coworker doesn’t follow her own fragrance ban, son-in-law won’t show up on time, and more

by Alison Green on December 17, 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. My coworker doesn’t follow her own fragrance ban

I have a coworker who’s sensitive to smells. It’s so bad that our entire office is under a strict “no heavy perfume or scented lotions” rule. The person who’s “sensitive” is so sensitive that she claims to get asthma from strong scents. She has been known to stand over people with her hand in front of her face “gagging” or complaining of migraines from a smell she smells.

Here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. She herself wears a perfume DAILY. And it’s not just a light pleasant aroma that’s barely detectable. Oh no — it’s actually gag-inducing and lingers for a half an hour if she’s used a room for something. She’s hugged me for various accomplishments and then I was stuck with that scent until I walked outside to air it out for 15 minutes.

Is there a tactful way to approach her, because the rest of the building adheres to a rule in place FOR HER, but yet she doesn’t adhere to it.

People who have bad reactions to fragrances don’t always have those reactions across the board — one scent might set someone off while another doesn’t. So the fact that she has at least one fragrance that she knows is safe for her doesn’t mean that she’s misrepresenting her fragrance sensitivity in general (which I think is what you’re implying, based on your language here).

However, if there’s a fragrance ban in your office, she needs to follow it. She might be figuring that it was put in place for her and she knows what will and won’t set her off so she can wear things she knows will be fine for her — but that’s not how this works. There may be others there who need the ban as well but who didn’t think they needed to speak up about it because it already existed … but even if there aren’t, it’s an office rule and she needs to follow it. And really, that’s in her best interests anyway, since otherwise other people will figure they can get lax about it too.

Ideally you’d talk to her directly: “Jane, you’re wearing a scent that I seem to be sensitive to. Can I ask you not to wear it to work, in line with the office rule about fragrances?” But if you’re frustrated to the point that you can’t give her much benefit of the doubt, you’re better off having HR handle it. It’s reasonable to ask HR to enforce this kind of policy; just be sure when you talk to them that you frame it as “this is giving me a physical reaction” and/or “can you help enforce this policy?” and not as “Jane is a huge hypocrite.”

– 2019

2. Our son-in-law works for us and won’t show up on time

We have had a family-owned business for 18 years. My dilemma is I have a 30-year-old future son-in-law who has been in our family for 10 years and worked for us for seven. He is a great employee as far as handling things around our shop, working steadily doing day to day tasks. He takes his job seriously when he is there. The problem is he comes in late every day and does not clock in or out. Everyone else is expected to do this, but he does not. My husband sat him down and talked with him about it just yesterday, and today he showed up two hours late and still did not clock in or out.

I am confused by this behavior. Obviously he feels that he is superior to everyone in the shop and does not have to go by this rule. I do not want to start a big fight as we have had a huge problem in the past with a family member taking advantage and had to let him go. He has not done this for the whole time he has been employed with us, just for the last couple of years. I have tried to talk with him before but he has told me it is different for him because he is a member of our family. I do consider this my error in letting it go for so long, but have no clue as how to talk with him about it, and my husband will just blow up and possibly let him go, which will ruin our family relationship with our daughter. How do I speak with him about it and what are some good suggestions for making him come in on time?

Well, you can try telling him very directly that, contrary to what he’s said in the past, he’s not exempt from your business’s rules just because he’s family, and that you need him to be on time and clock in and out. And you can tell him the only way you can continue employing him is if he plays by the same rules as everyone else. But if you say those things and don’t really mean them — in other words, if you’re not willing to hold him accountable as you would other employees — then you’re effectively ceding all power over to him, and at that point you’re just relying on wheedling and cajoling him into changing his behavior. That puts you in a really bad situation. Do you want to employ a son-in-law who won’t respect you as his employer and refuses to abide by your workplace policies?

It sounds like you and your husband need to decide if you’re willing to hold him to the same expectations as everyone else or not. One way to go about it that might minimize tension with your daughter (or maybe not, depending on how fair and reasonable she is) is to frame it as, “Bob, it’s up to you if you want to keep working here. If you want to stay, you need to arrive on time and clock in and out like everyone else. We hope you’ll decide to stay, but this is non-negotiable — and if you don’t do those things, we’ll assume you’ve decided the job isn’t for you anymore, and we’ll need to mutually figure out an ending date.”

Alternately, if you want to preserve family harmony at all costs, you could think about whether there’s a way to restructure his job — or your expectations of him — so that he has more flexible hours and isn’t required to clock in. If you do that, though, realize that you’re valuing family harmony a lot more than he is, which sucks but might be the reality of it.

– 2018

3. Employer wants to post photos of my kids online

I have a strict policy of my children’s images not being posted online. I learned, today, that my husband’s brand new employer is asking why he doesn’t have pictures of his children on his Facebook page, wants him to post pictures of his children online, and plans to take family pictures of us and post them on their website and Facebook page. I in no way want my husband to feel like the odd man out or to negatively impact their “family friendly” company marketing in any way. However, I don’t feel that I can compromise my children’s safety or happiness. Do you have any suggestions for how we navigate this?

My husband’s company is not one that relates to kids in any way. (Think roofers or similar.) They are a small, local company and are trying to show that they are all local families who are invested in the community so folks will choose them over some larger, multi-state company.

You’re completely entitled to keep photos of your kids offline!

Can he blame this on “family policy”? As in, “My wife and I have a strict family policy that we don’t post photos of our kids online.” He could add, “I’d be glad to appear in photos myself though” if he’s willing to do that.

It sounds like he might not have given them a clear “no, we’re not going to do this” yet, so hopefully once he does, they’ll back off. If for some reason they don’t, he can get firmer: “It’s just not an option for me. I share the company’s family-friendly values, and that means I can’t violate my family’s rules on this.”

– 2019

4. My boss deleted an email from my account

I have been at my job for a year and half, a small company in the interior design industry. Since I started, we have had a very (almost alarmingly) expensive health insurance program that has proved unaffordable for me over the past year. And it keeps getting more expensive. I wrote an email to my bosses and their office administrator (who handles all the details of the plan) asking if there was some way we could find a plan that was more affordable and more in line with what the average New Yorker pays monthly. I cited some reports from Kaiser Health News, along with some reports from the city and state, all showing that we are paying almost three times the average.

After sending this email, I was called into their office and one of my bosses scolded me for being disrespectful and not appreciating the amount of time she puts into researching/choosing our health insurance plan. And she insisted this plan was the best option for everyone and there was nothing more she could do. This clearly touched a nerve, as she seemed very upset and a little embarrassed. I conceded and just let them know I am having a hard time paying bills, noting that we haven’t received any indications of an annual salary increase to balance out the increase in insurance premiums.

Once I returned to my desk, I wanted to go back over the email to ensure nothing was too offensive in it, and it was completely gone from my sent mailbox. It was the only email that was missing. It was also deleted from the office administrator’s email before she read it and was away from her desk. When I mentioned this unusual phenomenon to my coworker, who has been at the company much longer than I have, she let me know this wasn’t the first time that our boss has gone into other people’s email to delete damaging emails from the record.

I did not bcc my personal email, and have no way of accessing the email any longer. I understand she technically owns the email and all of its content, but isn’t this bad business practice? Do I bring this up to her or do I let it go? Should I bring this up to her business partner/my other boss? We do not have an HR department, so there is no one else I can talk to about this.

Yeah — that’s not a normal thing for her to do. It’s a violation of trust and of office norms. It makes her look like she has something to hide, and that she’s too insecure to tolerate even a hint of questioning of her decisions. It also makes her look like a terrible manager and coworker.

If she’s one of two partners there, I don’t think there’s much to gain by raising it with the other partner. I’d just mentally file away this information so that you know your boss is untrustworthy, paranoid, and willing to do shady things if she thinks she’s being challenged.

– 2016

You may also like:
{ 195 comments }

{ 195 comments… read them below }

  1. Bee Eye*

    OP4 – My old boss used to read people’s email, and some became aware so they’d set him up by passing rumors via email and waiting for him to go around repeating them. It was kind of funny once he was outed, but yeah with certain IT privs you can completely rip out emails from the server. The intention is mostly security-related, like to prevent bad attachments from spreading and stuff like that, but of course it gets abused.

    1. allathian*

      Yeah, and even with IT privileges it should get logged in a permanent log that can’t be modified by anyone regardless of their privilege level.

    2. StarTrek Nutcase*

      As a state employee, I know “all” emails on work devices are part of the public record and subject to legal disclosure. So color me surprised to discover my director deleted certain emails. She knew most of us knew because we would a few times a year whip out a printed screenshot of one when she made accusations or lied about something. What was really stupid was she thought no one would ever whistleblow and use some of these as evidence. Wrong! (Hint: store printed copies in obscure file folder labeled something innocuous – cause she also destroyed copies if she could.)

