spotify – isn’t going to give you a virus.)

      2. IT Person*

        If they’re not strict enough to prevent the app being downloaded to begin with, I doubt they’re being anal about bandwidth.

        I work for a rural ag company. We have very limited bandwidth at most of our sites. We shape non-essential traffic. Heck, even night-shift people watch Netflix.

        If there’s no policies in place for it, then it’s a forgiveness-permission issue. If this was 2010, I’d wholeheartedly agree with you about not using precious bandwidth. But in current-year, the policies are either in place, or the measures are in place.

        Furthermore, the OP said “at home”. They might be using a VPN, they might just be accessing cloud resources, it might be Remote Desktop. Without any information, we can’t really speculate on “who’s bandwidth is this”.

    1. allathian*

      Yeah, although why the company should care what their employee listens to when they’re WFH is utterly beyond me. If there’s a risk of someone else hearing what you’re listening to, it’s obviously a different matter. Best to stick to something fairly inoffensive to avoid offending people. However, I’d rather listen to gangsta rap or death metal than Christian rock if I can’t have silence, so what counts as offensive definitely depends on the person. Explicit lyrics are fine by me as long as they aren’t describing sexual violence, which is why I don’t voluntarily listen to gangsta rap, either.

      That said, I can’t go online from home with my work computer without using the company VPN, and our IT department has blocked the use of streaming services to reserve bandwidth for things like video meetings. We have our own streaming video platform for training videos, but pretty much everything else is blocked.

    2. Helvetica*

      Yes, I was going to say the same (under settings and content preference).
      On the whole, the company will not care, especially since you are at home and no one can reasonably hear your music and then object to it.
      I am not an IT expert but I’d assume the most they flag is that you are using Spotify and they will not devote resources to figuring out which songs you listen to and whether those are NSFW or not.

      1. Busy IT*

        Yeah this is correct. Any company that would give a damn about lyrics would most likely tell you that you can’t have Spotify installed and/or running. IT has better things to do than check what music was streaming.

        When it comes to web monitoring, most IT departments are looking for things that are a threat and have flags set up based on a database. It would take way too much effort to reconstruct a Spotify session just to find out what LW guilty pleasure songs are.

        1. OP #3*

          Thank you all! I did look into a content filter for Spotify… don’t know how I missed that it exists. This will be really helpful when playing music for the kids too :)

  12. Dark Macadamia*

    Cracking myself up imagining that line delivery by Alan Rickman.

    Hopefully…. NOT… by a COlleague. (withering stare)

      1. AlexandrinaVictoria*

        He was my movie star boyfriend. I mourn the years of stellar work from him that we’ve lost.

  13. LifeBeforeCorona*

    At one workplace it always worked out that management won the good prizes. Everyone else got the low value gift cards or cheap stocking stuffers. It was so obvious that when the raffle draw started people would quietly drift away. At my partner’s workplace management were not allowed to win gifts over a certain value so the lower echelon people had a higher chance at the better prizes. The difference in morale and employee retention was stark.

    1. Sloanicota*

      Ugh we had a terrible raffle at my work event (so it was for our DONORS, I am the only one in the org who cares about such things) where admittedly low-level employees entered and won the raffle. They should have been excluded, IMO. Not a great look for the crowd of supporters for employees to win.

    2. urguncle*

      The second month that our supposed “morale-boosting” gift card program was announced, a director, probably making close to, if not over $200k annually, got the $100 gift card prize. I brought it up with another director and said it was probably inappropriate and instead of excluding one person, they scrapped the project altogether.

    3. AskJeeves*

      I’m still salty over a raffle years ago at a conference hosted by my organization. The CEO’s teenage daughter was allowed to enter the raffle and then won the top prize, which had been donated by a foundation we worked with. Even worse, the daughter wasn’t in the room for the drawing, so technically we should have redrawn, but the CEO jumped up and claimed it on behalf of the daughter before anyone could say anything. It was not a good look in front of the conference attendees.

  14. Coverage Associate*

    Re #1, my old job addressed this by excluding all managers and persons not on payroll (which would include short term temps hired through an agency, but maybe not someone covering parental leave) and having raffle tickets be purchased, with the money going to charity. You could purchase tickets for yourself, but mostly you bought them to give to coworkers. It had the advantage of weighing the raffle towards the most popular admins.

    It had the problems of the popularity contest and the money at work, I acknowledge, but I felt that was alleviated by no one knowing how many tickets you received and the randomness of the raffle.

    Maybe there could still be a weighted raffle, but with tickets awarded in another way, like employees get a ticket for each week they’re on time every day, or some other behavior management wants to encourage/reward in a small way. That gets rid of the popularity contest and makes it unlikely new employees will win too many prizes. (Sucks for the new people, but a lot of things suck for the new people. I never cared about the raffles enough to care about the popularity contest or whether I was “cheated” because I was new.)

    1. Rusty Shackelford*

      That actually sounds horrible. You can win prizes if you’re rich enough to buy your own tickets, or popular enough to receive them from others?

  15. Not a credit expert*

    #2. The drop of your credit score may be partially impacted by you paying off that loan. It’s silly, but when you close out long standing accounts it can negatively impact your score. Especially since, for most people with student loans, your student loan account is your oldest account and (apparently) closing it out makes your credit history look much shorter than it is (based on my limited understanding).

    As to your question, you can maybe see if the credit limit can be raised on your card(s). This may be something you can do on your personal card as well. Essentially, if you raise your limits, your utilization % should be reduced, assuming your actual spending level remains the same.

    Once again, this is all so silly!

