employer hired a sex offender, being called a “mom” professionally, and more

by Alison Green on November 21, 2024

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

1. Our agency flexed its own policy to hire a sex offender

I work for a government agency and a new hire in our group took a while to pass their background check. Living in an open records state, it’s easy to find someone with a unique name. Six years ago, this man (29 years old at the time) was busted in a police sting trying to solicit sex with a 15-year-old using a popular app. No contact was actually made (since there was no real child involved), but he was charged with sending explicit photos and communications with a minor. He completed his probation, which changed his record from felony to misdemeanor.

I can see all the court docs, and his defense was that he thought this person was 16 (our state’s age of consent) and that he did nothing wrong. The documents clearly show age was discussed in detail and he knew the boy was 15. He resisted the court ordered sexual eval and treatment, and claimed several other reasons he was innocent. He was forced to attend treatment and completed his probation and monitoring.

Our org has a policy that any crime against people in the last seven years should disqualify an applicant, even a misdemeanor. So I’m shocked this made it past HR. I don’t know if our director is aware or if this stopped at HR. I know if I ask HR, they aren’t going to tell me anything. Technically he completed his treatment, but crimes against kids crosses the line for me. One other staff member was with me when we figured this out, but otherwise I’m not aware that anyone else knows. Is there any way for me to question this hire and how he passed the background check?

No, because it’s not your job to question him (and what could you do with the answer in any case?). Since you know he did get background checked, presumably your employer is aware of the conviction. I agree with you 100% about the nature of this crime and I wouldn’t want to work with this guy either, but you really don’t have the standing to question him. That said, you could approach your manager and/or HR with your concerns that the organization appears to have bent its policy for a sex offender.

2. Managing an employee with severe anxiety

How would you suggest handling a direct report with severe anxiety to the point that they in physical distress over looming tasks? That kind of anxiety is something I have a little experience with and have found my own techniques for dealing with (knowing they aren’t one-size-fits-all) … which I can’t help but offer while also pushing for therapy via our EAP. How long do I give them to work on it versus how much do I pry to confirm they are trying things? It’s affecting their sleep (and therefore work), their primary doctor still hasn’t nailed everything down with effective treatments, and at least one treatment attempt involved “don’t operate heavy machinery” level of painkillers. We’re in a regulated industry doing risk reviews so that starts to get hairy that I must review it all. They aren’t up to speed four months into their hire, but I own some of that blame as a relatively new manager while they are remote.

You can suggest working with the EAP and you can maybe offer some low-key suggestions of stress reduction techniques, but beyond that this is theirs to manage. It would be overstepping to push for therapy or any kind of specific treatment, or to try to confirm they’re working on it. Let them know what the job expectations are and let them know if they’re not meeting those, and if their anxiety is disruptive to colleagues, address that … but you sound like you’re getting pretty close to overstepping (or maybe have already).

If you feel like you’ve fallen down on your side of things as a manager, work on remedying that. If it’s not feasible for you to keep reviewing everything, let them know that, and let them know what you need to see from them in order to be able to back off from that and when that needs to happen by, and ask what they need from you to work toward that goal. But their mental health is theirs to manage. Your involvement needs to stay confined to managing their work performance, and those are two very different things.

3. Being called a “mom” professionally

I saw the letters you posted about being referred to as a “work mom” or “office mom” and something similar happened to me but outside of an office setting, and I don’t know how to address it or if I even can.

I run professional events for widget makers (events like talks and panels and networking) which I’ve been doing for years. I’ve connected a lot of people professionally with my events, and I platform local widget makers and give many people their first public speaking opportunities. Some events are about early-career stuff and some are about getting better at our craft which attracts mid-level and senior folks. People pay to attend these events and buy other stuff from me. This is a business I’ve built up over the years and it’s a well-known part of the community. It’s a side-hustle to my full time work, where I’m a senior widget maker myself.

I was talking to somebody (another widget maker) who’s attended a lot of my events. They said they and friends of theirs were jokingly (and endearingly) calling me “widget mom”, because I help so many people with what I do (for what it’s worth, both of us are women in our 30s but I’m a bit older).

I understand how nice this is supposed to be! But I was really bothered by the name, though I didn’t say anything. I’m a professional widget maker too, I’ve been doing this for 15 years, and I thought I was known for my own experience and skill. But being called “widget mom” sounds like my business is some friendly, mothering thing I do out of the goodness of my heart… when I’m selling my own expertise and knowledge in an explicitly professional context (albeit in a relaxed and friendly way). How many moms charge a fee to speak with them?

Maybe I’m taking the “mother” part too literally, but it feels at odds with how I see myself and how I want to be perceived, which is as a widget maker and entrepreneur. It feels dismissive of my many years in the field, like I’m only being recognized for what I do for others, and not the widget-making work I do myself and the business I run based on that.

Am I taking this too seriously, or being insecure? Was it just a compliment that was meant well, and I should be flattered? Since I don’t actually work with these people but see them in professional (yet relaxed) contexts, is there any way I can address it or should I leave it alone and let them think what they want?

It can be something that was meant well while still being a problem! It’s reasonable to take issue with it. It matters that men are businessmen while women doing the same thing get labeled “moms.” (I’m sure no one is calling your male colleagues “widget dad.”)

You could say this next time you talk to that person: “By the way, I was thinking about what you said about people calling me ‘widget mom.’ I appreciate that it’s well-intended, but I always think that kind of label devalues women as businesspeople. I’d be grateful if you shut it down.”

4. Employee keeps texting to say he’s sick but still coming in

I have an employee who is young and new to the professional world. His work product is great, but his work ethic is questionable. I can chalk all of it up to maturity level, and overall everything is fine. That said, there is one thing he does that I don’t like, and I’m not sure how to word the conversation.

A handful of times, he has texted me to tell me he is sick but still coming in to work. This morning, I got a detailed text about his ailments, which ended with, “I’m still coming in, but wanted you to know if I seem a little off.” I texted back and told him not to come into the office. He didn’t. But this same thing happened a few weeks ago, and he didn’t want to use his sick leave. His claim is that he didn’t call in, was totally willing to come in, and I told him not to, so he shouldn’t have to take the sick day.

That’s bananapants, right? We’re a small office, and when one person comes in sick, it’s like a domino effect (and then I end up working tons extra, even if I, too, get sick). I want to tell him that if he is texting me to tell me he is puking or running a fever, but is coming in and “may seem a little off,” just to go on and call in sick and not leave the decision for me. Can I do that? We get plenty of days per year, and they don’t roll over or get paid out, so I’m not sure why he isn’t taking them.

Yes, you can do that. The wording you want is: “If you are throwing up, running a fever, or otherwise sick, you need to stay home and use sick leave. In addition to it being the right thing for your own health, I don’t want you to risk infecting other people by coming in. This isn’t negotiable; you can’t put other people’s health at risk.”

You might also ask if he’s concerned about running out of sick time; even though you think it shouldn’t be the case, it’s worth asking since you never know if there’s a concern like that underlying his actions. (If there is, the answer still won’t be “come in while vomiting,” but it’s useful to know if there’s something a concern you need to help him figure out how to address.)

Related:
my employee keeps coming to work sick

5. Talking about success stories as a tutor

I work as a private tutor in math and science. My name is on a tutor list for a local high school, so I get jobs from them, as well as getting referrals from former students and their parents. Something happened last week that has never happened before: a job interview! In person, I met with the mother and the aunt at the library (in a reserved room, so we could speak freely).

She asked me reasonable questions: about my methods, like did I have a curriculum (no, I would prefer to help with homework and current classwork and answer old questions and topics as needed) and did I work with teachers (almost never).

Then she asked me a stumper: did I have any success stories? I was taken aback. It was a good question once I gave it some thought, but I tried to convey to the mother that I was much more concerned with my relationship with the student than with their scores or grades. I sought to be a cheerleader and confidence builder, never another source of stress or pressure. I also had to answer some other valid question about how I would know if the student could do the work on their own without me next to them, but that question I felt like I could answer since I usually probed for understanding at the beginning and end of a session.

I think my actual question is about how I can build a useful response to the concerns of a parent about my qualifications. I almost never find out what happens at the end of the school year, and I can’t predict from year to year if I will even see the student again.

Yeah, if I were hiring a tutor for my kid, I’d be glad that you saw yourself as a cheerleader and confidence builder, but I’d also expect the primary goal to be ensuring my kid improved their skills and understanding of the material. If that’s not your philosophy, it’s good to talk that through before deciding to work together. But you also say that you check for understanding at the beginning and end of sessions, so it sounds to me like you do both; you just haven’t figured out how to describe that piece of it.

I suspect you do have success stories like that if you think about it, though! Have you seen kids gain in understanding and confidence and improve their grades through their work with you? Have you worked with kids who struggled with X when your work started but were able to do problems centering around X successfully by the end of your time together? Those are the sorts of success stories parents are looking for. You don’t need to produce test results, but you do want to talk about what the outcomes of your work will be/usually are.

You may also like:
{ 604 comments }

{ 604 comments… read them below }

  1. Fidget Spinner*

    For #1 I read it as “could I question this hire” as in the decision to hire him, not the person directly

    1. Annie2*

      I read it the same. They don’t want to ask the new hire questions, they want to question the act of hiring this individual.

    2. Bilateralrope*

      Same here. But the answer is the same. The most the LW should do is inform HR that this new employee appears to have slipped past their background check.

      1. Harvey 6'3.5"*

        I think it depends on what the work is. If they are child protection service workers, I think OP very much has standing. If they are a road repair crew, much less so.

        1. Lydia*

          If they worked in child protective services, there’s no way in fucking hell this person would have been hired, and OP would have probably been VERY CLEAR about that. So, let’s not start down that useless path.

          1. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

            Not CPS, but you’d be disgusted to know how many people are hired at schools who have no business around children, because the districts won’t pay for full background checks, think it’s too intrusive, are oblivious, etc.
            So never say never, unfortunately.

            1. Reluctant Mezzo*

              This was one reason our local school district didn’t privatize janitor service, because there were very good questions about the contractor being willing to have their employees fingerprinted.

            2. Alternative Person*

              Heck, even if they do run a check. There’s a whole bunch of companies offering background checking services that as far as I can tell rely on the person being honest and some limited government record access. It was bad enough when they got on my case for having a short employment gap, I dread to think what someone deliberately obfuscating information could do.

    4. Nodramalama*

      I mean either way, they were not involved in the security check, the hiring process, and are not in HR. so the answer is still no.

    5. dogmom*

      Same. Also, I am seriously wondering if LW1’s workplace hired my former coworker, who has a unique name and was busted in very similar circumstances six years ago — the video of him cruising up to the “15-year-old’s” house was posted To Catch A Predator-style on a local vigilante website, which someone sent our social media, which I happened to be monitoring that day. He did work directly with children at the time, and if he somehow managed to stay in the same line of work after everything, that is extremely alarming he passed the background check.

    6. Coffee*

      “Have we changed the rules for hiring? I would like to know what the new rules about x, w and z are”

        1. Thinking*

          Sorry, wasn’t finished.
          HR and your boss need to know that employees are aware of this “rewrite” of the rules.
          Someone may be trying to pull a fast one. I believe you do have standing to question that.

          1. DataGirl*

            I know it’s not the right answer as it could get OP in trouble, but I would be very tempted to go scorched earth and email HR and the hiring manager with every single other employee in copy, asking why the policy changed to allowed a convicted pedophile to work there, and what steps they plan to take to keep people safe.

            1. Cj*

              unless they work with teenagers, or have teenagers working there, there’s no reason to people wouldn’t be safe from somebody convicted of soliciting sex from the 15 year old.

              1. ShanShan*

                I also wonder how society is served if we all collectively decide that sex offenders should just never work again.

                This person was punished and went through treatment and presumably hasn’t reoffended. I don’t understand the outrage at the concept of him being able to earn a living.