    3. MassMatt*

      In my field (finance) it’s not just expected but required that the company reviews email for compliance purposes, they face fines and penalties for failure to do so.

      Deleting the email on the other hand, because it was embarrassing to the boss, is very sketchy. There is probably still a record of that email somewhere in the system, but email serves as a means of documenting communication. That a boss tampered with it raises the question of what other emails have been deleted or altered, and for what purpose.

    4. I Have RBF*

      IMO, deleting emails is sketchy as hell. If she deletes them when she’s just upset, what will she do if something shows her is a bad legal light? The potential for abuse is huge.

      I would start looking for a new job, personally.

  2. allathian*

    LW1, it would be sooo tempting to go all out “hypocrite” on that tone deaf scent user.

    This is one of the posts that I’ve always wanted an update on, hopefully a very undramatic one.

    2. pigeon*

      Noooo, do not do this!! Like Allison says, not everyone is allergic to every scent, and just because she has one (1) fragrance she can wear does not mean she’s a “hypocrite” or “tone deaf” (!). Nobody likes a self-proclaimed inspector javert who spends their time trying to sniff out “fakers” based on their own shoddy understanding of chronic health conditions.

      1. Feral Humanist*

        Except no one else can wear ANY, and she’s bothering other people with it! She needs to uphold the standards that were set FOR HER BENEFIT. I agree with Alison’s advice not to focus on the hypocrisy but it IS hypocrisy (especially since she’s so dramatic about it — gagging, really?).

      2. Statler von Waldorf*

        She’s wearing a fragrance in an office that has banned fragrances for everyone else because of her. I could put this in the dictionary right beside the word hypocrisy and it would be a perfect fit.

        It has nothing to do with how “real” her condition is, which is a total red herring. It has to do with her failing to follow the same rules that apply to everyone else, while shaming others who do not follow those rules. That’s why she’s a hypocrite.

      3. OpalescentTreeShark*

        Yeah, a well-known symptom of scent-sensitivity is definitely that those who have it are able to wear whatever fragrance they want, and no one can protest. People who don’t understand that common symptom really do show their shoddy understanding. What a bunch of chronic health conditions charlatans.

      4. biobotb*

        Given that she’s dramatically complaining about other people’s heavy scents while wearing a heavy scent herself does mean she’s tone deaf, even if she’s not a hypocrite.

        1. pigeon*

          Maybe she’s allergic to fragrance oil and not allergic to certain plants and uses plant derived scents and has never thought about it?

      5. LL*

        That’s not really the point. There is a fragrance ban in place FOR HER and she doesn’t follow it! I don’t care if this is the only fragrance that doesn’t bother her, she’s not following a policy that she requested AND is way overdoing it on the scent to the point that her coworker gags from it.

        At the end of the day, it’s less about her possibly faking her sensitivity and more about her doing the exact thing she has asked everyone else not to do.

        1. pigeon*

          What is the point, if not to do your best Nelson From The Simpsons impression and go “Ha ha, hypocrite”? Why is it so fun for you when a disabled person you don’t even know does something you assume is hypocritical?

      6. fhqwhgads*

        Calling her a hypocrite doesn’t imply she’s a faker though. I agree with Alison there’s no point in calling her one, but it’s two different things.
        She has scent sensitivity and no one is allowed to wear any so as not to trigger a reaction.
        She has found one scent that does not cause her to have a reaction, but is completely ignoring the possibility it causes people who aren’t her to have a reaction, and wears it anyway to the place that has a scent ban. That’s hypocrisy.

        1. pigeon*

          Distinction without a difference.

          Snidely accusing her of being a hypocrite because you expect her disability to look differently than it does is not a good look.

          1. I Have RBF*

            Disability does not exclude a person from hypocrisy.

            As a person with an allergy to artificial fragrances, but who can wear some natural scents, I believe that her wearing fragrances in a no-fragrance environment that was established at her behest is hypocrisy. It certainly would be if I did something like that.

          2. Former Admin Turned PM*

            Saying that she is a hypocrite does not negate her having the disability. She has an accommodation for her disability (fragrance policy) but is refusing to acknowledge that the fragrance she is wearing (in violation of the policy) has the potential for aggravating the same type of disability in other people. It’s as though she thinks that no one can have a similar disability to hers, or that all fragrance sensitivities manifest the way they do for her.

    3. Curious*

      I agree — not because of any assumption that Jane’s fragrance sensitivity is any the less real, but because of her refusal to share in the costs of a policy that was adopted — at least partially — for her benefit.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        But will stand over someone dramatically gagging and complaining of migraines. I got an idea Jane, don’t stand directly next to someone if you think their scent is making you sick.

        1. JP*

          Yeah, I have a fragrance sensitivity as well, but the way the LW described her holding her hands over her mouth and gagging really put me off.

          1. wordswords*

            It does sound very performative. And I get it, to some extent! I don’t have a broad fragrance sensitivity, but there are a couple of scents I’m very sensitive to (pot smoke and lilies, most notably) and both of them are absolutely gag-inducing and headache-triggering and I experience them as very strong scents even when to the people around me, as far as I can tell, it’s mild and easily ignored. And when I feel like gagging and coughing and fleeing the room, the urge to make a big deal of it so other people recognize it is very real. I don’t, and certainly wouldn’t stand over someone in an office, though. So whether Jane’s distress is 100% genuine (but performatively and dramatically expressed for effect) or genuine but somewhat inflated for effect, it does sound like she’s being dramatic to a possibly obnoxious extent.

            And I do know people who are very sensitive to fragrances broadly, but are actually sensitive to a component that most but not all scented things have, so they know what ones are fine for them but don’t trust other people to keep track of that. Which also makes sense! And if Jane is thinking about the fragrance policy in that sense, and that she’s the only one who needs it… well, it’s still an optics issue for sure, and she should have taken a step back and thought about the fairness aspect as well, but I can see how she got there.

            All of that said… the only description we have of Jane’s behavior is from OP1, who is clearly deeply irritated with her. And it sounds like Jane’s chosen scent is one that OP1 is pretty sensitive to! They’re describing its cloying, long-lasting, gag-inducing odor as if that’s an obvious fact everyone experiences, but we don’t know if that’s the case; it could very well be that only OP1 has noticed it or is reacting that way. OP1’s rage and frustration and contempt reads… well… a lot like an advice column version of the emotions behind standing over someone dramatically gagging about their perfume? I’m not saying that OP1’s distress isn’t real (it clearly is!) or that Jane shouldn’t stop using that fragrance at the office (for multiple reasons, she should!) but I am saying that I don’t think we have enough information to assess whether OP1 is a reliable narrator of Jane’s level of annoying behavior. It sounds like they’ve long since reached the bitch-eating-crackers point about Jane.

            1. DawnShadow*

              Why does Jane get “protected status” and OP get “unreliable narrator”? Are they not both affected by the same exact thing? I think Alison’s advice is good – focus on the fact that OP needs accommodation too, not on the hypocrisy, which is real but not helpful to mention.

              1. wordswords*

                Where did I say anything about protected status? I said I think Jane is being unnecessarily dramatic/performative and should stop using the fragrance at the office for multiple reasons. (To spell it out, these include: the fact of the no-scent policy, which is not and should not be a no-scents-except-ones-Jane-is-fine-with policy, and that alone would be sufficient reason; the optics of ignoring the scent policy created for her sake; and the fact that a coworker is sensitive to her fragrance, which would matter even without the policy. Any one of these would be sufficient, but the fact that there IS a no-fragrance policy at the office is decisive all on its own. It’s not a good look for Jane to ignore that, even if she’s not thinking about it.)

                Anyway, I agree that Alison’s advice is great! I was reacting to the significant percentage of comments which seem to me to be taking it for granted that Jane is being not just a hypocrite (which she is!) but also a bratty, entitled jerk on purpose. Sorry for being unclear. I totally agree about the focus on the fact that OP needs accommodation too.

            2. Starbuck*

              “They’re describing its cloying, long-lasting, gag-inducing odor as if that’s an obvious fact everyone experiences”

              Wouldn’t the same apply to Jane? I don’t see how you can be skeptical of OP’s reaction/sensitivity but not Jane’s. This doesn’t seem right.

              1. Smithy*

                I was in a bit of a “scent standoff” with a coworker for a while. She’d not only apply perfume during the day but also paint her nails – and both the scent and nail polish in our unventilated corner of the office was really bothering me.

                In this case our resolution was that I ultimately just asked for a strong air purifier and would keep my office door closed. But inevitably the whole dynamic made her not like me so much, and me not like her. After she left, we eventually caught up and not only could get along but also see the challenges each other was going through far more.

