my boss asked us to hold him accountable for losing weight, employer is trying to get out of paying overtime, and more

by Alison Green on September 11, 2024

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

1. My boss asked us to hold him accountable for his weight loss plan

I recently left an admin position at a resort that includes a high-end athletic facility in an affluent tourist area. It is a very old three-star resort that has made serious investments in becoming a five-star resort in the next few years. They have hired a consultant to advise and he is working one-on-one with my former direct boss, the senior accountant (Paul), get him where he needs to be to be promoted to CFO.

The consultant held a team-building meeting that focused on holding ourselves and each other accountable. We went around the room and said what we needed help being held accountable for. When it was Paul’s turn, the consultant encouraged him to tell the group that his weight loss is what he wishes to be held accountable for (among other work-related items, such as communication). The consultant prompted him to tell us all about his progress so far and what he wants to accomplish etc. After the meeting ended, Paul put his work-out regimen on his door and reminded us to hold him accountable for it.

The consultant calls/texts Paul weekly to check up on progress for “all his goals,” but the conversation is focused 80% on weight loss, from what I could hear on the speaker phone. I asked our junior accountant his opinion and he felt that it is up to Paul to say what he wants to say, and that the consultant is focused on appearance because of the image that the resort is trying to project. My intuition is that his appearance may be kind of tied to his promotion.

My question, is this not wild? Aside from my own feelings about talking to my boss about if he worked out, I feel this is not fair to Paul. Surely image is nothing that some tailored suits and a few body language conversations can’t fix? What if this were a woman? Is there ever an appropriate time for this type of conversation at work, with or without a promotion on the line?

No, this is weird. I can’t tell whether the weight loss goal was something that Paul initially raised himself or whether the consultant pushed him into it. If it was Paul’s idea, it’s weird and inappropriate to ask employees to hold him accountable to that in any way, let alone to have weekly check-in’s with a company-paid consultant about his progress. If it was the consultant’s idea, it’s far worse.

2. After I had to fire someone, my boss asked if I still want to be a manager

After 14 years managing a team of nine people, six years ago I switched careers, taking a less senior position in order to do some very fulfilling nonprofit work. In my current role, I supervise three people. One had to be let go two weeks ago. I felt terrible about it, but it was clearly not working out due to a skill-set mismatch, plus other behaviors that were causing issues. The employee had come off a PIP about 10 weeks prior, but the improvement was not sustained beyond the first few weeks. The employee felt taken by surprise during the termination meeting and lashed out, trying to convince the HR rep who was present that I had not given them any feedback about this lack of progress or unprofessionalism. (HR was not fooled, but I definitely had given the employee more leeway than I probably should have.)

Fast forward to yesterday, when my boss asked whether I “still wanted to be a manager.” I was so taken aback that I did not ask whether this was coming from a place of concern, as I had voiced feeling like I had let this employee down as a manager, or from a place of mistrust/disappointment that I had not been able to mentor this employee into a better performer. (My boss was out on leave during most of this employee’s tenure of 10 months, so his understanding of the situation was not first-hand, but he was in agreement that the termination was needed.)

I answered that I was content to continue managing my team. Maybe I am not that great of a manager and merely have been lucky during my entire career in never needing to fire someone? I have been truly shaken by this whole experience. Because we won’t be able to hire a replacement for a couple months, I am now busy doing the work of two people, but find myself fretting over my boss’ question. Do I let it go or ask for a clarification? Do I ask for some professional development of my management skills?

Go back and ask your boss why he asked. It’s very possible, even likely, that his question was a response to you voicing self-doubt. But you’re not sure and it’s weighing on you — and it’s potentially a serious enough topic that it doesn’t make sense to guess. Go back to your boss and say, “I’ve been thinking about you asking if I still wanted to manage and I want to make sure I understand where you were coming from. Do you have concerns about how I’m approaching the job?” Find out for sure instead of speculating.

For what it’s worth, anyone who’s managed for a long enough time will eventually have to fire someone. It doesn’t mean you failed as a manager — in fact, keeping someone on who was clearly not right for the job (after feedback and coaching) is what would have been the failure. Addressing a problem forthrightly and working through it is not. I don’t know the details of what happened and maybe there were failures in how you handled it; maybe you waited too long, didn’t set clear enough expectations, or didn’t give useful feedback. But “I didn’t manage to turn someone without the skills for the job into someone right for the job” isn’t normally in the failure category. Maybe it was a failure of hiring! That’s worth looking at. Whenever you have to let someone go, it’s smart to look at what happened and how you ended up there. And maybe you do want some management training. But the fact of having to fire someone who was backsliding right after finishing a PIP is not itself a sign you failed.

Related:
I had to fire someone and I feel like a failure

3. My coworker keeps screaming profanities … but we’re remote and he’s my husband

In a normal office environment, it would never be appropriate to shout or curse. But now that my husband works from home, he enjoys the perks of remote work such as wearing gym shorts and letting out a stream of expletives after frustrating meetings. The problem is that I work remotely, too, and it’s really stressing me out! It’s not audible on my calls (I have an excellent headset), but every few hours I get a jumpscare when there’s sudden banging and shouting in the next room.

I understand he’s on a very high drama project with impossible deadlines, so it seems wrong to tell him he’s not allowed an emotional outlet in his own home. But now I’m getting secondhand stress. How do I deal?

You need to talk to him about it! Tell him the impact it’s having on you and ask him to stop. This isn’t about saying he’s not allowed an emotional outlet in his own home; it’s about asking him to be considerate that during the workday, it’s a shared space where you’re both working.

He can have an emotional outlet outside of work hours, like everyone else. That’s how he’d need to deal if he were working in an office, and it’s not outrageously onerous to ask of him when you’re both working from home either.

4. New hires are missing our ID check appointments

I oversee the onboarding process for new hires at my company, and one of the steps is a video call where we check that the employee is the person on the ID documents they’ve given us. This is a legally required check where I live, and our compliance team requires it after an incident where the person we hired wasn’t the person we interviewed!

However, a lot of candidates show up late to these calls, or don’t show up at all. Often, they’re also slow to provide necessary documents to even start this process, and it’s not until I start sending emails telling them we’re going to delay their joining date that they seem to get that there’s urgency here.

This does tend to be candidates in very junior roles, or ones who haven’t changed job in years. Any suggestions on how to manage this bad behavior from otherwise good candidates? (These calls are before their first day, but after they’ve been given their offers and signed paperwork.)

The ID check used to happen in person on the morning of a new employee’s first day, so there was no chance of their missing it. Many companies have moved to doing it remotely ahead of time, but there’s no reason it has to be done like that. So one option: any chance you can simply do it the morning they start? (If they’re remote, you could keep it remote; we’re just talking about changing the timing.)

If that’s not practical, then your best bet is to make it really, really clear when setting up these calls what the consequence of missing it will be. As in: “It’s essential that you be on-time for this appointment or your start date may be delayed. If you need to reschedule, please let me know as soon as possible.” Since you’re also encountering people being slow in getting you the documents needed to start the process, be up-front about timelines there too: “Please submit XYZ no later than September 17 or your start date may be delayed.” You’ll still get people being flaky (in part because they’re not working for you yet and likely figure some of this can be handled once they start) but it should cut down on it.

5. My employer is trying to get out of paying me overtime

I am a teacher, and have never had to think about overtime pay because teachers are exempt. I now have a second job as the director of a small local history museum. I am the only employee. It is mostly a summer job, with some administrative tasks in the school year. The museum board pays me a salary of $30,000. I don’t think anyone on the board was aware of the minimum salary rule for exempt employees, which makes me a non-exempt salaried employee. I only learned about it from reading your column.

I let the board know that I will need to be paid overtime for hours I work beyond 40 in a week. I typically work at the museum 38 hours each week. Outside of business hours, I work on things at home, such as researching programs and recording videos, and do work outside of the building like shop for supplies, go to off-site storage, or attend committee meetings. Much of this I cannot do during business hours because I am the only employee.

One board member said because I am salaried, I have to expect to do things outside of business hours without being paid overtime.

Another board member said I should only count the hours I work at the museum.

A third board member said if I am choosing to do research and make videos at home, they shouldn’t have to pay me for it.

A fourth board member suggested that they could increase my salary to meet the exempt threshold if I do a fundraiser and earn that amount.

Now they are arguing about which of them is right and what they should do. I think they are all wrong and they just need to have me work fewer hours or pay me overtime. What do you think?

The law is very clear about how this works; it’s not open to interpretation. Because you do not meet the salary threshold for exemption, you are non-exempt and must be paid overtime (time and a half) for any hours over 40 that you work in a work week. That includes work that happens off-site, and it includes work that you “choose” to do on your own. There’s no “unless you really want to do it” exception. This is what the law requires.

It’s true that they could decide it’s a requirement of your job to fundraise the amount needed to pay you enough to be exempt. That’s the only thing they’re proposing that wouldn’t be illegal. (And even then, if you failed to raise the amount needed, they’d still need to pay you for any overtime you’d worked. They could fire you for not fundraising enough if they wanted to, but they’d still owe you the overtime pay.)

If they can’t afford to pay overtime or raise your salary so that you’re legally exempt from overtime, then they can’t afford an employee who works more than 40 hours a week.

You may also like:
{ 290 comments }

{ 290 comments… read them below }

  1. Susan*

    For LW2, the first time I had to fire someone felt really hard and traumatic. It gets easier with practice, but also got easier when I realized that keeping a non-performing employee was not really good for them, and was obviously bad for the rest of the team.

    1. allathian*

      Indeed. As an employee, I wouldn’t want to work for a manager who didn’t feel bad about having to fire an employee. The only people who don’t feel bad lack the empathy necessary to deal with other human beings in a non-abusive way in any capacity, never mind a position of authority.

      Obviously it’s not okay to make the fired employee or your other reports responsible for managing your negative feellings, but feeling them means that you’re a decent person.

    2. Katie*

      Exactly. In my first supervisor position, I had to fire someone within the first 3 months. It was stressful as anything doing it (and well she stopped showing up for work so it was an obvious call). 10 years later, no regrets, but what I regret not firing someone else on the team. He was not understanding the (basic) work. I dragged him to the finish line each month. (He was eventually laid off when they cut our work in half, but that wasn’t my doing…).

    3. Grith*

      Yeah, given the context, I don’t really have a huge problem with this question. It’s akin to any other unpleasant job requirement – it can sound fine in theory, but it’s arguably good management to check in after and say “now that you’ve experienced [unpleasant requirement] for the first time, are you still comfortable doing [job that requires this]?” And that goes double if the employee is expressing doubt and unhappiness about [unpleasant requirement].

    4. Former manager*

      If I had had any undue qualms about firing people as a manager, they would have been soothed by my team being obviously relieved once the low performer was gone – which happened every time.
      I once had to let go a teammember who was well-liked because the errors just kept on happening. Even under those circumstances the rest of the team was understanding that this wasn’t workable.

      While it does certainly feel bad in the moment and also afterwards, I’ve always appreciated that it was necessary in the longterm.

    5. AM*

      This is the OP. Thank you all for your comments. The rest of the team was just told that the employee was no longer with us, but no one had any questions about it, so I presume they saw the writing on the wall, even if the employee didn’t. I’ve had many folks from other teams reach out to offer help in picking up the slack, so I think organization-wide there is likely a sense that this was due.

      I’m meeting with my boss and grandboss today and plan to ask for clarification about any feedback they have regarding my management skills.

    6. Sloanicota*

      LW 2, I think you’ve learned something valuable about your boss – they might not be a safe mentor to express feelings of doubt and insecurity to. I had a boss like this once; I expressed some sense of struggling with our large annual event, which I thought it was clear I did a great job on, and our relationship was collegial so I thought it was okay to do. But after that, he dinged me in my annual review for “lack of confidence” in the attitude section or whatever, and I realized – okay, information diet for that guy from now on! Everything’s great. Feeling good. Thumbs up, no matter what.

      1. Barnes and Noble Bridge Burner*

        Yes! I came here to say something similar. Don’t let your boss get into your head if you want to continue managing. I had a manager in my 1st supervisory role who kept asking me this as a way to make me question my abilities so I’d be more likely to quit, because she just didn’t like me personally. Wish I’d realized much sooner.

    7. STG*

      I’ve had to do it a few times and each time has been a very different experience. So much depends on the person’s reaction. It’s never a fun experience though.

      My first one was easy. He took it like a champ and I think we both saw that it just wasn’t a good fit.

      My second one was very difficult. I had met with them numerous times about their performance. They had been dinged in their annual review along with clear instructions that certain behaviors needed to change. I had met with them repeatedly again when the same things were occurring 6 months after the review along with specifically saying that change would need to occur or we’d need to part ways.

      He still acted like it was a total surprise and out of left field even when he was presented with an accounting of all the meetings and times that we had spoken about the issues. He threw a temper tantrum and refused to get out of his seat to the point that I thought I was going to have to get law enforcement involved.

      There’s nothing I could have done for the second guy to change the termination. I remained calm but ultimately it sucked.

      1. CommanderBanana*

        Yeah, I have definitely worked at places that did fire people out of the blue, and I have worked at places that gave people chance after chance after chance, and it’s interesting how many people claim to have no idea their performance was lacking even after repeated negative performance reviews and PIPs.

    8. Festively Dressed Earl*

      I wonder if LW2’s manager sees the first time firing someone as a rite of passage that all managers go through, and typically a point where many people decide they’re not cut out for management? He might just be taking LW’s temperature and seeing if LW is still comfortable both in the position and in their judgment.