                1. Annony*

                  The rules should be applied equally though. If their rule says that it has to have been seven years since the crime then I don’t see why a sex offender should be given more leeway than someone who committed theft.

                2. Apex Mountain*

                  @Annony – I think in this case six vs seven years is probably hair splitting. I dont’ think it’s some huge policy violation

                3. atalanta0jess*

                  yep. you can’t simultaneously hope that people don’t reoffend, AND bar them from participating in society in any kind of normal way like working. People need jobs. They especially need jobs if they are going to behave in a pro-social way.

                4. Boof*

                  Unfortunately, I have an in law who went to jail for almost exactly this scenario (sting involving soliciting a teen but still minor). It did seem like it was a real wake up call for them to reassess their life and go on the straight and narrow; they stopped a lot of sleezy habits (imagine an 80s fast talker prior to conviction). Obviously not someone I would go to for babysitting, they have a lot of limitations (they can’t visit their own kid if their kid is in a hospital), etc, but they’re not barred from family gatherings or anything either (this letter reminds me tho I need to talk with my fam about how to talk to our kids about their past – I’m going to insist there is some kind of talk tho it’s not like we ever leave them alone nor do I think they are a danger to family now in any way or they wouldn’t be welcome at all, but of course I think kids ought to know certain people are not authority figures etc)
                  What I’m getting at is 1 – presuming OP is correct this is the same person and 2 – that HR didn’t make some kind of mistake and for whatever reason the scenario is within their rules and regulations 3 – don’t forget the past but do bear in mind for some people the conviction can mean huge changes in how they conduct themselves so it’s worth taking into account what the have done, how long ago it was, and what they’re doing more recently.

              2. LaurCha*

                I disagree. A lot of workplaces have family events (like holiday parties), or bring your child to work day, or what-have-you. I would want to know if my coworker is a convicted sex offender no matter what the job. There’s a reason they have to register publicly.

                1. Lydia*

                  Except it’s none of your business, no matter how awful the crime, and since holiday parties are not part of your actual work, they have nothing to do with anything. Additionally, I’m giving a big side eye to the OP on why they felt the need to look this person up in the first place.

                2. @lydia*

                  What?? You’re saying that a work event, held for employees, has “nothing to do with anything”??? That if an employee molests another employee’s child, the employer should just shrug their shoulders???

                3. Lemons*

                  I also disagree with Lydia, I had a coworker like this, and it’s not fair for parents to not be able to give consent around having their kids around a potentially dangerous person. If kids are welcome at events, either the parents should be informed, or the offender should be barred from attending.

                4. Lydia*

                  @lydia and @Lemons You think the employer wouldn’t request the person stay away? Or, even more likely, the person with the very specific restrictions on who they can and cannot be around and would probably get into a lot of trouble if they didn’t follow those rules wouldn’t just excuse themselves? No, a public setting with a lot of people around isn’t my number one worry about this. And it still has nothing at all to do with the job they’re hired to do. You can’t imagine what-ifs to justify this OP’s nosiness. Or are you looking up every potential coworker because they might be a bad person?

                  PS Everyone who gets on their high horses about what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to do once they are convicted of something tend to forget these people have families and children who ALSO need financial support and stability. It’s not like those responsibilities just evaporate.

                5. Nah*

                  Also you never know which of your employees may have been a victim of CSA or grooming, and I sure as hell wouldn’t blame them for finding this whole situation triggering as hell!

                6. Joron Twiner*

                  Yes Lydia, won’t someone think of the poor families and children of the convicted sexual predator who are financially dependent on them!

                  Sometimes the consequences of a crime go beyond the legally required penance. There are consequences to public and social trust. Humans generally don’t trust people who hurt domestic partners, children, and animals and other vulnerable groups, regardless of whether they have been to jail/rehabilitated.

                  No one is saying “this person can never work again”. But any private company is allowed to say “you sure can’t work here”, especially one that already has that rule in place!

            2. Junior Assistant Peon*

              I’m removing this and other debates about varying degrees of child sex abuse. – Alison

            3. Eukomos*

              That would 100% get OP in trouble. They would for sure get some support, but they’d also get other people angry that a guy who’s served his time is being targeted, and irritate a lot more people who don’t think it’s their problem and didn’t want to be pulled in and now think of OP as stirring the pot. Not to mention if they specifically used a line about asking how to keep an office of adults safe from a pedophile they’d undermine the strength of their argument.

    7. Annony*

      Yeah. If someone at a government agency broke their own rules to hire him, OP should be able to report it to whatever agency/person has oversight and ask why the rules were bent to hire a pedophile. Raise it with the right people and move on. Maybe they didn’t actually break any rules and nothing will come of it or many they tried to pull a fast one.

      1. Observer*

        If someone at a government agency broke their own rules to hire him, OP should be able to report it to whatever agency/person has oversight and ask why the rules were bent to hire a pedophile.

        Not really. Report, yes. Asking for answers? Not so much.

        Raise it with the right people and move on

        Agreed. Not a question, just “this is the information I found. This appears to be counter to our rules, so I’m reporting. Have a great day.”

        And, if it’s safe to do so, do it in email and bcc a personal non-work account. And then, yes just move on.

      2. Abacab*

        This is clearly a whistleblower situation. If the agency won’t follow its own rules, it might be time to put this out to the press.

        2. Ellie*

          They may have a good reason for bending the rules. Although on the surface of it, since his background checks took a long time, I’d bet that they were past their probation period and it just became too difficult to fire him. But we don’t know that. Maybe he disclosed during the interview, there were restrictions that were set up, or he has a slightly different role. Or maybe he’s the bosses cousin, or the hirer got all buddy buddy with him, or something equally nefarious happened.

          I think raising it with HR, ccing your manager into the email, is the right approach. As awful as this is, it’s not up to OP to vet people. But, if this is nepotism or something like it then its worth alerting HR.

          1. Abacab*

            This is exactly what a little sunshine will help clear up. The press will help keep it from being covered up.

    8. Not TheSameAaron*

      It’s kind of odd how he was charged, given that no real child was involved. It’s probably best to let the lawyers handle that though.

      1. Lenora Rose*

        I don’t think it’s odd. It went far enough his intent with the hypothetical child was well established.

        There are some reasonable debates to be had about the borders of sting operations vs. outright entrapment, but “I am driving to this location with known intent to have sex with an underage kid” is not exactly ambiguous about the intent.

  2. Edam*

    Verbatim advice from this very blog:

    “I don’t think it’s a massive overstep to do a quick search because you’re curious about someone’s professional background. But your motivation matters. If you’re curious about their professional background, fine and even potentially relevant. If you’re searching for info on their personal life, that’s an overstep (and probably in no way relevant to your work with them).”

    1. Annie*

      I feel like this is a case where safety concerns may override the usual coworker boundaries.

      What we know (assuming the OP has the right information on the right person): the convicted sex offender was caught seeking out at least one inappropriate relationship with a child; the convicted sex offender somehow got hired despite company policy

      What we don’t know: did the convicted sex offender learn his lesson about seeking out inappropriate relationships with children; how much temptation to re-offend exists in the workspace; how easily can the convicted sex offender be prevented from re-offending at work; are coworkers empowered to push back on non-work-related favors that make them feel uncomfortable while still keeping the work relationship professional

      1. Name's Seuss*

        We also have no indication that this new hire will have access to children through work, which is an essential piece of information for there to be any safety risk at all!

        I’d be far more concerned if he was on the list due to non concentual acts with an adult (unless his job didn’t put him into contact with adults). Plus, I’m wondering if “6 years ago” means “6 years, 0 months” by the start date or x”6 years, 11 months”.

        Regardless, OP, keep your nose out of his business until and unless you hear about him potentially having contact with teenage boys.

          1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

            One hopes it’s counted from conviction, otherwise historical offences would be immediately downgraded.

            1. Anon for this one*

              I don’t agree with that. I think it should be from the date of the offense.

              I got a DUI in 2008. the reason was because I was taking Vicodin, and my doctor switched the pills to a higher dosage without telling me. I had always been able to take two at a time before, and since I wasn’t told and didn’t look at the bottle, took two of the higher dosage. I wasn’t feeling well because of this, but didn’t realize why, and left work. I stupidly called my husband back when we didn’t have hands-free calling from a vehicle. it distracted me and I ended up in a ditch. cops saw me because I was on a major highway. they stopped, and could tell that I was somewhat impaired. they did a blood test, and it took 8 months for me to even be charged with a DUI because it took the BCI that long to get the results back for the blood test. it was another year until I plead guilty, because of the various hearings that came before that.

              in 2019 I got another DUI. this time it was entirely my fault, as I had been drinking a lot because of a bad situation at work. i actually drink so much the night before that I got a DUI the next morning on my way to work. the penalties were a lot higher because the second DUI was within 10 years of my conviction for the first. our state law actually says 10 years from the incident, but they consider the date to be when you are convicted, (or possibly even sentenced, I don’t remember for sure. and it was over 2 years from the actual incident until I was sentenced). in some states when they say from the date of the incident, they actually mean the day that it happened, but not in my state.

              I’m absolutely not defending getting DUIs. but I believe that the time should start counting from the date of the offense, not the date of conviction, whether you are talking about the courts or about an employer.

              2. Three Flowers*

                This might be relevant in some cases, but it’s not equivalent to your situation for two reasons. First, your situation was about recidivism in the legal system (and it really sucks that the first incident happened to you!), and that’s not what is at stake for this company. Second, child sex abuse is pathological and predatory in a way that DUI, as bad a choice as it is, is not.

                I would not want you to suffer consequences beyond what you legally deserve because of a medical event nine years ago. I absolutely would not want my coworkers with kids to unknowingly have their offspring in a building with a CSA. I don’t think that should *ever* be disregarded, even if the employer wasn’t violating their own policy by doing so. It’s a very different type of crime and safety concern.

            2. Curious*

              Is the purpose of the policy punishment or seeking evidence of rehabilitation? While the courts may focus on punishment, I think a potential future employer should focus on evidence of rehabilitation — and if the offense is long in the past, with no evidence of more recent offending, that would seem to accomplish the goal of the employer’s policy.

              1. JSPA*

                There’s solid data now that the risk of reoffense drops quite precipitously with time-since-offence (and that time since last known offense is–again, statistically–also well- correlated. Yes, that’s in the context of various states’ versions of Megan’s law.

                Yes, it possibly is largely due to separating offenders into two or more classes.

                For example, people who offend compulsively vs all others;

                People who combine a predilection plus other contributing (e.g. mental, upbringing, substance-related) factors that allow them to temporarily ignore social norms, but those contributing factors are treatable, vs those for whom the contributing factors are entrenched or resistant to treatment.

                But across the board, likelihood of reoffense drops markedly with age (despite rare high profile outliers).

                So increasing age is in itself a helpful change, as well as treatment, maturation, increased awareness of social and legal penalties.

                Finally, most in-person offenses are not from repeat offenders, but from those rare adults whom one trusts to form a relationship with kids, such that they can successfully forge a grooming relationship.

                The idea of someone potentially skeevey being at the company party is mentally gross, but that specific setting isn’t high risk (compared to quasi-parental relationships in organized groups), nor is the known past offender, several years post-offense, a higher risk than “various other random coworkers, spouses, staff and other attendees.”

                You need to watch your kids, and prep them for dealing with skeevey behavior, regardless of the setting and the guest list.

          1. KateM*

            Then you sit that colleague down and explain that it is not acceptable to have unsupervised children in a workplace.

              1. KateM*

                I very much doubt that a sex offender would go around soliciting sex from a child in front of the child’s parent.

                1. Hmm*

                  So if a coworker unwittingly brings their child to work and the sex offender decides they “like” this child and move to isolate them for predation,

                  this is the parent’s fault? If a parent isn’t escorting their child 24/7, such as to the bathroom, it is simply their fault if someone targets their child? Never a sex offender’s fault, I suppose

                2. KateM*

                  How does one bring their child to work unwittingly? Forgot that the child is with them?