                I say all of this because honestly – as a hybrid Jane/OP – I almost don’t know how you go through that type of dynamic and not end up being a bit of an unreliable narrator. While I had other coworkers say her scent was strong or cheap, no one else sat near her and so it genuinely just did not bother them in the same way. I will add that also like Jane, later in life I discovered that while there remain smells that make me ill – there are other perfume scents that I do enjoy. So who knows, maybe my coworker thought that my scented shampoo or deodorant at the time was scented in an awful way and so I was being hypocritical.

                This isn’t at all to be critical of the OP – but more so to relate how hard it is to go through such a scenario and not being emotionally thin on the subject.

                1. Starbuck*

                  It doesn’t really matter how much OP might be “overreacting” to Jane’s scent, Jane’s breaking her own requested rule. She’s the only one actually doing anything objectively wrong here.

                  I’m also super skeptical that someone with truly strong scent sensitivity would be willing to hug a coworker. Does that seem reasonable to you?

              2. wordswords*

                Of course it does! I’m sorry if I implied otherwise, or that I’m being skeptical of OP’s reaction/sensitivity. I’m not; what I’m suggesting is that maybe it would be useful to OP to think of it as “I am sensitive to Jane’s scent” and not “Jane has chosen to use a cloying, obnoxious scent” for their own sense of perspective, because at this point the frustration is boiling over from every sentence of the letter. And even if that’s totally justified, that’s not usually helpful for coworker relations.

                To be clear, I think Jane needs to stop using that scent. I would think so even if no one else in the office were bothered at all by it (it’s presumably not a no-fragrance-except-ones-Jane-is-fine-with policy, nor should it be). And that goes triple when someone is, in fact, sensitive to it. I just also think a lot of the commenters are leaping straight to “Jane is, objectively, an obnoxious entitled tantrum-throwing baby” rather than “Jane is being a bit of a hypocrite here but this may be fixable with a straightforward conversation, and if it’s not then it’s time to escalate.”

            3. pigeon*

              thank you, sweet baby jesus. This all seems very obvious to me, but I guess if you’re not disabled or allergic to anything it must be confusing that someone can, say, eat tree nuts but not legumes.

          2. The gourmet cupcake*

            Me too. Some very scented laundry products, (Downy really gives me the stoppables) cig smoke, and… questionable smells can give me migraines or make me nauseated. However I do not go up to my coworkers or clients, sniff them dramatically, and gag, mostly because I am older than five.

    4. Ann O'Nemity*

      Tone deaf is absolutely right. Even if Alison’s scenario is accurate (Jane really does have scent sensitivities but can tolerate her own perfume), I would expect Jane to have the sense to realize how hypocritical it smells that she disregards the fragrance ban she herself initiated.

    5. LL*

      That’s not really the point. There is a fragrance ban in place FOR HER and she doesn’t follow it! I don’t care if this is the only fragrance that doesn’t bother her, she’s not following a policy that she requested AND is way overdoing it on the scent to the point that her coworker gags from it.

      At the end of the day, it’s less about her possibly faking her sensitivity and more about her doing the exact thing she has asked everyone else not to do.

    6. pigeon*

      Deeply, deeply disappointed by how many of you are doubling down on your right to call a sick person a hypocrite for not matching your perception of what a sick person should behave like.

      1. Why is this so complicated*

        People are calling her a hypocrite because she is *disregarding an office-wide rule* that happens to have been put in place specifically for her benefit. That is, she knows that *she* is sensitive to other people’s scents; but apparently it has never occurred to her that other people might be equally sensitive to *hers.*

        If the rule is “No scents,” then *everyone* needs to follow it. You don’t get to break it just because you know which scents are safe *for you.*

        An equivalent might be if someone complained that other people’s music was distracting to the point it prevented them from working, so the office instituted a “no music that other people can hear” rule – but then the complainer played their own music loudly with impunity. (Let’s even make it an ADA accommodation for their neurodivergence!) You’d see why that person is a hypocrite, no? It has nothing to do with their disability and everything to do with their “rules for thee but not for me” attitude.

  3. allathian*

    LW3, I hope your husband’s employer was understanding about this.

    I very firmly believe that kids have the right to curate their own social media presence when they’re old enough to be on social media themselves, and I hope that every kid who sues their parents for posting photos of them that the kids don’t want to be posted wins big.

    1. LadyAmalthea*

      My husband doesn’t use social media, and after I posted a birth photo on Facebook, we have never posted our kids again. I won’t even mention their real first names on line, and if I refer to them, it’s by their joke placeholder pregnancy names from right after I found out it was twins and before it was 2 girls. They don’t even have my last name, and many of my Facebook friends don’t know my husband’s last name/spell it wrong, but after growing up pre-internet ubiquity with a super common first/last name combination, I want to give my more uniquely than me named daughters the gift of Internet anonymity until they are old enough to choose for themselves. I also worry about their photos being used in some weird, inappropriate way, especially with the ubiquity of reposts of generally cute pictures.

      1. allathian*

        Granted, I’m a fan of at least superficially anonymous forums like this one, and I don’t even have a LinkedIn account because I don’t want my real name to show up online. Not for any nefarious reasons, I’m just very careful about my privacy.

        The only social media platform I use is WhatsApp, and I typically only communicate with people who are already in my contacts, with a few exceptions. I’m in the parents group of my son’s class and in a few groups for his extracurriculars, but that’s it.

      2. CL*

        This is very similar to how I operate. No photos. I do use my son’s very common first name online but we have different last names and hubby has no social media.

    2. Karstmama*

      *IF* you get huge pushback, consider a shot of the family running away from the camera leaping happily over wildflowers all holding hands, far down the field of view, fuzzy because the camera is focused on the wildflowers, and all they can see of the lovely shot is fuzzy multisized vaguely human forms?

      2. Daisy-dog*

        Or a photo of Dad teaching them something with only a small part of the back of the kids’ heads as they watch on.

        1. The gourmet cupcake*

          Or a picture of the kids in snug winter clothing. I have a few scarves I can donate to the cause.

    3. HonorBox*

      The really odd part of that letter, to me anyway, was the suggestion for how the husband run his own social media account. It is one thing to ask people to share something the employer posts on social media. Another to have an employer dictate what photos employees post on their own accounts.
      I understand the desire to not have children online and totally respect it. I do think I personally might feel a little different if the company did a huge group photo at a company picnic. But even then, I would hope that the company would respect someone opting out.

  4. Daria grace*

    #3, people absolutely shouldn’t give in on this very reasonable boundaries. Not putting kids online is extremely wise.

    The employer insisting on this likely points to some broader cultural issues. I’d recommend anyone in this situation watch out for other boundary pushing or for discriminatory behavior against childless employees/job candidates.

    1. Rex Libris*

      In my experience it’s often just simple ignorance, rather than intentional boundary crossing or discrimination. The employer probably never stopped to think for an instant why this was a profoundly bad, and potentially child endangering, idea.

      1. BethDH*

        This is my experience too, especially if the employer is small and working in a small market. Local businesses in my town all the time build advertising for their target audience (very local people who often already know the employee and their family) and forget that their advertising reaches a lot of people who aren’t in that close-knit town.

  5. FunkyMunky*

    #1 – there’s no way I’ll believe that a person that sensitive to other people’s scents can wear one herself, absolutely none. I have dealt with a coworker who’s super antsy about perfumes and lotions and can’t wear anything herself and her own home is scent free

    1. Happy meal with extra happy*

      How strange. This is like saying that if someone has numerous allergies to common foods (which unfortunately happens), you don’t believe they’re not allergic to literally everything. Just because you know one person who is 100% scent-free, it doesn’t mean that’s everyone.

      2. MicroManagered*

        Yeahhhh no it’s not like that at all. If someone is allergic to peanuts, nobody is going to question why they eat shellfish. We know a shrimp is different from a peanut even though they both have a shell…

        It’s more like someone who pushed for a total ban on peanuts because of their allergy bringing in a PB&J for lunch. C’mon.

        1. Observer*

          It’s more like someone who pushed for a total ban on peanuts because of their allergy bringing in a PB&J for lunch. C’mon.

          Come on, indeed.

          Because peanuts are not nuts. So someone can have a severe allergy to nuts, and be able to eat peanuts by the handful with no problems. And the reverse.

          1. blue rose*

            Uhh…what am I missing?? Peanuts are not nuts, but allergies to peanuts exist. MicroManagered’s hypothetical involves a peanut ban for the sake of a peanut allergy. Where does the (tree, I assume) nut allergy enter into this?

            1. fhqwhgads*

              It comes into it because the scenario in the letter is more like someone allergic to one thing, bringing in something else they’re not allergic to, but which other people are.

