company asked if we’d donate a kidney, candy dish drama, and more

by Alison Green on December 6, 2024

I’m on vacation. Here are some past letters that I’m making new again, rather than leaving them to wilt in the archives.

1. Our company asked if we’d donate a kidney to a board member

My previous workplace sent a company-wide email (via the COO) asking if staff would donate a kidney to a 70-year-old board member. The renumeration would be “any costs associated with the surgery and post op care.”

I’m from a different country, and I found this email to be abhorrent! I feel it grossly overstepped boundaries, and reinforced privilege barriers (the majority of the workforce at this company is African American or Hispanic, whilst the board and upper level management are almost exclusively white.) Through research and general knowledge, I found there can be long-term health implications with donating organs, and I don’t feel just offering to pay for a surgery that wasn’t necessary in the first place even scratches the surface in terms of compensation.

My colleagues at the time didn’t think this request was unusual. Am I totally off-base with my disgust?

In the U.S. and many other countries, it’s illegal to offer compensation for an organ beyond covering costs associated with the operation, so that’s why they didn’t offer more than that. (The concern is that paying for organs would exploit poor people and could even be coercive.)

But it was a wildly problematic and inappropriate request anyway. Hopefully no one is going to feel pressured to say yes simply because it comes from above, but there is an inherent pressure when you’ve got those power dynamics in play. Plus, if an employee did donate, what does that mean for their employment there? Will they be given preferential treatment? Will others think they’re being given preferential treatment, regardless of whether they actually are? If the person’s performance worsens, will the employer feel comfortable addressing it the same way they would with someone else? If their job is later cut, will the employee feel betrayed? There’s a ton of potential for messiness here, all of it amplified by power and race differences.

– 2019

2. I told a friend I’d help him, and now he’s bombarding me with urgent messages while I’m working

A coworker of mine recently left my company to head up a nonprofit organization founded by his late father. The organization has very limited resources and is just getting off the ground. I told him I’d be happy to help him out with any marketing-related tasks, so long as it did not interfere with my actual work. Since he left two weeks ago, however, he has been up my proverbial ass with requests and things he “needs” urgently. DURING WORK HOURS. This week, he had the audacity to email my work email address with the word “urgent” in the subject line. Other colleagues have been included on these emails as well, but nobody seems to be perturbed.

Mind you, I told him i would help, but we never had the discussion as to what his marketing needs are and what the time commitment looks like. He just assumed he could start sending me requests.

How should I field this? Should I just not respond to future requests, or should i set the precedence that I am happy to help, but he needs to be respectful of my time and work schedule? I also haven’t received a single please or thank you for anything I have done, and that bothers me too. Do you think it is worth it to say something? He is an adult and I don’t want to scold him, but come on, dude.

It sounds like he may have had a different understanding of what “as long as it doesn’t interfere with my work” meant. He may have thought it meant you’d do stuff for him when you had downtime at work, and not realized you didn’t want to hear from him at work at all. So if you’re still interested in helping him, be really, really explicit with him about what that means. For example: “I can help you with things like X and Y, but I’m not going to be able to do anything during work hours, including fielding questions. You definitely can’t email me at work, and generally I’ll need a few days to get back to you. If things are going to be urgent or need to be moved forward during the work day, that’s not something I can help with. Given that, does it still make sense for me to help out?”

Also, ask directly what kind of time commitment he’s envisioning from you in an average week/month because you might have wildly different expectations there too.

Of course, all that assumes you still want to help him. If you don’t — and it’s absolutely okay if you don’t, particularly given his apparent lack of appreciation of your work and your time — you can say, “I’ve realized this is more of a time commitment than I can take on right now so I should bow out.”

– 2019

3. People are upset that my candy dish is gone

For a couple years, I kept a candy dish on my desk filled with chocolate candies. It was something I enjoyed providing. Sometimes I got frustrated with the greedy ones and the fact that only one person ever contributed candy/money, but it was still something I enjoyed doing.

About a month ago, I saw a financial advisor who told me I needed to cut expenses drastically. I realized I was spending almost $1,000 on candy a year! Yes, that $20-$25 a week really adds up when you multiply it out. So I decided to stop providing candy.

The first week was easy, because I was out of the office. I figured that would give people time to get used to it. We are now into the second week since I have been back, and people are still going by and making comments! “No candy?” “When is the chocolate coming back?” Some want me to explain why it’s gone. One person suggested I could keep buying it but then ask the company to reimburse me! All the people making comments and demanding explanations are the higher-ups in the office. These people probably make four and five times what I make. And to top it all off, there is a drug store with candy for sale right in the building!

I have tried just saying “I’m passing the torch!” Or, as Miss Manners advises in such occasions, giving a tight lipped, weak smile. Still the comments and questions persist! Why do people think they are so entitled to spend my money? And how do I get the comments to stop?

People are thoughtless. Some of them probably don’t realize you were paying for the candy with your own money (versus the company providing it) and some just haven’t stopped to think about how the cost would add up. That’s not entirely surprising — I would have guessed you were spending maybe $5/week on it and never would have guessed it was $20-25. People know they’re taking it but don’t account for how many others take it too, which makes it easier to think it’s a much smaller expense. Which isn’t to say they’d be entitled to it then either, of course! It could be pennies and you’d still be on solid ground in deciding you didn’t want to provide it anymore.

But people complain when they’re used to something delicious being available and then it goes away. That doesn’t mean they’re truly demanding you bring it back — it’s just people being people and not realizing how pushy they sound. Just say, “I was spending too much on it” or “I didn’t want to keep buying it” or “my candy days have come to an end” and don’t let it get to you. If anyone pushes beyond that, you can say, “They sell it downstairs if you want to take over.”

– 2019

4. What do I wear to spend the night with 49 random colleagues?

My organization is sending the entire staff (split into 50-person groups) on overnight team-building retreats. This is not so much a trust exercises and team racing kind of team building as it is we all sit in a room for hours and discuss our mindsets and behaviors (i.e., low physical activity and probably inside).

What is the expected dress code for a work event outside of work, where you will be spending every moment both waking and sleeping with a random selection of colleagues? My workplace has no formal dress code, and outfits vary vastly depending on what department you are in. I have seen colleagues run the gamut from button-ups and ties, to cargo shorts and sandals, to off-the-shoulder flowery tops. I usually wear ankle length pants and bodysuits with a jumper over the top. I don’t wear my work clothes outside of work, as they are way too hot for me.

This retreat is going to be in a very hot place in summer. I assume after the “workday” is done, we will have free time before bed. I am hoping that I would be expected to dress work-like for the work part and could maybe change into a dress or something after, but perhaps I am wrong and I am expected to be work-appropriately covered at all times. Furthermore, the nature of this retreat is that everyone sleeps on mats scattered around a single large room (this is completely normal in my country, although something you would usually do with family and friends). What on earth constitutes work-appropriate sleepwear? I assume my loose tanks with the peek-a-boob baggy arm holes will not cut it.

My colleagues have not been much help when I’ve asked around; most have given me a verbal shrug, and my manager looked a little nervous and said she wasn’t really sure, but that she’d heard that the Big Boss brought a brand new silk pajama set for the executive team version of this retreat earlier in the year. I am getting increasingly worried as the days get hotter and the experience of sharing a hot afternoon and sleeping room with 49 colleagues gets nearer.

First, for the record, this sounds horrible.

I doubt you’re expected to be in business wear even in your free time after work activities are over. I’d say that regardless of your company’s normal dress code, but it’s especially true given that normal work wear for many people attending is already pretty casual. You’ll likely be fine in shorts (as long as they’re not super short), capris, dresses, or even sweats or lounge wear when you’re not in the work portion of the event. (Reasonably nice sweats, not ones with holes or rampant stains.)

As for sleeping … wearing pajamas around coworkers seems awfully seventh-grade-slumber-party-ish to me! (And frankly, loads of people don’t even own pajamas anymore.) I’d go with a t-shirt and sleeping shorts (or lightweight lounge pants if you want more coverage) or something along those lines.

– 2019

Read an update to this letter here.

You may also like:
{ 204 comments }

{ 204 comments… read them below }

  1. Artemesia*

    I wouldn’t even give a kidney to a 70 year old parent and I certainly would not agree to my kids donating one to me. Of course if my kids and perhaps a niece or nephew had needed one, I would have taken the risk. I am old and my kidneys are now compromised just with the passage of time. If I had donated one when I was 35, I would be in trouble now.

    The idea that any pressure would be exerted to have employees donate a kidney to an elderly board member is grotesque. It is an enormous sacrifice and might well mean disaster at some point for the person doing it. The very solicitation of workers to serve a board member is coercive.

    1. Bilateralrope*

      I’d ignore the initial email.

      If I felt any pressure to donate after the initial email, I would ask if they are going to be reimbursing people for getting themselves tested to see if they are suitable donors. Insisting that all the testing that can be done through my regular doctor is done through him for privacy reasons.

      If that reimbursement isn’t happening, then I’m not getting tested. If reimbursement is offered, I go to my doctor, explain the situation and ask for a letter that says I’m not a suitable kidney donor at this time. No further details.