                  And yes, you shouldn’t have non-employees just walking around at your workplace in the first place, and doubly so when they are underage and you may be thinking they only go to bathroom, but actually you have no idea what else will they do on their way there – whose desk will they mess up, get lost in office, or whatnot.

                3. Hmm*

                  Apologies for miswriting. I should say if someone brings their child to a family-friendly work event. Or their child has to use the restroom urgently and the most convenient accessible bathroom is at the workplace. Or literally any other reason why a parent might happen to bring a child into a workplace-related location. It is fascinating to imply that a sex offender targeting your child should just be considered a hazard of the workplace and your fault.

                5. supernon*

                  It’s happened at a public library in my area. The offender was hired for security and would hang out in the children’s area and scope little girls, while parents were present.
                  Shitty hiring practices and a manager who prefers a certain type of male employee were factors.
                  It blew up in the news, but hey, no big deal right? Nobody’s business.

                6. Ellie*

                  No but they may try to build a relationship with that child, and the parent, which would afford them unsupervised access to the child later on. Predators don’t usually go straight to solicitation, they groom the child, the parents, and any potential witnesses first.

                  Of course that can happen anyway, there are lots of predators that don’t have a conviction, but in this case, the company policy is that no one with that kind of a record should be working there. That could give parents a level of reassurance that is not warranted.

                  Honestly I don’t know what I would do if it was me, and I’d at least want to discuss the matter with HR and my manager so that I understood what the professional ramifications were towards warning people. Which I might have to do if I, say, saw him getting chummy with a co-worker who was a basketball coach, and was always ferrying young boys to and from the games. I’d feel I had to say something.

              2. DashDash*

                I agree with KateM that it would only be a problem if the children are unsupervised. If they are with their parent the entire time, presumably their parent will take all reasonable measures to make sure harm does not come to them.

                1. Hot Flash Gordon*

                  Except a lot of CSA’s don’t necessarily jump right to separating the child from the parent in order to assault them. The more “successful” predators start with grooming the parents, especially if mom or dad is a single parent. They show that they’re trustworthy and amiable in order to be in a position to gain unsupervised access to their child.

            2. Specks*

              Seriously?? Jumping to unsupervised with zero backing and blaming the parents when the problem is having a convicted child molester? Are we seriously putting the “right” of the molester to move on in their life quickly and painlessly ahead of the potential victims of reoffending? Some things are just, frankly, unforgivable and should shut down someone’s functioning in society. And a 15 year old is a child, don’t you dare act like it’s some sort of made up not very serious offense.

              I personally would want to know if I was working with a sex offender. Not only so I don’t bring my son by work or to any work events, but so I don’t let him walk in while I’m having a friendly chat on video with a coworker while wfh or keep any pictures around. Just like any woman working with a rapist who assaulted a woman would deserve to be on high alert.

              1. Buffalo*

                “Are we seriously putting the “right” of the molester to move on in their life quickly and painlessly ahead of the potential victims of reoffending? Some things are just, frankly, unforgivable and should shut down someone’s functioning in society.”

                I don’t think anyone is saying that. What I’m seeing a number of people saying – and what I agree with – is that letting convicts reintegrate into society is *how* you protect people from becoming potential future victims. In theory, it’s nice to get up on your high horse and say, “Well, that person is unforgivable, he’s Frankenstein’s monster, let’s shun him.” In practice, when you do that – when you leave an ex-con without a job, without a path into normal life – that just makes them likelier to reoffend. Your approach resonates on an emotional level, but it doesn’t actually work. The choices aren’t “treat him like a member of society and he’ll reoffend” versus “treat him like a monster and he won’t have a chance to reoffend”; it’s the inverse. Treat him like a monster, he’s back cruising playgrounds in a month.

                1. ShanShan*

                  And also, I’m curious what Sparks thinks people who have no opportunity to reintegrate back into society, no matter what they do or what choices they make, wind up doing with their lives.

                  We’re talking about the greater good of society here, which involves giving people incentives to participate in it pro-socially rather than encouraging them to give up and do whatever they want because all of their future choices don’t matter.

      2. Nodramalama*

        Well that would be why people in recruitment, security and HR have the particular role they do in doing the onboarding, and almost certainly have access to information, policies and insight into the decision making process that LW, and certainly we, do not have

        1. Cj*

          I agree, because they probably wouldn’t have been able to have hired him at all if he worked with children.

          also, the company doesn’t have a policy not to hire people with criminal convictions. they just don’t hire them if it’s within 7 years. this guy’s conviction was 6 years and however many months ago. if he was well qualified for the job, HR and or whoever reviews the background checks might have decided that was close enough to seven years that they did bend the policy. policies like this aren’t often written in stone, so they may very well have had the right to do that.

          what the guy did was obviously wrong, but to the people saying ,”why are you defending a pedophile”, it was a 15-year-old he was soliciting sex from, not a young child. I can’t remember the word for right now, but such people are called somethiig other than pedophiles if the young person has hit puberty.

          I’m certainly not defending what he did by pointing that out, but there is a difference. it appears that the law views it differently also, because if he had been trying to solicit sex from a 7 year old instead of 15-year-old, he probably would have been in jail for at least a while, not just on probation. (or maybe not since he never met the fake kid for obvious reasons, but it seems like the penalty would have been harder for a young child).

          2. Ellie*

            Nah, soliciting from a 15 year old is absolutely a crime and rules are rules. Maybe they were bent in this case, but I think there’s still value in OP coming forward (through the official channels – their manager and HR. I’m not suggesting they conduct their own witch hunt).

            If HR and the hiring team hear that OP and at least one other employee has discovered his history, then they may think twice about bending the rules again. Or they may decide that they need to address it, and put some more safeguards in place (such as informing him and his manager that he can’t be involved in the intern program, and telling him he has to leave the office if someone brings in their kid). Or they could decide that some crimes are in a different category than others, and rewrite their policy. Or they may do nothing. But I think its a bit of a cop out to assume that nothing can be done, when OP hasn’t even raised it yet.

          3. Hot Flash Gordon*

            An adult soliciting sex from a 15 year old is criminal and minimizing the impact the act has on the child is gross.

          4. Bagpuss*

            No, they are still considered paedophnes. Some countries / States have ‘Romeo nad Juliet ‘ laws whre people are not prosecuted where they are both of a similar age or the gage gap is very small (e.g. a 16 or 17 year old with a 15 year old, in a country / state where the age of consent is 16)

            A 29 year old solicititing a 15 year old doesn’t fall into the category BUT there is the issue of rehabiitation and whether and for how long someoneshould be prevented from reintegrating into normal society . If this individual has a single conveuction and that was 6 years ago, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the risk they may pose is low, and presumably they would not have been able to get a job if that job involved working with children or young people.

          5. Grimalkin*

            Ephebophile, is the term you’re thinking of. We can argue over whether there’s any significance to such a distinction being made, but I wanted to confirm that yes, there is a specific term for that.

      3. Ellis Bell*

        I mean we know the role requires a background check because they wouldn’t do one unless it did. I think OP is on firm ground asking about the rules of background checks, and criminal records because they have to have some relevance to the work. If OP did go deep dive sleuthing and paid for this information, then I agree it will come across strangely, but if not (and we take OP’s word for it that this information is easy to access) then it’s all a question of relevancy to the work. If OP is concerned about a change to the rules which affects their work then I think they have standing.

      4. ScruffyInternHerder*

        Another thing we don’t know (I assume not as it feels like it would be mentioned otherwise, but it is what it is): Does this place of employment provide access to the sex offender’s preferred victim pool?

        Example: is this a NPO that provides services to at-risk teenage boys and the new hire specifically targets teenage boys?

        Heck, there’s someone in my industry who was busted for CSA material on his work hard drive. I don’t want him emailing me anything or even on the same network as me…because if he’s dumb enough to put it on a work computer, he could dumb enough to either send it by accident or put it on the server. I don’t want any chance of guilt by association with him, especially since I do volunteer work with kids!

        1. Lydia*

          Reading between the lines on what information the OP provided, the answer to your question about access is no. Or you can bet they’d have said something.

      5. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        The LW didn’t know the safety concerns going in, though. You’re justifying it after the fact because of what she found in this case, which is a dangerous thing to do in general.

      6. ShanShan*

        Do you think that OP, an amateur internet sleuth who barely knows this person, is more qualified to judge these things than either the court who chose to release him or the hiring committee that extensively interviewed him?

        1. Ellie*

          Yes. I personally have very little faith in judges or courts, or hiring committees. I absolutely think that all three of those groups could miss something that was easily accessible to an amateur internet sleuth.

          Anyway, it seems to me only the hiring committee would be at fault here. The judge and the courts did their job. It’s on the public record.

          1. ShanShan*

            The judge and the court decided it was safe for him to be out of custody and around other people. Your whole objection seems to be that you… don’t believe it is safe for him to be out of custody or around other people.

            1. Hot Flash Gordon*

              Well, a judge gave Brock Turner 6-months for raping an unconscious woman because he was worried a lengthy sentence would have a severe impact on an upper middle class white male, so I would say that Ellie’s lack of faith in our justice system is pretty spot on.

            2. Joron Twiner*

              No sane person can look at the US court system right now and say that justice is regularly being done. Especially when it comes to preventing crimes against children.

            3. Ellie*

              I mean, right now in Australia they are going through the post mortem of a domestic violence incident where a child died. One of the police who allowed the father access, admitted in court that they would not have done that, if they had scrolled down a bit further and read the entire report.

              So yeah, people make mistakes, sometimes with fatal consequences. Judges, police officers, and hiring committees are no exception to that. Additionally, just because it might be deemed inappropriate for him to be incarcerated does not mean that he’s safe for everyone to be around, under all circumstances. OP’s employer has their 7 year policy after all, so they don’t even go that far.

      7. Lydia*

        No, what we know is the new hire’s security background check was taking longer than anticipated, so OP apparently took it upon themselves to look up their name and came away with a lot of information. It had nothing to do with their work; it had everything to do with nosiness.

        1. Ellie*

          They could have thought that they recognised the name. Also, if I’d hired someone, and their classification check was taking a really, really long time, I might google them to see if I should start hunting around for a new hire now. But fortunately, my work does what it calls ‘preliminary checks’, first. We have had quite a few of them come back negative, which is done before we even extend an official offer. They look for anything obvious like this, so that we don’t end up wasting each other’s time.

          1. Lydia*

            OP didn’t hire them. The person was hired to their group, and for whatever reason they found out the background check was taking longer and decided to get all nosy. If you were a hiring manager and HR wasn’t keeping you informed, you would go to the HR person, not to Google. At least that’s what you should do. And at that point HR could tell you what was taking so long, and you could make a decision on how to move forward.

            1. Ellie*

              I would not go to HR, because they would 100% not be able to give me any information. The government does the checks, and they would not discuss someone else’s case progress with me. Google, or asking the candidate themselves (which I also do), are the only options.

    2. Msd*

      I agree. Why is the OP doing a deep dive? I suspect they do it for all new hires because there’s no reason given what they did for this particular new hire. I bet they have one of those subscriptions you pay for that gather info from all sorts of sources. Now I’m getting annoyed thinking the OP is quite the busybody. Of course now I’m overreacting.

      1. not like a regular teacher*

        The LW that the background check took longer than normal. I would assume this piqued their curiosity. Whether they were right or wrong to check is totally outweighed by what they found. Why are you defending a pedophile?

        1. Nodramalama*

          Because that’s very the ends justifies the means thinking and that is a very controversial position. Both things can be true and they don’t remove the other. The fact that OP found something concerning about someone they THINK is their new colleague, doesn’t erase the fact that doing this amount of searching is inappropriate.

        3. Roland*

          > Why are you defending a pedophile?

          This is a really frustrating argument to use. It doesn’t actually have anything to do with what msd was objecting to because the LW had no idea about anything the guy did until they did the check into him. It’s really scary that “well some people are pedophiles” gets used to defend all privacy intrusions.