    1. Higgs Bison*

      Yeah, credit scores are a weird beast. Paying off loans early can mess with your age of credit and the diversity of your credit types, both of which can seemingly paradoxically lower your score. The Reddit community r/personalfinance and the myfico forums have some good basic primers of the counterintuitive world of credit scoring.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Yeah I mean, the credit score is not always a measure of overall worthiness … originally it was a way for credit card companies to assess who they thought they could make money on. Credit companies make money on people who can pay off the loan eventually, but will also pay a lot of interest payments (IE, not necessarily the wisest consumers regarding their own self-interest).

    2. Jules*

      My husband paid off his mortgage and his score dropped about 40 points. And he has a 30 year history.

    3. Letter Writer #2*

      Thank you! Someone else commented this too and I think that probably did affect it as well and I just missed happening at the same time as the up-down fluctuations around the work card payments. Also great tip about the raising the credit limit! So much of this is really counterintuitive to me, and you all are so helpful. I will definitely be checking out the r/personalfinance :)

    4. MCMonkeyBean*

      Yeah, I have an old Dillard’s credit card that I opened ages ago and I want to close it because I never use it and don’t really monitor it… but it’s one of my oldest cards and somehow also one of my cards with the highest credit limit. I have no idea why Dillard’s gave me that much credit lol

  16. European pragmatist*

    Yeah, the only possible issue with Spotify is whether you are allowed to use it at all (you probably are). I can’t imagine the company will care what songs you are listening to unless your colleagues can also hear them.

    Has your company said what kinds of activities they want to monitor with the tracking software? I could see it being potentially problematic if they want to monitor, for example, your mouse activity to determine how long you are away from the computer. (I assume they won’t be installing keyloggers, that would be outrageous!)

    1. Daisy-dog*

      I have had an employer who explicitly banned any streaming services – music or video – in our terms of use.

      It’s definitely a good idea to confirm what they are going to be tracking. I would just ask my manager before the tracking software is implemented: “Is listening to Spotify on my computer okay? I use it to help me focus and don’t want to have my personal devices near me to use it.” (And not even mention the content of the songs.)

    2. OP #3*

      They said they’re implementing the oversight/tracking to enable automatic security updates and downloads of new company-provided software through IT, rather than having individual staff do that (or not do it when they need to). There was no mention of tracking or monitoring, though I know that may be the kind of thing they don’t want to publicize. But my organization is generally reasonable and our head of IT in particular is great, so I’d be shocked if they monitored mouse activity or did anything else micromanage-y.

  17. Higgs Bison*

    Re #2, it mostly depends on the issuer. I’m part of some online communities that relate to credit cards, and their data points indicate that most credit issuers don’t report business credit cards to the personal credit bureaus (unless there’s a default or some other serious negative mark). However, a few do. Notably, Capital One is one of the few that tends to report business cards to the consumer credit bureaus.

  18. Sun*

    Ugh, thanks for validating my extreme disappointment at our Christmas hamper raffle being won by our CEO who has been on sick leave for 6 months but showed up to the Christmas party! Everyone else seemed so happy for them and I felt like a giant grinch.

  19. Lisekit*

    My take on #5 is the secretary is emboldened to flirt at work and at the party because they’re already having an affair. I don’t think it stems from what we see on screen, I think it starts well beforehand; the emotional punch is that Emma Thompson discovers it at Christmas.

    1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      That doesn’t fit with me because it’s made clear that she only just started with the company (in the full script she was originally the same woman as cheated on Colin Firth at the beginning, fwiw).

      I also think it’s good storytelling that from his perspective he didn’t actively do anything, it was all Mia – but Emma Thompson’s big emotional speech is directed solely at him, because however passive he thought he was HE was the one who betrayed her.

  20. Kiki Is The Most*

    LW#2 You mentioned that you were an authorized user on your mom’s credit card, too. Please make sure you’ve been fully removed from this account. While it may not seem like it affects your credit score, the cc company can demand the balance/payments from you in the event of her passing. If there is a balance, then they can report it on your credit history, too. (Speaking from experience).

    1. doreen*

      An authorized user isn’t responsible to pay off the card and if I die owing a balance on my credit card, my heirs are not responsible for paying it off. But my estate is going to have to pay off the balance assuming that I leave any assets , so the person who inherits my house might have to pay off the credit card to avoid selling the house. But if I die leaving nothing behind except debt and there are no co-borrowers , the credit card company is out of luck.

      1. Kiki Is The Most*

        I realize it may depend on state as well; however, I was on my father’s cc as a teenager (though I never used it). Cut to a few years later (and having forgotten all about this), he was carrying a large balance on this card when he passed away. The cc company somehow dug up my old information, and then threatened to report it to the credit bureau if I did not start making the payments. The burden was on me to prove I did not rack up this debt nor have to pay on it, and I needed an attorney’s help to do so.

    2. Jennifer Strange*

      Seconding. My credit score took a hit when my parents had to make large purchases after their house was hit by a hurricane. That’s how I found out I was still on their credit card.

    3. Letter Writer #2*

      Thank you! Yes, I was definitely removed and she actually closed that account a few months later as well. But great advice!!

    4. Wired Wolf*

      About 20 years ago, my mom convinced me to make her an authorized user on one of my credit cards…that was fine when she was actually contributing to the monthly payments, but now AAARGH. I’m listed as an authorized user on one of her credit cards and there’s no need for it beyond making her score look better (and mine look worse if she decides to miss a payment).

  21. pandop*

    #1 – working in the public sector in the UK, our Christmas raffle never had anything really big, as all the prizes were donated, so there was no problem with management winning items, in fact it became a ‘tradition’ for the deputy librarian to win the ‘novelty Christmas hat’ (supplied by another member of senior management), even if he didn’t buy a ticket. He was a good sport and duly modelled it during the party.