      Since you’ve mentioned the long term health effects of donating a kidney, it seems plausible that a doctor could conclude that a regular patient of theirs is an unsuitable donor from medical records and an initial examination.

      1. lizziebeth730*

        So I lurk here, but I actually have some experiencce with regards to organ donation as my husband is on the transplant list.

        When someone is listed, they are listed through a specific transplant center. If you are interested in applying the first step is to fill out an online health questionaire that is linked to the recipient, but that the recipient has ZERO access to. Name, age, DOB, blood pressure, blood type, etc. If you pass the screening the next step is for a phone interview. It is BEATEN into your skull about financial compensation and they are sneaky about questions they ask to find out of if you’re doing this under duress. Once you pass through this section then they send you for any additional testing you may need for the preliminary. You are 100% free to back out AT ANY TIME. They do not tell the recipient who has applied or even how many people have expressed interest. We were only told “there were a lot of hits to the link for you” If you pass the prelim, them you go in for further testing. This isn’t just health testing but also a lengthy interview with social workers, financial services, and other providers. If they approve you, YOU more or less set the date for surgery. All in all it’s about a 6 month process. The recipient might never find out who donated. You can back out any time at all for any reason whatsover, you do not need a doctors note. You can say forget it right up until you’re under the sleepy juice on the OR table, and the ONLY thing the recipient might (and I do mean might) be told by the transplant team is ” They weren’t a suitable donor” So you can say “I’m afraid of being put to sleep, or I’d be too sad that I couldn’t bend down to pet my dog for 3 weeks” and that’s it you are all set. They’ll stop the process.

        Testing cannot be done through a PCP in the US. It MUST be done through the transplant center. All testing and the surgery is covered by the recipients insurance. You are covered under the recipients insurance for any issues directly relating the donation for 2 years (you have an infection at incision site? billed to recipient. You have strep throat? that’s you). They also want to make sure that they have all of your medical records and access to it prior to donation because you may be involved in a chain and not a directed donation.

        Organ donation is a wonderful and amazing gift. People can wait on lists for kidneys for a long time. It’s not something to be walked into lightly. I was denied due to the fact that we had young kids at home and they center really truly dislikes having spousal transplants (I’d be sent home within a day or two of donation, he’d still be in for about another week. How do I get home? Who picks up my meds? Who grocery shops? Who picks up a sick kid from school? Who gets him home? Who gets trained on meds and what to watch for if I can’t get to the hospital when he’s discharged? Who helps him in the shower and with transfers if I’m under strict recovery rules myself” )

        2. 1 Kidney*

          All of this is very true!! I donated a kidney to my dad 1.5 years ago. My dad’s insurance paid for both of us. We are both doing great :)

        4. Goodbye, left kidney*

          I donated a kidney to a stranger (at the time, now we know each other) in 2018. Agree with all of the above, including the sneaky questions. Some of them were even like, “If you do agree to meet the recipient and then he or she doesn’t want the same level of friendship, would you regret donating to them?” So maybe someone in the past has donated with the hopes of becoming best buds with their recipient? Who know.

          We’re both doing great and the only things I’m not supposed to do are become a heavy drinker/drug user and contact sports, like boxing or those races where you hurdle yourself over obstacles (to minimize any potential injury to my remaining kidney). Darn!

          1. Artemesia*

            my kidneys are now at stage 3 kidney disease for no known reason — really glad I have two of them.

            1. MigraineMonth*

              The risk of future kidney disease is one of the things that is included in the counseling and risk assessment for a donation. If there is a known risk factor, you probably won’t be accepted as a candidate.

              If you don’t have any risk factors and end up having kidney failure anyway, you’re actually in a better place than those with kidney failure who didn’t donate. Living donors have priority on the national waiting list if they need to get a kidney transplant in the future.

        5. KarenK*

          This is all 100% true. I haven’t been involved in my hospital’s transplant program for a few years now, but I see not much has changed.

          In fact, during my tenure, we specifically turned down people who wanted to donate to their boss, simply due to the unequal power dynamic.

          1. Circus Monkey*

            Im surprised this was a thing i.e. specifically turning down people who wanted to give organs to their bosses, I thought it was only the two in Ask an Manager’s letter’s that asked. I did not realize asking for donations of organ was a thing done as an employer.

        6. londonedit*

          Hang on a minute – am I reading it correctly that people could choose whether they wanted to donate to your husband? As a stranger? That’s surprising to me, and it’s not how it works here. You can of course choose to be a live donor for someone you know, but as an altruistic live organ donor you simply choose to donate to a suitable match on the UK transplant list. The list is ordered by medical need, so you donate to the best suitable match who’s nearest the top of the list. You definitely can’t choose who your organ goes to.

          1. lizziebeth730*

            That’s how it works here too. You can do a directed donation* so I could say I am willing to donate my kidney to my husband. You can do an altruistic donation ” I got two don’t need em both- snip away!” and it goes to the next person who’s a match on the list , or you can do a directed chain/ Cross donation
            Ie: I have type a blood and my husband has type B. Someone else on the transplant list has type A blood and their donor has type B. I can donate my kidney to the other person, and the other donor donates to my husband (or it could potentially go for even more donors/recipients than just the four in that scenario. If you do not have a donor then you wait on the list for a deceased donor. That goes to the person who’s the next on the list that’s a match.

            What I meant by “choose” is that it’s MY choice to donate as a donor. And I retain that choice until I’m knocked out on the OR table (it’s hard to withdraw consent when unconscious). As a donor I don’t get to troll through a book of kidney needers and say “Ohh i like the looks of that guy”. Just that I can say “I don’t wanna do this anymore” at anytime in the process.

        7. Magnolia Clyde*

          Thank you for sharing this — so many things factor into this, and it’s great to hear from someone who has direct insight into the process. Wishing you and your family all the best!

        8. Bilateralrope*

          There are things your PCP could know that would exclude you from donating. My first guess would be some kidney problems.

          If so, that ends everything there before you have any contact with the transplant center. But you still have the doctors note to show to anyone who tries to pressure you.

          Though letting the transplant center know about the pressure you’re under might be useful for coworkers.

          1. fhqwhgads*

            The point is neither the prospective recipient nor the person who sent the email will have any way of knowing if you applied and got rejected, applied and changed your mind, never applied at all. Unless they plan to individually harass every person who was sent the original solicitation, any additional “pressure” is gonna be another mass email that can be ignored. Pre-emptively getting a dr note is giving them more info than they’d have if you went through the transplant center – who is obligated NOT to identify you and obligated not to share anything other than “we found a match” or “we have not”.

        1. lizziebeth730*

          How do you figure it’s a slippery slope? I’ve never been asked to donate to someone else. My information is sealed from my husband- but he knows I was interviewed and told that “I am a last resort” only because I told him. When I had my phone screen they actually made sure that he was not in the room.

          They don’t come back and ask you if you wanna donate your liver or part of your pancreas or anything.

          I don’t know if I’d be willing to donate to a 70 year old board member at my job. I suppose I’m altruistic enough that I’d consider it. Someone’s in need, I have the means to help, ok I’ll do it. But having it be for someone who may be in charge of my future at the company might give me a lengthy pause. It may also give the transplant center pause and the need to go before the ethics board for discussion. But I also don’t view organ donation as a tit for tat. Once I give up the kidney it’s not mine anymore. And no one owes me anything for doing it.

          I did tease my husband that if he gets mine I become the automatic winner of every argument. Me: I want to paint the living room green Him: I don’t like the color. Me: You can pee because of me. It’s going green

        2. Recipient daughter-in-law*

          As lizziebeth730 noted above, the donation process is designed to have lots of opt-out possibilities, all of which the medical team will blame on “further testing showed the donor organ wasn’t suitable”. It is a very, very sticky slope that has a lot of safeguards for donors.

        3. Bilateralrope*

          The point is to get the doctors note to say that you are unable to donate. To shut down anyone trying to pressure you.

          Now that was without knowing what lizziebeth730 said about transplant centers. They might be able to get you to that point cheaper/faster.

      3. Dog momma*

        The testing, transplant and all associated transplant costs for the donor, is paid by the recipient’s insurance

    2. 1 Kidney*

      I donated a kidney to my dad (76 at the time), me 43, 1.5 years ago. We are both doing great.
      There are a lot of misnomers around organ donation. You are put through the ringer to make sure you are both healthy to donate and receive.

      1. MK*

        You had every right to make that choice, but “1.5 years later we are both fine” isn’t exactly an endorsement, as it’s a very short time period for something like that. You can be extremely healthy at the time of donation and get sick later.

        1. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

          You can also have two perfectly fine kidneys, eat a bad hamburger, get ecoli, and have acute kidney failure and exploding blood*. You just don’t know. Living kidney donations have been happening since 1954, so I suspect there is a fair amount of data on how it affects the body long term at this point, given that it’s been 70 years now. The National Kidney Foundation has some info about potential long term risks, but honestly, they sound about as risky as normal American behavior. https://www.kidney.org/kidney-topics/long-term-risks-living-donation

          *Hi, it’s me! I had hemolytic uremic syndrome when I was 19. I’m leery of kidney donation for that reason, simply because I don’t know if I have 100% function in each kidney or 100% or more between the both of them. I suspect I wouldn’t qualify for that reason alone.