  2. Nodramalama*

    Lol LW3 “in a normal office environment it would never be appropriate to curse”. Tell me you’re not Australian without telling me youre not Australian.

    But seriously, could you ask him to just swear to himself a bit more quietly? That way he still gets his outlet but doesn’t stress you out

    1. RedinSC*

      Well, also not Australian, but there is some seriously foul language in my office, from all levels, so I suspect it’s office culture specific, too.

      1. I didn't say banana*

        And, for the double dissociation, I am Australian and no work place I’ve been in has had frequent cursing. I could count on one hand the number of swear words I’ve heard in the office.

      2. a clockwork lemon*

        Same here–my office (US) is admittedly pretty rowdy when we’re all in together but it’s not uncommon for people to get off a call or see an email and curse or holler a little bit. My personal cultural context does not register any of this as “yelling” or “genuine anger” so I’m not bothered by it.

        My husband and I both work from home most days and it’s a daily occurrence for one of us to randomly hear the other loudly yelling the F-word from the opposite end of the house.

      3. Office Plant Queen*

        I definitely think it is! I’ve never worked in a curse-heavy office, but nobody is taken back by mild swears. Once my boss dropped an f-bomb in a one on one and I had to try not to laugh because it was so unexpected! I wish I remembered the context, but all I remember is that it wasn’t directed at anyone or anything in particular, and wasn’t particularly angry

        1. Archi-detect*

          After someone decided to back out of a promotion they had accepted, my boss loudly stated “well happy f-ing Friday to me!” on the phone. was quite funny

      4. H3llifIknow*

        I work for DoD on a major program. The number of F bombs dropped by our program leadership during Teams calls and in person meetings is too high to count! Uusally when discussing our developer/vendor. Also, never gave it much thought til now and it’s probably a weird “me” thing, but leadership is all male and I’m female so I never cuss like that cuz I feel like while they’re okay saying it, they’d side eye me if I did.

        1. MotherofaPickle*

          You have to use that power. The next time you are seriously pissed off and really really need to be heard, drop an F-bomb at the height of your rant. I guarantee you will be heard and everyone will be walking on eggshells for a day or two. It’s a wonderful and beautiful thing.

          Source: All of my work experience with all of the knowledge and professionalism with no actual power.

        2. A reader among many*

          I’m glad that’s the only kind of bomb they’re dropping! They have plenty of others to choose from.

      1. Myrin*

        OP’s problem isn’t just with the “stream of expletives”, though, it’s the “banging and shouting” which I would indeed call unusual, especially on the regular.

          1. LW3*

            LW3 here! Alison is right that the problem isn’t really the f-bombs, it’s the audible rage and the sounds of violence against office furniture. I could have phrased it better in my letter.

        2. Turquoisecow*

          Yeah there’s been some swearing and cursing at every office job I’ve had. It’s normal.

          More concerning is the shouting and banging. Is he throwing things? Kicking walls? Slamming his fist on the table? Those are all kind of more over the top reactions. Maybe he could go outside for a walk when he feels the need to yell or throw or whatever, so OP isn’t interrupted by it.

      2. Allonge*

        OP works at home. In their home. It’s really ok to want a home to be free from (especially loud and banging) cursing.

        And cursing would also not be appropriate in our office, shouting or not. I don’t work in a convent, either.

          1. scandi*

            neurons that wire together, fire together. working out frustration by hitting things is not a healthy behaviour: it just makes it more likely you continue responding to frustration with aggression and violence.

            and, frankly, punching bags are also loud. i wouldn’t want to listen to that while working either.

              1. Allonge*

                He is also a fully functional adult who can decide how he would like to do this. OP does not need to provide a specific solution!

          2. Crencestre*

            I’d worry that a screaming, cursing husband would decide that I’M his punching bag the next time he lost his temper and launched into a toddler-worthy tantrum! I have to wonder if that LW is really safe with this man…people who indulge in temper tantrums don’t always limit the targets of those tantrums to those who are safely out of reach.

          3. Festively Dressed Earl*

            Same, or maybe couples’ boxing lessons as a gift. And if this is unusual for him (which I hope it is!) maybe some help finding a new gig.

        2. Worldwalker*

          Well, to be fair, he lives there too, and probably sees it as having the right to curse in his own home. The problem would be little different if, instead of cursing, he was singing showtunes at the top of his lungs. Two people have to work in this space, and one of them is making it difficult for the other.

          The physical part is a problem; it’s reasonable to ask one’s spouse not to slam things around. That’s hard on the furniture. But IMO the cursing should be treated like any other loud noise. The OP didn’t say it was being heard in meetings or the like, so it appears that the problem is the random noise and interruptions.

          So that’s what they need to address: not the content of the loud outbursts, but the existence of them at all. It wouldn’t matter if he was shouting the Lord’s Prayer—what matters is that he’s shouting when the OP is working.

          I think the OP needs to address it with Mr. Shouty in that context. That leaves him without the excuse of “you’re just a prude.”

          Related note: I was awakened this morning by the dumpster-dumping truck apparently throwing dumpsters across the parking lot at the nearby shopping center. There is no content to the sound of a dumpster being slammed around to better empty it out; the only swearing was on my end. But it woke me up very effectively nonetheless. When you’re being disturbed by loud sounds, content is secondary.

          1. Anonym*

            It’s kind of like an accommodation process, isn’t it? Partner needs to express frustration, fine, so he and OP need to come to a reasonable agreement on how he can do that in a way that doesn’t negatively affect OP’s wellbeing and ability to work. There’s never Only One Way to express your feelings.

            Side note: my partner also used to do this when their job got really bad. If it hadn’t stopped when the job improved, I would likely have asked them to tone it down because it was stressful to hear, even though it was on a different floor of the house. Now I just hear an occasional “Aaarrrrrgggghhhhhh” grumble which is much better, and frankly a bit funny.

            OP, it’s 100% reasonable to ask your partner to adjust this! Many people would find it upsetting, and he can absolutely vent those feelings in a less upsetting way.

          2. jasmine*

            This isn’t really about what is and isn’t allowed, and I don’t think it’s helpful to frame it with a lens of “what is it okay to bring up to my spouse, and what should I keep to myself?”

            This is about two people sharing a space and their needs. I’ve been in OP’s shoes often, when something is bothering me but I worry if it’s okay for me to bring it up, because doesn’t this other person also have needs? All without talking to the other person! But everyone’s needs are important, OP’s husband’s but also OP’s. Maybe this request will be no big deal to OP’s husband and he’ll stop right away. Maybe he’ll say he really needs a way to vent his frustration, in which case they can problem solve together. Maybe he’ll be unreasonable about it, but is that really worse than OP suffering in silence?

            Trying to independently reason about whether you should even bring something up is how you end up with these kinds of problems in the first place.

          3. Allonge*

            Look, aggressive content paired with aggressive delivery is going to throw a lot of people. Husband may have a right to curse at home, but does not have a right to have everyone else tolerate it.

            That said, this is a marriage – the partnership comes before the ‘rights’ as coworkers. OP can ask their husband to stop making loud noises and express his frustration in a way that is less scary/interruptive of their environment. Just as we can ask any cohabiting person to put the volume lower on any noise they are making. I think a request to stop or reduce (out loud) cursing should also be very reasonable in a marriage.

            OP would also have the right to ask this if this was happening in an (otherwise reasonably calm) office without any marital connections.

      3. Lady Danbury*

        Expletives aside, if she can hear it in the next room with headsets on, it’s waaaaay too loud and inconsiderate for his coworker (ie LW, lol).

        Though I wouldn’t necessarily say “tons of swearing” is “pretty normal” in the workplace. That can vary hugely based on location and office culture. At my current workplace, it’s not the norm but happens sometimes and usually isn’t an issue in the context of conversations amongst peers (usually when dealing with something negative and unexpected). In a previous workplace, it was definitely cause for a verbal or even written warning.

        1. Reluctant Mezzo*

          Sometimes it is the norm. I came home from boot with Added Vocabulary and had to tone it down when I was home.

        2. EmoZebra*

          Riiight – my neighbors also worked from home and I could hear yelling and banging through the walls. I called police because it seriously sounded like a DV situation, but nope just husband getting angry at work…

          LW3 – I would be concerned that the only way your husband can release his frustration is by anger and violence….

      1. Reluctant Mezzo*

        Learning a little Klingon wouldn’t hurt. “Hi, how are you?” in Klingon can sound like a lot of bad things.

    5. JSPA*

      Or if it’s the surprise element (“jump scare”), as I’m not clear that the cussing and even the noise level is necessarily a problem so much as the surprise element: just tossing off an IM to her as the frustrating meeting is winding down, might be enough. Or call out “incoming, sweetie!” just before, so she can gird her mind (and feel like he knows and cares that she’s there. Or scream into a pillow. Or buy a punching bag that hangs/stands in a spot with bad acoustics. Or jump rope. Or have an old futon mattress on the floor that he can nearly silently have a full tantrum on, throw binders on… whatever.

      Basically there must be a dozen ways that he can physically blow off steam and quickly reduce his cortisol levels in the moment (which is almost certainly healthier than keeping it bottled up all day!) without concurrently sending her cortisol levels through the roof (not healthy for her).

      The fact that he 100% needs to be respectful of her and her needs does not mean that he therefore automatically needs to project an office appropriate demeanor in a non office setting, When he’s answering to exactly one “coworker” with whom he can have serious conversations and come to mutually-satisfactory solutions, rather than defaulting to office-standard as the only valid solution.

      1. LW3*

        The advice that he should call out “incoming, sweetie!” is hilarious and helpful. All the suggestions for ways he can have an emotional outlet (which he clearly needs) that don’t raise my cortisol levels (which I clearly need) are helpful. You’re right that a lot of the problem is the surprise element. Poor guy is obviously going through a lot right now, I don’t want to add to that stress by telling him he has to pretend to not have emotions. <3

    6. londonedit*

      Not Australian, but British, and we have a similar attitude to swearing. But there’s still a time and place. It’s no problem for me to swear in the office – but I still wouldn’t do it in a formal meeting, and I wouldn’t swear AT someone. I also wouldn’t unleash a tirade of swear words unless it was really, really warranted – unless I was working from home and on my own! I don’t think one needs to be prudish about swearing in order to be unsettled by hearing a sudden loud stream of swearing, accompanied by ‘banging and shouting’. That’s not a normal or healthy response to finishing a meeting!

      1. amoeba*

        Yeah, I think the “cursing” is a bit of a red herring here – it’s about the “stream of expletives”, banging, etc. Which definitely wouldn’t be appropriate in any sane office, even if the occasional f-word is no problem whatsoever!

        1. londonedit*

          I know, but people here can and do take things seriously (I’ve seen many classic examples here of people getting their knickers in a twist thanks to the difference between UK/Aussie dry humour and American humour) and I think it’s important that alongside the lightheartedness we point out that while swearing is absolutely fine in some cultures/circumstances, there’s still nuance to it.

      3. Aardvark*

        I think the swearing around people, v swearing at people is part of the key here.
        There is also the difference between swearing conversationally and swearing aggressively.
        Particularly with ‘kuh’ sound words, being shouted or used aggressively can be quite intimidating, and it sounds like it is this kind of situation LW3 is experiencing.

        Is he doing it while someone else is on a call, or just when ‘alone’. If it is the former, that would be additionally concerning.

    7. HailRobonia*

      Lol, my dad was Australian and I can vouch for this. He made frequent use of the term “bloody” which has been described thusly:

      “It’s considered rare in American English, vulgar in British English, and mandatory in Australian English.” As a young child in the US I once confused my teachers by complaining that I couldn’t find the bloody scissors and they thought someone had been injured.

      1. Not bloody likely*

        My favourite use of the word “bloody” is when you use it to describe a person, but you put it in the middle of their name. For example, John bloody Smith (instead of bloody John Smith). It can be said with affectionate exasperation or outright disdain.

    8. Hamster Manager*

      I’d like to (red) flag that he’s not just cursing, he’s shouting and making banging noises (presumably hitting things). This is not the same as an office that’s cool with swears, this is big red flag stuff.

      I will offer some grace that in high-drama projects/workspaces, your emotions can get out of control more than you realize, but you should let him know behavior like this is scary, and he needs to get a grip (and a new job, it sounds like).

  3. Eric*

    #5, keep in mind the formula for overtime for people on a fixed salary (regardless of # of hours worked) is a bit wonky. It works out in effect to just needing to be paid the “half time” of time and a half, since your straight salary covers the regular time portion. so if you work 44 hours in a week, you would only get an extra 4.5% (4 hours overtime/44 hours worked times 0.5 overtime factor) of your salary, not the 15% extra (4/40 time 1.5) that you might expect. Give the calculator at https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/otcalc/otreport.asp a try or take a read through https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/778.114 for more.

    1. Sloanicota*

      If I were OP faced with this morass, unless the board seems likely to approve a raise/paying overtime (in my experience, this is unlikely, but I may be biased by my current role) I would just assume this is a mandate to cap my hours at 40, stop making videos at home in the evenings if that puts me over 40 hours, and push back on extra obligations by explaining you are over your hours. They may still owe you backpay, and you can decide if you’re going to pursue that, but this is not an unexpected situation in nonprofit, particularly with part timers who are expected to flag for supervisors that they’re over their hours for the week and not able to take on more.

  4. ABC*

    #5. I’m confused. You work 40 hours year round for a $30,000 salary? You mentioned it’s a second job mostly in the summer….. during the school year are you also working full time hours?