            1. TheBunny*

              Which definitely isn’t true. It would be amazing were it that simple, but until the number of people incorrectly accused of crimes falls to 0 in this country, having nothing to hide isn’t a viable reason to be unconcerned.

            2. Ace in the Hole*

              My response to that is always, “oh, so you must be in favor of pooping where other people can see, right?”

              After all, everyone already knows you poop. You have nothing to hide. Stalls around public toilets should only exist if people are trying to conceal something nefarious – otherwise there’d be no need for privacy, right?

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

          Questioning the reasoning behind someone snooping isn’t defending a pedophile. Those are two really different things.

        6. Mad Scientist*

          There are lots of reasons a background check could take longer than expected and it would be really bizarre for a coworker to be so invested in that process in my opinion.

        7. Saturday*

          The world isn’t divided into two teams.

          Suggesting the LW shouldn’t have done this search says nothing at all about the actions of the new hire.

          1. Rex Libris*

            Actually, I think the world is pretty much divided into two teams, but those are people who understand that their biases and assumptions aren’t necessarily reality, and people who don’t.

        8. Nomic*

          “Why are you defending a pedophile?”

          Expected. But disappointing. So what if LW’s curiousity was piqued? It’s still none of her business.

        9. Anon for this*

          Hi. I’m a sexual assault survivor. I don’t speak for all sexual assault survivors, but I do speak for myself, and I am not defending anyone who is a pedophile. I am saying the OP should have minded their own business since this person’s background check had nothing to do with their work. I’m also going to say you’re not being helpful, whether you’ve experience assault or consider yourself an ally.

        10. Nephron*

          I have a non-traditional name for the United States that computer systems often have issues with. Any background check into me is likely to take longer than average because the computer would be upset.

          I am defending myself and everyone else with a name not liked by computers from invasion of privacy by OP.

      2. No Payment Needed*

        Well, no. The OP states that they live in an open records state and talks about how much you can find out about someone with a unique name. I doubt they have to pay for anything, just appreciate the laws in their state.

        1. noNosy*

          A truly unique name is pretty uncommon. I have an unusual name but there is someone in my state with a similar name who is on the State naughty list. If I were to take a new job and found some random employee had not only taken upon themselves to run a background check but had gotten it wrong I’d be furious. we’re talking hostile work environment, serious disciplinary action level furious. The OP better be 100% right or they may find themselves without a job.

          1. Katie*

            Hmmm. Makes me wonder if it’s possible if this guy isn’t the same person. Every time my husband buys or sells property, he is asked about a guy in Georgia with the same name who owes a lot of money. He isn’t that guy obviously but it’s checked out every single time.

            Maybe this background check took longer because they were sorting it out out that this was innocent Jack Ripper?

            1. Seashell*

              Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is more than one person with the same name, even if it’s an unusual name. There may be other things that LW found that match the coworker, like birth date, home address, or a picture, but I wouldn’t think it’s definitely him otherwise.

              1. DogFace Boy*

                My husband has an uncommon name and his background check once got flagged for a person that was showing up as an “alias.” He had the same first name, last name one letter off (amazingly, other guy’s last name was Lovely), same birthday but 2 years younger, lived a couple towns over, was in the same field of work, and like my husband had a history of one DUI. I have a friend with a common name who has trouble (and sometimes BIG trouble) every time he tries to go to Canada because a man with his name is a felon on the lam.

            2. HB*

              Oooh this is a good point… I’ve never done a background check on someone, but I do know that sometimes records can get mixed up when there are similar/same names. If the new hire has the same name as the convicted sex offender, and told HR that they’ve had trouble with their background checks in the past because of someone else with the same name, then the background check would absolutely take longer than usual as they tried to sort it/confirm the truth.

            3. Fíriel*

              That’s a good point – this is very common! I know someone whose background check for a government job took over a year(!) because he has the same name as a mobster in a different jurisdiction.

            4. Wayward Sun*

              I constantly run into problems with credit checks and background checks confusing me with my dad. My first name is his middle name and vice versa.

            5. Nah*

              Don’t these sites usually have a photo/mugshot of the offender, or am I just totally off-base? Legitimate question, I’m not in a state that has these types of records available for free.

          2. Skytext*

            Good point. Also, it sounds like OP is ONLY going by the “unique name”. They don’t have access to the new employee’s social security number, etc. like HR does.

          3. anotherfan*

            Just putting it out there that googling an unusual name in an open access state is completely different from “running a background check” which is an entirely unprofessional thing unless that’s your job and what is getting people riled up, it seems to me. I don’t recall anywhere in the OP’s letter that they did a deep dive, paid a third party to dig up dirt or stalked this person. They may have wondered why an unusual name seemed familiar, did a google search and came up with the information on the SA case.

            1. Lydia*

              I feel confident OP didn’t look it up because the name sounded familiar. OP looked it up because the background check was taking longer than they thought it should.

          4. Specks*

            Mine is so unique that it literally just brings up me in a google search and a bunch of obviously unrelated pages. Why are we making all sorts of excuses for the sex offender but taking OP to task for what could’ve easily been a quick google search?

            And generally, given the courts’ response to sexual abuse of any kind, no, I don’t trust the courts to have handled anything properly. Too often the attitude is what I’m seeing in a lot of these comments – this dude made a mistake, is his life supposed to be destroyed now? It’s f-Ed up and dismissive of what the victims suffer… which is lifelong trauma consequences with no escape. I have no problem with the offenders suffering a small portion of the same, frankly, especially since apparently being denied a nice job or even high office is somehow “destroying someone’s life”.

            1. bye*

              Not a single person is making excuses for a sex offender regarding the crime itself (one that he was convicted for and served time for). They’re taking OP to task because it seems like they overstepped.

              You and every other person in these comments are reaching to come up with reasons why OP is justified. Why are you making excuses for OP?

              1. Specks*

                Because a google search of a new coworker is not a big deal and you and the others here are making up a story about how OP came by this information when there’s nothing in the letter to suggest they did anything like paying for a background check or even going to a background check website. You made up a story and are now outraged about it and the rest of us are not buying it. Feels like a red herring.

              2. Specks*

                Oh, and if you don’t think people are making a case for a sex offender’s slate to be washed completely clean because they “served time”, you need to re-read many of these comments. And if you don’t recognize this kind of rhetoric as a very entrenched part of our culture that is always selling sex crimes as a “one-time error” that the – usually — man “shouldn’t be punished for for the rest of his life” (again, punishment being loss of any privilege at all, not like life or freedom for the rest of your life), you need to step back even further.

                1. Wayward Sun*

                  I think “if you think all sex offenders should be universally unemployable for life, what should we do with them?” is a fair question, though.

                2. Boof*

                  From what I understand most convicted sex offenders have a LOT of limitations on where they can work and live, to the point that some end up homeless because there is literally no legal housing for a long ways. Which isn’t a true realize what they’ve done or say that they don’t need consequences, just there is some need to consider things like where can these people work and live, not just where they can’t

            3. Lenora Rose*

              The victim’s suffering isn’t helped by adding to the suffering of the perpetrator. Yes, the justice system is often unfair and harsh to the victims of crimes, and occasionally lenient on the criminals… but it’s the FIRST half of that statement I want to change, not the second. (except for Trump. I wish he’d get his jail time.)

              And the problem isn’t that this one job denies him, it’s that a LOT of jobs will deny him, and reintegrating into society is made that much harder – which is one of the things that increases recidivism.

              My advice would change if this were a place which deals with vulnerable populations, including some adult ones, but as far as we know it isn’t.

            1. Grimalkin*

              I’m fairly certain I am as well. Not with my birth name–while my surname’s rather unusual, it’s not quite unique, and I did in fact know of at least one other person out there existing with the same first-and-last name combo–but I’m fairly certain that changing my first name to an unusual one has made the combination unique now, especially if you factor in my middle name to boot.

          6. Ineffable Bastard*

            I, on the other hand, have only a relative with a similar name (although some of their surnames — we’re Latino and have several surnames — are not exactly the same). My first name is extremely common, but my surnames are extremely uncommon, so if a result comes up in a search it’s about me.

            My poor maternal grandfather had the opposite problem — his own daughter’s father-in-law had the same name and surnames he had — and was always having trouble with another guy with the same name and surnames committing crimes.

          7. Ellie*

            I have a unique name. It is hyphenated. I went from there being maybe a dozen of us world-wide, to being completely unique after I got married.

            I also would never consider someone just googling my name to be snooping, and I’m quite a private person. We even do it sometimes for fun at work – see who’s famous who shares your name. Maybe it’s an IT thing? If I had hired someone, and their background checks were taking a long time, I would absolutely google them. My manager would ask me if I’d tried it too. It’s a really normal thing to do.

            All that said though – this person applied for a job at a place knowing that this policy was in place, and knowing that their background would be looked into. If he wanted privacy, he could have applied to work somewhere else.

        2. Festively Dressed Earl*

          In some kinds of government jobs, you get very efficient about searching court records and it takes only a few minutes. (I’ve had to do both criminal and civil.) If you’re looking for potential safety hazards, it makes more sense to look at someone’s criminal record than at their Google results. My aunt lived next door to a sex offender, and I found the info in less than 5 minutes without even knowing his last name.

      3. Bilateralrope*

        Did the letter writer do a deep dive ?

        Or did they just do a google search on the guys name and find an article about the sex offending high up in the results ?

        1. Srsly*

          Yeah, it’s completely possible a deep dive was not necessary to find the info. Lots of court filings/decisions are available online. And ask me how I once innocently googled a colleague and found stuff about cannibalism and sexual harassment on the first flipping page of results… I legitimately was just curious as to where he’d done his PhD!!

        2. TheBunny*

          I read it as deep dive as just doing a Google search wouldn’t necessitate mentioning the open records state.

          I’m in the opposite position. I have a very common first name (for my age group) and a very common last name. You look me up and you will find all sorts of things, none of them me.

          At the risk of getting hit with the same “why are you defending pedophiles” comment, I fully believe what OP did was wrong and akin to eavesdropping or reading someone’s diary and discovering something they want to me but can’t ask about.

          I’m sure there are plenty of people who work in all sorts of places who have criminal histories that (to use OPs tomeline) go back 7 years and 1 month so they don’t show. Should OP deep dive every single one? Nope.

          And if OP were to do that, who decides what “crimes” pass and what ones don’t? And while we’re at it, who will be handling all the lawsuits once people are fired or offers rescinded outside of a very strict process that’s fair to all?

          And no I’m not being wild…certain people have different beliefs about what is and isn’t ok. Yes soliciting sex from a minor isn’t ok ever…but what if the person was 16? Is OP religious and all solicitation is wrong?

          At the risk of sounding harsh, the background took a while (which almost always means a potential hit) OP got curious, records are open in their state and now they have info that’s technically not their business.

          There’s a reason the person works there that’s actually none of OPs business.

          It’s also a heck of an assumption that HR made a “mistake” leading to him getting through.

          1. Magpie*

            There are lots of reasons a background check could take extra time that have nothing to do with criminal records. I had a background check when applying for my current job and it was delayed because a previous employer went out of business and the owner had died, so the background check company was having a hard time verifying my employment at that company. The check eventually cleared when they were able to contact another former executive who verified everything.

          2. Crencestre*

            If the new employee was 16 when he solicited sex from a 15 year old, that would probably have fallen under “Romeo and Juliet” laws which make it a crime to have sex with a minor ONLY if there’s an age gap of more than 3 years between the older and younger person. Thus, a 17 year old who had sex with a 15 year old wouldn’t be charged – but a 19 year old would be. But it’s highly unlikely that this employee was 18 or younger when he was caught trying to have sex with a 15 year old and highly likely that HR dropped the ball when hiring him.

            1. Hlao-roo*

              The letter specified his age at the time: “this man (29 years old at the time),” so “Romeo and Juliet” laws are definitely not in play in this case.