        1. lizziebeth730*

          That’s how it works here too. You can do a directed donation* so I could say I am willing to donate my kidney to my husband. You can do an altruistic donation ” I got two don’t need em both- snip away!” and it goes to the next person who’s a match on the list , or you can do a directed chain/ Cross donation
          Ie: I have type a blood and my husband has type B. Someone else on the transplant list has type A blood and their donor has type B. I can donate my kidney to the other person, and the other donor donates to my husband (or it could potentially go for even more donors/recipients than just the four in that scenario. If you do not have a donor then you wait on the list for a deceased donor. That goes to the person who’s the next on the list that’s a match.

          What I meant by “choose” is that it’s MY choice to donate as a donor. And I retain that choice until I’m knocked out on the OR table (it’s hard to withdraw consent when unconscious). As a donor I don’t get to troll through a book of kidney needers and say “Ohh i like the looks of that guy”. Just that I can say “I don’t wanna do this anymore” at anytime in the process.

          I do know the link we were provided was shared widely on social media. Family members and friends and coworkers and high school and college and previous coworkers all over the country shared it. It’s entirely possible a stranger did click the link and start the process. Because they clicked directly on the link for my husband it could have been possible for a stranger to “choose” my husband but it wouldn’t be considered an altruistic donation in that case.

        2. lizziebeth730*

          Well to that I’d say that if you donated a kidney, and your remaining one goes awry, you do get bumped to the very top of the list for a transplant.

          They are also able to do a LOT with medicine nowadays. My husband is a bit of a strange case since by all accounts he should be on dialysis, but somehow his kidneys are doing JUST enough to work (but he has a low gfr, has to watch his diet and is on like 8 kinds of meds). His gfr hovers between 10-15.. when you should be over 95. As a 44 year old, I have a lot of hope that in 32 years if my remaining kidney crapped out I’d have a lot more options (Robot Kidney- also the name of my punk band!).

            1. Meat Oatmeal*

              Ah, that comment was supposed to have horns hands emojis in it. I guess emojis don’t show up. Welp. Good band name idea!

            1. lizziebeth730*

              Yes. He meets the critieria because his GFR is in the transplant range.

              About 4 years ago he thought he had gotten something in his eye- it was still there the next day so he went to urgent care to get his eye flushed. They took his blood pressure and panicked- it was 252/150 which is a hypertensive crisis. He was sent to the hospital and admitted. He had a mass in his R kidney. The spot in the eye was from optic nerve edema. And he was at an 8 on his gfr

              The hospital he originally admitted to was not great. They had all kinds of reasons for this. They wanted him on dialysis right away and the nephrologist was awful. We switched to a hospital in a nearby large city that also had a transplant center and the nephrologist said that they don’t do dialysis based on numbers but on symptoms. He was “asymptomatic” at that point other than the gfr and the high BP. But he was not experiencing confusion, no edema, and was still producing urine. She got his scheduled for surgery and he had a partial nephrectomy. They also biopsied the other kidney to find out why it wasn’t working. He was referred to transplant She changed his meds all around. She sees him every 6 weeks

              The surgery pathology was a 2b renal cell carcinoma. The biopsy of the other kidney was “interstitial cystitis of unknown origin” the best guess was that R Kidney developed the tumor, which spiked his bp and caused his L kidney to work overtime to the point of burnout.

              She considers him her “interesting case” because he had no known risk factors for kidney failure, no family history, and he had no symptoms til the weird spot in his eye appearred. She always shows him off to the interns :)

              Transplant met with us, he was sent for some other tests (stress test and ekg and something else I don’t recall) and then officially listed him about a month after our meeting with transplant. He sees them yearly for monitoring but does monthly labs.

    3. Meep*

      Yeah… I am sorry for the 70-year-old’s family and friends and he could theoretically live another 20+ years, but the age stood out to me too. Expecting employees to donate a kidney is insane, but somehow expecting younger, healthier employees to donate a kidney is a million times worse.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        Um, no? I’m betting most 70-year-olds wouldn’t qualify for living donor kidney donation, and of course the donation should come from someone healthier. People in this thread have talked about their experiences donating a kidney, and it’s not like they sacrificed longevity or health to do so. Yes, there are always risks for surgery, which is why there are so many guardrails around organ donation.

        The problem is they’re asking their employees to donate, not because they’re asking younger/healthier people to donate.

    4. Ineffable Bastard*

      Besides all the grotesque and unethical of the situation, people do not get how hard is to find a proper match. My father needed a kidney and 80 people enlisted to be tested, but just one of his siblings was a match. Years later, when he needed a second transplant (he took all precautions but sometimes things just do not work as expected), his mother donated one of her kidneys and the doctors ended up unable to complete the transplant because her blood vessels were much smaller and thinner than his, despite her being a tall and wide woman, because she had just turned 60.

      People often don’t get that and even try to buy organs or pressure others to get transplant that obviously will not work. (Even if it did, it’s preposterous — your organs are yours and nobody is entitled to them).

  2. Sparrow*

    I know this is a bit tangential to the point, but the last paragraph of the final answer confused me deeply and made me very curious how Allison was defining “pajamas”! The way that I use “pajamas”—and the way I almost always hear it used in my corner of the U.S.—is just to mean “anything that is suitable to sleep in” (my first thought when Allison said most people don’t own pajamas anymore was to wonder if everyone else in the U.S. just started sleeping nude and I’m the weird one for wearing shorts and a tank top). Even more confusing is that Allison’s suggestions of “a t-shirt and sleeping shorts or lightweight lounge pants” are pretty much exactly what I envision when I hear the word pajamas!

    A quick google search for “pajamas definition” brought up two definitions, 1) a suit of loose pants and jacket or shirt for sleeping in, 2) any clothing suitable for wearing in bed. I had only ever really used the latter definition, with the first being one specific type of pajamas, and I am now very curious to know if this is a regional difference in defining this word or just a personal difference.

    1. The Prettiest Curse*

      So, for me, pyjamas are a set (often matching or coordinating) of top and comfortable trousers that you sleep in. I’ve never heard the second definition. I’m from the UK but have lived in the US.

      1. Sparrow*

        Interesting! If you don’t mind me asking (genuinely curious here): is there a specific term you’d use to refer to clothes that did not come in a matched/coordinated set but are used to sleep in? Also, you specified a top and trousers—does a nightgown fall under pyjamas for you or is it more of its own thing?

        1. MsSolo (UK)*

          A nightgown – nightie, as it’s usually called in the UK – is usually treated as a separate thing. If someone were to say “pyjamas are requested” (say, for an overnight hospital stay) you’d be expected to wear something with shorts or trousers, not a nightie or nightshirt. Generally, almost any nightwear with a top and bottom half would be referred to as pyjamas, but if you might refer to a “pyjama top” or “pyjama bottoms” if someone only wore half a set. You’d have to be really obviously mismatched for someone to distinguish if you were wearing top and bottoms and not call it pyjamas (maybe pyjama bottoms and a bra?)

        2. bamcheeks*

          Nightdress/ nightie is definitely different from pyjamas, which has to involve shorts or trousers.

          Generally I would agree that pyjamas have to be a matching or coordinating set, BUT you can buy pyjama bottoms by themselves which must have one of more pyjama-esquires characteristics (eg. stripes, flannel, drawstring) to be distinguished from any other kind of comfy trousers. There is an implied pyjama top, which may be sold separately or not at all. If a separate pyjama top is being sold, it has to be VERY pyjama-y — buttons, flannel, collar, or a moon/stars/sleepy teddy bear print — to justify calling itself a pyjama top. A plain jersey top or best can be sold as a pyjama top as part of a set, but selling it by itself and calling it a pyjama top is just taking the piss.

          I have never thought so deeply about this.

          Some

          1. Myrin*

            Yeah, I haven’t, either, but I have a comment in moderation where, while writing, it became quite clear to me that I (and people here in general, I’ve not made that up on my own) have a very specific understanding of what pyjamas are, which is not something I ever would’ve thought of before.

            1. Lexi Vipond*

              I’ve definitely realised that the set of things which could be worn as pyjamas is quite different from the set of things that could be SOLD as pyjamas, which I’ve never really thought about before!

              1. Artemesia*

                Many people sleep in skivies, men especially e.g. boxers and t shirt. Many people sleep in pajama bottoms and t shirts or lightweight ‘lounge wear’ — but none of that would be called pajamas in the US just because it is being worn to bed.

                When I think pajamas for guys I am thinking those matching shirts/trousers in lightweight material that you guys in old movies or sitcoms wearing. I don’t think many US men actually wear those. My Dad did, but then if alive he would be well over 100.

                1. Artemesia*

                  And for any sort of group camp out like this, people usually wear casual clothes like sweats or if hot, shorts and t shirts — i.e. something that works as day wear as well.

                2. Nina*

                  (was very amused when I found out what ‘skivvies’ meant in the US – where I live a ‘skivvy’ is a turtleneck long-sleeved shirt!)