    1. Alz*

      Not the OP but I would assume that the 40+ hours is just during the summer. So during school time she might put in 5-10 hours on weekends or after work and then during summer she is doing the core open hours + some after hour requirements and those are the weeks she is over.
      Also not an American but I would assume “overtime” is calculated on a daily or weekly scale and you can’t flextime your shorter weeks from January all the way to June

      1. See ya next tues*

        Yeah, I’m Australian so I’m definitely better versed on swear words than the intricacies of US employment law, but if the job is mostly summer, shouldn’t the salary be pro-rated or something, making the employee exempt?

        1. AcademiaNut*

          There isn’t an exemption for part time workers (ie, the yearly same salary applies). I’m not sure about seasonal employees – there are some exceptions there, but it appears to be for jobs where employees hired for a business that only operates part of the year, not mixed full time and part time over a whole year.

        2. ecnaseener*

          If this was *solely* a summer job and the $30k was only for, say, 10 weeks of work, then yes, the employee could be exempt because they’d be paid $3000 a week. The salary threshold defined in law is $684 per week (which, for a year-round job, works out to $35,568, but that figure isn’t in the law, only the weekly figure). (Actually maybe it’s higher now as of July?)

          But the job is only *mostly* summer, with some work year-round. And it’s salaried, not hourly, so LW is getting the same ~$577 pay every week year-round. My understanding is that it has to be the same salary year-round to qualify as salaried for the purposes of exempt status — they can’t set two different rates for summer and non-summer.

          1. Hlao-roo*

            Thanks for this info! I was under the impression that the threshold was set as an annual salary, not as a weekly wage. Learned something new this morning.

            (Actually maybe it’s higher now as of July?)

            I took a look at the Dept. of Labor website, and for “standard salary level” the minimum salary amount beginning July 1, 2024 is $844 per week. Beginning January 1, 2025 the threshold will jump to $1,128 per week.

            I’ll post a link in a separate comment for anyone who wants to do their own poking around on the DOL website.

            1. Birdie*

              Holy cow, a whole lot of salaried folks became eligible for OT on July 1. And a bunch more will on Jan 1. I bet 99% of them don’t realize it. Their employers may not realize it. Nonprofits in particular need to be aware.

    2. amoeba*

      That was my thought! A salary of 30k for 2 months is a very different story than for 12, and I would have expected that to qualify?

      1. Potsie*

        The law isn’t really designed for jobs that are sometimes part time and sometimes full time. I would think that what makes the most sense is to switch to hourly pay instead with a rate that takes into account the overtime expectation.

  5. AcademiaNut*

    For the last LW – you might want to let them know that if they want you to fundraise for your salary, that would also count towards your work hours.

    If you want a tactful way of pushing it, frame it in terms of legal liability to the museum. You cannot legally waive your right to overtime, you cannot legally choose to work off the clock. They must pay your overtime, even if they haven’t formally approved it. The museum would still be liable for lost wages and fines if it were discovered. Then, to protect them of course, you can either only work in office, or clock your total hours and when you hit 40 hours, stop for the week.

    Right now, it sounds like they’re getting 1.5 full time equivalents for the cost of one underpaid employee, at least during the summer. They probably need to hire another part time worker to mind the museum while you are doing off-site stuff.

    1. K the Development Director*

      I just want to point out (to all, not you AcademiaNut) that being asked to fundraise for part of her salary, while not illegal, is a pretty big breach of the American Fundraising Professionals Code of Ethics. It’s something that simply “isn’t done” in the nonprofit industry. (For example, you can’t be paid as a portion of the dollars you raise; there are no commissions or similar pay structure in professional fundraising. Saying “we’ll pay you $15k more if you can raise it” would be a violation of this tenet.) The board may not be aware of this so I want to encourage OP to push back on that particular suggestion if it comes up again.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Ooooh, that’s interesting information! I actually was thinking that it’s a bit weird for the board to ask the employee to do fundraising in order to increase the employee’s salary anyway. And fundraising is a big time suck, so it’s counterproductive for the employee to shift their responsibilities from their administrative duties over to fundraising; it would leave the museum in the lurch. I agree with AcademiaNut that maybe they just need to hire someone else to mind the museum while OP does the special projects the board wants them to do or whatever.

        One wonders how much funding the museum gets and if the board has been responsible for getting all the funding over the years (seems likely, if OP is only doing admin-type stuff). If so, could *they* maybe step up with the fundraising and figure out a way to pay OP more?

  6. RedinSC*

    I work in local government. We’re not allowed over time. It’s literally not in our budget. So, if not everything can get done, it is important to prioritize what has to be done, vs what is going to have to wait. So maybe the answer isn’t to work over time, but to prioritize and tell the board what isn’t going to happen.

    1. JR17*

      Agreed. #5, if you work overtime, they have to pay you. But if you’re the executive director, it’s your responsibility to make sure your work hours stay within the budget, even if that means cutting back on programming. Of course, if you have a healthy relationship with your board (big if!), you should have some latitude to shift the budget somewhat to make sure you’re able to accomplish key priorities, etc. But if there’s optional work you’re doing that doesn’t strictly need to get done, while they do have to pay you for it, it’s reasonable for them to expect you not to do it.

      1. JSPA*

        in particular, they may expect you to do purchasing online and research online while at your regular job. If your job includes wrangling volunteers, I wonder if you can set aside (say) 10:40 to 11:15 a.m. for ordering…1:15 to 2:15 for “research hour”…or whatever. If you’d rather buy local, then order for pick up?

        If the deals that you find far more than make up for the gross pay they’d have to pay (i.e. include taxes and benefits), point out to them that they come out ahead… But be prepared to hear that they’d rather go with (say) a standing pen and paper order, yearly, and don’t find any added value in the cuter or more comfortable or more theft proof or cheaper pens that you’re shopping for.

    2. Viette*

      Yes, while the array of suggestions about the hours are all fairly absurd, they are allowed to tell the LW not to work overtime. They want something they can’t have: LW to work overtime hours without getting paid overtime. LW can come up with proactive solutions, like “hire someone else part time to be at work while I run errands off site and do research projects”, or “reduce opening/onsite hours”. It’s a small local history museum, so maybe it just doesn’t have the funds to maintain the board’s desired level of activity.

    3. Nice cup of tea*

      This seems to be the sensible solution. Work exactly 40 hours a week.

      Prioritise your work so you never go over and if you have weeks where you are under then maybe you can get ahead or do some of the less essential tasks.

      Work at work and not at home.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        This. The Board doesn’t want to pay you overtime, you don’t work overtime. Then when they complain things aren’t done, you point out that they either have to pay overtime as required by law or you will not do overtime. You will not assist them in breaking the law.

        If that doesn’t get through, well, not a lot you can do. They either follow the law or you have to decide if this is the breaking point for you. I get it as a teacher you need a second income (which is whole other issue) and you might not have a lot of options. but the Board has shown you who they are, believe them.

    4. Some Internet Rando*

      Came here to say this… You may be entited to overtime but in some settings you have to be pre-approved for working those extra hours and there has to be a fairly good rationale. Otherwise employees could take it upon themselves to add extra hours (at a higher rate) whenever they want, rather than pacing their time within the alloted 40 hours. It doesnt sound like the extra work you are doing *needs* to be done within that week, so I can understand the board wanting you to stop at 40 hours and priortize the important things first. I would be frustrated if I was on a Board and I found out the ED had some extra time and decided to do some research from home at a rate of time+half rather than just stopping or waiting until the next week.

        1. Cthulhu's Librarian*

          Try? I’m curious what you find wrong with it.

          What’s some internet rando said here is not unreasonable, nor uncommon. Most workplaces require overtime be approved in advance, precisely because the law says you can’t avoid paying it even if it wasn’t approved.

        2. Festively Dressed Earl*

          Maybe because it’s two opposite points of view in conflict? Or that people are assuming different context?

          Person A, the good-faith employee: There’s legitimately 60 hours of work that needs to be done that are essential – Person A needs to do this to meet their employer’s expectations and to do their job competently. Employer wants the 60 hours of work done, will only pay 40, and won’t budge. If we take LWs at face value the way Alison says we should, that’s where this LW is.

          Person B, the bad-faith employee: There’s maybe 30 hours of work to be done total. Person B spends their scheduled hours goofing off, then puts in 30 hours of overtime at time and a half to meet requirements, thus earning 85 hours of pay for 30 hours of work. Rando alluded to this and other commenters have laid this out explicitly. Employers fear having this employee, Person A would be writing in to AAM about this person, and we all wish Person B didn’t exist.

          Person C, the lousy time manager: This is who Red, Rando, and the others in this thread are talking about. Look up Crystal, the Coworker Who’s Busy Doing Nothing for an example. Person C has a list of actual job responsibilities that range from essential to busywork, can’t differentiate between them, and neglects to communicate with their manager or coworkers about priorities. Person C may also make things more complicated than they need to be. Many of us have been Person C because it takes self-awareness and experience not to be. Person C has 40 hours of work that becomes 60 hours in good faith. They’re also easily mistaken for Person A, which is really uncomfortable to think about and to confront others about.

          Government agencies often have hard rules about not working unauthorized overtime because they’re accountable to taxpayers if they go over budget; since there’s no profits or losses to point to, the public may assume agencies are full of person B when they’re actually person A or C. One good non-budget side effect of sending employees home at 40 hours is getting a better idea of what’s going on. A good manager will look at the outcomes and figure out who’s truly overloaded, who needs training, who needs closer supervision, and what arguments to make if more staff are needed.

      2. fhqwhgads*

        You can fire an employee for working unauthorized overtime, but you still have to pay them for that overtime already worked. In other words the consequences of “have to be pre-approved and a fairly good rationale” can be dismissal, but they still get paid. So the disincentive to “taking it upon themselves to add extra hours at a higher rate whenever they want” is you’ll get fired for that.

    5. B*

      Correct. They do have to pay LW for all the time worked, but they can also direct LW not to work overtime and fire her for disobeying that instruction.

  7. Roland*

    Love the answer to LW 4. I’ve really been resenting the amount of pre-start work involvement have started requiring from me since Covid lockdowns started. ID chekcs, uploading documents, filling out a million “get to know you!!!!” survey, “super quick” meetings with the team
    … It doesn’t matter they’re small on their own – it takes time away from the end of my pre-job break and I know companies know it takes time because otherwise they’d do it on day 1. But they only want to take away from my unpaid time, not my paid time.

    1. TheBunny*

      This is an…odd flex.

      Uploading documents and filing out a few “favorite things” sheets takes a couple of hours.

      Do you have to do it before day 1? Maybe not…but it certainly doesn’t seem like the hill to die on.

      1. Myrin*

        Huh? What is “flexing” about being annoyed about having to already dedicate quite some time – even just “a couple of hours” – to a job you’ve not even started at? It’s not a flex to say you’ve started a (or possibly several, since it sounds like this happened more than once) new job sometime in the last four years.

      2. Tangential*

        I agree with Roland, but I really value that between-jobs time, and I tend to overthink those getting to know you questionnaires. (Also just fyi “flex” refers to bragging not complaining)

      3. AcademiaNut*

        I would distinguish between things that need to be done before you can start work (ID check, visa paperwork, maybe information to get you into the payroll system or get a security badge, preferences for ordering a computer or desk), and things that are part of the job (team meetings, getting to know you bios, clothing size for company swag). The first needs to be done, the second is a bit much, particularly given that you might be extra busy finishing notice on your previous job.

        1. Emmy Noether*

          Also, to tie into the other letter, I’d think that things that are part of the job (and team meetings definitely cross that line) have to be paid, legally.

        2. amoeba*

          I mean – I have never ever had to do any of those things before my actual start date in any of the jobs I’ve had, they were always day 1 tasks! Or some of them had already been prepared for me by my coworkers/boss, like setting up e-mail (I only had to change the password), etc. The only thing I’ve had to do was check my e-mail for the time and place I should be there on the first day. Badge is collected during the first days, until then you have a preliminary/visitor one, etc.

          Of course, I get it if there’s Visa stuff involved, and yeah, asking for preferences for Laptop/desk might be nice. But anything beyond that can absolutely be done on the first day, IMHO.

          1. Lw4 (he/him)*

            Yes, all the stuff we ask for before the first day is just what we need for payroll, legal requirements for background and right to work checks, and regulatory requirements (like proof of industry specific certifications).

            It takes about an hour to an hour and a half to complete everything from the candidate side, and that’s not all at once. Also, pretty much all of it would be required at any job in the country, although not everywhere would do the criminal record and credit checks we have to do.

            Anything more to do with settling into the team isn’t done until the candidate has started, with the exception of some of our highest level roles where there might be the occasional “getting to know you” informal coffee or lunch, which is always optional and is paid for by the company.

            I think some people are getting the impression that we’re asking for a load of things/a huge time sink from candidates, and we’re really not, especially as we know most of them don’t have any break between their last jobs and their new roles with us.

            1. a trans person*

              How do you get the documents? I absolutely would not send them through email or upload them to a sketchy-looking web portal. If you insisted on having documents electronically before my first day, and didn’t provide me any way to securely provide them to you, I probably would abandon the job entirely tbh.

              1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                It’s a secure, custom-built onboarding platform with our company branding all over it. Nothing sketchy about it

            2. Gumby*

              Yeah, the payroll stuff can be done on day 1 though it also hasn’t ever taken me more than 5 minutes to handle but then I still own paper checks so it’s basically handing over a voided check and signing something saying I want direct deposit. But the rest – background check info, regulatory requirements – seem like absolutely normal things to happen before you start work. I’d expect many of them to be requirements before a job offer is finalized at all. I’d consider them part of the interview process more than part of onboarding.