            2. Florence Reece*

              It doesn’t really matter in this case because the coworker was 29, but Romeo & Juliet laws only exist in about half the states. The acceptable age gap varies by state, too. Just want to flag that.

          3. Cmdrshprd*

            “as just doing a Google search wouldn’t necessitate mentioning the open records state.”

            it could still be just a Google search and/or both. In that OP only googled the person’s name, but due to being in an open records state, it makes the arrest/conviction in OPs state bring up a lot more relevant search results that someone convicted in another state would not pop up.

            So the initial part was Google that flagged coworker as being convicted. them from there OP dug into the court records to see the details.

        3. learnedthehardway*

          That was exactly what I was wondering – if the OP could find this, guaranteed HR and the background check people also found the information.

          I’ve dealt with multiple situations where I had to – as an HR person – figure out whether a person was the individual who had been charged/convicted of an offense. In one recent situation, it was a unique name, and yet I STILL had to do a very deep dive to confirm that the individual who had been hired was indeed the same person who had been convicted of the offense, so that the company could retract an offer. The individual is now suing the company (although they won’t win).

          My point is that HR will have made a determination about whether the individual is the same person who was charged/convicted, whether the conviction poses a risk to the business, etc. etc.

          If the OP is HIGHLY confident that the person is indeed the convicted individual (not just the same name, but pictures of the person were published, for example), and have strong concerns that HR dropped the ball, and if their industry is one that tends to employ or deal with teens, then raise the concern to HR. But do consider that HR has already addressed the issue.

        4. Lydia*

          I’m just going to say…based on how we went from “their background check was taking a long time” to “our state’s criminal records are public”, there’s something missing in the middle there where the OP knew if they typed in the coworker’s unique name, they’d get some dirt on why the background check was taking so long.

    3. Hyaline*

      And in answer to that–this is within that motivation being “about work.” Presumably the LW gave their motivation in the letter–the background check was taking a while, so they wondered what was up. Though it wasn’t purely looking up professional background, it was answering a work question–why is this person not on board yet? It wasn’t mere idle curiosity. You could say it’s still not a good enough reason to Google, but it’s not like they were doing deep dives for funsies.

      1. bye*

        Unless LW works in HR, it doesn’t matter why the background check was taking so long. I work for my state government, and during COVID, background checks were taking long due to administrative issues. The point is, LW had no standing to do their search in the first place, no matter what the results ended up being.

        1. Allonge*

          But in the world we are living in, you don’t need standing to do a Google search, just an internet connection. In this case, OP found something concerning, and now has a work-related question on a possible policy change.

          The ‘you should not have Googled in the first place’ may be good advice for some future cases, but it’s unrealistic to expect that people never will. I would really rather focus on knowing what to do with information you find this way, as the advice does, than ‘don’t do this extremely commong thing’.

        2. Hyaline*

          Eh, if it was a position I was really waiting on to be filled and HR had gone radio silent on updates, I’d be Googling to see if the candidate got hit by a bus or something.

          But IMO, the bigger picture is: You don’t have to have “standing” to google anyone. You just have to have “standing” to do anything with that information, and that’s the wall LW is running into. You can find whatever you find, but if you’re not in a position to do anything with that information, you may find yourself with information you’d rather not have. Or, in this case, information that tells you never to let your kids around Bobbo from IT at the company picnic.

          1. Harvey 6'3.5"*

            I honestly never considered googling new coworkers, but given the nature of my work, even a finding like that of the OPs wouldn’t really matter, as we never interact with children in any way at work. But I do think that if OP works at a job with teens at risk, or with child protective services, or at a teen center, they do have standing to bring this up as a concern for the organization.

          2. bye*

            I mean, if we’re going to nitpick things, then LW *did* do a Google search “for funsies.” It doesn’t matter if they felt justified because the background search was taking so long. It doesn’t matter if we think this is a “common thing to do” (which it’s not? or do you all just google your coworkers for funsies?).

            1. Mad Scientist*

              I agree, I don’t think this is a common thing to do, or at least it’s never occurred to me to google my coworkers.

      2. Mad Scientist*

        Unless you’re the hiring manager, why would you care that a background check is taking longer than expected or that someone isn’t on board yet? Even when I’ve been absolutely swamped with work and very eager for a new coworker to be hired to lighten my workload, I’d defer to the hiring manager and HR on the hiring timeline. It’s simply not my business as a coworker. And background checks can take a long time for all sorts of reasons.

      3. Lydia*

        Is LW the hiring manager? Is LW in HR? Even if they were one of those things, this was not about work because you wouldn’t go to Google to find a business reason why it was taking a long time to complete a background check. The person who goes to Google for that is the person who had the thought, “Oooo, I bet there’s a juicy reason they aren’t onboarded yet. Google will fill me in on the goss.”

    4. katydid*

      I’m not sure what in the response to the letter here you think contradicts this advice? They seem very much in line with one another to me.

  3. yvve*

    LW2– It does sound like there’s performance issues– Unless you’re prying already, it sounds like this person is telling you about their anxiety when you try to discuss that? (Like, “Hey, you didn’t complete this issue, why not?” “I slept badly because of my anxiety etc etc etc”).

    So I agree with the idea to refocus on work and not try to fix the issue for them– you can ask what they think would help, or if they need anything specific. But if they respond “I dont know what would help, ahhhhhh”, then you need to return to “I can give you space or whatever else you ask for, but you need to figure out what will get you to be able to complete this work”

    1. Princess Peach*

      Anecdotally, I see “anxiety” come up very frequently in my current set of college students. It’s definitely a hot topic on social media right now, and TikTok is platforming some sketchy takes on mental health.

      They fail to do something, then tell me about their anxiety, and the intended result is very clearly that I say, “I’m so sorry to hear you’re struggling with mental health! I’ll go easy on your grade / allow you to skip this test with no consequences / provide a simpler alternate assignment.”

      I do not say those things and occasionally get labeled as insensitive to mental health (ironic, as I actually have a diagnosed mental condition, but they don’t know that). I make referrals and recommendations to our uni’s disability or health & counseling services, offer to discuss assignments or study tips in more detail, explain why it’s not fair to their classmates to “go easy” on specific students, or potentially discuss withdrawal options in really dramatic cases. I can’t and don’t tell them how to manage their anxiety though. Not my place, not my expertise.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if this trend has made it into the workplace too. It’s definitely not a manager’s place to handle someone’s mental health for them though. The same way I tell students I can only grade on their class performance and not their mental state, manage this person’s work output and not their anxiety.

      1. Ellis Bell*

        See if they were actually well informed they would know it would be incredibly patronising for you to suggest someone with anxiety take an lesser option, instead of actually doing more work and prep on the situation to support their own needs properly.

      2. Smithy*

        I actually think Q2 and Q5 are part of similar trend in adjusting from how accommodations work in a schooling environment vs a professional one.

        Explaining “I have xyz cold/flu symptoms so won’t be 100% today, but I’m coming in” feels awfully similar to stating that trouble at work is due to anxiety. Essentially, it’s explaining the reason for performance (either that day or in general), but without using the tools most relevant at work. So in the case of #5, it’s using sick days and having a better sense of when to use sick days vs flagging a more chronic issue and stating the needed accommodation. Even for something as mild as seasonal allergies that may result in increased sneezing/nose blowing – things like getting an air purifier, sitting a little further away from colleagues, or flexibility for time off allergy shots.

        And then with #2, it is working with the EAP or a therapist to list out the workplace requests that can be presented to their boss. Different from many school accommodation processes, the point isn’t to share the diagnosis while also discussing support needs – but rather just to share support needs and then figure out the right work equipment or tools to best support that. ADA, FMLA, etc.

        I do think that part of the effort to destigmatize mental health at work is for many people being able to have that conversation with your supervisor about needing time off for a specific kind of doctor’s appointment can be beneficial. I get not for everyone, but for some it can make them feel a bit more as a whole person at work. But that’s not the same as what’s happening in both letters.

      3. Tea Monk*

        Although I say the boss shouldn’t come in with this attitude that he’s trying to say he’s anxious to get out of work. That’s going to come out in his approach and possibly make it worse

      4. Rex Libris*

        I’m always baffled that people in these situations don’t see that what they’re basically saying is “I have a problem that I have chosen not to mitigate or manage, so you should give me special consideration.” That’s not a persuasive argument to me.

        1. atalanta0jess*

          It’s worth noting that sometimes people ARE doing lots to mitigate/manage their mental health, and it’s still a problem for them. Just as one can be getting treatment for physical health but it still interferes with their ability to work.

          In fact, the letter writer above notes that the employee IS taking medication but hasn’t nailed down a helpful regimen.

          There’s this story about mental health that “asking for help” is all it takes to be better, and that’s just not (always) true.

          1. Anxiety managing anxiety*

            LW2: Thanks for this and to all for good conversation. I guess I’m stuck trying to figure out how long I give this person to navigate their struggles. I’d be open to accommodations and my sense of what a person can get done is skewed by my own workaholic tendencies.

            1. Kez*

              I can see how it would be difficult to measure when you have anxiety and a workaholic mindset yourself! I can relate as someone who is consistently “scary fast” at certain work tasks that take other people longer, since it was always difficult to judge timeframes for direct reports based on how long it would take me to do something.

              Essentially, this sounds like an opportunity for you to develop a more rounded-out management approach. Something that might be worth considering is reaching out to your peers and reviewing others employees’ onboarding milestones and timelines. Then look at output volumes and quality of employees producing satisfactory (not necessarily stellar) work. With feedback from managers of similar positions/at a similar level and your own observations, you can develop a rough timeline of what it takes to go from “total newbie” to “competent contributer”.

              If you don’t have some of this information yet, try to start collecting it over the next few months so that in future you will have the tools to assess performance and progress more accurately, and make the best guesses you can given the info you have available. Then lay out your employees’ progress against this rubric and determine whether they’ve demonstrated progress at a rate which will have them ready to contribute normally within the average timespan the other employees were able to achieve. If not, it’s time to mark the most critical of these milestones and bring them to the employee with an outline of how long they have to improve to what level in each area. From there it’s coaching when they have questions, continuing to suggest the EAP if what they are looking for is just a sympathetic ear, and preparing for the possible outcomes.

            2. Aerin*

              FWIW I’m on a 3-month medical leave while I’ve been working with my doctors aggressively on trying to address my physical and mental health concerns. It’s allowed us to change things up more rapidly and has been a godsend when some of the meds we tried proved sedating when taken in the morning. So if that’s something that hasn’t been discussed yet and you can offer it, it could be worth bringing up.

              (Although I’m a tenured high-performer, so even in my org I’m not sure a newer person would be able to do the same thing, at least not fully paid.)

              Also, I would probably think that there should be some metrics telling you how much they should be able to do, right? It should be based on how an average person does in the role, not necessarily on your own best. You might be able to check with your own manager or someone who’s done the role before to get some historical data to help you figure that out. I know in my role we expect new folks to be doing the job on their own after about 3 months, but we also expect that they’ll continue to need a pretty high level of support for the first year or so.

      5. Anxiety managing anxiety*

        LW2 here: fair points and thanks for the discussion but both manager and direct report are 40+ and (as far as I know) not active on social media.

        I see some great points on managing output not anxiety, it’s just a challenge for me how long to let substandard or late work continue while they explore diagnoses and treatment options. I don’t have a good barometer of how quickly people should be coming up to speed.

        1. Butterfly Counter*

          My 2 cents is to never let substandard work continue. They have to do the work up to your specifications of “acceptable” 100% of the time. Accommodations are giving them longer deadlines, letting them work in a low-distraction environment, giving more instruction and communication than maybe you normally would, and so on. But if the work isn’t acceptable, they need to find a new job.

          You should ask them to bring this up with their therapist to see if the therapist has ideas on what would be helpful for your employee that they can communicate to you to help accommodate them. But just accepting unacceptable work is never going to be feasible.