                3. wordswords*

                  Counterpoint: I’m in the US, and I would absolutely call that pajamas! To me, pajamas are anything you wear to sleep in, and mine are indeed usually pajama bottoms and a t-shirt. I’d still say “change into pajamas” to cover changing into a nightgown, even, though I’d describe the specific garment as a nightgown if asked what kind of pajamas someone wore. And this broad usage of pajamas is also what I hear from my friends, for what it’s worth.

                  I don’t know what the regional/generational/individual patterns are here, but apparently there’s a fair bit of variation I never knew about!

        3. Irish Teacher.*

          I’d probably say “nightwear” or “sleepwear” and a nightdress is definitely different from pyjamas. I would be a bit confused if somebody mentioned pyjamas and then showed a nightdress. It would be like somebody mentioning a tux and then showing a ballgown. Both are used for the same event/purpose, but they are very different things. I have never heard anybody refer to a nightdress as pyjamas.

          As MsSolo says, if something like a hospital said “pyjamas required,” I would take that to be saying not to wear a nightdress.

          1. londonedit*

            Yes, agree with this and with all of what bamcheeks is saying too! Pyjamas to me are generally matching and generally have ‘pyjama’ characteristics, like being cotton or flannel and having either a tartan/stripe or a ‘cute’ pattern. Can be traditional shirt-and-trousers/shorts or trousers/shorts with a matching/co-ordinating top or t-shirt. You wouldn’t generally wear them out of the house (periodically the British tabloids and people who read them like to shame people who wear pyjamas to the supermarket, or on the school run, because it reads as slobbish behaviour). A nightie is definitely not pyjamas, it’s a nightie. Someone who sleeps just in a normal t-shirt would probably just call it a t-shirt or nightwear or sleepwear – I don’t think you’d say ‘I’m putting my pyjamas on’ if it was just a t-shirt like you might wear outdoors.

            1. Lexi Vipond*

              For me ‘nightwear’ and ‘sleepwear’ belong in a catalogue, or possibly a slightly pretentious magazine article – I don’t think I’ve come across people actually talking about them. (Or possibly I just don’t talk to many people about what they wear in bed!)

              Do you also have outerwear, in case you accidentally call your jacket a coat? :D

        4. The Prettiest Curse*

          Trousers you sleep in are pyjama bottoms, but I’d only consider a top you slept in to be a pyjama top if it has buttons. Otherwise, it would fall into the general category of “bed clothes”.
          Anything with its own different name – nightgown, camisole, sleep suit, sleep shorts etc. – is a separate item to pyjamas in my mind.

          1. PJ Princess*

            Huh, that first part is super weird to me. I wear pyjamas to sleep and have several sets, and all of them have tops that are t-shirt style with a patch pocket, in fabric that matches the pyjama bottoms, and a print or colour that matches or co-ordinates with the bottoms. These are matching sets, and are sold as pyjamas, and there are no buttons in sight. The idea that these are not pjs because of a lack of buttons is bizarre.

            So in your view I am buying a pair of pyjama bottoms and a… what?

            1. Ellis Bell*

              I’m in the UK too, and imo the matching pocket definitely gets your sleepwear into the ‘pyjama top’ definition, but without buttons it can’t be a ‘pyjama jacket/shirt’.

              1. The Prettiest Curse*

                Yeah, exactly, that’s what I was trying to say. I had no idea there were so many different ideas about what constitutes pyjamas!

          2. Arrietty*

            I have several pyjama tops and none have buttons. Their distinguishing characteristics, other than things like the word “sleepy” written across the front on some, are that they’re thinner and baggier than my daytime tshirts. Even with a bra underneath, they look like sleepwear. I can and sometimes do sleep in a normal tshirt but those are usually slightly more shaped.

          3. Insert Clever Name Here*

            Huh, interesting. For me, “pajamas” is a classification of clothing and any of the items you listed (nightgown, camisole, sleep suit, sleep shorts) are specific items within that classification. Kind of like how “business casual” includes skirts, trousers, polo shirts, button up shirts, blouses, sweaters, etc. but you don’t go buy “a business casual.”

            As someone else mentioned, I have literally never thought of this before — language is fun!

          4. Bella Ridley*

            This is too funny to me, because where I come from “bedclothes” are bed linen–sheets and pillowcases and duvet cover!

          5. Learn ALL the things*

            This is a very strange conversation for me to read. I’ve always thought of and referred to my “bed clothes” as pajamas. Pajamas are just the clothes you wear when you sleep. I had no idea that people had so many rules and expectations for what constitutes pajamas.

            1. lanfy*

              Whereas to me, using ‘pyjamas’ (or ‘pajamas’) to refer to literally anything you wear while asleep, feels like using, say, ‘pantsuit’ to refer to literally anything you wear while awake. Including skirts and dresses.

        5. Turtle3808*

          I say pajamas if they are a matching set type of thing, and just bedclothes if they are clothes worn for sleeping (I also do the old t-shirt & pj shorts in the summer especially, and call those bedclothes)

        6. Sharpie*

          Like the Prettiest Curse, I’m in the UK and use the word pyjamas to mean a matched set of top, generally a button-up jacket, and trousers worn in bed. I generally sleep either nude or in an old t-shirt and loose trousers that were once part of a pyjama set, and would just call it night-wear.

      2. Lexi Vipond*

        I sleep wearing specific pyjama trousers but an ordinary t-shirt a size bigger than I’d wear during the day, and I definitely talk about ‘putting my pyjamas on’ or being ‘still in my pyjamas’. (I’m a nighttime wriggler, a looser top is somehow less likely to end up twisted tightly round me…)

        Obviously if someone has slept in their ordinary clothes in an airport or something that’s not their pyjamas, and if they’re still in their nightie it’s their nightie, but if someone had bought shorts intended for some kind of sport and used them only for sleeping, would you really talk about them as being still in their shorts and t-shirt?

        1. Marion Ravenwood*

          I’m the same. I have a few matching pyjama sets – mostly the sort of collared shirt and long pants style you see people wearing in old films – but I’ve also made several pairs of my own pyjama bottoms (which I define as long pants with an elasticated waistband and usually a ribbon tie at the waist – pyjama shorts are the same thing but, well, shorts!). Then I’ll pair those with a band T-shirt that I bought because I like the artist and wanted to support them, but the shirt isn’t fitted enough for me personally. It’s also quite a good sneaky WFH tactic for early Zoom calls or on days when I don’t want to get dressed properly, because I can just throw a sweatshirt or hoodie over the top and it just looks like a regular T-shirt.

      3. Dek*

        I mean, until recently when I put on my pjs, what I meant was I was putting on my old gi pants and a loose t-shirt. I got a couple of sets that I actually wear a little while back, but for most of my life, pajamas are just what you wear to bed, no matching required.

    2. nnn*

      Pajamas are clothes that are only designed for sleeping in, you wouldn’t wear them out of the house the way you could a different type of t-shirt or shorts. They might be similar to a t-shirt or shorts but the fabric and cut typically makes them sleepwear only.

      1. Sparrow*

        That definitely is one definition! The definition I generally use and hear around hear is just “anything that you sleep in” (e.g. a pair of boxers or an old band-tee can be accurately referred to as pajamas if you’re using them to sleep in).

        1. lanfy*

          I’d honestly be weirded out if I said ‘pyjamas’ and someone showed up in boxers.
          Live in the UK, and to me ‘pyjamas’ means specifically a matching set of trousers (possibly shorts) and top designed to be slept in. ‘Anything that you sleep in’ is ‘sleepwear’.

      2. bamcheeks*

        I got new pair of nice flannel pyjama bottoms a week ago, and my rule is that until I actually wear them to sleep in they are LOUNGE PANTS, and I can wear them to work from home, school drop off, nip to the corner shop etc.

        My daughter said, “so basically, until you sleep with them, they can see other people?”

        1. Seeking Second Childhood*

          Thank your daughter from. me — I don’t often laugh like that before coffee!

    3. Leenie*

      Alison meant pajamas that were made for the purpose. I’m in the apparent minority who love actual pajamas (I’m wearing some right now). So when I think pajamas, I think those, and knew what Alison meant. I think of shorts and tees or sweats more as loungewear. But if I had a houseguest who said she was getting into her pajamas and came back out in sweats or a tank and shorts, I wouldn’t give it a second thought, or question her use of the word.

    4. Myrin*

      The way I use it in English – as a direct translation from my native language – is a matching set made specifically for sleeping in, and I’d assume that’s what Alison meant as well.

      I would never call athletic wear/shorts/t-shirts/old shirts “pyjamas” even if you sleep in them because it’s a very specific expression meaning a very specific thing (again, in my language, and I’m using it the same way in English – no idea if that is “correct” or not).

      And because it came up in another reply – no, a nightgown is its own thing and wouldn’t be called “pyjamas” here, either (in fact, even less so than other types of clothes; I could theoretically see someone calling a tank top-and-shorts combo “pyjamas” but you absolutely wouldn’t call a nightgown that!).