              Back in the day, a background check after a first round interview is how I discovered that my driver’s license was expired. Because apparently I had updated my address with the car registration part of the DMV but that is not linked to the licensing part of the DMV so I missed all of the notices. I did not get that job, but I don’t think it was because of my license situation. Which was fixed within the week!

              1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                Payroll stuff is, I gather, handled differently in the UK vs the US. We only do direct deposit, for one, and we also have to collect certain information for HMRC PAYE tax purposes.

                1. Freya*

                  UK sounds pretty similar to Australia – direct deposit is ubiquitous and if I don’t have an employee’s tax file number declaration form, I have to withhold tax at the highest possible rate instead of according to the preferences they’ve listed on the form. Their superannuation details can currently wait up to 4 weeks, but in 2026 we’ll need it before we can pay the employee. On the plus side, new employees can log onto their personal account with the tax office and just export the necessary details to send to us, so if they know how, it takes maybe 5 minutes and any mistakes will match what the tax office has so it’s all good.

          2. Great Frogs of Literature*

            The ONLY things I’ve ever had a job ask for before I start were:

            1) Please log into your work email and set up 2FA before your start date, because once you’ve started, you’re an employee and 2FA is enforced and if it’s not set up you won’t be able to log in (and even then it was workable if they didn’t do it, someone just needed to go in and do a manual override on the requirement, which was annoying). I’m not saying that was a great system, but it’s how the system worked.

            2) Please accept delivery of the laptop we are sending you (remote job).

      4. blah*

        Agreed. Uploading documents should take you an hour max. A “get to know you” survey is nothing close to what the LW is talking about, so you can probably get away with delaying that until you have some free time.

    2. Nodramalama*

      Well, the issue with ID checks and uploading documents on your first day is that at a lot of places you may not be able to do anything until those documents are submitted. So it’s not a great use of the company’s time if they’re paying you to twiddle your thumbs because your police check hasn’t cleared and they can’t put you on payroll

      1. Chuffchuff*

        This is the only amendment to Allison’s text that I’d propose. I suspect but adding “…and delay your first paycheck” or similar to the script you will get more attention!

      2. KateM*

        I think that what is meant by ID check is “show up and show your ID to see it is you”, not checking with police. Something like I had when taking a remote test, first I had to join a video call with HR and hold up my ID card so they could compare the picture on it to my face and check that the data on it was that I had said it was so.

        1. Nodramalama*

          I mean police check is a document many jobs will require you to submit before you start. But also an ID check can mean any number of things depending on where you work and what the process is.

          I work in government and if a new employee doesn’t do a bunch of ID, security, background and police checks before they start, they will turned away on the first day

          1. Myrin*

            In general, yes, but OP explains what she means by ID check right away: “a video call where we check that the employee is the person on the ID documents they’ve given us”.
            (Of course the “documents they’ve given us” means they’ve had to provide stuff beforehand and it sounds like those are the “necessary documents to even start this process” which they are “slow to provide”, but it sounds like OP’s most pressing concern are the video calls.)

            1. Nodramalama*

              I’m not responding to LW. Im responding to Roland being resentful of having to do pre start work, and why some of it can’t wait until the person starts.

            2. Lw4*

              I’m actually “he”, not “she”, and transgender so particularly sensitive about this :)

              Perhaps I’ve explained the issue badly! The problem I have is that legally we have to do the ID check before we’re allowed to employ someone. In my country there’s no option to do this on the first day.

            3. Lw4 (he/him)*

              My concern with the video call is that it’s a legally required check in my country. The fact that we need those documents for other things — getting criminal record checks done, for example — is also definitely an issue! But what seems to happen is that people provide the documents knowing we need them for the vetting process, and then assume they don’t also need to do the video call, which we now legally have to do.

              (For clarity, it doesn’t have to be a video call, they could bring everything in in-person, but it would still need to be before their first day, and the 5-min video call is definitely less intrusive. Especially as much of the company works remotely so we’d also have to coordinate someone from HR being in the office to meet them)

              1. happybat*

                We have something like that in the UK, motivated by our government’s bizarre crusade against well qualified and socially useful people choosing to live and work here.

                Of course we also take stern action to discourage desperate and often heroic people who have to come here because of dire circumstances in their original homes.

                It’s all very depressing and pointless.

                1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                  I am in fact also in the UK!

                  It’s an absurd process, isn’t it? But we do have to do the IDSP checks and the true likeness check to make sure the person who did the check is our employee, or we could be in a whole world of hot water.

                2. bamcheeks*

                  I’m wondering if LW is in the UK actually, since it does sound like our hostile environment RTW checks.

                  LW, it sounds like the main problem is that people don’t understand that the ID check is a requirement of starting work. Could this be added to the spiel at the start of the interview, or ensure that all managers know to mention it when they’re making a job offer? It has got considerably more onerous in the past 10 years, so it’s not surprising that anyone who hasn’t started a couple of jobs in that time isn’t expecting it. I do think this sounds like a communication problem rather than anything else, so I would review all your contact points with candidates earlier in the process and think about where there’s room for this to be communicated more clearly.

              2. noncommittally anonymous*

                I had to do mine in person. I had to drive from our location to our main campus (1 hour each way) to stand in someone’s office and have them verify that the photo of the person in my passport was really me (5 minutes) and then drive back. I’d’ve loved to have had a video option.

        2. Snow Globe*

          Years ago, I worked at a place that did this stuff the first day, but then, yes, the employee couldn’t actually work until HR and IT had time to set everything up. It would sometimes be 2-3 days before the new employee had a user id to sign on to our systems. So, the company started trying to get the required stuff out of the way before they new employees start so they don’t have to sit around doing nothing. (As an employee, I did not like sitting around with nothing to do.)

    3. jinni*

      My friend had ALL the ‘pre’ job stuff for a remote position at a huge public university. It was unpaid time! Due to suing her previous school for discrimination, she didn’t feel like she could push back. But she and I agreed it was too much.

      1. Edwina*

        Serious question: Why does it matter that she sued her previous employer? Because other employers might be biased against her?

        FWIW, I sued a previous landlord, and that somehow makes me nervous about renting, but I can’t articulate why. Don’t know if the reasons would be similar or not.

    4. Arrietty*

      I pay my new employees for the time they spend doing this (particularly as I ask them to come to the office, rather than doing it remotely). I don’t know if it’s required by law but it feels like it’s required by decency. They wouldn’t be filling out those forms if they weren’t starting to work for us.

      1. Lw4 (he/him)*

        Unfortunately paying people for this would be a legal grey area in my country at best.

        We aren’t allowed to employ people until the ID check is complete, as this is a legally required step in the right to work checks, and we can’t employ someone who doesn’t have the right to work.

        However, we do pay competitively for our industry, have and have a great deal of flexibility in working hours, seldom require overtime, and provide every single employee with everything they need to work from home should they choose to, including a desk/chair/lamp/keyboard, all at no cost to them, so I’d hope people feel well compensated by the company.

    5. Lw4*

      This is an excellent point, and we’re really conscious about not asking too much. Unfortunately where I am — not the US — we’re legally required to do this check before we’re allowed to employ people, it’s part of the process of confirming that they have the right to work in the country, and they’re not allowed to be an employee until that’s done, even if only for half an hour on their first day.

      1. Cardboard Marmalade*

        I think the point is that if you’re completing these tasks for half an hour on your first day, you’re getting paid for that half hour, and if you’re doing it over zoom a few days before your official start date, you’re not getting paid. Would simply letting people know they’ll be paid for that half hour retroactively once they’ve officially started help with compliance at all?

        1. Lw4 (he/him)*

          These are things that have to be done, legally, before someone is an employee of ours. It’s not a my company thing, it’s a legal requirement in the entire country, and I don’t know of a single employer that would pay for it, to be honest.

          We only ask for information that is required by the law, by our regulators (we are a highly regulated industry reporting to two separate oversight authorities), or for stuff needed for payroll. Having been through the process when I joined the company it’s really not that onerous — and I’m multiply disabled and tend to find things like this pretty difficult.

          1. allathian*

            This seems to be a problem for you, but because it’s a legal requirement that applies to all employers in the UK, it really shouldn’t come as a surprise to any employees. The ID check takes, what, 5-15 minutes? I think it’s unrealistic to demand to be paid for that time, especially as this procedure is a necessity if you want to be employed in the UK.

            That said, maybe reminding people about this requirement at an earlier stage would help? And I mean really early, as in the job posting. Then remind them again in the interview, as well as the job offer.

            It’s not anything onerous, I had to show ID at the security booth to get a visitor’s badge when I was interviewed for my current job.

            1. Lw4 (he/him)*

              At the moment we do the following;
              1. Ask at application stage if the candidate has the right to work
              2. State in the email sent inviting them to onboarding that this check has to be done
              3. State on our onboarding platform that the check has to be done
              4. State in our contracts and offer letters that the offer is dependent on satisfactory vetting checks and proof of right to work.

              I also send candidates several emails throughout the process that explain what steps they have outstanding and what we need to do to complete them. Most people seem to get it just fine, but it seems that when we have problems we *really* have problems.

              I think I’m going to speak with my line manager and ask her if we can get some of the language updated to be much clearer about what we need and why and see if this helps.

              1. Nebula*

                I really think putting dates in if you haven’t done that already would help. For the record, when I started my current job a few months ago, I got a call from an HR person almost as soon as I’d sent my acceptance of the conditional offer to book me in for an ID check – which I did have to go to in person before my start date. So you can definitely be quite aggressive with the ‘this needs done’ approach and that wouldn’t be out of the norm.

                I think you do just have to accept that if people don’t do it after you’ve spelled it all out for them, maybe they aren’t as good a candidate as they appeared during the interview. I’d certainly be questioning someone’s organisational skills and attention to detail if they were still dragging their feet on this when it’s a legal requirement and it’s been made clear to them they’re jeopardising their start date if it’s not done.

                1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                  Yeah, I do wish I had the authority to pull offers when we get the most non-compliant candidates, but unfortunately that decision is far above me. It’s happened once or twice but only for really egregious behaviour.

              2. londonedit*

                Yeah, it’s odd that you’re having this many problems and I think maybe it’s something to do with the wording or how you’re presenting it. I’ve been working for 20+ years and in every single job I’ve had to bring my passport with me on my first day so that HR can scan it and confirm that I have the right to work in the UK. I get that it might feel different if someone is working remotely on their first day, and maybe that’s where the issues are creeping in, if people think ‘well I’ve sent them my documents, I don’t see why they need a call as well’. But still, if any new employer of mine was asking me to attend a video meeting then I’d do it! So I think maybe it needs to be made clear that the onboarding video call is a) a legal requirement and b) for the purposes of checking their ID and confirming that they have the right to work in the UK, and that their employment is conditional on them attending that video call.

                1. Nebula*

                  I think this is the thing though, you used to be able to do it on your first day and now it has to be done *before* your first day. So I think maybe some of the people missing these calls, particularly the ones who haven’t changed jobs in years, are thinking ‘Oh it’s not a big deal if I miss it, I can just do it on my first day’. That’s no longer the case.

                2. Lw4 (he/him)*

                  I do think the other reply to this, Nebula, has it right. This now has to be done *before* the first day, we’re legally not allowed to do it *on* the first day.

                  The previous government massively increased the stringency of right to work and identity checks and the new process seems to be what’s giving people trouble — we didn’t have this before some of the more recent changes a year or two ago.

                3. Amey*

                  Also in the UK, we check right to work (as in we see the documents, sometimes on Zoom call) at interview. Would this be possible for you to implement? I’m in an immigration-related job (in a non-immigration business), and this might be the most straightforward way to do this. If you don’t want to check all interviewees, could you schedule a right to work check call with them when you make them the offer? We usually make the offer verbally before the written offer is produced, so could easily arrange a Zoom call with them then.

                4. ecnaseener*

                  Replying to LW4, no more nesting — if you can put that in your communications, “as of (year) the law/govt now requires that we complete this BEFORE your first day and we can’t officially hire you until it’s done,” I bet that will help.

              3. Anonymous Tech Writer*

                I’m following this close, albeit on a tangent. I have an analogous situation where a law changed and people are not changing their actions.
                In my case it’s bilingual product docs for things we sell in Canada. It is no longer a marketing choice whether or not to provide French along with our English, but POs are getting blocked as optional expense.

                Similarly to what’s suggested here, I’ve been pushing to move the conversation earlier – marketing needs to include translation costs in their initial justification for sale in this new market.

                I’ve resorted to increasingly strident things like “out of compliance with Canadian law” and “individual customers now have the right tosue this company” and “the cost of translating these 5 documents is less than a non-compliance decision for this entire PO.”

                Bringing it back to your situation, do your hiring managers mention it in the actual interview? That’s when people are probably paying the most attention.

                1. Anonymous Tech Writer*

                  I should never write on mobile before coffee…. please believe me my documents aren’t as tangled.

                2. Observer*

                  Out of curiosity, is this now the law in all of Canada? Because this should not be surprise to anyone in Quebec. I’m an American, but I have friends in Canada, and I’ve also seen some products here that are also sold in Quebec – the the ones that are also sold in Quebec often have all the required panels, etc in French as well as English. This has been required for decades.

                  I tried to look this up, but the information I found was confusing. It does seem that some of the requirements were expanded, but even that wasn’t passed last week.