              1. blue rose*

                No, I mean I don’t know why Observer is saying someone with peanut allergy only can safely eat tree nuts. It’s true, but I don’t get how that relates to MicroManagered’s peanut allergy scenario.

                Look, I do try to be gracious to internet strangers, but sometimes it seems like commenters on AAM are incapable of following a specific comment thread.

        2. fhqwhgads*

          No, it’s not. It’s like someone who pushed for a total ban on the top 7 allergens because of their allergy to peanuts, who then brings in shellfish.

      3. Starbuck*

        Someone flaunting a NO FRAGRANCE policy that was put in place to accommodate them definitely deserves some skepticism. Of their character at the very least, if not their need for the accommodation.

        1. FunkyMunky*

          people are seriously comparing food allergies in comments… clearly no nothing of scent sensitivities and how they work. scents cause both neurological responses (migraines) and skin responses. nobody is being serious here comparing nuts to shellfish? rookie hour

          1. Insert Clever Name Here*

            They’re bringing it up in an attempt to point out that your assertion (that being sensitive to some/many/most scents means there’s no way at all that same person can tolerate any scent) does not bear out by comparing it to something that might be easier to understand. After all, exposure to a food you’re allergic to can cause neurological reactions in addition to epidermal reactions just like an exposure to a scent can.

            I wonder if the difficulty here is considering “scent” as 1 category made up of 1 thing where it seems clear to you that “food allergy” can mean many different things? There are different kinds of scents with different components (essential oils, solvents, binding agents, etc), and it’s reasonable that someone could be allergic to heliotrope (which is a vanilla-like smell) and not benzoin (a resin with a vanilla-like smell).

    2. Emmy Noether*

      I’m kind of divided on this. On the one hand, I can believe someone can be sensitive to just specific scents. I’m a little scent sensitive myself (I just mostly hate strong artificial scents, and some do give me a headache after longer exposure), but not scent free. I also understand that even if she’s only sensitive to some, the company is not going to start discussing lists of ok/not ok scents.

      On the other, the level of obliviousness and self-centeredness needed to think that she’s exempt from the policy is really something. I’m not that inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

      1. BadMitten*

        Humans are really good as a species at getting used to scents. She might have found a perfume that she wasn’t sensitive too, and has been able unwittingly piling it on because *she* personally cannot smell it otherwise.

        This is why some fashion magazines will tell you to switch up your perfumes so you don’t become like this.

        1. Starbuck*

          OK but there’s no way that she doesn’t understand that a perfume is a fragrance, and the office has a fragrance free policy for her benefit.

      2. I Have RBF*

        I’m allergic to artificial scents. The more artificial, the worse it is. But I can handle most scents made with natural essential oils, except lavender. So I could, if I wanted, douse myself in rose oil and be absolutely fine. (BPAL, I love you.)

        But in a fragrance free workplace, I wouldn’t. Because other people might be allergic to all scents, not just the artificial ones.

      3. Hannah Lee*

        I can believe that someone can be sensitive to just specific scents and not others, if you consider “sensitive” to mean reactive … ie they experience some physical reaction to some scents and not others. Because I am one of those people.

        I enjoy wearing perfume, and have spent a lot of time and some money finding a fragrance I can wear without having some sort of physical reaction. But there are other scents that cause a repeatable physical reaction (welts where there was contact/wider spread hives if there was contact anywhere/itchy skin/nasal congestion/itching and swelling of my nose and lips/headaches/nausea … and years ago, incapacitating migraines etc etc etc). If I worked with someone who happened to wear something that caused one of those reactions, I’d have to request a change (in formally or through HR policy)

        But as far as workplace policies go, you can’t have an intermittent fragrance ban that applies only to some employees, for the reasons Alison mentions.

        Also, even just trying to do it product by product won’t work, because formulations change without notice and things that were non-reactive one month could suddenly cause reactions (eg I can not longer be around most Chanel scents because they reformulated everything, where before I could wear them myself)

    3. allathian*

      Depends on the person. My sister’s similar to your coworker in that she needs scent-free everything. There are some scents I enjoy, but only in moderate amounts, and never around my sister. There are a few (Poison, Chanel n:o 5, Fahrenheit, patchouli) that will give me a debilitating headache as soon as I smell them.

    4. Georgina Sands*

      This is a strange comment. Just because it’s true for one person, why would it be true for all people? Do you find that’s generally how the world works? I am highly reactive to detergents, but the huge majority of perfumes don’t bother me. Does that mean that’s true for literally everyone else and anyone else who is different is lying?

      1. Starbuck*

        Maybe not but I’m very surprised that someone with a severe scent sensitivity would be hugging coworkers.

    5. Ellis Bell*

      My entire relationship owes it’s existence to the fact I wore a particular perfume to a first date with a scent sensitive guy (I wasn’t aware of this beforehand obviously). He not only had no reaction to it, he loved it and he actually really likes scent when it’s possible for him to enjoy it without nausea/migraine. He wears one he knows is okay is for him, just like he knows what products we can use in the house. Although we’ve tried, I’ve never really been able to change my perfume though! That’s how commonly he reacts. He’s not allergic to all smells, he’s merely (severely) allergic to a few common ingredients of scents. I find it amazing people think allergic to one thing, or lots of things means allergic to everything. This is like not believing that someone with a mustard and general spice allergy can eat black pepper.

    6. Irish Teacher.*

      Honestly, I can’t imagine any reason why she would lie, either about her reaction to other fragrances or about being OK with the one she is wearing. Yes, there are some people who tell absolutely bizarre lies but unless she has a history of pathological lying, I wouldn’t assume she is lying about this because to do so would be a really bizarre behaviour and I think it unlikely that it would be the only incident of the person telling pointless lies.

      And I have a sensory issue with taste. That doesn’t mean I can’t eat any foods (thankfully). In fact, I really like liver, which is a food that a lot of people consider to have a strong and unpleasant taste. It does mean I am pretty restricted in the foods I can eat. I imagine something similar could happen with scents.

      That said, the coworker is being extremely tone-deaf in not realising that other people could also have reactions to scents and some may find hers as problematic as she finds others and also in not realising how terrible it looks to insist on a rule for others and then not follow it herself.

      I guess she is thinking, “well, I know which scents I can tolerate so it’s OK for me to wear something that I can whereas other people don’t know so it’s better if they avoid them completely” but…that still ignores that she isn’t the only person who can be affected by smell.

    7. Caramel & Cheddar*

      Doesn’t really matter if you believe it or not, because we’re out there! Floral scents tend to make me ill, but lots of other types don’t. Unfortunately, florals are in a lot of perfumes, so while I would struggle with a colleague choosing that type of perfume, I could still wear something vanilla-scented myself. I wouldn’t if I worked somewhere with a scent-free policy, of course.

    8. Cazaril*

      I’m pretty scent sensitive, particularly to some perfume ingredients, but I can wear certain natural scents like rose oil and other florals. I don’t, so that people will understand when I ask them not to wear cologne around me!

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        Ding, ding, ding. You get how it looks if you say no scents around me, while wearing scent.

        Jane just goes through her little oblivious life.

    9. Eldritch Office Worker*

      That’s one person that you dealt with, that’s hardly a statistical study. People can often tolerate things they’re used to and have trouble with new things entering their environments. Someone who is scent blind to something in their own home, even if it’s unpleasant, is not going to walk by a dumpster and not notice the smell. This is a really odd take.

      1. Hannah Lee*

        Also, there’s a different between “not able to tolerate” meaning you find it unpleasant and “has an allergic reaction to”

        One is a preference and the other is a medical/physical response that in some circumstances can be debilitating or even life threatening.

    10. Dr. Rebecca*

      I’m perfectly fine with “natural” fragrances–that is fragrances that are plant/spice derived like perfume oils–and react horribly to the artificial-chemically “cleaning” fragrances like Febreeze, fabric softners, etc. So…you’re wrong, basically.

      1. Rex Libris*

        Same. I’m fine with lavender or pine scented cleaning products that use natural fragrances, but all the chemical “Super Ultra Mega Fresh” scents or whatever, cause my sinuses to slam shut.

        No mountain, or spring rain, or country meadow, or whatever actually smells like that, except maybe in Hell.

          1. Pescadero*

            In my keyboard players basement in Hell, it always smelled a bit more musty than the rest of SE Michigan.

          2. Jean (just Jean)*

            Or a dumpster. Or certain well-known industrial areas circa 1960-something, before the existence of laws and regulations to limit chemical discharge and air pollution.

    11. Lab Snep*

      I react to fragrances. But I also react to a carrier compound that carries the fragrances.