        2. Boof*

          I agree with Butterfly Counter – I would guess 3-6 months tops to try to orient and adjust, depending on how substandard and whether you’re seeing any improvement at all. If they can’t perform the job within 6 months, it’s probably better for everyone involved to say this is either not the right job or not the right time for this job than to keep trying to do something that isn’t really working out well for anyone (I would imagine struggling at a job would make anxiety inherently worse)

          1. Boof*

            …. Usually for a new hire I’d say 3 months is max for someone who is obviously struggling to function, but since you are already 4 months in, 6 months would make some sense.
            And I am not saying 3 months to be an ace, I am saying if someone is clearly seriously struggling right at the gate, I’d want to see a clear path to improvement/becoming adequate at the job by 3 months or everyone should move on if it’s not clear they’re likely going to succeed there.

      6. Butterfly Counter*

        I start each semester talking about this.

        “If you’re having an issue, let me know and we can find ways for you to complete your work. If it’s a chronic issue, I suggest you contact Student Disability Services right now and request accommodations. I always honor accommodations, but it’s on all of you to have done the appropriate paperwork.”

      7. OldHat*

        I’ve started to see it, but the worse offender was an older temp. Think 50s and it wasn’t her first job. I was more concerned with quality over quantity, which was different than a lot of her previous jobs. Think getting the correct number of each type of teapots in an order was more important than how many orders were fulfilled in a day. She’d be given a lot of time to do tasks and would turn in incomplete work, like only fulfilled the green teapots but forgot the black, white, and yellow teapots.

        She seemed really surprised that I didn’t lower the standards. Apparently she hadn’t had a manager like me. I suspect she either got fired almost immediately or they’d lower standards to not deal with her as much. If the term was longer, I probably wouldn’t have kept her beyond a couple weeks.

        I basically thought, that’s not my concern as we needed to focus on meeting expectations. I guess it kinda explained some of her habits, but wasn’t going change the need for correct numbers because of her anxiety.

        She’d often respond to questions about what she needed to turn in complete work with stories of her anxiety and how she did better t other jobs. I’d respond that we all do things differently and we have different needs/roadblocks, but it’s up for us to figure out how to get where we need to be. And I could only judge her on her performance now.

        I’ve managed others with anxiety (I was at a nonprofit and we had a partnership with a temp agency that employees with disabilities and anxiety was fairly common). Most have done fine and communicated when they needed more time or schedule flexibility. One other one called out so much that we had to let him go; I think that’s one way the workplace will see the impact of how we’ve been approaching mental health in schools.

    2. Anony Mas*

      I had an employee who had fairly serious anxiety that was impacting their work. Frankly, I was too flexible when the person started to exhibit issues. I should have been really clear about the expectations of the job because the fact is that if their job makes their anxiety worse, it’s not a good fit for them. I saw my flexibility as being kind, but it didn’t do the person any favors in the long run.

      2. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Yes, as AAM says in so many of her responses, it’s important to treat these issues with regards to work impact and not personal impact. Like, be understanding and say, “I know you have anxiety and it’s difficult to deal with, but we need XYZ from you [by ABC date, if necessary]. Do you think you can get that for us?” or discuss with them very specific things they need to do for the job.

      3. Anxiety managing anxiety*

        LW2: Message received. I don’t know that I’ll give my person whiplash but I can start this turn around in my approach.

    3. Malarkey01*

      As a new manager too I would advise you not to be scared of letting someone go. If you’re 4 months in and it’s a real struggle to get performance where it needs to be, that’s when it would be appropriate to have one last conversation but then take action to let the person go. I know new managers struggle with that but someone having a lot of trouble a few months in is going to most likely be a years long slog and you’ll invest way too much in training and oversight.

    4. Lucy P*

      I’m in a similar situation, but with someone I have no authority to let go of. I work with someone who has extreme anxiety. Depending on the task, my role can put me either as a coworker or as a manager to them. To an extent, I know some of their triggers, one of which is having to converse with strangers (on the phone or in person).

      Due to a large increase in my workload, my manager decided to pass off some of my work to this person, which included going to meet new vendors at an offsite location. The meetings were set for the afternoon. That morning, this person did no work that I could see. I say that, because every time I looked up, they were pacing around the office. Not just in their office, but around the entire floor of our suite. It’s not the first time they’ve done this. In the past, when they had work to do for me and it didn’t get done, it gets extremely frustrating because I end up doing, or at least finishing, the work myself.

      I think that’s why this post really grabbed me. I’m at a loss on this one and wanted to see what everyone else was suggesting.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Hoo boy, as a person who haaaaaaates making phone calls I feel for your coworker. Why did your manager decide that CW should do that part of your job? Isn’t there someone else who enjoys talking to strangers who could do that instead, thus freeing up your CW to get back to doing whatever it was he excels at that probably got him hired in the first place?

        1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

          Yeah, it seemed like they reassigned the EXACT wrong thing to your coworker. If that wasn’t the only thing that could be reassigned, and you don’t hate this type of work, maybe a little reshuffling would be helpful?

        2. Lucy P*

          -This person does not have the skillsets to do most other parts of my job. What they can do, I’ve already handed over
          -My new work tasks largely consist of calling and talking to people the entire day
          -Manager is related to CW

          I’ve been asking manager what I can do to make this easier for CW, but have essentially been told CW just has to deal with it. Seems kind of cruel to me.

          1. Boof*

            If you are not their manager it’s really not for you to deal with; I suppose if they are asking you for advice you can direct them to this site and/or encourage them to seek help with their anxiety (like, from doctor or mental health provider) if they haven’t already

          2. Boof*

            (if their anxiety is impacting your work then you have to keep informing their manager of how they are impacting you and if the manager won’t do anything, what you will do ie drop X Y or Z because you do not have time to deal with them) – usual AAM stuff for “my boss keeps expecting me to do more work than I am able to”

      2. coffee*

        You should escalate it to your manager whenever your coworker/staff member doesn’t get their work done and it affects you. Track it and show the pattern. Keep it impersonal and don’t focus on WHY the work hasn’t happened, just on the fact that it didn’t happen.

        Also a dynamic where you’re sometimes a supervisor and sometimes a coworker sounds really unwieldy and like it would not be helping the situation at all, and I would push for your manager to be the one managing at all times.

  4. SickTime*

    OP4, I would be livid if someone tried to tell me how to manage my sick time. I would never come in o an office while knowingly contagious or unable to work (I would expect to to be able to work at home), but I almost always use all of my sick time for medical appointments and usually have to manage those very tightly/make up time in the rest of a week to keep within my allotted sick time so I will work unless I’m unable to work. If my boss told me I had to go home and not work because they felt like I shouldn’t be in the office while sick but I was fully able and willing to work, you better believe I’d expect it not to count against my time. I’d also start looking for a new job immediately if they did this more than once or ever tried to tell me I had to use my sick time. No job ever has enough sick time for me to take off whenever I don’t feel well (daily) or whenever I have a symptom that other people might interpret as illness (daily).

    Of course, I also wouldn’t tell my boss I was sick under those circumstances. There might be some circumstances when I mention not feeling well if there’s a purpose (to work at home if I’m supposed to be in an office that day, for example), but in general it’s no one else’s business as long as I’m being ptoductive.

    2. Happily Retired*

      “Of course, I also wouldn’t tell my boss I was sick under those circumstances. There might be some circumstances when I mention not feeling well if there’s a purpose (to work at home if I’m supposed to be in an office that day, for example), but in general it’s no one else’s business as long as I’m being ptoductive.”

      Well, you’d best believe that if you came into my office back when I was still working, and you gave me whatever it is that you had, it’s most certainly my damn business.

      The obvious solution to this, assuming that OP4’s employee doesn’t have a primarily customer/ client-facing job, is to allow the employee to work from home that day, if they feel they can. If OP4 (or their employer) is paranoid about staff taking advantage of this, they might put limitations on the frequency with which this is allowed, but good grief, keep your puking at home!

      1. SickTime*

        I said I wouldn’t come in while knowingly contagious or work if unable to be productive – vomiting would qualify. But it is not possible for many people to never work while sick or feeling unwell or they would never work. If you can take sick time every time you feel unwell, consider yourself fortunate to be so healthy.

        1. Verity Kindle*

          I think the communicability of the illness is key here. I have a chronic illness (it sounds like you might too, SickTime) and if I didn’t come to work when I was feeling ill I’d never work. But I’m not threatening anyone else’s health by coming to work in that state! And as someone with a compromised immune system, I’d be livid if my coworker exposed me to their flu or stomach bug, both of which would put me in bed for a month, so they didn’t have to take a day or two of sick leave.

          I know how statements like ‘don’t come to work when you feel unwell’ can feel like a denial of the constant suffering that chronically ill people face, and I would change ‘unwell’ to ‘infectious’. But in this case, where OP4’s employee seems otherwise healthy, I think it’s otherwise the right advice.

          1. JMC*

            yes! Infectious is a much better description. I am chronically ill and don’t feel well every damn day, but I’m not contagious. And anyone who IS (including covid, there is still a pandemic going on) needs to stay home away from everyone.

        2. Ellis Bell*

          Okay, I get how that is your specific situation, but remember that OP is getting a “detailed text” about his ailments, before they ask him to please not bring sickness into the office, so this isn’t a case where an experienced employee expects privacy and to manage their own sick time. It’s more like a very unsure-about-work-rules person checking what’s okay and what’s not okay before making their own decision.

          2. Typity*

            He almost sounds like a kid who’s not feeling well, but instead of saying so makes a point of coughing and groaning around his parents in the morning until one of them says it’s OK to stay home. He’s looking for permission.

            LW might try making it clear that she’s willing to trust his judgment on how he feels, and it’s his responsibility to decide if he’s too sick to work. He doesn’t need LW to let him off the hook for the decision.

            2. Sloanicota*

              +1 and OP can express that this is what sick leave is for, it’s not a penalty to be expected to use it, and if this employee doesn’t have enough they can look at that together.

            3. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

              Yes, a little OT but this totally reminded be of how my parents got very adept at diagnosing the “I don’t want to go to school cough” my sisters and I did. I’m 50 and I bet my 70+ mom could still imitate the fake cough! (Not that I think the OP’s employee is faking, exactly, but I agree that he’s probably trying to both not work that day and be seen as a heroic employee that would work with all these symptoms.)

        3. Annony*

          If you are unwell enough that you need to notify your boss that you are sick so that they don’t hold you to the same standards, you are too sick to work period. What you do and what was described in the letter are completely different. When you go to work, you work. You aren’t knowingly contagious and you don’t expect any special consideration.

        4. Specks*

          Yeah, you’re building up a straw man and then feeling livid about it. This guy is clearly asking about times when he is potentially contagious.

          And as for the rest of your content, you feel “livid” if someone tries to manage your sick days, but your coworkers and boss are just supposed to accept your judgement and priorities when it comes to actually exposing them to pathogens and risking their health, and not say anything? That’s rich.

        5. biobotb*

          The LW explicitly describes times when her report clearly has something communicable and isn’t going to be productive, yet is still says he’s coming in. So if you wouldn’t do this, then if you were the LW’s report they’d never have to tell you how to use your sick time and your umbrage is entirely misplaced.

      1. Stipes*

        “knowingly” can potentially do some unfortunate work in that phrase. Some people refuse to consider whether they have something contagious, and so they technically “don’t know”, but I wouldn’t see them as blameless if they bring something to work to spread around.

        (To me, that lack of consideration is essentially the same as deciding to go in to work infectious.)

      1. SickTime*

        I said I wouldn’t come in while knowingly contagious or work if unable to be productive. If you’re healthy enough that you never have to work while feeling under the weather consider yourself extremely fortunate.

        1. anon here*

          The question is what do you do when you’re sick with something potentially, but not definitely, communicable. This has changed for a lot of people since Covid, both because there is increased awareness about the inconsiderateness of infecting your colleagues and because a lot of people are set up to wfh much better than they were before 2020. If you feel awful and you know it’s not infectious (allergies, or a chronic illness flare) and it’s not disruptive (I think vomiting is somewhat disruptive, but I don’t think a blanket rule sending everyone with morning sickness home is appropriate), then by all means. But a fever and vomiting very often connote infectiousness (and the employee hasn’t clarified otherwise) and this manager is not a jerk for jumping to that conclusion and making the call described here.