                  Also, are you in Canada, or are you shipping from the US? Because if it’s the latter, you may also want to point out that if you can’t show that you have the required docs, they simply won’t let your goods into the country.

              4. Ellis Bell*

                Since you said that it is “candidates in very junior roles, or ones who haven’t changed job in years” is it simply the case that the don’t have any photo ID or equivalents? My nephew is a school leaver and he doesn’t have any of the things he needed just to apply to an apprenticeship recently. It can be a very time consuming faff to apply for documents if you are not a driver, have a passport and have gone paperless on your billls. Instead of just asking “do you have the right to work in the UK”, can you add: “Proof of your status in the form of official ID (examples) will need to be provided by x date or we will not be able to offer the successful candidate the role”

                2. Lw4 (he/him)*

                  So, the process I’m describing is only for those with a valid (in date) passport.

                  There are other routes to prove ID and right to work for someone who doesn’t have that, although here in the UK it’s very unusual for people not to have one. I’d estimate that maybe one in 30 candidates that we hire is a British citizen who doesn’t have a passport.

                  We also accept paperless bills for proof of residency, and provide a comprehensive list of what we can and cannot accept in each category that we need.

                  We don’t ask for proof of right to work at application stage because this looks different for people on various visas. It’s something we only ask for once an offer has been made, and we’ve never had a situation where someone wasn’t able to prove their right to work

              5. bamcheeks*

                All of these are written, and I would think about where you can incorporate a verbal, “before you can start, you have to meet with…”

                An awful lot of what gets sent out in onboarding packs is bumf and template wording, and it’s really important to realise that people scan that kind of stuff for critical information (dates, salary, job title, what they need to send.) It is incredibly normal for UK citizens to see the words “passport, visa, right to work” and think, “oh, that doesn’t apply to me.” If people haven’t had much experience with pre-job checks or the hostile environment checks, they are extremely likely to think it’s a thing for immigrants, since that’s overwhelmingly how it’s been presented in the media. (I’ve had this from the other side, with an Asian candidate saying defensively, “I’m a British citizen!” when I told him I needed to see his passport, and I had to explain that this applied to everyone and wasn’t because I was making assumptions about his citizenship based on his ethnicity.)

                A verbal explanation from the hiring manager at the point they offer the job, stressing that this applies to everyone, including UK citizens, is much harder for people to miss.

                1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                  It’s my colleagues in recruitment who make the offers (I am their admin assistant) so I’ll speak with them and make sure they’re highlighting this when they make offers

              6. Unpaid*

                If it were me, I wouldn’t even be checking these emails until my first day. I don’t work there yet! Why are you sending me all of these emails? To my personal email?

                This should be stated in the offer letter if it’s really that important.

                Also, if it’s one email, and then oh, another email to do this, and oh, can you please do this as well….etc etc…. I might respond to one, but after that you’re going to either pay me or be fine waiting.

                1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                  That’s… certainly a perspective. These are legally required steps in the process and they can’t wait until the first day. We would be breaking the law if we did.

                  We would also be massively in breach of regulatory requirements which could lead to the whole company being shut down.

                2. Andrea*

                  Same. I work in a highly regulated industry so I must follow some strict rules but still I don’t work for free. I’m not doing zoom job meetings or paperwork between hiring date and when the job starts paying me, and no one’s ever asked me to. I am an American though.

                  LW4, new hires aren’t doing this *at* you. It sounds like since it’s a new law that was sold as only xenophobic, your job offers will need to clearly note that you’re requiring it, or people who think “well I’m a citizen, this isn’t about me” are gonna ignore until the job starts.

            2. I wear my sunglasses at night*

              I work in the U.S. and honestly, have encountered a fairly similar process in the last few onboarding procedures since 2022 (remote and in-person), including physically showing my photo ID and birth certificate to HR on my first day. It’s for the I-9 paperwork in the U.S.—to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for employment here so there are several different documents you could use: a passport by itself would work, or a photo ID and social security *card*, naturalization documents, etc.

              And that all includes doing stuff before Day 1 too like: filling out some of the I-9 paperwork at home electronically; setting up direct deposit; setting up work email, etc.

              I know the LW seems to be specifically referencing Brexit (and we all know that there’s been rash of “so the person who showed up/logged on at our work on Day 1 is very much NOT the person we offered the job to?????” letters and that this is a trend all over). But honestly, in every job onboarding I’ve had lately, the at-home “pre-work” stuff was like 15-20 minutes top? It beat the old-fashioned way of spending Days 1 and 2 at work waiting to get set up with all that stuff, waiting like 1-3 paycheck cycles for direct deposit, etc.

              So, IDK, I don’t really get the hand-wringing that pops up when this topic appears about “I should be paid for doing this at home!!!” You’re not technically an employee of theirs yet. And in LW’s case, they legally can’t pay yet because you legally aren’t an employee of theirs yet. And they very much legally can’t skip that ID check. Like, do you want to be paid for the time interviewing for that specific job? Waiting for the job offer and then responding to it? How about for all the other interviews that didn’t pan out?
              Honestly, think about this for 5 minutes.

              1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                I absolutely agree with the sentiment of this! I’m not sure this is just a Brexit issue so much as a the last government was hugely anti immigration but only in ineffectual ways issue.

                The worst part is that when this new system was brought in they said it would be smoother and easier than what we had before, which is isn’t!

                1. bamcheeks*

                  Yeah, this is hostile environment stuff. Brexit came from the same sentiment, but it’s two symptoms of the same gross xenophobia, not cause and effect.

                2. fhqwhgads*

                  Based on all you additional explanations in your comments, I think you’ve likely been very clear, and maaaaybe slightly updated wording might cut down on this, but also it sounds like it’s candidate problem. Not a how-you-communicate-with-candidates problem. It’s the law where you are that this happen, and happen in advance. Even if you can’t expect a candidate to know that, you’ve told them that. Sounds like, told them several times. So if they’re still blowing it off on the regular, that’s them either being willfully ignorant or just not caring about regulations. Since it’s above your head to pull the offer over it, it seems like there may not be much you can do. Try the rewording, but if it doesn’t abate, focus on communicating with the people who do have authority.
                  Put another way: flakes gonna flake.

              2. Celebrate Good Times*

                Thank you! I was coming here to comment something similar. I am in the US but work in a regulated industry – I even had to go and be fingerprinted pre-hire. It never occurred to me to demand payment for my time. Seems like such an odd thing to be worked up about.

      2. Mutually supportive*

        This seems to be a very rigourous interpretation, because I’m also in the UK and we literally do this stuff as the first item on the first day of their new job, but not in advance.

        1. Lw4 (he/him)*

          Unfortunately because of the industry we’re in, and because we also have visa sponsorship abilities, we have to be incredibly exacting on these things where I work.

          I know that we’ve taken legal advice and we’ve been advised that for everything to be unquestionably correct we have to do it this way.

          We’re in a bit of a “the wife of caesar must be above reproach” circumstance I think, and the upshot is that we have absolutely no wiggle room.

          1. Lw4 (he/him)*

            And to add to this, the guidance issued by the government specifically says “before you employ them” which is the reason for this approach.

        2. Caaan Do!*

          The govt rules state it must be done before someone is employed, you’re risking being fined doing it as part of someone’s first day.

      4. Roland*

        Thanks for adding that context. In the US there’s def stuff that used to be standard to do in person on day 1 like Alison says but has started moving earlier, but I understand that’s not your situation.

    6. Looper*

      I9 verification is a federal requirement for employment in the US and has been since 1986. I’m very confused that LW says they only now started to do this after an incident. This is nothing new but it sounds like LW’s employer has been out of compliance for so long they don’t even have basic onboarding processes in place.

      1. L*

        … Or they’re not in the US. From their other comments, it sounds like they’re in the UK and having to do this BEFORE employment and not on the first day is a new process.

        Despite the ratio of people on the internet, the United States is not the only country that exists.

      2. Lw4 (he/him)*

        As the other commenter pointed out, I am one of the dozens of people worldwide who doesn’t live in the United States.

        In the UK we have only recently, as in, the last few years, been required to complete these checks before an employee’s first day.

        The process changed during the pandemic, largely in response to so many things moving online, and then changed further in 2022 which is when we began to see these issues.

    7. Observer*

      ID chekcs, uploading documents, filling out a million “get to know you!!!!” survey, “super quick” meetings with the team

      The latter two items should not be happening, I agree.

      But the two first items? Do you want to get your paycheck on time? Get enrolled in appropriate benefits timely, be able to actually work when you start?

      It the ID check is literally just looking at the picture of the person on the ID and the person themself, then that’s a 5 minute thing and is so minimal that it would fall under the de minimis threshold. If it’s also about stuff life verifying documents etc. then you definitely want that to happen ahead of time so you can start working and getting paid on your start date.

    8. And so it is and so it shall be*

      Since LW4 mentioned these are more junior employees, it makes me think that they just don’t take these requirements very seriously (and this based on my experience of managing interns, and one intern in particular). He forgot his passport on his first day, admitted he didn’t know where it was, but would find it and bring it the next day. A few days later, HR came to me and said they’d given him as much grace as they could, but at this point we had no confirmation he was a US citizen (since the passport was a way of proving citizenship for his I-9) and the firm would be out of compliance in terms of employing a non-citizen for the days he’d worked. I had to send him home to not return (and remain unpaid) until he found his passport or had another document to prove his citizenship. He looked truly incredulous and like this whole thing was way overblown and we were being unnecessarily strict. Turns out it was his first paying job (outside of something like baby-sitting or lawn-mowing) and he just thought these things were all formalities he could take care of at some point. So I wouldn’t necessarily jump to the “they find these things so onerous and time sucks” and more the “they’re junior and unaware how serious these requirements are”. Cut to this intern walking out of the office, calling his mom and shrieking “WE HAVE TO FIND IT TODAY” into the phone.

      1. Lw4 (he/him)*

        This is definitely the vibe with some of our more junior employees.

        We actually had one senior employee, someone in their 50s, who hadn’t changed job in 15 years. They were so outraged that we were asking them to prove their right to work (something they apparently hadn’t had to do 15 years ago) that they said they’d withdraw from their acceptance of the offer if we made them do it. They were shocked to learn that no exception could be made (and the offer was indeed withdrawn).

        1. JR17*

          That’s fascinating. Did the firm withdraw the offer or the candidate withdraw their acceptance? I think you mean the latter – if so, do you think this person didn’t actually have the right to work or was just withdrawing to make a point? (And if so, whoa. Interesting move.)

          1. Lw4 (he/him)*

            Nah, he had the right to work — he gave us his passport but wouldn’t do the call to verify it! He threatened to withdraw and we then pulled the offer because of the outrageous behaviour

            1. Observer*

              I’m glad to hear that you pulled the offer. This sounds like someone who is firmly convinced that rules don’t apply to him. Not a good look at any level.

        2. And so it is and so it shall be*

          This reminds me of my 60-something father who was very peeved he had to BRING HIS PASSPORT to update his drivers license to a RealID. He then found out his passport was expired and he had to call the state he was born in to get a copy of his birth certificate. He complained to me about all of this and I was less than sympathetic (one should keep important records like this!)

        3. fhqwhgads*

          Did they not know or not believe you that this would be the case with all employers in your country? Just curious.

    9. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

      People did paperwork for new jobs before covid. IDs, health insurance, security checks, etc. Meetings with the team and get to know you surveys may not be the norm, we don’t do those.

      1. Pescadero*

        At 50 years old, with half a dozen different jobs – every bit of that sort of paperwork was done on the clock my first day, paid.

      2. I Have RBF*

        In the US, the I-9 is often on the first day, and the payroll stuff is on or before the first day.

        But I understand some governments are much more xenophobic, and want the employees and employers to jump through more hoops as a homage to the political class.

    10. LL*

      The ID checks and document uploads (provided they’re related to actually hiring you) are normal, but the rest of it sounds really annoying.

    11. Sweatshirt*

      *Laughs in Compliance Manager working in the defense industry*

      You’re complaining about having to flash your ID on Zoom which in a lot of industries is a basic regulatory requirement. This step helps manage risk and ensures both the company assets and employees are protected. Verifying ID is practice no matter what the job is.

      The level of detail required for my clearances is extensive and vetted by national security agencies. Civilian organizations are then bound to an ongoing process of auditing and validating to ensure we’re complaint and can maintain the numerous certifications required to work in defense. It’s both a contractual requirement and federal legislation.

      So, in comparison, a basic pre employment checks is the smallest of deals.

    12. Coverage Associate*

      2 jobs back, I spent every business day between jobs in another continent. It was before Covid and WFH, and HR just adjusted to my not being able to be responsive.

      Years later, as Covid wound down, I was helping someone onboard, and HR wanted a day she would be home to have her laptop delivered. Obviously, answering the door takes 30 seconds, but I totally understood that having to be home all day on one of your last business days off until you at least get some routine at the new job was a big ask.

      So I totally get that a bunch of little asks and short meetings adds up to a lot.

  8. Kara*

    so this is one of the rare times that I kind of disagree with Allison’s advice.

    first of all your husband is not your co-worker. you are two separate individuals who are working from home in their separate spaces. he is not your coworker, he doesn’t work with you, he doesn’t influence your work, you don’t work with him.

    he clearly has a method to deal with frustrating calls by ranting and raving once the call is over. the issue is not that he’s your co-worker swearing and raving, the issue is that you can hear him venting his frustration from your office.

    it is 100% valid to tell him that you can hear him when he Rants and Raves and lets off stress and that it stresses you out. and that’s a valid conversation to have and something you should do with him. but again he is not your coworker so don’t approach it from that perspective.