      I am able to use very few scents (mostly citrus and tree based) but only in some bath product forms.

      But when I react to a fragrance it is a violent reaction, and I almost had a systemic allergic reaction to scented hand sanitizer earlier in the year.

      1. Freya*

        Scented hand sanitiser not infrequently sets off my asthma. The worst incident was during Covid lockdowns, when the sanitiser offered by my local pharmacy could set my asthma off from two aisles away…

    12. Dek*

      Ok…

      I mean, there are definite fragrances that make me gag or give me a headache, and I’m very much not scent-free.

      The issue isn’t that the coworker is ~lying~ about her fragrance sensitivity. It’s that she’s not abiding by the fragrance rule everyone else is.

    13. Artemesia*

      I am sensitive to perfume and most of it gives me a headache and my personal nightmare is being on a plane with some loon who spritzes themselves (an oddly frequent occurence) in that tight space. I always avoid the first floor of department stores and rush immediately to upper floors. But there are one or two scents I can and sometimes do use that don’t bother me.

      BUT the person who has shut down everyone else’s perfume use has some nerve using a loud scent herself. She needs to live by what she has inflicted on others.

    14. JMC*

      I tend to agree. I don’t think this is an odd response at all. I find it bizarre that someone would want a place scent free and then clog it with perfume it’s nuts.

    15. Bananapants*

      That’s a wild take. I get migraines from certain perfumes and scented products, but not all of them. For instance, I have a couple bottles of Chanel perfume I can wear just fine and most scented detergents and deodorants are ok, but a friend’s coconut shampoo gives me instant headaches, and I’m routinely triggered by car air fresheners. Depends on the person.

      1. Artemesia*

        I used to have to plaster my car with signs begging for no air freshner whenever I had it detailed — the stuff they spray in cars take a long time to dissipate and gives me an instant headache. I used to have my car detailed when I left it at a parking facility near the airport but gave up when I could not reliably prevent them from spraying it with that crap.

      2. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

        Ha, yes! Anything menthol or citrus based whether natural or not equals migraine for me (and I get the horrible puking ones) whereas I can wear my BPAL scents and have nag champa incense going at home no problem.

      3. Bunch Harmon*

        Same. I frequently get headaches from perfumes, air fresheners, and cleaning products. There is one specific perfume that I both like and tolerate (Elizabeth Arden’s Green Tea), but I rarely wear other than at home because I don’t want to inflict it on anyone who might be sensitive to it.

    16. Observer*

      there’s no way I’ll believe that a person that sensitive to other people’s scents can wear one herself, absolutely none

      And you might very well be wrong. Sure, some people are sensitive to a wide variety of scents. But that is absolutely *not* everyone.

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

      I am really sensitive / almost allergic to Patchouli and some other ‘natural’ essential oils. It causes me to cough and can even trigger an asthma attack. But I’m fine with other scents. A sent sensitivity does not mean that you can’t tolerate EVERY scent.

      Also remember, that scents smell different on different people, which may be what affects her more than her own scent.

    18. I Have RBF*

      LOL!

      I am allergic to most artificial scents, and the cheaper it is the worse it seems to affect me. Scented cleaning products get me the worst. What I’m allergic to is the aldehydes and ketones.

      I can handle, and actually enjoy, scents made up of natural essential oil, although I still react to lavender.

      What’s the difference? The chemical composition.

      The difference in reaction is me coughing so badly I can’t catch a breath, and no reaction at all. I don’t even have to smell it, if my nose is already stopped up. The reaction is in my lungs.

  6. Rhymetime*

    Regarding #1, I’m extremely sensitive to fragrances, whether they’re artificial ones added to laundry detergent or natural ones like essential oils. While not directly related–meaning that I understand some people can be sensitive to some scents and not others–I am forever grateful for my workplaces that have adopted a fragrance-free policy so I don’t have to deal with it.

    At a previous job without a formal policy, I had my own office. At one point there was a strong smell that made my eyes water and caused coughing fits. I tried closing my door, but inevitably I had to walk through the rest of the office and it would start up again. I eventually figured out that it was coming from a particular co-worker.

    I alerted HR that I was going to have a conversation with the individual myself and received their okay. I was as polite as I could be to my co-worker, who told me it was a hair product. She was indignant about it and although she stopped wearing it, I think she disliked me afterward the entire time I worked there.

    Thank goodness I don’t have to deal with that anymore.

    1. Learn ALL the things*

      I’m not surprised to find out that it was a hair product. I’m a scent sensitive person with curly hair, and it’s basically impossible to find unscented hair products. Finding one I’m able to tolerate took a LOT of time and money.

      1. Minimal Pear*

        Can you share what you’ve found, especially if you have recs for leave-in conditioner? I’m scent-sensitive with wavy hair and it’s a real pain. :)

        1. Learn ALL the things*

          I usually go super lightweight for my leave in conditioner, so it might not be as
          Much as you would want, but my favorite right now is Aussie Hair Insurance with jojoba oil. It smells more fresh than scented. I’m also using Sun Bum air dry curl cream right now, which has a little bit of banana scent which may not be for everybody, but it’s really light and not chemical-ish at all, so I’m able to tolerate it.

      2. NotRealAnonForThis*

        Same. Its like they just…can’t….make products for curly hair without scent? (Most often the scent has nothing to do with the ingredients…) And the amount of time and cash I’ve spent…

      3. The gourmet cupcake*

        Curlsmith has a fragrance free line… and then they discontinued it. I’m still shaking my fist at the sky.

      4. Hannah Lee*

        I find it so annoying that companies pile on fragrances in things like hair care.

        Like, aside from the fact that they can cause allergies, if I’m spending good money on a carefully selected perfume from France, I don’t want it overpowered by the lingering scent of coconut from my hair conditioner or whatever some laundry detergent is wafting. And some scents are just.too.loud For example I tried No 07 night cream once and could not sleep because the smell was TOO much all over my face.

        I struggle with finding low or no scent hair products. I used to use Deva Curl stuff and restocked one day only to find they changed/increased the fragrance to one I can’t tolerate (causes itchy eyes and skin) and really don’t like. And don’t get me started on the new hideously floral Solar Oil for nails.

    2. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      My colleague over in the dev team cannot stand the smell of my hair washing stuff (it’s all almond based) nor the residual smell of my incense that I burn at home on my hair. So we worked out an accomodation that I don’t go near her office and she doesn’t come near mine and we chat over IM.

      It was rock and a hard place and I really do feel sorry for her because she can’t help her reactions and I can’t do anything about it.

    3. Venus*

      I’m so thankful for formal policies because they make it much easier when there is a problem. People can be really sensitive if they’re told that they smell, even if their smell is ‘bathed in cheap perfume’.

      I had a coworker who was very scent sensitive and worked in IT, so it was difficult because he was expected to work anywhere in the building. Anyone who wore heavy scents was told that they couldn’t get IT help so that really helped with compliance. This happened with one difficult person who quietly pushed back by wearing something really smelly but she didn’t wear scents after her computer needed fixing.

      1. Jean (just Jean)*

        Anyone who wore heavy scents was told that they couldn’t get IT help so that really helped with compliance.

        I adore your employer’s policy!! Good for them! The right to breathe freely IMHO completely displaces the right to self-expression via fragrance. People can always express their scented personalities in the privacy of their own private homes.

        1. Venus*

          In this case it wasn’t a specific policy, more that the one IT person had serious problems with scents and the employer was happy to support their personal “If I can’t breathe in your office then I don’t have to fix your computer” policy, but yes it did result in a very scent-free workplace that I too greatly appreciated :)

  7. Rebecca*

    Re: Posting photos

    This feels so icky to me – it’s about privacy, but it’s also about exploitation and free advertisting.

    1. Rebecca*

      Sorry, posting fail. Hit send before I finished.

      I am super careful about posting my son online for all the obvious reasons of safety, privay, and letting him choose his own social media presence. There are a few safe photos up on my personal facebook page, few and far between, and when he was about 7 or 8 he asked me to stop, and I did.

      But more than that: using kids, yours or someone else’s, as your marketing fodder is so gross to me. I run a small school, and I refuse to post photos of my students on my social media channels or website – regardless of whatever ‘waivers’ I could get parents to sign. Partly because I don’t want to be taking pictures of them when they’re just coming to school to do, you know, school stuff, and partly because it isn’t their job to do my marketing for me.

      This seems to be something we’re getting more and more comfortable with, though. My instagram and facebook feeds are full of schools taking photos of kids, making them pose while they’re in the classroom. It’s gross.

      1. Poison I.V. drip*

        I’m with you. Whenever I see a TV ad, always for a local business, with the owner’s kids singing some jingle or saying “My dad wants to sell you a car!” it’s a huge turn off.