  22. CountryLass*

    #5 I would have suggested that if he felt the need to have a meeting with her about it, he include someone from HR or one of his peers from another department (who do not have authority over her) and make it clear that X is here as an observant party only, to ensure that nothing inappropriate is said or done by either side, as is for the protection of both parties. The meeting would either be recorded or the observer takes minutes and a copy is sent to both parties to agree it’s accuracy. Slightly overkill, yes, but the best way to protect himself.

  23. Emily*

    #3- Spotify has an explicit filter! I once left it kind on for months while handling a political campaign event music. I am unable to listen to music with lyrics while working- I listen to bardcore pop covers

    #4- I don’t know how old you are but if you can swing it financially, I’ve learned that best time to vacation/staycation/ not work is a one or two week gap between jobs whenever possible,

  24. Engineer*

    Credit score reporting is such a load of whooey. Pay off a loan? Score drops. Keep a small balance on a loan? Score drops. Get a loan on a tangible asset? Score drops, then raises. Credit card balance is well under 30% utilization but higher than it was last month? Score drops.

    My bank has a widget that estimates credit score and breaks down why it might drop and how certain factors are weighed – credit age, variety, missed payments, balance owed, and inquiries. As others have pointed out, paying off your school loan likely had a larger impact on your score than you realize, as that just lopped off 4-5 years from the credit age (an older average credit age is good, since it means you aren’t regularly taking out loans).

    However, since you are an authorized user of the company card, that will be reflected in usage and credit age – so staying on will ding you, but getting taken off will also ding you. You need to do some future planning and try to determine which scenario will impact you more based on how else you’ll use your credit in 6 months – 1 year.

    And yes, also determine if you can be held liable for balances owed on the card if the company defaults.

    1. Letter Writer #2*

      “Credit score reporting is such a load of whooey” Yes it definitely is! Just seems so counterintuitive to me, but I’m learning a lot from Alison and all the commenters here!

    2. Old Cynic*

      Here’s another crazy thing about it. I have one card I use for specific home improvement items. It’s on autopay for the full balance. I got a notice from Credit Karma that my score dropped 27 points when I charged $4000. Then the next month I got a notice that my score increased 22 points because I paid the balance off. Still don’t understand the score difference there.

    3. Danish*

      I remember this every time I check what’s dragging my score down, and it’s because I have below average number of cards. Suggestion for raising my score was to open several more which seems… Irresponsible?

  25. Ole Pammy's Getting What She Wants*

    OP2, it’s also very possible that paying off your loans affected your score as well. It can take about a month for a major event (like paying off large loans) to affect your credit score, and closing line of credit (like loans) will have a negative impact, though it seems counterintuitive.

    1. Melissa*

      Yes! My credit score dropped a TON this year because I paid off my house! It’s totally backwards, because of course I should now be a much better credit risk, since I have all this extra money. But not the way their calculations work.

      1. Engineer*

        “You now own tangible asset? You no longer pay us for tangible asset? Credit drop for consumer! Credit drop for consumer for 1000 years!”

    2. Letter Writer #2*

      Yes, I didn’t even think of that! Thank you! And yes, it all seems so counterintuitive to me, so I’m very thankful to Alison and all the commenters here giving wonderful advice!

    3. Cat Tree*

      Yeah, the whole thing is an awful game, and I say that as someone with a big credit score. When I bought my house 10 years ago I was carrying a car loan, student loan, and a small elective medical debt that I only financed because it had 0% interest. All of that is paid off, and my only debt more is my mortgage, plus a credit card that I use frequently and pay in full each month.

      I’m about to buy a new car and I’m in the position to pay cash, which I prefer because I don’t want to pay interest. But I’m also considering buying a new house in the next couple years. My actual credit score is still quite high, over 800. But I’m concerned that the mortgage companies won’t see a variety of debts and that will count against me during financing. My last car had 0% financing but that was a rare set of circumstances so I doubt I can get that again. So I can pay interest for my car now in hopes of getting a better mortgage rate, or I can pay cash now and risk getting a worse mortgage.

      (And yes, I realize how privileged I am to have this specific problem.)

      1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

        It really does work best when you can treat it like some sort of absurd game. But that takes time, and money, and knowledge of a bunch of financial trivia… which is, unfortunately, probably a feature rather than a bug.

      2. Not my real name*

        It might be worthwhile to make an appointment with a lender and get their input on this.

  26. Melissa*

    You definitely shouldn’t exclude temps/new employees from the raffle! Honestly, people just like to complain. The high-level managers (not product managers) committed a faux pas by accepting, but otherwise you don’t get to pick and choose who wins raffles.

  27. Creditcardwoes*

    #2 – Former lawyer here in the US. I used to practice in debt collection, and it was common to see carriers and debt buyers sue authorized users on business cards. many card agreements at the time (business and personal) said that anyone who uses it is jointly liable for the charges to the card (best case) or for the entire balance of the account (worst case). Also many point of sale agreements you sign at a store or a check box at checkout said you personally agree to the charges. I know there have been some changes in the years since, but it was surprisingly draconian. Being on a small business’s credit card account can be risky.

    1. Creditcardwoes*

      Hopefully things have changed!

      You can also try disputing the credit item with the various credit bureaus, let them know it is not your account, you are an authorized user without any payment authority or account control, and that all charges are general business charges and not personal ones. It may help, or it may not. Even if they decline to take off the item from your report, you are allowed (in the US at least) to have them put a statement from you on the item explaining it is not really yours.

      That will not resolve the potential liability issue if that still applies, but it may resolve the immediate credit utilization issue.

    2. Sloanicota*

      Wow, that seems insane, I hope that’s not still the case or at least that there’s a better practice now for allowing employees to use a work card. I generally prefer to be an authorized user because the alternative used to be making me, a low-level, underpaid employee, front the company my personal money on expensive things like hotel stays, gas, and even flights. This also meant it was my liability if a receipt went missing (which was how the company preferred it) – “oh well, you can’t provide an acceptable receipt, then I guess we won’t be reimbursing you those costs, too bad!”