    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      I don’t think the LW is actually proposing dealing with him as a coworker :) The headline says that, not the letter. (The headline is actually hers but I assume it was tongue in cheek.)

    2. MK*

      If you mean that this is a problem OP has with her husband, not a work problem in the strictest sense, I agree, but I don’t see what difference it makes.

      1. Nodramalama*

        obviously I can’t speak for Kara, but what I think they are saying is that they interpreted the advice to kind of say that LW can tell her husband to stop because it wouldn’t be appropriate if they were coworkers. Whereas it would be different advice if, for example, your neighbour had thin walls and you could hear them rant about their job

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

          She can tell him to quiet down because she lives there too. If it would be appropriate to tell a coworker then its appropriate for a wife to tell her husband to be quiet.

        2. Lady Danbury*

          Alison has addressed this same issue on more than one occasion with actual coworkers (e.g. search “Coworker swears angrily during the day”) and has advised LWs to address it with the offenders. Regular outbursts of swearing and banging every few hours that are loud enough that a coworker can hear them in the next office would be inappropriate in any office that I’ve worked in, especially since nothing in the letter indicates that the walls are thin, as opposed to LW’s coworker just being loud.

    3. Seeking Second Childhood*

      We can’t assume either way. It is entirely possible they are working for the same company. My company does have married couples, just not in the same division.

    4. Turquoisecow*

      I don’t think it makes a difference? If I had a coworker who was frequently shouting and banging things when they got frustrated I would probably talk to either them or my or their boss about it because it sounds like it’s definitely disrupting OP’s work. As a spouse, she has a right to a peaceful home. As a coworker, she has the right to quiet workspace.

    5. I DK*

      From a male perspective, he has every right to rant, BUT, from a married couple’s perspective she has EVERY RIGHT to tell him to tone it down and 100% expect it to happen. He can ‘take it to the garage’ if he has to, but he needs to be respectful of his “co-worker”

  9. MK*

    I find the first letter incredibly sad. I picture an older person who has worked in this hotel for years, and now they are rebranding and essentially telling him his job hinges on losing weight and fitting their new image.

    2. Emmy Noether*

      Yeah, if this is all coming from the consultant and/or upper management, it’s really horrible. It’s also possible that the manager mentioned something about weight loss once (diet culture, etc. etc. – feeling obligated to be self deprecating), and the consultant RAN with it. Also horrid.

      OR it could be coming from the manager. Still very inappropriate. And the employees are put in a bad position either way.

    3. Richard Hershberger*

      It seems to me that the big picture is being lost here. The company brought in a consultant who went around the room asking each person what they need to be held accountable for. The outside consultant is never a good sign, and this one seems pretty woo even by the standards of the industry. I generally take this as a sign it is time to brush up the resume, as things are likely to get worse before they get better. (Given that the LW no longer works there, they have taken it the same way.) In the meantime I would go the banal route, with some anodyne response that amounts to being held accountable for my work, which was true before the consultant ever showed up.

      As for the specific case of the former boss, he is trying to become CFO. Surely this is among the less public facing roles. If this place is making its hiring in financial roles based on waist measurements, this is a problem in its own right. It is entirely possible, even likely, that they land on someone who is barely competent, but looks great!

      1. MK*

        I mean, the accounting department as a whole isn’t public facing. I have been staying in hotels for 20 years and I don’t think I have even met the accountant who works there; even if there is an issue with the bill, it’s the front desk people, or maybe a manager, who handle it.

    4. Steve*

      Sounds like the promotion hinges on losing weight, not his current job.

      Still not great, but it would work for me. I’m the type of person who likes working at my current job and doesn’t want a promotion.

      1. MK*

        That’s fine as long as your current job is safe. When the company is going through radical changes (and going from a mid-tier hotel to a luxury one is a huge change), you can’t assume that.

    5. MigraineMonth*

      I’m also picturing the absolute nightmare of nagging my boss about whether he’s been to the gym yet today.

      HELL.

      NO.

  10. KateM*

    OP: “Maybe I am not that great of a manager and merely have been lucky during my entire career in never needing to fire someone?”

    AAM: “For what it’s worth, anyone who’s managed for a long enough time will eventually have to fire someone. It doesn’t mean you failed as a manager — in fact, keeping someone on who was clearly not right for the job (after feedback and coaching) is what would have been the failure.”

    In the place of OP I would definitely start wondering if I was “not that great a manager” not because I had to fire *this* person, but because it is the *first* person in 20 years I have fired. :D Especially as OP also writes “I definitely had given the employee more leeway than I probably should have”.

    1. AM*

      This is the OP. Believe me, I am considering that! I have checked ALL the management books out of the library and am looking for a professional development course to take.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        A sign of a good manager is they assess and look at things to see what they could do better. So don’t take it that you suck as a manager but more that you want to grow as a manager.

    2. Venus*

      It is very possible to have not fired someone in 20 years and to be a really good manager, but it depends on the circumstances. I have worked in places where people weren’t fired, because hiring was done well and the rare problem employee took the hint to leave for something else.

      I agree that it’s normal for long-time managers to have to fire someone, but it would be weird to think that it’s a problem if someone hasn’t. I do agree that the other employees would have likely preferred an underperforming employee not be given too much leeway, and very useful to improve one’s skills in this area, yet the LW didn’t ignore the issue. There is always a fine balance to try and sort out how much to support a struggling employee, and if the LW was working with the employee with the aim of improving performance then typically other employees will see that as a big positive (because they know they’ll be supported if they struggle) whereas ignoring the problem is where the morale problems quickly show up.

    3. I Have RBF*

      So, among managers I know, some say you aren’t a seasoned manager until you’ve had to fire someone, and it’s expected to be emotionally hard for good managers. Heck, I was in a management role as a volunteer, and I had to fire someone. It’s hard, it doesn’t feel great, but it needed to be done.

    4. Filosofickle*

      I’ve only deployed this a few times when it seemed safe, but in interviews I have asked hiring managers about if they’ve had to fire someone and, if so, what that process looked like. I had someone tell me never in 20 years, and my follow up was what they attributed their success to. Are they just amazing at hiring/training/cultivating people? I don’t remember if I voiced the second half of that question, but it’s something I was fishing for: Or is there someone who maybe should have been fired that wasn’t?

      This line of questioning is too aggressive for a lot of interviewers but I think it says so much about the manager and the culture to hear them reflect on how the team handles someone not working out! I’m honestly curious, it’s not a gotcha. (I’m AuDHD, and I do tend to ask questions that others might not and that can get me into trouble. But in interviews it also helps me filter for a good fit.)

      1. I Have RBF*

        IMO, that is a good interview question for a manager. I’ve had one manager friend tell me that people often weren’t considered “real” managers until they’ve had to let someone go – layoff or firing. It’s definitely a rite of passage for managers.

  11. Just me & old books, all day*

    #5: This does not surprise me at all. One of the toxic things that happens in heritage fields is that people work in them, because they “love” the work. It’s such a competitive field and so hard to break into, that there’s a real attitude of sacrifice for the good of the institution. It’s really insidious and problematic. Good up OP! You deserve to get overtime, be paid more, or stop doing the work.

    1. Venus*

      I’m a bit confused if the videos and extra work are a requirement. I would agree with not doing them until this is sorted out.

      1. LW5*

        The videos and other work are required, I just can’t find time to do them while also taking guests through the museum, helping researchers, and working with vendors, etc. I’d be very happy to be limited to only 40 hours per week, so I think I’ll have a different conversation with the board about some things that I won’t be able to do anymore.

  12. Pennyworth*

    LW #1 It is pointless asking someone to hold you to account for weight loss, quitting smoking etc – you have to hold yourself to account, period. So her boss is being inappropriate as well as wasting her time.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Sharing you goals can be useful; a lot of people recommend it. But other people actually holding you accountable? That’s a big nope. I feel this consultant is probably not really good at doing what they’re supposed to do (as are most consultants).

      1. Edwina*

        WHO you share your goals with matters. Friends, yes. Family, yes. Coworkers, no for me, but up to you. Subordinates, no.

      2. MigraineMonth*

        I think there’s also a difference between being held accountable for actions vs. outcomes. “I will go on a walk three times this week” is, barring unusual circumstances, within one’s control. “I will lose 2 lbs this month” isn’t.

        (Also, you’re far more likely to still be going for walks and benefitting from that 2 years from now than to have kept the weight off.)

        (Unfortunately, negative goals like “I won’t eat sweets this week” or “I won’t smoke a cigarette this week” can be counter-productive because they introduce shame, temptation and secrecy.)

    2. Jackalope*

      It’s out of line for the boss to ask coworkers for this kind of accountability, but it’s not an inappropriate for life in general. Yes, ultimately you’re the one who has to Do The Thing, but many people find it helpful to have others asking them about how they’re doing and helping them to keep making the choices they want to. Accountability groups or pairs can help people in this situation; it’s just not a boss/report type role.

  13. Lw4 (he/him)*

    This is definitely a helpful perspective.

    As I said in reply to another commenter, unfortunately where I am — not the US — we’re legally required to do this check before we’re allowed to employ people, it’s part of the process of confirming that they have the right to work in the country, and they’re not allowed to be an employee until that’s done, even if only for half an hour on their first day.

    Adding specific dates to the reminder emails I’m sending out is definitely going to be a change I make, and I’m going to speak to my manager today to get her permission to see if we can update the onboarding page and some of the template emails to be clearer on why we need these things.

    An added complication is that we can’t run a criminal record check without these either and we’re required in my industry to do that on all incoming employees, too.

    1. MsSolo (UK)*

      I think a lot of people are perceiving these checks as part of onboarding, when really they’re part of reference checking – if you don’t pass them you don’t have the job. In terms of the process, would it be possibly to hold off giving them a starting date until after they’re complete? I think people are assuming that the job is a done deal before it is, and you wouldn’t want them giving notice at the current jobs if there’s a risk they fail Right to Work or security checks.

      (my current organisation has had a real issue with people applying for certain roles assuming they’re eligible, passing all the interviews, and then finding out a month later that we can’t employ them – I think a lot of applicants think we have flexibility if they wow us, and we really, really don’t. It’s especially an issue for recent graduates where they’ve come from overseas, studied overseas, or spent a significant proportion of a gap year overseas)

      1. AcademiaNut*

        That could work – it puts it on the same footing as a background check, which should be completed before you give notice at your previous job.

        It’s not always obvious to a potential employee what things have to be done when, when it comes to work authorization. Saying that you can’t give a start date until they’ve completed the check lets them know this is important and non-negotiable.

      2. Lw4 (he/him)*

        The start date piece is unfortunately out of my control, I’m just the team’s admin, but I will see if we can update the language in the contract and offer letter to be more specific about what has to be completed before they start.

      3. LL*

        It sounds like those of us who are Americans should think of this as more similar to a background check than an “are you eligible to work in the US” check. I’ve never had a job that required a background check, but from what I’ve heard from other people those usually happen after you accept the job, but before you start.
        The employment eligibility check involves filling out an I-9 form and showing your ID. I’ve been in my current job since before COVID, so maybe it’s changed, but that’s stuff that’s usually done the morning you start, if you have an office job. (when I worked at day camps during the summers in college we had to go to an orientation session where they got that info from us and I’m assuming other jobs do that as well)

    2. Nodramalama*

      Im in government in Australia and we have similar legal requirements that need to be completed before a person can start, and no they cannot be paid for their time because they’re not employees. I second mesolo to maybe try change your messaging to make it clear that this activity is essentially a prerequisite to actually successfully being employed, rather than a part of unboarding.

      1. Lw4 (he/him)*

        Yes, I’m definitely going to get all the emails and stuff that they’re sent to be updated to be a lot clearer, and I’ll ask my coworkers who make the offers to stress the importance of these checks too.

    3. Amey*

      I mentioned this further up but might get buried. I’m an immigration adviser in a non-immigration organisation in the UK, and we do right to work checks at interview and/or offer stage. We ask them to bring their passport to interview. Is there a way that this can be incorporated into your interview process? If not, can you schedule a Zoom call with them when you make the offer?

      1. Lw4 (he/him)*

        We can’t do the checks at interview for a variety of practical reasons, not least of which is that our hiring managers simply can’t be relied upon do it properly and we in recruitment doesn’t have capacity to attend every single interview. Also I think if I suggested this it’d be dismissed out of hand — it’s pretty much 60% of my job role to make sure onboarding runs smoothly for candidates.

        This leaves us with what you’re suggesting – scheduling the call when we make offers. This is where we’re having the problem. I am not personally making every offer, because done by my colleagues who I am the admin support for, so my colleagues make the offer and then I send out the paperwork, get the copies of documents we need, and set up the calls.

        And… then I get candidates not showing up to the calls or not having all the documents we need with them on the calls, or not responding to my phone calls and emails about needing to schedule

        We’re further restricted by the risk and compliance team who insist that the check can’t be more than 3 months old at the time they start, and working in an industry where senior roles often have a 3 month or longer notice period. And unfortunately there’s no way I can change that policy as the recruitment admin assistant.

        1. bamcheeks*

          LW, I think the question for me here is how big a problem is this. What I’m hearing is that it’s a problem that you are not sufficiently senior to solve, and that means two possibilities:

          1. The essential problem is that you spend a lot of time chasing people. waiting for no-shows, chasing again, and then (sometimes? occasionally?) having to put someone’s date back.
          2. The essential problem is that people aren’t turning up to their appointments, meaning that a significant number of people aren’t able to start work on time with significant impact on both the individuals (who have a week off no work between their old contract and their new one) and the business, and you’ve been tasked with fixing this.