  8. Elsa*

    LW2, if you want to lay down the law about coming on time, but don’t want to go as far as firing the Son in Law, the middle option is to dock pay for lateness. If you’re already having workers clock in and out then you already have an easy mechanism to monitor the hours they are working and only pay their full salary if they are working their full hours.

    1. Curious*

      Part of the problem is that SIL is refusing to clock in and out. I’m not sure of the legal implications of refusing to pay an employee who works, but fails to clock in and out, for the hours that they do work.

      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        I’m not sure of the legal implications of refusing to pay an employee who works, but fails to clock in and out, for the hours that they do work.

        Alison has addressed this before; you simply cannot legally withhold pay for failing to record one’s time.

        1. Cmdrshprd*

          Right, you don’t have to pay them for time not worked, if they are supposed to work 9 to 5, but don’t show up until 11 am and leave at 3 pm, and they work for those 4 hours do you have to pay them for 4 hours of work, but not the time they didn’t work.

          Even if an employee chooses all on their own to work extra time, and clocks out and the company/manager knows nothing about it, the employee still has to be paid for the time worked.
          That is why the solution to that is write-up/firing an employee that works off the clock, because it is a huge liability for the company.

    2. Artemesia*

      The guy has said he feels being ‘family’ allows him to lord his special status over other employees. I can guarantee that they feel angry and abused by this and that when he actually marries the daughter and is really family, that it will get worse.

      I feel for the OP but it is this jerk future SIL who has created the situation. I’d have a conversation with my daughter about how difficult this is to have an entitled employee who flaunts family status to other workers and that you cannot have it and will need to enforce your policy. And then firmly deal with him. Or decide he is from now on going to be in charge of your business. Any chance you could help him find a job elsewhere?

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        I really want an update on this one, and I’m sorely disappointed that there hasn’t been one so far. I wonder how long he was engaged to OP’s daughter, if they ever got married (or if it was one of those “of course we’re engaged since we’ve been together for so long” where they don’t actually intend to get married), if they’re still together, and of course if he’s still in this job.

      2. Venus*

        I wouldn’t tell the daughter about the BIL, because a good workplace doesn’t talk about employees’ spouses. I would be clear with everyone about the standards for staying employed, and let everyone know that they have a choice to follow them or be let go. It’s a small distinction, but this is about sharing the policies with everyone rather than inappropriately sharing personal info. It’s similar to how we shouldn’t know if a coworker is on a PIP, yet it is reasonable for everyone to understand when a PIP is needed and the details of how one is used.

    3. JMC*

      ok this guy is nuts, he needs to do what every other grown adult is expected to do in a job and be on time, and clock in and out if that is how it works there. Period. If he can’t do that he’s gone, end of story.

      1. MassMatt*

        He’s a jerk but he’s not nuts. He acts as though the rules don’t apply to him because they never have. LW says he hasn’t always been like this, just for the “last couple of years”. He probably started coming in a few minutes late and “forgetting” to clock in occasionally and now it has blown up into him never clocking in and coming in two hours late, and that just after being told to come in on time. And this isn’t the first family member to take advantage.

        LW and whatever other family members running the business need to make their employees adhere to whatever policies they have or enforce consequences. If they cannot do that without fear of disrupting family relationships, they need to reconsider hiring family members.

        I worked for a small family business many years ago, the son of the founder/owner worked there. Far from him being a slacker, he was held to a much HIGHER standard. He was the first one in and often the last to leave.

  9. Elsa*

    LW3, do you have any pets? Posting pictures with cute pets can be a good compromise position. It worked for my husband when his employer wanted to publish a more personal photo of him but he didn’t want to share a family picture.

    1. Pretend Scientist*

      This is a great idea! Employee playing frisbee with a dog, snuggling with a cat—gives off a similar friendly vibe without having the kids online.

    2. pally*

      I like this too!

      I was thinking another way to supply the “cute”: maybe the website could feature artwork by the kids. Maybe even ask the kids to draw self-portraits or family portraits. With or without names.

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

      I think thats an awesome idea! Also, if the wife was up for it, could they use a couple picture or is it going to only be people with kids. I find it a little insulting if my employer wouldn’t use a picture of myself (or myself and my partner if I had one) only because I was single and childless

    2. Hlao-roo*

      The letter writer commented a few times on the original post as OP1. The closes to an update is a comment that reads (in part):

      However, it did come up in our meeting that my boss chose this network because it has all the doctors she goes to in that network. I guess it is her prerogative to choose a plan that works best for her, but I was pretty surprised that she wouldn’t take the rest of the company and her employees salaries into consideration when making that decision. A day after I sent this email and was reprimanded, they let me know they have found a plan that is more affordable and apologized for how they approached it.

      I’d be interested in hearing if the business did switch to the more affordable plan they found.

  11. Morning Reader*

    For LW2, the son-in-law situation, I wonder if it would have been helpful to mention the labor rule that they must comply with, regarding using the time clock. It could be framed as “you might be in a management position here in the future, so it’s important that we can see that you understand and comply with the regulations we are required to follow.”
    It seems to me that this is about more than his refusal to use the time clock. If he’s marrying their daughter and might some day be running things, he needs to start understanding the job from the “running things” perspective. Maybe send him to some business ed classes. I think often small business owners don’t know all the regulations (accounting practices, hiring practices, etc) they must follow and it’s a liability. “Our plan is to turn the business over to daughter in 15 years or so. If you want to be a part of that, you need to show us some management potential. Not clocking in is opening us to liability and creating a morale problem among other staff. You need to not only follow our policy but be aware of your family position as it’s perceived by others and not assume it grants you privileges that others don’t have. If we don’t see that, we’d all be better off if you grow your career elsewhere.” All that only if it really is the plan.

    2. DJ Abbott*

      I have to wonder what kind of person he is though. Do they want a manager who’s so oblivious or elitist he behaves like this? The concept of being treated like other employees is not that difficult for him to understand. What kind of manager would he be? Not one I would want to work for.

      1. Jackalope*

        This is really important. If he’s refusing to do this simple thing – clock in and out on time, or in some reasonable facsimile thereof – because he thinks he has special privileges, what else is he doing? There’s a likelihood that he’ll drive away other employees if his general attitude is that rules don’t apply to him.

      2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        That was my thought. Presumably this guy, along with daughter, will take over the family business someday. Is this someone you want running the business if his attitude is but I’m the family so I can do whatever I want. That’s how you get toxic family businesses that need to just fail.

        OP unfortunately, you need to act like a businessperson not a family member here. If this was any other employee would you put up with it? The only change is to give a heads up to your daughter. And if your daughter gets indignant about her sweetums being held to the same standard as every other family member in the business, well see above.

  12. Despachito*

    OP3 – this is such a huge overstep that I can’t even.

    I have social media strictly for work/hobby reasons, and I would never dream of posting ANY pictures of myself, let alone of my kids. I know that most people’s policies are much more relaxed and that’s their call but I see so many risks in that.

    If I understand how it works the husband would have to give the boss the photos, and it is there where he has to put his foot firmly down. It is not about himself anymore, it is about your kids and their safety/privacy.

    A compromise (I would not be willing to do even that but some people might) would be to show the kids with their backs turned to camera with no faces visible. I have seen this for a publicly exposed activist who has a lot of reasons to be afraid for her safety. But I still consider the requirement of the boss to be bonkers.

  13. Dog momma*

    #2. you’ve already given sonny boy all of the power. He’s pushed the envelope and knows you won’t push back.

  14. geek5508*

    ” I have a 30-year-old future son-in-law who has been in our family for 10 years and worked for us for seven.” – so he is NOT actually family yet? to quote Dan Savage, DTMFA

    (This in addition to the effect he is having on employee morale)

    1. Falling Diphthong*

      Gonna bet he’s the father of at least one grandchild, and so in the family whether this wedding ever happens or not.

    2. Beany*

      They may not be married yet, but the daughter will probably have Opinions about this option. How willing are they to damage their relationship with her?

      1. bamcheeks*

        I actually would be talking to Daughter about this, and making sure she is aware that her partner is kind of taking the piss, and asking what kind of outcome she would want. Obviously you would never normally go to your employee’s partner with this kind of stuff, but hey, if “preserving relationship with Daughter” is part of the calculation it seems only fair to give Daughter an opportunity to weigh in.

        And if you don’t like that — finding a job that is NOT with your parents-in-law is a perfectly acceptable option!

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Family business so presumably daughter is involved in it too. Hey kiddo, do you want a business to inherit? if so, get your significant other in line. But SIL has shown who he is and his attitude toward the family business.