    4. Governmint Condition*

      How about having a credit card issued by your government employer, and your government can’t agree on a budget, so there’s a shutdown and bills are not paid? How badly can this end for the employee?

  28. BellStell*

    On the issue of high level managers winning, I agree they should be excluded. This would be a no go where I work to include them I would hope if we ever did this. The management where I work get bonuses each year (normal workers do not), and the managers also a significant ‘representation’ amount added each month to pay check (that adds like 10K to salaries for things like dinners, clothes etc, it is crap.) Having them wn prizes would just emphasize how little the workers are valued, to be honest.

  29. Dennis Johnson*

    A relative of mine was a low level production assistant on the film Love Actually and she said Hugh Grant was the friendliest to the crew. She said he sprung for a trip to Harrod’s (well known British department store) and let everyone in the crew pick out some gifts on his dime.

    Not relevant to the workplace issues. but thought the commentariat might appreciate this

    2. londonedit*

      I love the aside here clarifying that Harrods is a ‘well-known British department store’,

    3. amoeba*

      On the other hand, my boyfriend studied at St Andrews and apparently Hugh Grant went there every year and hit on the 18 year olds… he actually got banned from campus for “shagging too many students”, I just confirmed on Google!

        1. I take tea*

          It might or might not be true. I don’t think he’s exactly pure, he was once arrested for lewd conduct with a prostitute, after all.

          1. Queer Earthling*

            …..unless you have no problem with sex work or those who pay for it, in which case, it’s still not an issue.

      3. EvilQueenRegina*

        I just Googled that myself (I was in the class of 2004 and had no recollection of this) – looks like the story dates from after my time anyway, but then saw that the university press office has apparently denied banning him.

        1. EvilQueenRegina*

          Although speaking of St Andrews, Love Actually was released in my final year and I saw it at the cinema there. Everyone in the cinema groaned at the line where one of Aurelia’s relatives says if it doesn’t work out with Colin Firth she can marry that nice Prince William instead (or however the line goes, it’s ages since I’ve seen it).

    5. Phony Genius*

      I’ve heard stories like this and always thought that I’d feel awkward accepting this from a coworker, even if that coworker was Famous Rich Celebrity. Anybody else feel this way?

      2. Jackalope*

        I feel like given that he was likely making millions on the film, and the lower level crew was prob making something in the minimum wage region of salary (or even if better paid, still far far less than him), it would be something I would cheerfully accept. I would take it as a sign that he understood that everyone involved was important to the making of the film and that he wasn’t (one of) the most important just because it was his face everyone saw.

      3. Dahlia*

        If they have the power to fire you, you’re not coworkers.

        It’s basically a bonus from your manager.

  30. You Can't Pronounce It*

    LW 1 – My company actually does something similar, but they handle it in a great way! They have two separate buckets for drawing names. Managers and above are in a bucket of their own and it doesn’t come out until after the other associates’ names have been gone through. For all, you have to be present to receive the gift.

    LW 2 – I have had company cards at two different places and my name was not actually tied to either. The cards had the company name on it both times. I was concerned it would be an issue when traveling, since my name wasn’t tied to it, but it wasn’t.

    1. Letter Writer #2*

      Hmm, I didn’t know just having the company name was an option- something for me to look into! Thank you!

  31. Lora*

    3) also check what your company says on use of their equipment. Especially if you are connected via a VPN to the company they might forbid streaming completely. My employer does that, streaming when the laptop is strictly on a private connection: okay, streaming when connected to the company network unless it’s for company purposes: not okay.

  32. Llama Llama*

    Regarding 4, my company has a ridiculous background check and won’t let anyone start until everything is checked that ‘should’ be checked. If an agency isn’t responding back so be it. My former team had a start date delayed by 4 months because of it (there were lots of escalations because that one…).

  33. Bast*

    LW#1 — I agree that upper management shouldn’t be eligible, but I think for lower level management, such as team lead, shift lead, etc., it’s fair enough. $50.00 grocery card would have me feeling like a winner with these grocery prices though!

  34. HonorBox*

    Letter 1 – I think the correct approach is determined entirely by the setup of the raffle. I’ve been in work situations in which everyone is given a raffle ticket and is eligible for prizes. In that case, it might make sense for the highest level executives to bow out for the larger prizes. In other cases, I’ve been at company events where everyone gets a couple of tickets and has opportunity to buy additional, dropping them into a bucket by the prizes they’re interested in. In that case, while I’d probably say the highest level execs shouldn’t participate in excess, I don’t think it is as problematic.

    Letter 3 – If you’re home and something comes up on Spotify, no worries. While you do have *some* control over what comes up, you’re not in total control. You’re not putting coworkers in position to have to overhear the content, and if the company was really concerned, you could have had it streaming, but turned the volume down, so you’re not even aware of what is coming through the speakers. But I wouldn’t give it too much thought or worry.

    1. OP #3*

      Thank you! My company is very reasonable and I have a great relationship with my boss (my annual review just happened and went really well), so I think I was more nervous about this than I needed to be.

  35. KatieP*

    Re: #2 – I coordinate business credit cards for my group, and I’ve had one in my name for ~20 years. It’s never affected my credit score. If you think yours is, you should check with your provider to see if it’s linked to your credit history. If it is, they may be able to help your employer set-up a business credit card account that doesn’t affect cardholder credit.

    If your current card isn’t linked to your personal credit, it may have been the student loan payoff that lowered your credit rating. Lenders don’t like it when you pay-off a debt before you’ve paid out all the interest they expected to collect. I paid off a a car loan early and took a credit hit for it. Totally worth it to get out from under the loan, though, since I had time to rebuild my credit before I needed another one.