          Either way, it does sound like the options are relatively limited at your level, so that’s when it’s a good time to discuss this problem with you manager. It could be that (1) is the state of affairs that everyone else is OK with– it’s a pain for *you*, but fundamentally that’s what the job is, and the disruptions of having to put back start dates are rare enough that they aren’t causing a significant impact on the business. If that’s the case, then the conversation you might need to have with your manager is that this all takes much longer than is currently accounted for, and it has an impact on your ability to progress on other projects, and make sure that you and your manager are clear on that.

          On the other hand, if it’s (2) and enough people are having their start dates moved that it’s a larger problem for your business, then your manager (and maybe even your manager’s manager) should be invested in solving the problem, and your role might be to suggest solutions that they can implement– not “I can try asking the recruitment advisers if they can schedule the meetings and explain their importance when they make the offer”, but “the HR manager will tell the recruitment advisers that this is a change in process which is necessary because…” (You can still try the first, but if it doesn’t work, you can escalate this.)

          It sounds like the things you have control over are “how and where do we make it explicit in the offer letter and on our system that this is not optional”. You can definitely try to solve it that way, but if that doesn’t work, escalate it. Particularly if it’s (2), this is a problem that people more senior than you should be invested in fixing.

          1. Lw4 (he/him)*

            This is a pretty good summary.

            It hasn’t been a huge issue until now, but we’ve just had somewhere around 50 new roles as well as our usual turnover stuff and our normal levels of growth that we’re in the process of onboarding for so the issues are becoming so much more obvious than they were before.

            My manager is one of the recruitment advisors — there are six of them and I’m their assistant, for context — and she’s very keen that we find ways to stop this from happening as it is having a wider impact on the business, especially at this time of growth but frankly the company is still used to being a small business, and seems to be often surprised that the processes we had in place when there were 200 employees aren’t always fit for purpose now there are nearly 2000 employees.

            A lot of the emails and communication on the website was written by our Operations team who don’t deal with this day to day, so it’s feeling like a good starting point is going to be making sure the emails that I’m not writing now have all the relevant information in them, and bringing my immediate team in (the 6 people I assist) to make sure our messaging is consistent.

            1. bamcheeks*

              the company is still used to being a small business, and seems to be often surprised that the processes we had in place when there were 200 employees aren’t always fit for purpose now there are nearly 2000 employees

              Ohh, that’s such an interesting time to be in HR! I hope you have some good people leading and taking responsibility for that change. Good luck!

              1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                We have such a great team and I absolutely love my job and being part of this time in the business. It’s just with things like this where we run into some teething problems XD

            2. gmezzy*

              With the context of your role and where the pressure to change this is coming from, I think you could also try to make scheduling it part of the offer, even if those folks aren’t you. You could set up a bookable calendar (like calendly) that they could use during the call or at a minimum have them mention on the call “One of the next steps is ID verification, which is a government requirement before you can start. LW4 will be following up with you in the next day or two to schedule a time – it’ll just take a few minutes, but is very important for moving forward.”

      2. Sneaky Squirrel*

        In the US, this may be flagged as potentially discriminatory as in many cases you cannot specify the types of documents that someone must present to be able to work. If someone presented a permanent resident card (green card) and was later denied a position; they could claim their citizenship status was the reason for rejection.

        1. Lw4 (he/him)*

          I am not in the US, and the requests we make are within UK law as to what documents are acceptable. The government sets the list of things we can accept, not us.

          There is a separate process for those who have the right to work due to having a visa, indefinite leave to remain, or similar. This question is not about that process, where we’ve never had a problem that I can recall.

        2. GythaOgden*

          There’s a lot to choose from here as well. A documented immigrant will have something to show they have the right to work, though, and that’s what matters.

        3. bamcheeks*

          We have no legislation at all that stops employers discriminating on migration/ nationality status. It is not only fully allowed and frequently encouraged. D:

          1. Lw4 (he/him)*

            I’d actually argue that it’s legally required— we can’t employ people unless they can prove RTW within the government set rules.

            I actually am personally deeply opposed to the whole concept of RTW checks to be honest, but I also have bills and a mortgage, so I figure that the least I can do is make them as painless a process for candidates as possible.

            1. bamcheeks*

              I agree with you, but I mean employers are legally allowed (and, I would say, encouraged) to distinguish between people who have citizenship, leave to remain, or on visas. I currently support a lot of international graduates who (in theory) have full access to the labour market with no restrictions, but because it’s limited to two years before they need sponsorship on a Skilled Worker visa many employers simply won’t consider their applications.

              It’s kind of been fascinating for me to see what equality legislation does: which it’s doesn’t stop discrimination, it tells you what you’re supposed to do, and gives power to people who want to act fairly, and means that people who want to discriminate have to do so with a reasonable degree of caution and plausible deniability. Whereas when it comes to workers on visas, employers who want to exclude international candidates can simply say that straight up, no bother. Within those organisations there might be people who do want to consider international candidates but are unable to persuade the organisation, or don’t have time to research it, or who think that the risks and administrative burdens of becoming a licensed sponsor are too high for them, or whose information on what’s required is well out of date, and so on. I’ve spoken to lots of people who are actively welcoming to international candidates but can’t make it work within the system. It’s just really depressing and frustrating, but that’s what the system is designed to do. :(

              1. Lw4 (he/him)*

                Yeah, it’s such a shame.

                Where I work we don’t discriminate at all based on immigration status, and are in fact a licensed sponsor. The recent raising of the cap on pay for immigrant workers has been pretty upsetting for our team. We try so hard to be compassionate in our recruitment and it’s been very unpleasant all around to have to work out what roles are no longer eligible for sponsorship and what we’re going to do with those coming to the end of current visas who were expecting sponsorship that we now can’t provide.

        4. Edwina*

          I’m addition to this, as an applicant, I’m going to side eye being asked to bring my passport or other ID document to an interview. I don’t give anyone my SSN or other personal info unless I have no choice. (I’m in the US)

    4. Beth*

      ID confirmation for remote workers is no joke, no matter where you are!

      There was a recent high-profile incident where one of the leading cybersecurity firms, KnowBe4, had a new hire turn out to be a North Korean operative who had faked his ID. They caught him in his first 20 minutes of sandboxed activity, and have been very public about the incident and the need for careful scrutiny.

  14. Cardboard Marmalade*

    LW3: Nobody should be feeling scared and stressed in their own home because of their partner’s angry outbursts. If you state this bluntly and get pushback from him, you have bigger problems to address.

    2. Hyaline*

      IDK I got the impression from the use of the term “jump scare” that he wasn’t scary, he was just starting her, and she doesn’t appreciate being startled out of concentration at work. By all means he should be open to adjusting his behavior to help his partner, but I don’t see “aaack abuse red flag” here. Heck, my kids and cats me “jump scares” frequently!

      1. winter*

        I don’t think they’re saying it’s an abuse red flag, it seems more like it would be an inconsideration red flag

      2. Antilles*

        That’s how it read to me too – it’s not “scared” in the abuse sense, just the jump scare unexpectedness of sitting mostly in silence then suddenly hearing a loud expletive out of nowhere.

      3. Anonymous for this one*

        There’s grey area between “abuse” and “totally fine,” and it tends to look a lot like “anger management issues that are serious enough to be detrimental to the emotional well-being of the people you live with, even if the anger isn’t DIRECTED at them.” That’s what this sounds like to me. And yeah, it’s a problem.

        LW #3’s husband is getting openly, explosively angry often enough for LW #3 to write in for advice about how to deal with it. This also indicates that one of two things is true: 1) they have spoken to their husband about it, but he was either unwilling or unable to change his behavior; or 2) they don’t feel comfortable talking to their husband about this behavior and its effects on them–possibly because they are concerned about becoming the target of his anger, or because they feel that talking to him would result in situation 1.

        My own husband can sometimes fall into this grey area, and freely acknowledges that he has anger management issues and doesn’t know how to cope with and process feelings of anger in a healthy way. He is getting therapy about this and trying to fix it, because he knows it’s a problem. It’s not abuse, but it’s not just letting off steam. It’s not just a little inconsiderate. It’s a problem that he knows he needs to solve.

    3. Alan*

      Yes. Occasionally I get angry and let a few f-bombs fly (not directed at my wife). The difference is that my wife *tells* me when I’m being disruptive. This wife is apparently hesitant to bring it up with her husband. To me, that right there is the problem.

        1. Hroethvitnir*

          I don’t think the problem is that she’s not communicating, the problem is that he thinks it’s OK to yell *with rage* and be “violent to the furniture”.

          She does need to talk with him, but it’s not particularly hard to understand that that behaviour is also not OK at home.

          I have a bad temper (well controlled) and have worked in some toxic environments to the point of hiding in a fridge and screaming silently – I am not screaming and throwing things around my coworkers *or* partner.

  15. Kitten*

    For LW #5, I feel like you might qualify as an exempt employee because it sounds like you are seasonal and making a decent hourly/weekly rate over the summer.

    From the DOL website: Minimum Salary Amount Beginning January 1, 2025 $1,128 per week (equivalent to a $58,656 annual salary)

    Regardless, from what I see your board is looking for solutions, they don’t have them. Could you do your research and videos during your in museum time? Could you have a volunteer help out in the museum while you do those things? Could you order supplies online during your museum time and have them delivered? Close for half a day or open the museum an hour later?

    1. Nebula*

      Yes, it seems like maybe this depends on how much work she is doing over the rest of the year as well as the 38 hours/week in the summer.

      1. ecnaseener*

        I don’t think it depends on how much work she’s doing the rest of the year — if she wasn’t doing *any* work outside the summer months that would be different, but to be exempt you need to meet a definition of salaried which includes getting the same salary every week that you do ANY work.

    2. doreen*

      I’ve always seen it on the DOL website and elsewhere described as a weekly salary with a yearly equivalent and I think the exemption probably depends on exactly how and how much LW is paid the rest of the year – I’d be really surprised if the pay was equally divided into weekly/biweekly/monthly when the work is 38 hours a week for 8 weeks and 5 hours a week for the rest of the year .

      2. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        Yeah, this seems to be an edge case that the law isn’t set up to deal with. It would be easier if it were actually a seasonal position paying just for the summer months without the few hours during the school year.

    3. TPS Reporter*

      the federal requirement to pay minimum $684 per week will apply even if the person is working less than full time which works out to about 35K.

  16. Username required*

    LW5 – You need to be clear with the Board exactly what you can do within your allotted hours. List everything you do and have them confirm priorities. If they want you to work overtime then they need to authorize it.

  17. UnpaidWork*

    I found a switch about 10 years ago from generally having to do first day paperwork on the first day to generally being asked to do it beforehand. I’ve resisted as hard as I can after the first time because it really takes about 1/2 day (no matter that people always claim it’s faster) and that’s a ridiculous expectation for unpaid work. The legal requirements where they exist here in the US is completed within 3 days so there’s no reason other than to not pay someone or company convenience it has to be done this way.

    I have mostly succeeded in pushing back, and have done so even when working for an agency as a contractor.

    1. urguncle*

      Agreed on all accounts, especially when you’ve already probably taken multiple days off to interview in the first place. Withholding paperwork until someone schleps down to your office, unpaid, to do these is an unreasonable expectation. If I were the head of HR, I’d just make everyone’s very first day a “paper” day: come to the HR office where we give you your laptop, logins, do your paperwork, walk through the office and go home early. Hell, we’ll do it on Friday’s so that you have a nice softball first day before the Monday morning.

    2. JR17*

      OP says elsewhere in the comments that they aren’t in the US and their country requires this check before the first day. The employer isn’t allowed to let the person start on the first day without it – they can’t be considered an employee, and be in the payroll, until after it’s done.

    3. Lw4 (he/him)*

      Yeah unfortunately in the UK doing it that would be illegal. We can’t employ people until we’ve confirmed that they have the right to work here.

      Also, I did all of this when I joined the company and it really did take a grand total of 1.5 hours and most of the time that took was finding all of my addresses for the past five years for the background checks.

  18. UnauthorizedOvertime*

    Wow, continuing to work overtime when you’re being told by the folks who hold the purse strings they don’t want to pay overtime takes chutzpah. It would get you fired at most places.

    Every job I’ve ever had outside of teaching involved having to prioritize work and decide what to do because there’s always too much to do. This is true even when exempt because there are still only so many hours in the day. Paid overtime requires explicit permission and I’ve only ever worked in one place that was willing to authorize it. Working overtime without authorization would have been a quick way to get fired.

    Non-profits like museums and historical societies are typically operating on very tight budgets. They do not budget to pay anyone overtime and would be justifiably upset to find themselves liable to pay it because an employee decided to work extra hours without authorization. You’re lucky you still have a job, and if you keep racking up extra paid hours you could be responsible for curtailing other services that were going to be funded by your unexpected salary costs.

    1. Silver Robin*

      I am fascinated that you are going at OP for doing overtime and not at the board for functionally telling OP to work unpaid overtime. OP did not realize the original problem, told the board about the problem, and then was given absurd solutions by the board. Not wanting to lose the job, OP is continues to try to meet the board’s expectations.

      This is actually classic for non-profits. Non-profits are notorious for expecting people to put in extra hours unpaid on top of their meager salaries. These are all supposed to be jobs you do “for the passion” and a local museum all the more so!