    3. Emmy Noether*

      Life partnerships without marriage are quite common. Pretending someone who is fulfilling the role of a husband/wife is not part of the family because they lack the paperwork is denying reality at this point (and puts you into the company of people you do not want to be associated with, such as homophobes). And if there are children, they’re family through that connection in any case.

      And I say this as someone who explicitly doesn’t think marriage is not important. It’s a very important legal contract affording many legal protections and advantages in one fell swoop. It’s just not a measure of relationship quality or family ties.

      Also, the daughter might have opinions on the “DTMFA”.
      Not that I’d advocate to keep this particular man, but, generally speaking.

    4. FrivYeti*

      Thank you for reminding me once again that Dan Savage is an asshole and no one should take his advice seriously.

      If someone has been in a serious relationship with your child for *ten years*, they are a part of your family. The fact that they don’t have a rock on their finger does not change their relationship status. My aunt and uncle have been together for fifty years and never got married, and yes, she is still my aunt. Has been my whole life.

      1. Fíriel*

        I don’t think you can really blame Dan Savage for something this specific person said on an unrelated forum. They could just have easily referenced how Reddit is always telling everyone to dump their partners.

        1. FrivYeti*

          Mea culpa!

          As much as I hate Savage for other reasons, I misread the original post and thought that “he’s not family” was part of the Savage reference, rather than correctly reading that *only* the DTMFA was a Savage quote.

  15. Madame Arcati*

    Requiring employees to surrender family privacy by sharing photos of children (or partners/spouses) against their own better judgment is the antithesis of a “family friendly” policy!

  16. Pescadero*

    #2

    1) Is he hourly or salaried?

    2)Is EVERYONE really expected to clock in/out, work fixed hours, etc. – or are there some members of the family (yourselves? your daughter?) who are exceptions to the rule?

  19. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP2 (family member won’t clock in) – I think this is really a mismatch in how he sees his role compared to how OP does. He’s been a part of the family (even if not ‘officially’ an in-law) for many years and probably sees himself as part of running the family business – whereas OP seems to see him as just an employee like the others. I suggest approaching the conversation from that point of view. I bet OP and other family owners don’t “clock in” etc.

    1. Magpie*

      Just because he’s a member of the family doesn’t automatically mean he’s part of running the family business, even if he would like that to be the case. There are plenty of family businesses where members of the family work non-management, non-ownership jobs and are held to the same standards as non family members in the same role. If everyone with the same title as him is expected to clock in and out every day, then he needs to as well regardless of his personal relationship to the owners.

      1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

        No, I understand that family members can be ‘just’ employees (and subject to the same rules as standard staff), it depends. But he seems to see it as he’s part of “ownership” in this case, and OP doesn’t, hence the conflict.

  20. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP4 (deletion of email about health insurance) – What worries me is that the email became known to the boss even before the office administrator had had time to read it (which, maybe the admin isn’t on top of emails at all moments but still seems like a short time after – rather than that the admin received it, didn’t know how to respond so made the boss aware). This suggests to me that the boss is reading and potentially intercepting ALL emails that are going through the system on a fairly constant basis. As the boss it is probably their prerogative to do that, but would make me uncomfortable (and I have a “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” approach to most things) in the same way that someone constantly watching me work over my shoulder would do, even when I am doing exactly what I ‘should’ be.

    1. fhqwhgads*

      I read it as it was sent to both the boss and the office admin (and at least one other “boss”, because it says “bosses and the office administrator”). So boss saw it because boss was a recipient, and office admin happened to be away from the desk for a while. Then boss went into the server and removed it from all mailboxes immediately after reading. As is the boss’s pattern. Certainly could be intercepting all messages to anyone, but I don’t think the details of the letter suggest that. It suggests the boss is primarily doing this with emails she was one of the recipients for.

  21. Workerbee*

    #2 OP’s future son-in-law sure got their number early on.

    “ I have tried to talk with him before but he has told me it is different for him because he is a member of our family.”

    The fact that OP didn’t know how to respond to that is unfortunate. Hope somebody in charge over there handed that dude his ass.

    1. Angstrom*

      This is the business equivalent of a snowplow parent, or one who won’t discipline their kid. In the long run it’s bad for both of them.
      In the well-run family businesses I’ve seen the kids start at the bottom and rotate through all areas so they understand how things work. They aren’t just handed the keys.

      1. Pescadero*

        In the well-run family businesses I’ve seen…

        Oh wait… Hahahaha… I’ve seen hundreds of family businesses in my life, and not a single one ever has been well run. To the point that if someone ever even refers to something as a “family business” I can pretty much guarantee with 99% certainty it’s a Hellmouth.

        1. Statler von Waldorf*

          Back when I was working as an independent bookkeeper, I worked with dozens of family owned businesses. (Per my records, I had 47 clients, 44 of which were small businesses.) I handled their HR questions, posted their financial statements, and listened to them complain about everything, so I had a good idea what happened on the inside.

          My experience was the exact opposite of yours. The best run business I’ve ever seen was family run, and it’s not a close competition. The only two companies I worked for that I would call a hellmouth was a large non-family legal firm and a multi-billion dollar oilfield company.

          To say that I’m skeptical that you’ve actually seen the interior workings of hundreds of family businesses to form your opinion is an understatement.

          1. Pescadero*

            Well run:

            No nepotism at all.
            Industry standard training, PTO, and salaries.
            Pay never late, PTO never suspended.
            No family members or family friends (including business owners) with special privileges.
            Profitable.
            Transparent.
            Equal opportunity for all to advance, regardless of relation.
            Professional Development for employees.
            Defined and documented processes and systems

            IME – no matter the size – probably less than 10% of ALL businesses are well run, and businesses that describe themselves as a “family business” are way worse. Businesses that are family run, but don’t refer to themselves that way are much less likely to be sketchy IME.

  22. Who knows*

    #3: This employer is gross. Why are they even looking at their employees’ FB pages?? What outlandish, gross reaction do they have to employees who don’t have FB??

    1. Hlao-roo*

      “ArE yOu EvEn A rEaL pErSoN iF yOu DoN’t HaVe A fAcEbOoK!?”

      – The employer in letter 3, probably.

  23. Assistant To The Regional Manager*

    Let me start by saying that by telling this story, I in no way dispute the fact that people can have very strong adverse reactions to even seemingly minor scents.

    The coworker in the first letter reminds me of a coworker I once had. She would LOUDLY explain how scents bothered her. One time, a board member was in my office and this coworker didn’t particularly like his cologne so she literally slammed her door. Yet she was a smoker and you could very much tell. And she covered that smell with a cheap perfume…one that stuck around for quite some time after she put it on and walked down the hall.

    It makes me think that maybe the coworker in that letter is impacted by scents, just as she indicates, but may be accustomed to the scent she wears, or is nose blind to it because she’s accustomed to it. Either way, it needs to be addressed because if there’s a rule that others need to follow, it needs to apply to everyone.

  24. Pam Beesly*

    OP4 updated in the comments of the original post:

    It did come up in our meeting that my boss chose this network because it has all the doctors she goes to in that network. I guess it is her prerogative to choose a plan that works best for her, but I was pretty surprised that she wouldn’t take the rest of the company and her employees salaries into consideration when making that decision. A day after I sent this email and was reprimanded, they let me know they have found a plan that is more affordable and apologized for how they approached it. But I completely agree that there is a high level of paranoia and unprofessionalism (which can be seen in a number of layers within the company) and have been investing time in finding a new position. Thanks so much for everyone’s interest in this issue! I totally appreciate all the advice and concern.

    1. Heidi*

      I was wondering if there was some specific item covered by this plan that the boss wanted. My second theory was that she was trying to drive employees off the company plan for some reason. This ended better than I’d hoped!

    2. MassMatt*

      OP sounds as though they’ve done some research re: average plan costs, etc but I will note that rising health care costs (without rising quality) have been a national topic for at least the past 30 years in the US, yet this never seems to be taken into account when employees grouse about their health care plan cost, deductibles, etc. Instead it is almost always framed as employer greed, or employer “screwing over” their employees by offering lower benefits.

      Health care costs are very high in the US, especially for smaller employers. It may be that due to the number of employees and their average age, the costs for this employer plan are going to be much higher than average.

      1. Artemesia*

        One of the idiotic elements of the employer provided insurance system is that it then doesn’t work like insurance i.e. spreading costs over everyone the way a single payer plan does. A small business with older employees will have hellish costs. My husband was a partner in a small law firm and everyone was older and a couple of employees had family members with chronic illnesses. 25 years ago the cost per family was over 20K for insurance — I imagine it is many times that now. He actually cut a deal with his partners to drop the insurance in exchange for half the savings and we put him on my plan for a hundred or so a month.