          2. Blue Pen*

            I totally agree. It also ignores the fact that these symptoms aren’t happening in a vacuum, and so when I know (or hear) that my colleague next to me is coughing up a lung or having trouble not running to the bathroom to vomit every hour, it’s going to make me and the rest of the workplace uneasy, thereby affecting our productivity. I don’t want to be around it—especially not in close quarters, touching the same surfaces, and I don’t think anyone should be faulted for having that kind of response.

          3. atalanta0jess*

            This is a good point. Pragmatically speaking, if I was sent home every time I had morning sickness, I would have been sent home every day.

            1. anon here*

              same, which is why it came to mind. Once I hit up the bathroom three times before noon. That was a bad day.

        2. amoeba*

          Well, but then you’re obviously not in the same situation as LW’s report (who does have things that are potentially contagious!), so why are you arguing at all?

      2. L-squared*

        The problem is, no one knows when they or someone else is contagious. Someone could have a bad cough, be on antibiotics and not contagious at all. Someone could also feel fine and be contagious.

        1. RC*

          +1 You can not be vomiting but still be spewing infectious aerosols into shared airspace just from breathing/talking, as we learned (didn’t learn) from covid. A whole lot of people are really bad at knowing whether they’re infectious (plus if nobody has reliable tests, “is it allergies or is it covid” might not even be known), which is what gives me pause here.

    6. Yikes.*

      Wow. So your comfort (not taking sick leave) trumps everyone else’s in the office?

      I get sick easily. I run out of sick leave every year, so you know what I do rather than get my coworkers sick? I use my vacation time. As a result I run out of that too. But you know what? At least I’m making it my problem instead of everyone else’s.

    7. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Fine if you can work from home, but we don’t know if this employee can do any of their work from home – many jobs have to be 100% in person.

      A manager can – and should – send any employee home who is infectious or vomiting. They have to consider the interests of all employees, not only the person who doesn’t want to use up sick leave.

      As for just keeping quiet about being ill: hiding an infectious illness in office could be grounds for disciplinary action, especially if a coworker is immune-compromised.

      1. SickTime*

        I guess everyone missed the part about not knowingly coming in while contagious. I am immunocompromised myself and would not do that. But if I’m not feeling well in line with the symptoms of chronic illnesses that are not contagious – which is most of the time – I’m not taking time off if I’m capable of working. If I did I wouldn’t be able to work often enough to hold a job despite being very good at what I do, wholly capable of working, and needing to support myself.

        People have asthma or allergies or other non-contagious respiratory issues. People have chronic digestive issues that are not contagious. People have all sorts of other non-contagious chronic diseases that make them feel unwell that do not make them unable to work and that they do not need to burn through sick time to deal with.

        1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

          The manager’s definition / threshold of not still infectious may be different to yours, or they may be concerned that e.g. allergy symptoms are hiding something infectious. Their level of caution generally overrides yours.

        2. Verity Kindle*

          I think a key difference here is that the kind of chronic conditions you’re describing are complex and difficult to treat, which in practice means that the ill person is an expert in managing their condition, and will be able to reassure their boss that x symptom is normal for them and not a sign that they’re contagious. Managing these symptoms might come up as part of an accommodation plan for their illness.

          By contrast, the kinds of fevers and GI upsets that OP is describing sound like common viruses, which many people do have experience in managing. In this context, it’s much more appropriate for the manager to contribute health/contagion advice because the condition is so much more common.

          You’re making the point that managing illness and symptoms is fundamentally different when they’re caused by a chronic condition, and I think that’s exactly the point. There’s no evidence that OP’s report has any such condition, and so Alison’s advice, which doesn’t work for chronically ill people, does apply here.

        3. Irish Teacher.*

          I think the concern is that people often don’t know if they are contagious. You may be a good judge of your health/may always get a doctor’s opinion, but your employer has no way of knowing that and there are many people who make mistakes because most of us aren’t qualified to tell the difference between what is contagious and what isn’t. Allergies can have similar symptoms to colds and flus for example and it isn’t always possible to be accurate about which one has.

          I think it’s sort of a spectrum. Yes, it would be ridiculous to expect you to stay home every time you have a symptom that could potentially be something contagious, but in this case, it sounds like the employee called up and mentioned symptoms likely to indicate something contagious, so I think the LW was justified.

          It also sounds like the employee in question does have enough sick days to allow him to stay home and he just didn’t want to.

          I think your case sounds rather different from the employee in question’s. It sounds like you have a chronic illness or are susceptible to certain non-contagious illnesses and you know the symptoms whereas in the case of the LW’s employee, it sounds like he called in with symptoms that were not normal for him and which he did not know the cause of.

          1. Katara's side braids*

            Yup. The “knowingly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I don’t know SickTime so won’t make assumptions about their threshold for “knowingly contagious,” but some people I work with (in a medical office!) will refuse to test for Covid, and even discourage others from testing for Covid, so they have enough plausible deniability to say they’re not “knowingly contagious.” That’s just one example. It’s great if SickTime is always doing their due diligence to minimize the chances of spreading illness, but my own experience tells me that that’s rare.

          2. Learn ALL the things*

            This is where I come down.

            It sounds like SickTime has a chronic illness and knows that when they’re having a flare up it’s not something contagious. But that’s not something everybody knows about their medical symptoms.

            A few years ago (pre-COVID) the person in the cubicle next to me came in with what she said was allergies and definitely not contagious. Two days later she and I were both out sick with the flu. People who say they aren’t contagious don’t always know that’s true.

            1. I Have RBF*

              Yeah, I’ve had what I thought were allergies that turned out to be a summer cold.

              Ironically, I put on a mask (pre-covid) to try to reduce the pollen I was breathing, which ended up protecting other people from my cold.

              So if I am having what seem like allergies in a high pollen environment, I put on a mask to reduce the pollen I breathe. If it sharply reduces the symptoms, it proves it’s allergies. If it doesn’t, I need to think about bed rest.

          3. Turquoisecow*

            Yeah there’s been plenty of times where I thought it was allergies and then it later turned out to actually (or additionally) be a cold/flu contagious thing. So no I’m not *knowingly* contagious, but that doesn’t mean I’m *not* contagious. Do I stay home every time I have a runny nose and cough, no, but I also don’t text my boss and give them a detailed description of my symptoms, because if I did it would probably seem like I was asking for permission to take off.

            I mean if you get a text listing a bunch of symptoms, you’re probably going to respond with “gosh that sounds terrible, take sick time!” so it definitely seems like the employee is kind of hoping for that response from the boss. I think OP should tell the employee he has to manage this on his own – if he’s vomiting or seems contagious, or feels like he’s going to be too “off” to be productive, he should just say “I’m sick, taking a day,” and not rely on OP to make that decision for him. I’m taking OP at their word that they have generous sick time and he doesn’t need to worry about a day off here and there for what sounds like a non-chronic illness.

            If he makes the wrong choice, comes in, and vomits all over his desk, makes coworkers sick, or is so “off” that he makes egregious mistakes, then it’s time for OP to have a chat with him about how to decide to take off or not, but ultimately he needs to know his own abilities and make the decision on his own.

        4. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          But for this particular letter, the employee is pretty much conveying they are contagious by giving specific symptoms. They aren’t just calling in saying I don’t feel well but I will be in anyway. The symptoms, fever and vomiting, are often associated with being contagious. It is at that point that the OP is saying stay home. If the symptoms were not given, and the OP were still saying stay home, that would be a different situation.

          1. amoeba*

            This.

            I mean, if somebody’s vomiting because they’re pregnant but feels well enough to come in – OK, sure, they’re an adult, manage your sick time however you want!

            OTOH, if somebody calls and says “oh, I’ve been vomiting all night, but it was probably just my dinner, I’m pretty sure it’s not a virus” – yeah, no way, you stay home.

        5. comment section strikes again*

          Did you just really want to talk about how you often don’t feel well? Because I’m happy to give you the “you’re such a trooper, wow you have such trials and tribulations and yet you power through” appreciation if that’s what you’re looking for, but it’s pretty obvious to anyone not looking through a lens of projection that the LW (and the people responding to the LW situation) are talking about something entirely different.

        6. mlem*

          People have allergies and so assume literally every symptom is “just allergies” so they’re “sure” they’re “not contagious”.

        7. biobotb*

          Yet the employee is clearly calling the LW when he has an infection. He isn’t saying, my chronic illness is flaring but I’ll power through. So you’re getting worked up about an entirely different scenario.

    8. WS*

      Yeah, but you’re obviously not new to the workforce and having the oversharing issue that this employee is having! You’re managing your sick leave appropriately and thus it’s not your manager writing in.

      1. Smithy*

        I think this is the real issue. This employee is missing the professional norms about being sick.

        First – if they’re coming in while clearly feverish or throwing up or similar, then it is very relevant for a supervisor to clearly articulate when someone should be using sick days. And if there’s a fear of using them up, that’s an additional conversation.

        Second – I think most of us have come into work while facing various ailments – some very serious, some less so. But if you’re going to do that, you don’t also tell your supervisor – and particularly not to that degree of symptom detail. You might say something like “I think I might have a cold coming on – fist bumps only for now!”, but those are subtleties in work place behavior that this young person will benefit from someone explaining directly.

        1. Sharon*

          Agree – the manager should just tell them not to text about their symptoms if they feel well enough to perform their work within a normal range of productivity. It’s expected to have days when you’re not working at the top of your game for a variety of reasons and this is not something the manager needs to be informed of.

    9. Roland*

      > I would never come in o an office while knowingly contagious or unable to work

      Sounds like a completely different situation from the OP

    10. Varthema*

      Okay but it’s pretty clear that the person in the OP’s letter is weaponizing the strategy – oooohh I’m suuuuper sick but I’m coming in anyway… unless you tell me not to…” (expectant pause)

      It’s honestly not something super surprising from someone young and recently out of school, I feel like school (and terrible jobs) train us to seek loopholes to game the system at every turn, and it’s only with age and maturity we realize that it’s not a good look.

      2. Ana Gram*

        Yeah, sounds like a kid trying to get mom to let them stay home from school. The manager would be doing him a favor to explain the norms around sick leave.

      3. Santiago*

        It’s not even weaponization, it’s someone new to the workplace who doesn’t understand that sick leave at work is better than the expectations at school.

        1. Smithy*

          Absolutely.

          The more I think about this – especially the term weaponized – I wonder if this is a young person who’s seen family or peers have jobs where extra work from home or work from home at all was only given under circumstances deemed relevant by a supervisor. So asking to work from home on X day wouldn’t be granted, but if you wrote in about being super snotty with a low-grade fever or alluded to wild gastric distress that could secure you work from home.

          If this person’s job doesn’t allow any work from home or doesn’t afford that kind of extra approval – this is someone who’s learned a workplace behavior that may be 100% relevant or useful in some places but not this one.

    11. TheBunny*

      This is very *you* focused. I understand your frustration, but if there’s a chance you can get ME sick, and we work in close quarters, stay home and use sick time. I’ll do the same if I’m sick.

      1. KateM*

        Yeah, sounds like while SickTime would be livid if someone tried to tell them how to manage their sick time, they’d find it OK for themselves to force their colleagues to use *their* sick time.