    1. Super Duper Credit Card User*

      Just FYI, it isn’t paying a loan off early that can affect your score, it’s that a student/personal/car/house loan being paid off at all affects your “mix” of credit. Credit score algorithms look at how many different “types” of credit you have (more different types are better) so if that loan you paid off is the only one of its type that you had, it can cause your score to go down.

      It’s stupid.

    2. Letter Writer #2*

      Thank you! I will definitely be looking into this more and trying to figure out more closely where the score changes are coming from.

  36. Super Duper Credit Card User*

    LW2 – If the card you are using is a personal card being used for the business it will generally report to credit bureaus for every authorized user. However, most true business cards will not (Discover and Capital One are exceptions to that rule).

    If feasible, I would suggest to whomever has control of business finances that they switch to a Chase, AmEx or Citi business card to avoid the issue you’re having. Bank of America and Wells Fargo would also work but they’re terrible banks in general.

  37. Elsa*

    I went and watched the Love Actually Clip again, and I did not at all see it as a predatory assistant aggressively coming on to a helpless, clueless man. He started the flirting by asking her whether she would be bringing some mucular date to the party. That is a highly inappropriate thing for a boss to ask his employee and a clear indication that he’s interested in her to the point of being jealous of other men in her life. He set the tone and she just took it from there.

    And there were so many opportunities for him to be professional, if he had been remotely interested in doing so.
    “Are you buying something for me?”
    “Yes, of course! I always get my employees gift cards for Christmas. Thanks for the reminder!”

    1. amoeba*

      Yeah… I recently re-watched the film, actually (no pun intended, haha), and definitely saw his character differently than a few years ago. Guess all that feminist reading did change my mind a bit… or maybe we do actually make a bit of progress as a society? One can hope…

  38. Anon101*

    Regarding company raffles, I watched a senior exec quietly decline his state-of-the-art electronic prize. The new winner was a production worker.

  39. I need coffee before I can make coffee*

    LW3 – I would say don’t unnecessarily complicate your life. How hard is it to just run Spotify on your own device and avoid the question entirely? You seem have the sense that it is likely not ok to use your work laptop, so just don’t. Maybe they would never find out you were running Spotify, or what you were listening to, but never underestimate the potential for something seemingly insignificant to bite you in ways you didn’t think could happen.

    1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      I always run my music/podcast/whatever I am listening to from another device. Because if I run it from my device, I get dings from notifications interrupting what I am listening to. Which breaks the flow of my concentration. By running it from another device, I can keep the device I am working on silent.

      1. amoeba*

        Eh, I actually run it from my work laptop for exactly that reason – I still want to hear if I’m being called, and be able to switch directly to a meeting without changing my headset… (also, my private headset is noise cancelling, which I don’t actually like in the office! I want to be approachable and hear what happens around me. Yes, it does have “ambient sound” but still feels much more muffled than my work one.)

        Also, looks more professional to have my work headset on. Like, I could be in a meeting.

        Also, I keep the work headset in the office whereas I’d have to carry my private one back and forth every day, which I’m sure I’d forget, like, a lot (yes, this obviously doesn’t apply when WFH).

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Oh I should clarify, I am work from home. So the other device can play without a headset. If I were in an office, that would be totally different.

          1. amoeba*

            I actually need the music via headset/headphones for some reason for my concentration! Playing it out loud doesn’t work the same way, no idea why. Otherwise, yeah, that’s what I’d probably do as well.

    2. OP #3*

      The problem is that if I run spotify on my own device, I will semi-regularly have to look at that device to change the song/turn the music off when I have a call coming in/adjust the volume/etc. Unfortunately I’ve learned the hard way that those are HUGE sources of distraction for me. I literally throw my phone across the room when I’m working, or hide it in a desk drawer, because if it’s visible the temptation is just too strong to check my texts, personal email, etc. If I was better at focusing I would play music on my personal devices, but I believe it would genuinely harm my productivity, which is why I try to avoid it.

  40. Corporate Goth*

    Ugh, LW1. Not cool. You have my sympathy.

    Had a similar situation once where the big boss and his deputy kept winning big prizes – no rigging, but neither saw nothing wrong with accepting them, or asking people to help them get fancy TVs loaded into their vehicles. One got mad at me for refusing to take prize raffle tickets since I was management level. The other was confused why I thought it was wrong. Meanwhile, we had very junior folks with notably low pay who had to pay for a holiday meal that had previously been free, because the fundraised money went toward prizes rather than food costs.

    1. I'm just here for the cats!*

      Honestly that just sounds like the big bosses DID rigg it so they could use company money for fancy things.

  41. Nancy*

    LW1: It really depends. There are a lot of people who have “manager” in their title but who aren’t high level executives, I do not think they should be excluded. Company president, CEO, etc, sure, exclude them.

  42. Kate*

    Oh my gosh, LW#1 just triggered an early career memory.

    I was maybe 24 or 25, but I was the only person in marketing at a small company, so I default had the title of director. We were at an offsite meeting and the CEO just handed around slips of paper and asked us to write our names down. He didn’t say why and I assumed it was for some sort of team-building exercise.

    Nope!

    It was for a raffle and I won $100 cash. I didn’t know how to handle it, but I realized at that moment that other people weren’t happy that I had a director title and won the cash. I wish I had been with-it enough to turn it down, but in the moment I didn’t know what to do so I accepted.

    At the end of the meeting a few people were going to grab drinks in the little town we were in, so I announced that I would put my $100 prize towards a group tab. Only one guy (a friend) showed up, which I interpreted to mean that my other coworkers were still salty about my win. At that point, there was nothing I could do about it so my buddy and I grabbed a beer.