    5. Nina*

      For me (same cultural context as the LW of that letter), ‘pajamas’ defaults to the first definition, a matched pants and top for sleeping in, usually pretty obviously designed as nightwear and often with cutesy patterns you wouldn’t want to be seen wearing in public. I’d only think about what I (or anyone) actually wore to bed if ‘your pajamas’ was specified.

    6. londonedit*

      This was interesting the other week when there was a question about a ‘pyjama day’ at work – a surprising (to me) number of people were appalled at the idea because they imagined ‘pyjamas’ to literally mean ‘what you wear to bed’, and couldn’t imagine going to work braless/in a comfy strappy top and floppy shorts/etc. Whereas to me, ‘pyjamas’ in that context would very definitely mean a stylised definition of pyjamas – the classic old-fashioned flannel or cotton shirt-and-trousers. And I’d definitely wear underwear underneath it.

      1. UK Pyjama Person*

        Whereas I find the idea of defining pyjamas so rigidly as only a button-up top and trousers in certain styles and fabrics as so ridiculously old-fashioned and bizarre that it would never occur to me that anyone under about 80 would use the term in that way these days! And the thought that a company would expect all their employees to HAVE such pyjamas is even more weird to me – I don’t know anyone who has such things, and I cannot believe the expectation is that they should all have to go out and buy them. I would be utterly baffled by your version being the expectation!

        1. londonedit*

          I mean, I wouldn’t expect people to HAVE to wear the traditional sort, but what I’m saying is that if it’s a work thing then I also wouldn’t assume they expect people to wear their actual nightclothes. I wouldn’t expect people to wear short shorts and little spaghetti-strap tops just because that’s what they literally wear in bed. I’d expect people to turn up either in matching sets or in old-fashioned pyjamas or in something else that was a) very obviously pyjamas and b) clean and fairly new and modest enough for the office. A work ‘pyjama day’ would call, in my mind, almost for ‘pyjamas as a costume’ rather than for wearing your actual nightwear.

          1. Hijinx*

            Yes, I’d expect it to mean broadly-decent and slightly-tongue-in-cheek loungewear– some people in full old-fashioned stripy or patterned pyjamas, or dressing gowns and others in full-length fleece onesies. But the point is that it’s dressing up rather than leaving the house in whatever you slept in.

            (what constitutes a pyjama jacket vs a pyjama top might be a whole other set of taxonomy, now I think about it…)

          2. Learn ALL the things*

            Yeah, a “pajama day” at work is like a themed costume party. You’re not wearing your actual pajamas, you’re creating a Pajama Costume to wear for the day.

        2. londonedit*

          What baffled me about it was the people who were saying ‘I could never do a pyjama day at work!!! I don’t wear pyjamas!! I wear short shorts and a ratty t-shirt!!!’ Which is fine, but for ‘pyjama day’ surely you just go to a cheap shop or a charity shop and you buy a set of traditional pyjamas, and you wear something underneath (at least underwear). No one is expecting people to turn up in just a t-shirt because that’s what they wear at home.

          1. Arrietty*

            When my son has pyjama day at nursery, for Children in Need or “self care day” (I find it hilarious that they do spa days for three year olds), he changes out of his night pyjamas into pants and a vest (the British meaning of both), then clean pyjamas on top. The only time he’s gone to nursery in what he slept in was the day he flat out refused to let me dress him, and he was so traumatised by the fact I actually followed through on my threat that he’s never had to do that again.

          2. Emmy Noether*

            I’m no longer comfortable buying single-wear, throwaway clothes, so it wouldn’t be easy. Charity shops are nice, but they’re often a time investment to find something suitable. And I’m not sure I’ve seen pajamas at the one I go to, ever.

            That said, I’d scrounge up something. My husbands pajamas. Pajama bottoms and a plaid shirt. My grandmas frilly nightie that waits in a box to be refashioned. May be tougher for someone with a more minimalist wardrobe, though.

            1. doreen*

              I don’t think the idea is for it to be single-wear, throwaway – I mean even if a person sleeps nude, they probably have the occasional circumstance when they sleep wearing something and if you normally sleep in a ratty t shirt and shorts, you could certainly sleep in the pajamas you bought for pajama day . Or maybe there will be “pajama day” at work again next year.

              1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

                Or donate them back to the thrift store! My wife got an Ugly Christmas Sweater at the thrift store for her work party, and will donate it back when party season is over.

      2. Learn ALL the things*

        Oh, see, this is different for me! What I call my pajamas are generally leggings and an oversized t shirt, but when I worked for a school and we had spirit week, pajama day was most certainly not “whatever you wear to bed”day. Those kinds of dress up days are about being over the top and cutesy, so I’d definitely go full matching set, along with some slippers and maybe a robe if it was cold out.

      3. Saturday*

        I’m appalled at the idea because why are they having pyjama day at a workplace? That’s super weird to me, but I didn’t see the letter.

    7. DoesThatWordMeanWhatYouThinkItMeabs*

      Some people do loosely use pyjamas to mean anything they sleep in – this is a colloquial shorthand that has gotten enough adoption over time to be accepted in some dictionaries as an alternate definition (as indicated) but if you get instructions like “pyjamas expected” or “pyjamas not allowed” they mean the original definition of a specific type of two piece sleepwear. I know of several cases of people being turned away/sent home from places (including a hospital once, for a specific type of testing) because they did not follow instructions.

      1. A Girl Named Fred*

        I’m sorry, the idea I might be turned away from a hospital because my PJs don’t match is absolutely wild to me. I’ve never owned a matching PJ set, I genuinely can’t just bring the top and pants I always sleep in? Or vice versa if I wasn’t supposed to wear PJs but I show up in my “loungewear” top and sweatpants, who gets to decide whether it’s just my comfy clothes or my PJs?

        Not meant as an attack, I’m just baffled by that idea and overthinking it as a result lol

        1. Lexi Vipond*

          A problem because things don’t match is unlikely. A problem because you brought a short nightie or a pair of boxer shorts and they wanted you to be reasonably well covered is possible.

          1. londonedit*

            And sometimes it’s about ease, depending on the procedure you’re having done – when my mum had her knee replacements it was made very clear on the hospital admission info that she should *not* bring long pyjama trousers. They need easy access to the knee(s) and after the op you’ll have bandages and swelling, so they specified a nightdress or pyjamas with shorts.

          2. doreen*

            When my husband has sleep studies done, they are specific- they want 2 piece pajamas because they don’t want people sleeping nude or in tighty-whiteys or boxers and they don’t want one piece nightgowns/nightshirts/blanket sleepers because of the sensors that need to be placed.

        2. DoesThatWordMeanWhatYouThinkItMeans*

          I don’t think anyone cares about the appearance/pattern as long as it’s not obscene or otherwise inappropriate, but those instructions are usually because they want a specific type of coverage assured or a specific type of access or for some other reason that’s more about shape/construction of the garments and maybe expectations of looseness level in some cases if they want to feed wires in certain areas (for example).

        3. Learn ALL the things*

          I’ve had surgery several times and the pre-op appointment has always included very specific instructions about what kind of clothes I should bring with me. The nurse will say something like “you may not have good range of motion in your arms so make sure the shirt you bring can button or zip in the front” or something else along those lines. I’ve never just been told “bring your pajamas,” they always have specific instructions.

    8. A Girl Named Fred*

      I’m from the midwestern US and my definition of pajamas/PJs matches yours. I have never in my life owned one of the matching sets that folks are talking about, especially not one with buttons, but I always say I’m “getting into my PJs” when I go put on the clothes I’m going to sleep in. At least in my brain, pajamas = sleepwear and sleepwear = pajamas.

      I admit that I’m lowkey wondering if there might be some socioeconomic differences in who calls it which? Seems like cultural differences definitely affect it, but I think one of the reasons my family never owned the coordinated PJs is because they tended to cost more than “cheap sweatpants and old t-shirt” (or even “any loungewear/athletic clothes that are too far gone for that use but still perfectly serviceable to sleep in”) did, but we never would have said we weren’t buying or wearing pajamas. Whereas I could totally see my boyfriend’s mom, who is/was in a more upper-middle-class category than mine, seeing a distinction between pajama sets and things-you-wear-to-sleep. (For the record, that’s not a dig at her at all! Just an observation.)

      1. doreen*

        I don’t think it has anything to do with socioeconomic class but it might have to do with age. I don’t remember any loungewear or athletic wear that was comfortable to sleep in when I was young – there were no fleece or cotton sweatpants really, there were nylon tracksuits and windsuits. Shorts were also different – there were shorts with buttons and zippers and there were the shorter, tighter athletic shorts that you really don’t see today at all. If I was going to sleep in shorts or pants, they were going to be pants or shorts that were specifically sold for sleeping So pajamas to me are the specific tops and bottoms sold as “sleepwear” which are not always matching sets with buttons but are generally not suitable to wear outside – maybe they’re decorated with lambs or snowflakes or there’s a pattern that no one would wear head to toe outside the house.