    2. ecnaseener*

      In fairness, I don’t get the sense the board wanted LW to stay under 40 hours, they just want unpaid overtime. They surely know LW is scheduled for 38 hours onsite and has more than 2 hours of offsite work that needs to get done. LW was told “I have to expect to do things outside of business hours without being paid overtime,” aka the overtime hours are approved just not the expectation of being paid for them.

    3. Gray Lady*

      They won’t fire her for that because that’s what they WANT her to do. They didn’t tell her to stop working outside regular hours, they just told her she wouldn’t get paid for it.

      The ones with the chutzpah are the ones who are happy to accept her overtime services but unwilling to pay for it. But she is being had as well.

    4. Sneaky Squirrel*

      It would be one thing if LW was taking overtime without the approval of their board. That’s a fireworthy behavior. But this doesn’t sound like it. In most of the examples of things that LW provides, the implication here is that the board expects the overtime work to be done but they are refusing to pay for it. The 2nd board member’s response could be close to saying that work at home is rejected, but then they need to come up with a real solution for how the work that can’t be done at the museum is expected to get done.

    5. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      Not wanting to pay for it is different than not wanting her to do overtime. She has not been told not to work overtime, she’s been told that she won’t be paid, but its still expected. Which more than one company has been busted for that.

    6. No thanks*

      Agree it takes chutzpah. Can’t the board say don’t work OT? Has that happened? I don’t get how this is so complicated; if they asked for OT without realizing, that’s on them and a misunderstanding. So pay that out and going forward say no OT. I read OP’s letter as not concerned that this has gotten contentious. OP should expect not to have this problem much longer since the board will now be motivated to replace the employee.

  19. Ally McBeal*

    LW1: “I asked our junior accountant his opinion and he felt that it is up to Paul to say what he wants to say, and that the consultant is focused on appearance because of the image that the resort is trying to project.”

    I am so disappointed in this. A five-star resort can’t employ fat people? That junior accountant has some deprogramming to do.

  20. Kristin*

    Heh, my husband did the same as #3 (not screaming though, just loud “ughs” and swearing/venting in his neighboring office. I talked to him about it, and he didn’t even realize what he was doing!

    1. Alan*

      Yes, I’m apparently a sigher. I had no idea until I was mic-ed once and heard it on playback. Everyone else around me already knew it I guess. I catch myself now doing it occasionally but mostly I don’t notice, although other people comment on it (imitate me mostly :-)) from time to time.

    2. Not your trauma bucket*

      Same. I started “checking” on my husband after the outbursts if they got too much. Just calling out “you ok in there?” That helped him see that he was louder than he thought. But we also generally check in with each other a fair bit to make sure we’re not annoying each other during the work day because we have *very* different preferences for work environments.

  21. HailRobonia*

    LW#1: I picture a “Jack Donaghy” type who would tell you to keep them on their weight loss goal but as soon as you mention something they don’t like they get super defensive and threaten to fire you.

  22. Pizza Rat*

    Re swearing: I had one job interview where I was asked, “Does strong language offend you?” I’m not sure people can ask that any longer, but I appreciated knowing it up front.

    There were never any f-bombs, but there was plenty of hell and damn and various forms of excrement.

  23. Overthinking It*

    But wait! For no 5, this is a seasonal job! Are they paying the LW $30 over 12 months (at a rate of $2.5k/mo) or are they paying $10k/mo for 3 months? Wouldn’t that make a difference legally?

    1. Excel Gardener*

      It sounds like LW works reduced hours during the school year (“administrative tasks”), but does work. If she’s genuinely salaried, then it doesn’t matter how much she works in the school year from a legal perspective.

  24. Cinnamon Stick*

    Accountability for weight loss is something you ask a friend, a workout partner, a trainer, or a coach, in my opinion. If Paul is one of those things besides being an accountant, fine, but it should be kept out of work, IMO.

    I also find it really strange that a team-building activity includes, “What do I need to be held accountable for?” That’s something I would ask in a 1:1 or a performance review. I wouldn’t want to discuss that in front of others.

    1. bamcheeks*

      Yeah, it sounds to me like one of those exercises that tries to create trust by leaping to a high level of trust without the foundation of building trust, which is a slow process! What do we mean by holding accountable? How can my colleagues hold me accountable? How can I hold my manager accountable? Some of this might work in a high-trust setting where you want people to be able to challenge management, but you build that trust but showing people repeatedly that they are allowed to challenge management and challenge each other, not by telling them they have to do it and hoping some magic happens.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        Isn’t mixing up the cause and effect a management fad classic? High-trust teams hold each other accountable. Therefore, all you need to get a team to trust each other is a consultant to come in for a workshop and tell everyone to hold each other accountable!

    2. TPS Reporter*

      Accountability at work is very different than in your personal life. Your co-workers/boss hold you accountable at work for work items because it affects the business and their own work. There is also the consequence of a PIP or getting fired, so you have strong built in incentives at work (assuming management is good).

      For personal life goals, getting accountability from your community (friends, family, etc) can be really helpful for reaching the goals. But never put that kind of emotional burden on a co-worker. ugh.

  25. Coffee Protein Drink*

    My compliance office doesn’t provide the start date until all paperwork is submitted. They ask for a lot and it may take employees a while–not everyone keeps their college diploma handy, for example, but not having a start date yet does create a sense of urgency.

    (candidates are told not to give notice at their current position until the start date is set)

    1. Just Thinkin' Here*

      This really depends on the industry and employer. Certain positions require background checks and identification verification to meet US federal regulations. In those cases, no, the employer will not wait until the first day on the job, as the applicant should not be allowed on the premises until verified.

    2. Jay (no, the other one)*

      I’m a doc. Generally we can’t start work until we have privileges and are enrolled with whatever insurance companies the office/network/agency need to bill. For my current two-day-a-week gig, I probably did a total of 20 hours of paperwork spread over a month to manage all of that plus a physical, drug test, fingerprinting, and two background checks. They offered me the job in early December. I started work February 5th, and that was faster than they originally thought.

    3. Lw4 (he/him)*

      I wish we could do that. Unfortunately our regulators require that the checks are done within three months of a start date and three month notice periods aren’t uncommon for senior roles in my industry.

      I’m also in the UK so we are under different laws than in the US.

  26. JR17*

    #5: So the board’s responses are obv ridiculous. But is OP the executive director? I think so but not 100% sure. Because the board is responsible for setting the strategy and budget, and then the ED is responsible for overseeing implementation. So the board would set, for instance, the ED’s overall salary for the year, and then the ED would decide how exactly to spend that in terms of hours worked. And the ED should be the one deciding what hours the museum is open – for instance, deciding she can’t staff the museum 38 hours and still do her job within the budget allocated. The board members are volunteers who might be paying attention like 2 hours per week (or less) – not because they aren’t doing their job, but because that is their job. The ED makes all of the day to day decisions, working the framework the board sets.

    Now, that’s all in a healthy organization. In an unhealthy organization, the board might be overly involved in daily operations. And they have firing and compensation power, so they might punisher her for not being able to do an unreasonable amount of work. And this sounds very close to a volunteer-organization where the board is also the staff, so I get that lines get crossed.

    But overall, I think the OP is in a position (and is expected) to take more control of the situation and the board should back off. She shouldn’t work unpaid overtime, but she should figure out how to do her job within the budget, even if that means narrowing her scope.

    I often have to remind myself that the reason I can’t do allll the things I want to do is because my organization, at this time, is too small to actually accomplish all of that.

    1. Slow Gin Lizz*

      It’s unclear if OP is the executive director, as the letter just says “director,” but I was wondering that too. A lot of the answer here depends on if OP really is ED or is just an employee who has to follow the instructions of the board. Maybe OP isn’t able to control the hours the museum is open, but it does seem like cutting back on the museum’s hours would be the first solution to the issue (to the detriment of museum visitors, alas). It would give OP more time to focus on the projects OP does at home and after hours. Another solution would be for the museum to hire another employee to do the duties that OP is doing when the museum is open and let OP focus on their after-hours projects during museum hours. Or a volunteer could even do that, but of course it can often be tricky to get volunteers to commit to such things, which is why we pay people for these things.

  27. Theon, Theon, it rhymes with neon*

    I recently had to fire someone who had been at the company for almost a decade, and who’d had 3 previous managers who had failed to fire him. One just gave him unimportant projects and let him take forever, one tried to fire him but failed to put together an effective PIP and see it through, one did his work for him, cleaned up after him, and talked about him behind his back but never gave him feedback. The whole time, the rest of the team had to carry his load.

    I consider the fact that I gave him clear feedback, months of intensive coaching, and finally an effective PIP that I saw through to the end to be one of my great successes as a manager! Yes, it sucked doing it, but the ability to do something difficult that sucks, instead of prioritizing your own comfort over the team’s well-being, is what makes a *good* manager, not a bad one.

  28. stelms_elms*

    Re LW#1. My husband’s employer absolutely promotes based on personal appearance. There are several people in the organization who did amazing work, but did not receive promotions until they lost significant weight and were “healthy/thin/more attractive”. Could it be a coincidence? Maybe. But every senior manager has the same appearance. My husband has heard upper management refer to overweight candidates as being slow and not having any fire in them amongst other things. My husband (who is overweight) who met/exceeded all of his goals every year finally got a promotion with the arrival of a new HR director who adjusted several employee’s pay grades, promotions, etc. It absolutely happens and I would think more so in the leisure industry.

  29. Lurker*

    LW1-Your gut is not wrong, the exercise as a whole is inappropriate! There is no way the consultant (or any of his colleagues or managers) should be managing Paul’s weight or exercise at all.

  30. Strive to Excel*

    LW #4 – Realistically, the way you are most likely to get traction on this is that new employees do not get a start date until they have completed this paperwork. I’d also consider moving as much of it as possible online/asynchronous; for instance, if they have to provide addresses for the last 5 years, does that really have to be done in person in front of you? Or can you provide them with a Docusign document where they can do the majority of the ‘research’ at home? Can they send you a scanned copy of their ID instead of bringing the original in person? Etc.

    I know you’ve mentioned that you’re an admin assist for hiring, not the person doing the actual hiring, and both of the above suggestions require process changes for your company. In the meantime (and I’m guessing you’ve already done this but I’m going to cover all the bases) I would review the emails you’re sending them and making it very clear what they need and what the consequences of not providing will be. IE: ‘Please bring your passport, list of addresses for the last 5 years, and 2 bills showing proof of address’ and ‘failure to provide ALL needed documents will result in your start date being pushed back’. Having statutory backing can also be helpful: “In compliance with X Identification Protocol, we are required to have proof of identity before onboarding you as an employee.” Insert appropriate legal reference here.

    1. Strive to Excel*

      Hit enter too early, sorry! Final step of the process: track how much time is being wasted by unproductive meetings. That is your ammo to push for not providing start dates/getting things moved asynchronous/whatever more significant changes you want to push for.

      1. Lw4 (he/him)*

        Sorry if it wasn’t clear – the absolute vast majority of the background checks and onboarding process is done by the candidate online and at whatever time suits them. We have an entire online onboarding platform for them to use, and background checks are carried out by a third party where again, it’s online.

        The one part where they have to physically be on a call with me is the ID check call, which is a five minute Teams meeting on camera where they need to have two things handy (passport and some kind of proof of residency)

        Not providing start dates would be completely out of sync with our whole industry and I’m not sure it would be accepted at all, but if making language in our offer letters, contracts and conversations as well as in the emails I send pre-start more aggressive/firm doesn’t work, I’ll raise that.

  31. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

    #3 – is there another place he could go if releasing stress immediately is beneficial to him? Back yard, garage, etc.

    Is there a quieter outlet? My friends and I scream swear in a slack chat. It is surprisingly effective

  32. HonorBox*

    OP5 – Go back to your board and tell them you’ve spoken to experts who have advised you that most of their suggestions aren’t legal. This isn’t your interpretation. This isn’t your belief. This is what the law says.

    I think you have a couple other suggestions you could make.

    1. Can you hire another part-time person or two, allowing you a bit more free time for picking up supplies, committee meetings, and other projects like your videos to be done during normal operating hours? While it is additional cost, it might be less than the difference between your salary and the new threshold.

    2. Ask them what they want you to give up, if they’re not willing to pay overtime. Tell them to help you prioritize what is important and what they’re willing to shed if you don’t have time available.

    3. If they’re set on you fundraising for your salary increase, they need to be very specific with you about how that’s going to work. Like are you getting the pay increase now? And what happens if that funding doesn’t come through? Or are you getting the pay increase if you can show the receipts for the funds being raised? Because that’s additional work that you’re going to be putting in, and they’re going to have to pay you for it.

  34. CV*

    #5: Whatever the eventual determination about this specific situation, I would be inclined to put a summary of the non-exempt rules, with website link, on paper in a place that the next employee in this role would see, but the Board would not.

    Just for general educational purposes, of course.

  35. Raida*

    3. My coworker keeps screaming profanities … but we’re remote and he’s my husband
    “When you suddenly make noise like that it’s interruptive to my work, *and* it makes me uncomfortable. I need you to think about what other ways you could deal with shitty meetings because this isn’t good for me and it needs to stop.”

    He can get a bloody punching bag or go for a run, but he certainly can’t swear and shout and hit things in the next room :|

    It doesn’t matter that it’s during work hours! Who wants to share a house with someone that deals with frustration by shouting expletives and hitting stuff? Is this a toddler? Or should I be concerned for my safety?!

Comments are closed.