    The real joke is that despite my title, I wasn’t being paid much and the $100 would have actually been really helpful, but I just didn’t feel right about it and did my best to make it right.

    Now that I’m 10 years into my career, I wish the damn CEO had never put me in that position to begin with! If he had told me it was a raffle, I wouldn’t have even written my name. Or if he saw my name, he should have drawn again.

    1. Umami*

      I don’t think you should have felt poorly at all about winning! Their reaction was about them, not you. I can’t imagine begrudging a new employee (and a fairly young one, at that) winning a prize, even if I coveted it.

      1. Kate*

        Thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately, there was a really well established us vs. them culture when it came to management. Overall it was pretty toxic. In a healthy work environment, it wouldn’t have been a big deal (which I can say now that I have worked in healthy places!) but at the time, it was pretty rough!

  43. Dinwar*

    #1: While I accept that being in management puts you apart from your team to an extent, I think there’s a real danger of too much separation. If the executives are excluded from company events, including things like raffles (which in theory are random), it can come across as “We are above you” or “Aren’t we generous for giving you these gifts?” Frankly there’s already enough antipathy between managers and managed staff (just look at some of the comments here!!) that we need to be building bridges between them, not taking torches to the few that remain!

    Most of the comments I’m reading that argue that raffle prizes are problematic aren’t really about the raffle. It’s about a generally toxic environment where the raffle issue was just one more example. In a healthy workplace, with a well-functioning team, I simply don’t see the issue. I’d be deeply offended if my bosses refused to accept a raffle prize merely because they were above me in the org chart–it wouldn’t seem generous or magnanimous, but rather arrogant.

    1. Umami*

      Yes, this is more or less where I land on this. It feels a bit patronizing and even a bit condescending to assume that non-manager employees would want all managers to be excluded from a raffle where literally everyone has the same odds of winning a prize.

    2. bamcheeks*

      Yes, I think there’s probably a bigger conversation here about the perceived distance in status and wage inequalities in the company. The fact that all management seems to be included in the “shouldn’t take part in a raffle” makes me think this is way more about perceived status and a significant cultural divide in the organisation between the production and technical staff and the professional and office staff– if you’re talking about 25% of the company, then you’ve either got *really* poorly paid and insecure production and technical staff in comparison with the professional and office staff, or it’s not about the actual salaries so much as it is about the sense that They are not really workers in the company in the same way. B

    3. Angstrom*

      Disagree. For someone making $15 an hour, winning a $500 TV could be a big deal and have a big impact on their morale. For someone making $150k+ a year? Not so much.

      Upper management accepting a large prize is “gifting up” in a different form. It is not appropriate.

      I like the idea of having everyone participate, but having upper management graciously declining any major prizes for something humorous..

      1. bamcheeks*

        LW’s definition of “management” is around 25% of the company though– it seems really unlikely that all of them are on $150k-ish salaries? Seems more likely that that includes middle managers and more junior professional staff who are either on similar wages to production staff or more like 1.3 or 1.5 times as much.

      2. Caramel & Cheddar*

        Yeah, if we’re concerned about divides between upper and lower management, upper management accepting expensive prizes is definitely something I think would be more likely to divide rather than not.

      3. Dinwar*

        “Upper management accepting a large prize is “gifting up” in a different form.”

        Can you offer a rational defense of this though? So far all you’ve done is repeat the argument and offer an emotional appeal (specifically jealousy). I don’t find either to be compelling reasons.

        Can you offer a rational counter-argument for the arguments I’ve made supporting the idea that this sort of behavior exacerbates an already-existing division in the workforce? Even if I accepted the notion that executives participating in a group activity is problematic, it wouldn’t mean it’s not the best option. Sometimes there are no good options, so you go with the least-bad one. And in my mind, the widening rift between management and employees is becoming dangerous (and to be clear, both sides are guilty here).

        As for “Everyone participates but management can’t accept certain things”, you’re asking the management to play a rigged game. I detest such things. The only thing it would serve to do is humiliate the people who are expected to play but who cannot win. Especially if a full quarter of your company falls under this rigged system!

        1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

          So. the first thing you have to ask yourself is, “what is the point of a raffle at work?”.

          As I see it, there are two possible answers. Either the point of the raffle is the activity (ie, everyone has fun regardless of who wins), or else the point of the raffle is the potential prize (ie, most participants don’t have “fun” but some do, with enjoyment proportional to how much they wanted the prize). If you’re in the raffle-as-fun-activity camp, upper management declining to participate is a slap in the face; they should participate in the group activity!

          If you’re in the other camp, though, and the prize is what matters… If the discretionary event budget that could have gone to better food, better drinks, or larger gift cards instead went to a few big prizes, and they were taken home by upper management, that’s definitely a gifting-up situation! A benefit was literally taken from the lower level staff to give upper management a larger benefit. In this case, upper management should sit out the raffle

          I don’t have hard data on how many folks are in either camp, but it does seem to me that there’s limited enjoyment to be had watching someone pull names out of a hat, so I suspect more people are in the second group than the first. As further evidence, my local fire department held a fundraising raffle recently that excluded firefighters and their families from winning. I don’t think anyone thought the firefighters were too lofty to participate with us, but if the cash prizes had gone to, say, the fire chief and his three best friends, I think we would have all been rightly suspicious!

          I guess the big takeaway is, if you’re management and considering a fun raffle at your next party, maybe try a gift swap? Or bingo for low-stakes prizes?

    4. Michelle Smith*

      It’s not about being “merely above” one another in the org chart. It’s about the disparity in income and the impact that already has on morale being compounded by the holiday raffle when it doesn’t need to be that way. It’s the same reason why when the exec invites your team out for lunch, they pay for the group and it would be weird for the person three rungs down on the org chart who makes 2x or more less than them to be handed the check instead. Even in healthy workplaces not everyone makes the same amount of money.