      2. Learn ALL the things*

        You might be on to something with this. As a kid, we would usually get special pajamas for Christmas that would fit the “matching set” definition, but we couldn’t afford to have multiple matching pajama sets. For most of the year we would just wear baggy/stretchy clothes to sleep in and call them our pajamas, and I’ve continued that linguistic habit into adulthood.

    9. Seeking Second Childhood*

      I’m in the US: Pajamas vs. pyjamas is a vaguely interesting spelling shift.

      But more interesting to me is realizing that my pajamas are purpose-made even if not buttoned…. And when I’m wearing retired other-purpose* clothes to bed I say PJs.

      (*Stretched out t-shirts & exercise pants, favorite much-repaired sweaters, even the “beachwear” linen bottoms originally purchased for driving home from the pool.)

      1. A Girl Named Fred*

        As I was typing my above responses, I did find myself wondering if I use pajamas and PJs interchangeably or if they mean different things to me. I think they’re interchangeable for me, it just depends on how lazy I’m feeling to type or say the whole word versus the shorthand lol

      2. londonedit*

        Pyjamas is the accepted UK spelling, though I’d be interested to see whether there’s any sort of shift towards pajamas here – I have a theory that a lot of UK spellings are going to be superseded by US ones thanks to online videos, pretty much all of which have US-English subtitles. You can already see it in the fact that ‘aeroplane’ is hardly ever used by Gen Z and younger – it’s all ‘airplane’.

      3. DoesThatWordMeanWhatYouThinkItMeans*

        I’m in the US too but subconsciously used pyhamas without batting an eyelash when the comment above mine did. Ofcourse, I’ve had a job translating from British to US English before so I’m used to dealing with such variations. Normally I’m more deliberate about it, though.

      4. Jackalope*

        I’m feeling vaguely betrayed by my spell check. For years I used pyjamas, and then when I started typing on my phone it told me that that’s wrong and the One True Spelling is pajamas. I was slightly embarrassed and wondered how I’d been getting it wrong all these years. And now I learn that BOTH are correct. Curse you, spell check!

      5. Phony Genius*

        American who spells it “pajamas” here. I can accept any spelling or variant, except “jammies.”

        1. Dek*

          Meanwhile, “jammies” is what most everyone called them when I was a kid.

          That or a “sleep shirt” as John Mulaney once mentioned

    10. Ask a Manager* Post author

      Fascinating to see the debate on this — it seems deeply cultural/regional! But to clear up what I meant when I wrote it: while it’s true that you can always refer to what you sleep in as your pajamas, no matter what it is, it’s also true that only certain types of clothing are sold specifically labeled as “pajamas” and that’s what I’m referencing in the column!

    11. Dido*

      She obviously means clothes that are made only for sleeping and would be inappropriate to wear anywhere else, I’m also in the US and understood this

    12. Part time lab tech*

      A third definition is as the loose trousers (originally string tied, sometimes elastic now) in a kurta or punjabi suit. The term is lifted from India (kurta pajama/salwar kameez).
      I also have never though so much about the word pajamas.

    13. fhqwhgads*

      I agree generally that pajamas can mean “whatever pants/shorts/shirt you sleep in”, but I think from context that paragraph is referring to pajama sets. In other words, if there were, say a spirit week thing at a school (do those exist outside the US? Genuinely asking), and there were a a “Wear pajamas to school” day, even though one might normally sleep in sweatpants and a random t-shirt, to visually be meeting the theme “pajamas”, someone would probably wear flannel/plaid trousers, or lightweight cotton trousers with pictures of eggs and bacon on it or stars and moons. In other words, the clothes in some way communicate “sleep”.

    14. Cheshire Cat*

      In the part of the US where I grew up, “pajamas” and “nightgown” refer to different types of clothes that you can sleep in. But they are all called “nightclothes”.

      I raised my family in a diferent area within the US, and apparently I was the only parent in my daughter’s friend group who calls them nightclothes.

    1. JMC*

      Yeah this would never happen for me either. But I also want to say what you wear makes no difference. What you use to lounge in or wear to bed makes no difference. Wear what is comfortable.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        As someone who regularly sleeps in the nude or just a top… I think it matters at least a bit!

    2. Wilbur*

      Absolutely. One of the joys of work travel is unwinding alone in your designated eating bed before switching to your designated sleeping bed. Sleeping on the floor with 49 of your colleagues? Hard pass.

    3. varied*

      The OP was asking for advice about what to wear.

      OP: I’d go with what’s comfortable and modest.

    4. Wayward Sun*

      Me either, but I gather this was a noho marae, which is a specific cultural practice in New Zealand. As an American I wouldn’t expect to get it.

  4. Irish Teacher.*

    Yeah, I think it would be very hard to fire somebody who donated a kidney, even if they turned out to have work problems later on. And especially I think it would be hard to target them for layoffs if the company ran into financial difficulties.

    1. Sparrow*

      Oh absolutely. I feel like that’d be so rough on the person getting fired, too—lots of fired people even in more normal circumstances think at some point, “I gave up so much for this job, and this is how they repay me?”, and I cannot imagine how much that would be amplified if the list of things you gave up for the job included a literal organ that was surgically removed from your body and given to a higher-ranking person at the company.

      I definitely have sympathy that this guy was in a rough medical situation, but this just feels like a line that cannot be ethically crossed in an employer/employee relationship.

    2. Bilateralrope*

      Or they attempt to compensate for that bias and go too far. Firing the donor over something that wouldn’t get more than a warning if anyone else had done it.

      Either way, it’s too big of an event for anyone involved to be able to fairly manage the donor afterwards.

      1. Antilles*

        Honestly, if they did somehow manage to treat the donor exactly identical to any other employee, even that would also feel odd because…well, c’mon you’re not going to show any gratitude for the person who saved your life? Really?
        Just a bad idea all around.

    3. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      iirc there was a news story posted here about an employee who donated a kidney in a transplant chain for a higher manager and was then SACKED because she had soon had health problems and work absences resulting from the transplant

    4. Artemesia*

      I remember reading about someone that that happened to for either a kidney or liver transplant — they did and then were laid off anyway.

  5. anonny*

    I will admit I didn’t twig that this was a re-run of old letters at first, read the title, and went it happened AGAIN?!

    1. Snow Globe*

      I think this is a different letter. The one that won for worst boss of the year was requiring all employees to be tested to be a donor for his brother. And IIRC someone who declined for health reasons was fired.

      1. Hlao-roo*

        The letter you’re thinking of was about liver donation, not kidney. “our boss will fire us if we don’t sign up to be a liver donor for his brother” from April 27, 2016.

        There was another previous letter about kidney donation, “my boss wants to give me his kidney — but I don’t want it” from May 22, 2018 (and several positive updates–the LW’s sister ended up donating a kidney).

        Still wild that there have been 3 different organ donation-related letters here.

      3. Phony Genius*

        Yes. The letter reprinted today was about a request, not a requirement, so it’s less egregious than the worst boss one, IMO.

  7. Insert Clever Name Here*

    Here’s some context from the comments of the original post for #4 provided by the OP (OP #2 at the time):

    We are in indeed in NZ, this is a marae stay, and I am Māori so this kind of trip is extremely normal to me. However, that being said, I have NEVER had to do this with co-workers, and I have no idea how to handle workplace etiquette that is non existent with family and school friends.

    There are several comments by OP as well as other Kiwis about this specific type of activity. In the update, OP specifically thanks Zircon for their advice so it’s worth a ctrl+f for Zircon’s comments as well.

    1. Insert Clever Name Here*

      Sigh. Formatting.

      We are in indeed in NZ, this is a marae stay, and I am Māori so this kind of trip is extremely normal to me. However, that being said, I have NEVER had to do this with co-workers, and I have no idea how to handle workplace etiquette that is non existent with family and school friends.

    3. Elizabeth West*

      I went and checked the comments and that is interesting. It would be a bit weird to do it with coworkers — but then it’s slightly weird doing anything with coworkers that isn’t work!

      (Off topic, but I really really really really want to visit Aotearoa, both because of LOTR and for itself. Someday.)

      1. Wayward Sun*

        My wife and I rented a camper van and spent a couple weeks touring the North Island and staying in holiday parks, and it was wonderful. Unless you have a month or so to spend I do recommend picking one island or the other to focus on.

  8. Falling Diphthong*

    #3, humans can get used to absolutely anything, and then just take it as the Way Things Are. Thus do we dance around the missing stair, hand copy identical time off requests because it was set up that way in 1951, and accept that we will all refer to the 13th floor as the 14th floor.

    And of all the expectations, “free simple carbs” seems to hit a particularly deep-seated part of the brain. Like your desk is a perpetually fruiting fig tree on the edge of the office savanna, where doughty bands of hunter-gathering accountants know they can always find succor.

    There is an entire graduate thesis hiding within your observation that the more power, money, and access to figs an employee has, the more likely they are to speak up about how the environment is failing to meet their expectation, expecting something to promptly be done to rectify this. They are Tahani al-Jameel.

    2. MigraineMonth*

      Beautiful!

      There’s also numerous psychological studies that demonstrate humans have a “divide by zero” glitch in their value estimation when something is free. If you offer me a 1lb bag of candy for free, I’ll take it. If you ask for some nominal amount like 5 cents, I’ll stop and consider whether I actually want the candy (even if I happen to have a nickel in my hand).