        1. Tradd*

          I have a friend who is past Medicare age, but she’s still working. She’s on work insurance rather than Medicare, because it’s better and she doesn’t have to pay anything. Owners at her small company are trying to push her onto Medicare, from what she tells me.

          Non-US readers: Medicare is US-govt supplied healthcare for all seniors, 65 and over (I think).

        2. Emmy Noether*

          I remember discussing this in this comment section before, and it taking half a dozen heated back-and-forths for me to ge my head around that this is how insurance works in the US. Pooling risk by employer (in sometimes tiny pools) instead of over all insured is an insane way to run insurance. Absolutely bonkers. I still can’t quite believe it.

          It’s the opposite of the principle of insurance, which is to spread risk over a statistically significant number, so that it becomes calculable.

          1. Tradd*

            A lot of people don’t know how health insurance through employers got started in the US. During World War II when there were wage controls, employers started offering health insurance as a way to attract employees since they couldn’t increase wages. That doesn’t explain how it’s stayed that way, but that’s another thing.

  25. Lily Potter*

    OP2, if you’re still reading comments, I hope you’ll write in with an update, even if it didn’t end well. Telling us things that you failed to solve the problem (and why) is as educational as telling us that everything is great now (and why).

  26. YesPhoebeWould*

    I’m surprised #2 was actually a problem. No clocking in? No pay. Simple enough. Can’t pay you if we don’t know how many hours you worked. Sorry.

    Would love to see an update of what ended up happening!

    3. Wayward Sun*

      The problem there is you can’t legally refuse to pay someone for hours they worked just because they didn’t clock in.

      This comes up a lot at the university I work at; TAs resent doing timesheets and often fail to turn them in, but we legally have to figure out how to pay them anyway.

    4. Statler von Waldorf*

      If I had a dollar for every time I told someone they weren’t legally allowed to dock someone’s pay for failing to submit hours, I could afford to be sitting on a beach somewhere tropical right now instead of shivering my ass off in a poorly-heated camp shack in a remote corner of northern Canada.

      I’m not even exaggerating. I’ve had that exact discussion HUNDREDS of times over the last three decades.

    5. Freya*

      Fun fact: here in Australia, you cannot withhold pay that employees are legally entitled to, but it is entirely possible to set policy such that timesheets are required to substantiate what employees are legally entitled to and pay will be delayed until timesheets are received – this is pretty common for casuals (hourly employees) and contractors. For permanents (salary), it’s more common to pay the agreed ordinary hours but not the overtime until there’s a timesheet.

      BUT: we’re also required to keep records such that we can prove that someone who is on an annualised salary or otherwise doesn’t get paid for overtime isn’t doing so much overtime that they’re getting paid less than what they would be getting paid if they were being paid for overtime. And Work Health And Safety recommends that you document the hours you and your people work so that you can prove you’re not breaching safety regs by requiring them to come in to work without a sufficient break between shifts.

  27. keyboards all the way*

    “She has been known to stand over people with her hand in front of her face “gagging” or complaining of migraines from a smell she smells.” coupled with the gag-inducing heavy fragrance she herself is wears is just a hard pass for me. Instant nope. She loses all benefit of the doubt once she starts acting like a toddler (and honestly, at least with a toddler, they eventually grow up). Maybe she’s nose-blind to “her” fragrance but: a fragrance ban means *a fragrance ban.* For everyone. Duh.
    I might be biased about this because certain perfumes are so strong that they may as well be my actual allergy triggers for the intensity of the reaction they cause (sneezing, hay fever, etc). And I can’t be around patchouli without immediately going into a coughing fit (and wondering why we’re in Woodstock suddenly). But yeah, I have a suspicion this coworker is fully aware of what she’s doing and thinks that the ban applies to everyone BUT her and would be all “what do you mean *I* can’t douse myself in White Shoulders by the gallon??!? I’m calling my lawyer!” if confronted about it. And then dress up Julianne Moore in Safe.

  28. Person from the Resume*

    Son-in-Law problems (this isn’t really a work problem; it’s a family problem)

    1) Point out out to your son-in-law (and daughter) that in the past your family business had to fire a family member who did not perform and your son-in-law is not performing up to standards now and will be fired if he doesn’t perform as directed
    2) Be a good manager and employer to your other workers and fire your son-in-law if he doesn’t get his act together and show up on time and clock in on time.

    Your son-in-law thinks he won’t be fired because he’s family so he is ignoring manager correction. You gotta decide if you’re willing to fire him or not. Without consequences, he will continue not to care and think he’s above management.

    If keeping family peace and employing him is more important than having him be a good employee maybe the best thing you can do is reassign him to a do nothing office job where he’s paid for occasionally showing up. And where he won’t be on the shop floor with other employees who do follow the rules and show up on time.

    This is up to you, but he doesn’t believe you have any authority over him at the moment and doesn’t plan to change his behavior.

  29. Alan*

    For #3, a good-cop bad-cop approach also works. “I’m sorry but my wife will kill me if the kid’s photos go public.” Yes this is problematic from an equality standpoint, I just find that it works super well with some people. Also, “My parents won’t let me” when my kids didn’t want to do something with their peers.

  31. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    1. It’s often the case that these kind of things can be sorted out by a simple conversation. As I’ve mentioned above I have a colleague who cannot withstand the smell of my hair washing stuff (which is all almond smell) nor any residual smell of the incense I burn at home on my hair. And I can’t tolerate menthol smells.

    We had a talk, at a distance over the network, about what could be done to resolve this. I laid out that I couldn’t do away with either the hair stuff (there’s nothing else that works) and the incense is part of my beliefs so I can’t stop that either – but I can ensure the clothes I wear to work aren’t kept near the smoke. There was surprisingly little fighting! We communicate via the network now.

    1. Statler von Waldorf*

      Sometimes it can, sometimes it can’t.

      I had an issue with a woman at a previous job. I was a heavy smoker, and she was extremely
      sensitive to the smell of tobacco smoke. She filed for accommodations, I did the same, and even a company hired mediator couldn’t figure out a way to accommodate both of us given the work environment in question.

      She was both the senior employee and the company rainmaker, so I took the very generous settlement offer and moved on.

  33. RLC*

    #3: I’m puzzled as to how pictures of employees’ families show “community engagement”? Seems like images of the employees/adult partners taking part in a community activity such as a trail build, park cleanup, or filling boxes at a local food bank would better illustrate community engagement.

  34. Moose*

    For the record, I don’t think Jane is faking her fragrance sensitivity. I do think she is sensitive to fragrance, just not the specific fragrance she wears. That sounds more likely than her what, lying to get attention?

    I also think that demanding a fragrance ban and then wearing perfume because it doesn’t bother you makes you a huge hypocrite. She can be both a hypocrite AND sensitive to fragrance.

  35. Public Disservice Announcement*

    The most shit-stirring responses I can think of for #1–
    1.) React to her wall-o-stink the same way she reacts to other people’s. Gag, choke, hold your nose, get the vapors. After all, she’s shown that she considers that acceptable behavior. (I’m a little surprised no one has done this already.)
    2.) Find out what her preferred wall-o-stink is and douse yourself in it. See what her reaction is.

  36. ElliottRook*

    OP3- a lot of people, including celebrities, have taken the compromise of only posting photos where their kid’s face is turned away from the camera, or putting an emoji over the kid’s face. You can still show cute family photos (we all have matching Christmas pajamas! we visited this cool landmark! etc) and people can still see how delighted you, the parent, are, to be spending time with your kid.

  37. pally*

    For #2: At what point does the employer have to accept the son-in-law’s practices as they’ve established a precedent by accepting his behaviors for years prior, hence they must tolerate the behaviors going forward?

    See, I had a co-worker who was late every single day. Usually 30-40 minutes. Sometimes it was hours late. I depended upon her work in order to complete my work. This resulted in my working late many times. As I was salaried, this didn’t cost the company anything.

    After months of this, I went to our boss to complain. He told me that others in the department had no issue with the co-worker, hence there was no problem. Um, except they were not dependent upon co-worker’s output to complete their work. Boss said that made no difference to the situation.

    I then went to HR. They said they could not do anything as co-worker’s tardiness had gone on for years prior to this and it was deemed acceptable by my boss. Therefore, he set a precedent such that they could not discipline her for tardiness.

    (Occurred in California)

    1. Person from the Resume*

      At no point. You can have a starting now there will be consequences for tardiness conversation. The management just has to be willing to enforce the consequences.

      And you can make it your boss’s problem by not staying late. Leave on time and make it your boss’s problem to deal with the consequences of work turned in late.

    2. fhqwhgads*

      Nothing illegal happened in your scenario. But also the people claiming their hands were tied, were not. They’re basically saying “we don’t wanna” and trying to convince you it meant “we can’t”.

Comments are closed.