    5. GythaOgden*

      This makes a lot of sense. At least one of big ticket prizes and thirty others went to non-management, and thanks to OP lumping both C-suite together with product managers without reports, as well as the assumption that newer employees should be excluded as well (where is the cut-off meant to be)…it’s baby out with bathwater time, I think.

    6. Kate*

      Interesting take. I think my discomfort at the time was more a reflection of the already toxic work environment than it was the actual win. There was an established culture of us vs. them when it came to management, that I stepped into as a young an inexperienced manager.

      Overall I agree that building bridges should be the goal, but at the time and in the specific circumstances, it was a really uncomfortable moment.

  45. Never the Twain*

    #2, it’s difficult to predict what is regarded as important in a credit rating, as the rules vary between providers.
    I knew someone back in he 1990s who worked for a UK bank scoring applications for a credit card against a check list. She said that by far the biggest factor was whether the applicant had a telephone registered in their name (remember, this is the 1990s). Don’t know why that should be – did it show that you were likely to stay where you were? Or that you hadn’t defaulted on the thing that was often the first financial commitment to be neglected? Dunno, but if you didn’t have that, you might still qualify, but you’d need to have so many other ducks in a row that you probably wouldn’t really need to borrow money anyway. No idea what the proxy is now, but I’m sure there must be a similarly meaningless one.
    (Bizarrely, another good point to have was having one or more credit cards already. Maybe because if you had a couple then clearly at least two other institutions thought you were ok, while if you didn’t have any then you must be a bit dodgy. While a lot of cards was a red flag, ideal was two or three, and apparently the outstanding balance wasn’t a major factor)

    1. bamcheeks*

      Not really bizarre– the point of credit scores is more “how likely are we to make money off you” than “how big a credit risk are you”. Having >1 credit card = more likely to use them and carry a balance, meaning we get to charge you interest.

      I also wonder whether the value of you having a phone (which would probably be a landline back then) is that it meant you were going to be easy to track down if you did default.

      1. Lobstermn*

        The point of credit scores is to enforce class hierarchy. They are only tangentially related to actual creditworthiness.

    2. Irish Teacher.*

      I’d guess having a telephone in the 1990s indicated you were…not poor. I was a teen back then, but I think most people who were on average wage or above tended to have a phone whereas people on social welfare or very low wages often didn’t. Still silly as I’m sure there were people who had telephones but little or no money to play with and people who could easily afford to pay off credit cards but who chose not to have a phone for whatever reason, but I can see how not having a phone back then could have been equated with poor and therefore might not be able to pay off debt (which of course, ignores the fact that people on lower incomes are often very careful about not getting into debt they can’t pay, but you know…).

    3. Beth**

      In the late 1990s I was turned down for credit/store cards in the UK because I wasn’t registered to vote, which was apparently a very important criterion. Once I got naturalised as a UK citizen and was finally *eligible* to register, I did. Suddenly I could get credit.

      Even getting a UK debit card was a hassle in those days.

    1. I'm just here for the cats!*

      They specifically say they don’t play it on their phone or home computer because they find it distracting.

    2. I'm just here for the cats!*

      Also, Some companies have policies that even when you are WFH you cannot have another computer, tablet, or phone that is on in your work area because of data security.

  47. BellyButton*

    #1- at every company I have worked for anyone above a first level manager did not participate in any sort of raffle. It is tacky. The people who earn the least should be the ones who have the biggest chance to win a prize.

  48. Gaia Madre*

    For #1, I worked for an electrical company briefly, where the ‘big holiday prize’ was a huge toolbox (ya’ know, for electricians). The owner’s wife won the drawing. Classy lady that she is, she just sashayed up there with a big smile and took it. No one clapped, you could have heard a pin drop. Gross. I was out of there within weeks.

  49. Just Thinkin' Here*

    OP #2. Corporate credit cards can either be based on the credit of the company or the credit of the users (employee). When it’s based on the credit of the users, it will show up on your personal credit bureau report. You should see this credit card listed if you pull one of your free credit reports through the FTC. In your case as an authorized user, you are not being held legally responsible, nor do you have any control over repayment. Have yourself removed immediately. Either you get your own corporate card in your name where you have control regarding repayment or your employer reimburses you in petty cash or through your paycheck for expenses.

  50. Michelle Smith*

    Can LW2 dispute the inclusion of the business credit cards on her personal credit report? I see some comments here from people with knowledge of the credit industry and how all that stuff works. I’m wondering if she has any basis to claim with the credit bureaus that the business’ balances shouldn’t impact her since she doesn’t own the business.

    1. letter writer #2*

      I’m definitely going to read more on this and try, even just to have it on record somewhere that it’s the business, not mine, and I have no agency or control over payments!

  52. Sally Rhubarb*

    #2 I discovered the thing about being an authorized user when my credit card company sent me an alarming letter about having a balance of nearly 10 grand. Turns out it was the company card but my heart about stopped when I saw that.

    I had a nice conversation with their fraud department only to realize it was the company card and that yes, their balance does affect my credit score, even if I’m not responsible for the debt.

  53. Immortal for a limited time*

    #5 – my favorite part of “Love, Actually” is when they teach the young boy that to get the girl you need to pursue her so aggressively that not even airport security should be a barrier.

  54. Clairelythebest*

    Does LW #1 need a physical copy of the card to make purchases in stores, or are they making online purchases where they just need the numbers? If it’s the latter, I’d definitely request to be removed as an authorized user while confirming you can still use the card for business purchases. And even if they do make in-store purchases, is it possible to make a purchase online and pick it up in store so they still wouldn’t need the physical card?