  9. Delta Delta*

    #3 – I had a year-long internship shortly after college graduation. My office had about 10 people, and my workspace abutted a well-used walkway. I don’t remember why, but I made an origami box and set it on my credenza. One day someone suggested I put candy in it, so I got a bag of jelly beans and put them in the little box. People would periodically contribute a dollar or two to help replenish the candy, which was really kind. The comments I got, though, were from the few holier-than-thous who would eat a single jelly bean and then put their hands on their stomach and wail that they were so polluted or bloated from a single piece of candy. Like, if you don’t want it, don’t eat it. It’s not mandatory candy. I eventually didn’t replenish it because I was tired of the complaints.

    2. Meep*

      Oh man. I had a boss like that, but with everything! You should look up the song “Diet Culture”. Reminds me a lot of those kind of people.

    3. The Problem Solvers Caucus*

      “One person suggested I could keep buying it but then ask the company to reimburse me!”

      Why is this such an outrageous idea?

      Particularly when “all the people making comments and demanding explanations are the higher-ups in the office”, who presumably have the power to make a reimbursement arrangement happen?

  11. Account*

    On question 1:

    I agree that donating a kidney deserves more compensation than extra time off to recover. However, if they’d sent a request that said “If you donate your kidney, we will give you ten thousand dollars”…. That’s not better!

      1. The Problem Solvers Caucus*

        “it is a federal crime in the US”

        It shouldn’t be, though. The system of voluntary organ donations based on altruism isn’t working, and never has. Hopefully things will change with the rise of China and Asian countries to economic parity with the West.

    3. lizziebeth730*

      I work for a state agency and I had looked into the time off/ FMLA options during testing.

      My union has negotiated- 30 minutes every 6 weeks is available to union members for blood donation.

      You are guaranteed 30 working days for kidney/ liver/pancreas/ intestinal donation (about 6 weeks)

      5 months for heart.. I want to know what weirdo put in that I can take 5 months off if I donate my heart. I’m pretty sure I’ll never be returning to work if I donate that.

      2. MigraineMonth*

        I just qualified for blood donation for the first time in my life last year (they finally dropped the “time spent in England/Europe when there was mad cow disease”, men who have sex with men, and several other restrictions). Plus my job lets me take time off for blood donation. It’s been a very exciting time for me!

        Donating my heart is going a bit far, though.

    4. MigraineMonth*

      There’s actually an interesting economic and moral debate about whether the laws forbidding compensation should be repealed. Right now, a lot of sick people die waiting on transplants because we’ve artificially restricted the supply of donated organs.

      It’s also interesting that for organs we consider just offering a market rate (as opposed to a relationship with a power differential as in this letter) to be automatically coercive. It seems a bit… paternalistic?… to try to protect poor people from making that decision in a society where so many poor people are food insecure or homeless.

      For a parallel, many countries don’t pay for blood plasma donation, but the US does. As a result, many low-income people in the US use plasma donation to make ends meet, and blood plasma is a major US export (the US supplies about 70% of the world’s supply).

      1. Dog momma*

        Migraine, for all the talk of compensation, & moving to the top of the transplant list, folks, please realize you must meet UNOS criteria ( that’s what the insurance company goes by, and; you have to be a MATCH. If you’re not, you remain on the list til one comes along. Waving money at someone does not change that fact.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          No, no, I’m not at all saying that rich people should be able to bid on poor people’s organs and shoot to the top of the transplant list! I’ve read that dystopian sci-fi novel, and it didn’t sound fun.

          I’m not saying there should be any change in the recipient process, just that we should consider ways to increase the number of donors supply. Insurance already pays for organs the organs that are transplanted into their clients. If the law allowed some of that money to go to the donors, there would almost certainly be more donors. If there are more donors, more people on the transplant list would receive life-saving transplants (though not necessarily any particular individual, if none of the kidneys matched with that person).

      2. Wayward Sun*

        One of my relatives went through a rough time and donated plasma so many times it became a problem later — people would see the scars and assume they were a drug addict.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          I’m a frequent platelet donor, and I’m also developing scars. I’m fortunate that due to my race/class privilege it won’t affect me much.

  12. CandyDispenser*

    Back when I worked in an office some of the time I always self-funded a candy jar because doing my job well depended on knowing a lot about what other people were doing/ working on and it was a way to see a group of people regularly and in the course of asking how they are find out information I needed. I also used to take a constitutional around the office 1-2× a week and stop by 30+ desks to “chit chat” for the same reason. It saved my bacon a bunch of times, and also sometimes got me invited to useful company events I wouldn’t have otherwise been able to attend.

    I never spent anything close to $20/week on it, though. Unless you find the added communication valuable there’s no reason to keep the candy jar going, but if you like it or find it useful there are likely less expensive options (buying in bulk comes to mind).

  13. Artemesia*

    Re Candy box — the first person who makes a fuss should be handed the jar and asked ‘oh would you like to take over the candy jar?’ I bet if the OP is an admin that people assume the candy is provided by the business. I had a candy jar in my office and I will say that the people who used it most often did throw in the occasional bag. I reduced the traffic and expense by going to hard candy. If I filled it with chocolate bars or kisses or whatever it disappeared quickly.

    1. Saturday*

      Since the candy was out for a couple of years, I’m not surprised that people are asking about it. And since the OP says she enjoyed putting the candy out, I don’t think the person who suggested she could keep buying it but then ask the company to reimburse her was saying anything outrageous.

      I think OP just needs to make it clear she’s not doing it anymore, and people will move on. Well, since this is an old letter, I hope that’s what happened.

      1. Sunflower*

        I enjoy putting out candy too but not every week and not $20 worth.

        Old letter but I would be surprised if this situation happens to others. I’d cheerfully say “It’s no longer in my budge, but you’re welcome to take over!”

  14. Tech Industry Refugee*

    Clearly LW 4 is in a very different culture from mine, but being asked to sleep on a mat in the same room as 49 other colleagues sounds appalling to me, especially as an insomniac! Gaaaah.

    1. Nina*

      This was beaten to death in the original and in the update and we don’t need to go back over how terrible white non-New-Zealanders think Maaori customs are again. Particularly not when terminally online Kiwis are still a little prickly over the incredibly racist (both well-meaning and not) comments a lot of Americans were making about the haka in Parliament just a couple of weeks ago.

      1. Meep*

        I think you might be putting the cart before the horse on this one.

        Us Americans also sometimes sleep on mats in large groups. It is called camping.

        1. dulcinea47*

          while camping, most people use tents where they share a private space with a much smaller number of people.

      3. JMC*

        I have to admit I don’t remember the original or what any of this even means, I had never heard of the customs in New Zealand.

      4. blu*

        Yes this. I’m disappointed to see Alison’s answer still calls it horrible and seventh grade given the OP both stated in her email and in her comments that this was a specific cultural practice that was important to her and that she wanted to encourage remain a part of her work. It feels very dismissive to not include that context.

        1. varied*

          Good call, blu. The OP was asking for advice on what to wear to the occasion. That’s it.

          If you don’t have relevant advice, bypass it. If the answer is going to be along the lines of “This is nuts!,” don’t publish it the letter, because this isn’t what the OP asked for, so what’s the point?

          I mean, it’s not complicated, y’all.

          1. Matt*

            It might not be relevant for the LW, but it’s relevant for the general public. Your average manager / future manager might get the impression that it would be OK to subject your average employees to this kind of experience. It’s not because it’s indeed “horrible” for a great majority of them. That’s no information to withhold just to be policitally correct.

    2. Jennifer Strange*

      It makes me think of The Favourite when Emma Stone first gets there and is sleeping on one giant floor with all of the scullery maids.

  15. Database Developer Dude*

    This is very creepy to push out at work.

    One of the reasons I’m retiring from the Army Reserve at the end of the month has to do with this very issue in reverse: my wife’s cancer is back, and part of it is in her liver. I want to be sure if she winds up needing a liver transplant that I could conceivably serve as a living donor. I could, if I’m a match, donate a part of my liver and it would grow back after a time.

    The problem is that I’m in the Army Reserve, and if I’m actively drilling, I have to ask the Army Reserve’s permission. Needing to ask permission implies that they could say no. I won’t take that chance. NO workplace should ever have that much say over the medical lives of their employees.

    1. varied*

      I’m sorry this is happening, Database Developer Dude. Wishing your wife and you all the very best.

  16. dulcinea47*

    Luckily (??) for the employees in letter #1, due to the race disparity between the employees and executives, they’re very unlikely to be a match for his kidney. (each of my parents have one kidney, for different reasons, so I learned a little about whether I would be likely to match them.)

    1. MigraineMonth*

      Sorry if this is nitpicking, but I don’t think it would be a race issue. There are definitely people of Sub-Saharan African ancestry who would match the executive (though the reverse isn’t necessarily true; people of strictly European ancestry have much less genetic diversity).

      However, it is probably true that the African-American *ethnic* group are more likely to match with each other than outside of that group.

  17. One Duck In A Row*

    There are a lot of interviews/screenings for live organ donation, and part of what they are screening for is to make sure that the person donating is doing so happily and not being pressured at all. I would not be surprised if a kidney donation solicited in this way, from a low level employee to a privileged board member, would not pass muster. At least I’d hope that this kind of power differential would be something taken very seriously by the folks making decisions/recommendations about this kind of donation, and that if there was any whiff of it being done out of a sense of obligation or desperation to win favor or whatever it would not be approved.

    1. Robin*

      Yeah, anyone who entered the screening process this way is probably going to “not meet the donation requirements” as soon as the screener finds out what’s happening. Several of the transplant center websites I checked to find the requirements mentioned the “living donor’s advocate” as part of the evaluation team, with the job of making sure the donor isn’t being pressured in any way and helping them get out of it cleanly if they are.

    2. Dog momma*

      The insurance company would deny as it doesn’t meet UNOS criteria . Request of donation with this information=Coercion. All transplant requests are reviewed by a medical director at the insurance company, who follow UNOS guidelines. Not sure it would get into employee vs board member if that wasn’t in the medical records. But if sense of obligation is documented, then that would be used

    3. DramaQ*

      It would be in any situation where consent is involved. Just the fact it is a board member who is the recipient automatically would get any employee who volunteers kicked out because there is an automatic power imbalance. Add in that the LW says all the upper management is white and everyone below is a minority adds yet another layer to the issue of consent given the long long history of medical abuse of minorities. Then add in that they offer to pay for the surgery and recovery. Now there is a financial incentive thrown in which adds yet another layer because it can be argued that you got convinced to donate due to the money involved. Would you have done it for free? If the answer is no then you’d be rejected. Whoever sent the email out is I am hoping just a clueless idiot who thinks they are being helpful and hopefully five seconds after it went out they were marched into ethics training. If not and I was the LW I would be looking for a new job because that is clearly a company who doesn’t care about it’s employees at all if its asking you to donate organs to their board members.

  18. Grimey*

    The situation in #2 happened to me, except it was a former boss who was urgently asking for my help with extremely personal things and not a business, and I hadn’t offered to help after he left. He would send urgent emails asking me to help with his girlfriend’s pending divorce case and sometimes looking for dirt on her husband. I realized he’d been asking for me to work on personal matters even before he left his position, but he’d used language that made it sound like there was a business reason. I responded to the first couple of requests with referrals: here are some websites you can check and some people/businesses who offer paid services that may help, and even that was probably too much response from me. He kept emailing URGENTly for a while after I stopped replying. I don’t know if he got the message or if their relationship ended and took care of the problem.

  19. Jojo*

    Pretty weird to rerun a letter where you shit all over a cultural practice you didn’t understand, especially without adding any context!

    5. sarah*

      How would anyone outside that culture be expected to know that without any mention of it in the letter? Things get interpreted in the cultural context they are mentioned in, especially letters to advice columns. If you want it considered in a different context you need to include that.

      1. sarah*

        Adding—it makes me think of people invited to attend a nude sauna with co-workers in Scandinavian countries. Without mentioning where it’s happening, the reaction is going to be very different than if you know where it’s taking place.

        1. LJ*

          I’m glad the LW later updated in the comments of the original letter, but how was anyone supposed to know their cultural context for appropriate sleepwear if they didn’t include which country it was?

      3. No bees*

        That was fair enough the first time, but this is a re-run. The cultural context is known now, and yet the original response was published as-is

        1. nnn*

          I do not assume writers read every single comment left on their work, especially on a site that gets as many comments as this one does. Answering based on the original letter and not assuming knowledge of additional info that wasn’t included in it, especially information added in a comment section years before, seems fair to me.

          [The alternative would be not re-running any pieces without reading all the comments that were left on them years earlier and that seems frankly impractical for the nature of the medium.]

          1. Ann O'Nemity*

            The cultural aspect was also in the update, which was printed.

            I think it would be awesome if Alison could update this and any subsequent re-runs with a disclaimer like, “The letter writer later noted in the original comments and in an update that this practice is a cultural tradition in their country, so let’s focus on the clothing suggestions.” Or something like that.

          2. Hroethvitnir*

            Alison published an update that mentioned the context, so it’s not ignorance.

            My feelings in the matter are that that’s a fair point, but many pākehā NZers (and Māori who are disconnected from our culture) would have the same reaction, so it’s hard to be incensed. The record votes for our far right party last election is certainly not not racist in origin.

            Frankly, the dripping contempt many pākehā here have for Māori could never be matched by foolishness from an international audience who does not feel personally threatened by it.

            1. Matt*

              The point of this story is that for everyone not in this culture, it very likely would be horrible; and that no manager and possible future manager should get the idea that it would be OK to impose this on their employees. So it makes a lot of sense to repost it and to mention the “horrible” aspect of it as well.

  20. Moira's Rose's Garden*

    W/R/T #1; What that company did meant that even had someone been willing to do live donation, the donation could not be ethically accepted in the US. It’s not simply that you can’t offer financial incentives. It’s that consent isn’t valid with *any* coercion. And Employer–> employee is an inherently coercive relationship. Consent, especially in research and donation, has to be 100% voluntary to be valid.

    The US DHHS has oversight via HSRA & the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. This would qualify as a directed donation (that is, there is a specific intended recipient), and as such, there cannot be any tangible benefits outside of familial/relationship benefits (saving your child’s or bff’s life, eg). The employer’s email *at minimum* creates an implied benefit that’s excluded from this rubric.

    What *might* have been ethical and allowable is if the Employer had approached this similar to how you might set up a company blood drive. As in (eg) “Hi All. As a consequence of boardmember McKidney’s situation, we have learned more about the severity of the general shortage of organs for transplant. We are therefore hosting a Living Donor Information Fair, in conjunction with Local Transplant Org/Hospital. The van will be located on the south lawn, and all employees will be allowed 2 hours if they are interested in learning more, to attend.”

    Allowing your employees the opportunity to learn more for the general good is, well, a good thing and perfectly ethical & even admirable way to honor someone. Low-key shaking down your employees for a boardmember is … very much not *any* of that.

    For anyone interested in learning more, or understanding the ethical requirements around organ donation generally, OPTN info below.

    Living donor facing info can be found at: (https removed so not a live link)
    optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/patients/about-donation/living-donation/living-donation

    Ethical considerations regarding Living Non-Directed Donation
    optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/professionals/by-topic/ethical-considerations/living-non-directed-organ-donation/

    Guidance for the consent process
    optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/professionals/by-topic/guidance/guidance-for-the-informed-consent-of-living-donors

  21. Dog momma*

    #1. the age of the recipient is fine per UNOS guidelines. Please be aware that the RECIPIENT’s insurance covers the DONOR’s surgery, as well as their own.So for the board to offer money ” to cover the cost”is unnecessary & could be looked at as coercion. Then the transplant team refuses that donor on those grounds.

    Also you don’t need a living donor for a successful transplant. It doesn’t make the odds better for the patient. UNOS criteria screens transplant candidates & donors thoroughly. You may not be a candidate bc of your own health issues. Plus its major surgery for the donor with the usual potential complications. Kidney transplants are the most common ,not sure if people aren’t donating in general or somewhere along the way with this case something was misunderstood.
    retired RN, & nurse reviewer

  23. ubotie*

    Here’s another reason why the kidney solicitation is so problematic and (probably) why donor centers ask so many questions to determine no one is being pressured into donating, making sure people really are comfortable donating, etc: the very human nature to judge everything and anything. Including medical stuff and life choices. Even when we know we shouldn’t.

    Let’s say, theoretically that I were an employee who got this email, decided to donate, were a match, went through the donation procedure, everyone survives the rejection window…and then later on, I see Mr. 70 Year Old Rich Board Member drinking like a fish, eating like he’s Henry VIII and has just invented gout, and getting into nightly bare-knuckle boxing events where you get extra points for every abdominal punch that lands true.
    Meanwhile, I may have had my surgery costs covered but I still make like 1/30th of what Mr. New Lease on Life makes, I’m recovering from major surgery, it is now super awkward with my coworkers because I gave a kidney to a board member, and the high I get from doing a good deed doesn’t really offset the fact that I have increased my risk of future dialysis by a considerable amount (and thus my own need for a kidney transplant someday).
    I’d be annoyed, to say the least. Gifts shouldn’t be given with strings attached but like, I went under the literal knife for you (partly because I felt like my job was on the line) and you can’t even *pretend* to be responsible with my kidney for 5 damn minutes???? I’d be asking the surgeon about refunds so damn fast.

    Obviously, this is not a realistic scenario for many reasons and it’s why the donor matching process is so strict. But it also does sort of show why this company’s line of thinking is so dumb, if they were to spend even 30 seconds really thinking it through.

  24. Safely Retired*

    My first thought about the email asking for a kidney donation to a board member was to wonder if they would do the same email for any employee in need of one. My guess, of course, is not a chance in the world, but IF, miraculously, they would, I would be quite ready to congratulate rather than vilify.

Comments are closed.