    1. letter writer #2*

      (I’m guessing this is about letter #2 with the credit cards) I do unfortunately have to make purchases in stores, in person, and most don’t have an option for ordering online. But others above have commented about taking my name off and removing the association with me and my credit score, and just having the card be listed under the business name.

    2. I'm just here for the cats!*

      Heck, unless the store has a policy, your name doesn’t necessarily need to be on the card to use it. For example, we had to use the director’s card for a purchase at the local craft store since we couldn’t get what we needed through our normal supplier.
      Now it might make a difference depending on what is being ordered and how much it costs.

      Another thought is if the company is constantly buying things at one specific store, they might be able to start a charge account or a direct bill. So the employee just makes the order and at the end of the month, the store sends an itemized bill.

  55. anon for this*

    #1 – At my company’s last all-staff meeting, there was a raffle where I won one of the prizes. I’m a senior director. It never occurred to me not to accept. Should I feel guilty? Does it make a difference that the prize was worth $12.50 at the company gift shop, and none of the prizes were worth much more? Does it make a difference that I know the exact cost at the company gift shop because it was a plushie, and I have two children, and I bought a second one to avoid a bloodbath at home?

    1. kalli*

      You’re fine. As long as it’s not a situation where all the top-paid people get all the expensive prizes or you got to buy 50 tickets by dint of being senior director when entry-level people were only allowed 2, i.e. situations where there’s an obvious disadvantage to lower-paid people or it’s obviously rigged, there is no reason you shouldn’t participate on an equal level to everyone else. The issue arises when it looks like there’s an inequality, which in the case of the letter, with management getting two of the big ticket items, some people thought there was. A single prize where most of the prizes are of the same value? Fine. Prizes being roughly proportionally distributed? Fine.

    2. GythaOgden*

      That’s what my mum did when she won a prize in a raffle pulled my sister’s ticket out at a school Christmas fete (we weren’t her students but she was a teacher). My sister went on to pull my ticket (I mean that’s got to be infinitesimally small odds, but I was there, it definitely happened; as a side note in the UK one winner usually draws the next ticket) and my mum decided enough was a enough and made sis put it back.

      She bought me an equivalent prize to the teddy bear my sister chose, though, and the following year kept us out of it altogether.

    3. Falling Diphthong*

      Literally yes, it makes a significant difference that the prize value was $12.50 and not $1250.

    4. fhqwhgads*

      The problem is big prizes going to executives. Not the small ones.

      A million years ago when I worked at a company that did these at the all staff retreat party thing, the biggest prize was a spa treatment or spa day or some other huge expensive thing. The next biggest prize was an xbox. Everything else was worth between $5 and $25.

      Had the CFO’s name been drawn for any of the $25 prizes no one would care. But he got the effing spa thing. The xbox also went to a C-something else. I forget who now.

      If you win the BIG prize, tell them to redraw. If you win a “most of the prizes are comparable to this” prize, feel no guilt.

  56. Karma is my Boyfriend*

    LW #3 the only time I’ve had companies complain about streaming music services is when you’re using company internet to stream. I think if you’re using your own internet (and don’t get a kickback from the company for it) you should be fine. But, of course, no one can predict the future (except the Simpsons writers).

  57. I Speak for the Trees*

    People have very different opinions about what is and what is not “work safe.” I worked in an office that somehow managed to include Shaggy’s “It Wasn’t Me” in most every playlist. Though I don’t think he swears there is literally nothing about that song that’s office apporpriate…

  58. McS*

    While Allison is right that upper management should not have been in the raffle. I’d say in a company of 130 people, that should have excluded like 5, not 25. Like people reporting to the CEO who have skip level reports or total orgs over 10 people.

  59. Moose*

    # 5: Oh man, Love Actually is a minefield of inappropriate work relationships. The prime minister getting with the aide?! And it’s less bad than the president of the U.S. hitting on her because…he was polite and British about it and less vulgar, I guess?

    1. gmg22*

      Yep. I do kind of enjoy the irony of one of the film’s few non-toxic relationships being the one where both parties are stand-ins for adult film actors. The scene where the director tells Martin Freeman’s character to put his hands on his scene partner’s breasts, and he very politely asks her if that’s OK first and then warms up his hands … like suddenly out of nowhere this film full of power imbalances disguised as cute romcom plots is quietly modeling consent? (Meanwhile Alan Rickman’s character goes on running an office full of ostensible do-gooders that is clearly desperately in need of a functional sexual harassment policy, LOL.)

    2. Godbert*

      Can we talk about how inspired the casting was for the President and the PM, though? Hugh Grant and Billy Bob Thornton absolutely nailed it. (Admittedly, it’s probably funnier if you’re old enough to remember the Bush II and Tony Blair era of pond-crossing politics.)

  60. girlie_pop*

    Kind of a funny story related to #3: years ago at a startup job, I cast my computer to a big tv in a meeting so I could show something, and it showed my main screen, where my Spotify was open. I was listening to the Arcade Fire album that had just come out, and the song on the player happened to be one titled, “Porno”. Everyone thought it was very funny! I was so embarrassed I wanted to die lol. Luckily no big bosses were there, just me and some other 20-somethings who all laughed it off.

    So LW #3, be careful when you’re showing your screen in meetings!

    1. OP #3*

      Oh my goodness, how awful! I’m usually pretty careful about this but I will be extra-careful now with this story in mind

      1. girlie_pop*

        I still minimize my Spotify window anytime I’m presenting even today, almost 10 years later lol. Not a bad habit to have!

  61. Kenneth*

    Re #1, In a large corp we had a charity fundraiser with auction on each item. The items were valuable and the whole company participated, including Directors, VPs and executive VPs who are one step down from the C-level. Who got most items? Those with highest salaries. I get it’s for charity but it was still odd. What is the purpose of lower level employees even participating?

Comments are closed.