          1. Anonnn*

            I entirely get what SickTime is saying because I’m in a very similar position myself.
            Moreover, I personally feel very little, if any, responsibility, to an employer and coworkers who showed they felt NO responsibility to me by doing some of the following:
            my boss (owner) coming in to work knowingly sick, unmasked, despite the fact that they suspected they had covid. this person could stay home and work from home or not work AND not worry about getting paid, obviously.
            the coworkers who refused to mask at all once they weren’t required to and made zero accommodation for me, even though I am high risk and live with someone high risk.
            the boss and supervisor who refused to make any accommodation for me, mocked the simple ones I requested, lied about what they promised, and then mocked or yelled (screamed) at me when I had the nerve to say anything or object.
            Refused to let me stay home and work remotely 1 extra day beyond the “stated guidelines” after getting sick because of my contagious boss., forcing me to use vacation. Even though I was clearly working and they had allowed a coworker whose child was sick, and who clearly WASN’T working to take an extra day at the end of the week (for the record, this was a different previous week, and I was the one who suggested to my coworker that she ask for that day, as she was clearly having a hard time. I was sympathetic to her situation, but
            nobody was to me and mine).
            I very little compuction, if any, about coming in sick given the above. Maybe I’m no longer a good or ethical person, I don’t know.

          2. Adriano*

            Well, I’m not them, but it could be due to how you took the situation described in the post and moved some goalposts until you described a completely different situation, so now other people are doing the same to you.

            I mean. The post describes somebody who wants to come to the office while being definitely contagious. You then go “If my manager told me I couldn’t come in and I wasn’t knowingly contagious, I’d be livid”… Ok, but you see how these are two different things, right?

            1. anon here*

              i think we don’t know for sure that the employee is definitely contagious, but there is no grounds given for a reasonable manager to conclude that he definitely isn’t contagious! That does make a very big difference.

    12. bamcheeks*

      But LW’s employee isn’t using their sick time the way their employer needs them too.

      If the way you are using your sick time works for you and your employer, there’s no problem. If you weren’t, it would be completely reasonable for your employer to initiate a conversation where they lay out how they would like you to use your sick time. And that should also be an opportunity for you to explain why you use it the way you do and what impact it would have if you used it the way they want you to, and for the two of you to come to an agreement that works for both of you.

      But it is completely reasonable for LW to tell this employee that they cannot come to work if they have symptoms which are potentially contagious or which would create liability for the company, and that they need to count that as sick time.

    13. Nonsense*

      Do you regularly text your boss with a list of all your symptoms, specifically say you’re sick, and that you’ll be coming in anyway?

      No?

      Then you’re in a different situation to the LW’s. Maybe trying reading the question next time before you pop a blood vessel.

      1. Coffeebreak*

        Seriously. Sick time, do you list your symptoms to your boss every time you don’t feel well? No? Then move along and rant some where else.

      2. commensally*

        If I’m coming in knowing I’m having a GI flareup that’s likely to lead to, let’s say, noticeable results, I might let my supervisor know in the least detail possible, because you don’t want to surprise people with that midday. I will also reassure them I know what it is and it’s not contagious of course, which LW’s employee should be doing – but as their manager I would start with asking them if it’s likely to be contagious before ordering them to stay home. Maybe they’re doing that, but they didn’t mention in the letter.

        1. Nonsense*

          Ok, seriously, you don’t even need to tell your boss about the possibility of indigestion. If it’s due to something contagious, you’re contagious before you have obvious symptoms like vomit or diarrhea. If it’s because you ate something funny, or because of stress or whatever, then you don’t need to tell your boss. And if things progress to the point that you’re running for the bathroom from your cube, you should be staying home regardless of cause.

          1. commensally*

            The fact that a lot of people will assume that if you have to run from your cube you need to go home right away is why I would want to warn people in advance that I don’t need to.

            Again, for people who have those kinds of issues too often to be able to burn sick leave on them when they’re not contagious and capable of working, and know how to deal with it, they know better than you if they can be at work or not.

    14. LW*

      LW here:

      Letter writer here:
      His job can’t be done from home.

      He’s never texted me with anything less than vomiting, high fever or explosive shits. I just didn’t right all that out in the letter because it’s gross. The texts aren’t fun to read. I’m not trying to “manage” his sick time, I’m trying to keep my entire office from getting suck which seems to happen every time. Your reaction is a lot.

      1. anon here*

        Ew.

        “That sounds either too disruptive or possibly contagious for you to safely be in the office. The expectation is for you to use sick leave. If you’re concerned about running out, please discuss that with me when you’re better.”

      2. xylocopa*

        Aw man, this guy could use a conversation about what he doesn’t need to share in the workplace. In terms of germs AND information.

        He may have been in a workplace before where that was the norm–gotta prove commitment by coming in no matter what–or a lot of people he knows are in workplaces like that. But he isn’t now.

      3. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

        Gross and very likely communicable illnesses. Either a chronic oversharer – which he could be told to stop – or he believes in this “one weird trick” to preserve his sick leave – disabuse him of this.

        In this particular case, the OP absolutely should order him to stay home, because she has a duty of care to her other employees to keep obvious health hazards out of the workplace.

        As always, most pp here assume wfh is an option, when for the majority of jobs it is not – as the OP stated is the case here.
        Those with chronic illnesses requiring a lot of days at home really need – as distinct from prefer – jobs that are genuinely remote and not just with wfh carved out as a grudging accommodation.

      4. Where’s the Orchestra?*

        Yeah – No, that sounds like the kid is still learning and thinks this is his magic ticket to preserve often limited sick time. Sounds like you need to have a meeting with them explaining the office norms around sick time and call out norms. And I’d document all of this as well – so he knows he can’t keep playing the “I’m sick but still going to come in because I want to turn my Sick Time into extra vacation days” game.

      5. learnedthehardway*

        I don’t quite understand why you say his work ethic is questionable – do you mean that he is over-committed to being at work even when he is quite ill?

        Your staff member is junior. He may be working on the assumption that he has to be present unless practically dying. Or that he has to prove he is sick enough to stay home – a la high school.

        I would have a conversation with him (when he’s not sick) to let him know that he can call in sick if unable to work or if he is contagious, and that you trust him to know when that is the case. You don’t need or want details. If he has an extended absence or frequent absences, then he’d need a sick note from a doctor (or whatever your company’s policy is).

        1. LW*

          Because his work ethic in all aspects of his work is questionable. This *could be* a piece of that. As an example, he was off two days from work and the first thing he asked me when I walked in on the day he came back was, “when can I leave.” I hadn’t even set my bass down yet. That, plus other examples, and I start to question work ethic. I also recognize he is young and learning.

          1. Where’s the Orchestra?*

            Sounds like a conversation is in order then – be polite but firm in setting the norms and expectations around sick leave and how much information you really want to get in those call out messages.

            And then it probably needs to expand into a series of chats on just office/industry and professional norms in general.

      6. Reindeer Hut Hostess*

        LW, as someone who lives with a very high-rish family member (who was recently hospitalized three times, including a week in ICU, after being exposed to COVID), I want to thank you for your approach with this young employee who is still learning workplace norms. He should not be coming into the office and “sharing the love” of his various communicable illnesses.

    15. Verity Kindle*

      I think this thread is driving towards the conclusion that it’s much more appropriate for a boss to tell their employee how to use their sick leave when they’re acutely and contagiously ill. Chronic illnesses are a completely different beast, but the employee will be able to communicate if that’s the case.

      1. Jackalope*

        I’ve had a handful of times when I was having symptoms of something chronic that made me look sick. If anyone at work asked, I would just say, “Allergies, you know?” (or whatever was appropriate) and they’d be fine. Or for a chronic issue, “It’s a chronic thing, I’m not contagious.” I know that wouldn’t work with all coworkers but honestly it’s worked well with mine (who are decent adults who respect privacy). No one, bosses included, feels that I can’t make my own decisions about pushing through chronic issues; they just don’t want me to get them ill with something contagious.

      2. commensally*

        An employee won’t necessarily know to communicate that, especially if the chronic illness is relatively new, or doesn’t have a clear diagnosis. And some may be hesitant to do so even if they’re old hands at it, because it can absolutely lead to bad repercussions if a manager knows you have a chronic illness – there’s reasons we have guidelines about healthcare privacy in the workplace – and lots of letters about workplaces that violate it. It shouldn’t be a worry, but it is. In a situation like this the manager needs to manage by helping to make sure the employee does know how to communicate around that, and is comfortable doing so, especially with someone new to the workforce.

    16. Dread Pirate Roberts*

      I think what you’re saying is your circumstances are nothing like what the letter writer is facing, so the AAM advice is solid.

    17. ItsAllFunAndGamesUntil*

      Ahhhh, you’re the one bringing covid, the flu, or whatever else is going around town currently.
      And I would be estatic when you found another job as a fellow workerbee.

    18. Lynn*

      Where I work at we do not get paid sick days

      So, if I do not go to work when I am sick, I do not get paid

      I also 1) do not have the option to make up my time or 2) do not have the option to work from home

      1. Elsewise*

        That sucks, but is also not the situation the letter is about. LW made it clear that the employee DOES have paid sick time.

    19. Helewise*

      It doesn’t sound like your situation is what the letter is asking about, though.

      If you were to repeatedly come in with a contagious illness when you have sick time available, I would be perfectly fine with you looking for a new job. Treating co-workers with consideration is important in an office.

    20. Tea Monk*

      Yea it’s pretty tricky because of the short amount of sick time available. Im glad my boss said my coworker had to go home ( pneumonia) but a lot of times Ive been sick and stayed home and my boss just pretended I worked ( because I did some computer work between coughs)

    21. commensally*

      Yeah, sounds like LW #4 has good reason to believe the employee is contagious – but as someone who gets unpredictable chronic health flareups that aren’t contagious but involve things that might appear contagious, I’m on your side here. If I had to stay home any time I felt ill one way or another I would probably be out about half the time. (And it’s not really possible for anyone who doesn’t know the employee’s full medical situation to judge if they are likely to be contagious or not – all kinds of symptoms can be all kinds of things.) If I feel comfortable with my manager and I’m having an especially bad day, or if the symptoms are something that might be obvious to others, I would want to let them know that I’m having symptoms but not contagious and can still work.

      So my advice in this situation would be to let the employee know that it’s policy that you should not come to the office if you’re likely to be contagious (but, if you’re actually having that policy, you need to enforce it accurately! That means for example making people take a full week off for colds even if they feel better!) And also tell them that if they are having symptoms that they know aren’t contagious then you don’t need the gory details, just a head’s up that they may be feeling off.

    22. Paint N Drip*

      You’re conflating different things. You wouldn’t like to be told how to manage your sick time, but you’re managing your sick time unlike the employee in question. The employee WOULD come in with communicable illness, so apparently needs some guidance on using sick time.

    23. fhqwhgads*

      Your entire reason for being livid is irrelevant to your scenario as in your scenario, you’re saying you’d never come in when actively sick. The employee in the letter is detailing precisely how sick they are, announcing it, and then coming in anyway.
      So either you’re saying you’d be mad at the OP for doing something that they wouldn’t need to do with you (telling you not to come in when sick) or you’re saying you’d come in anyway but hide it if you decided you’re not contagious but are able to work? Because you’re not necessarily in a position to know if you’re contagious or not.

    24. NaoNao*

      I suspect this isn’t about him being sick at all, it’s about him wanting to toot his own horn about “working so hard” through his illness and getting “credit” for being suchhhhhh a hard worker.

  5. Bilateralrope*

    LW1, you say the name is unique. But what have you done to make sure that you found his criminal records ?

    If he merely has a rare name, you might have found criminal records of the wrong person.

    1. Pennyworth*

      ‘Unique’ is a much abused word.
      I doubt if this man is the only person in the world with that name.

      1. Delta Delta*

        I am a woman with a fairly unique name. There is a woman with the same first and last name (different middle) who, in fact, is a sex offender in another state. I’ve done a lot of professional and other things, so if someone googles me they get that info, but if they do an image search, they get photos of this other person, which then leads to the other person’s criminal history.

      2. Dust Bunny*

        I would not be surprised if I am the only person in the world who has my name, especially if you factor in my also-uncommon middle name.

      3. Tippy*

        Maybe not in the world, but when coupled with a particular geographical area and other identifying factors (race, appx. age) you can certainly narrow it down to an individual.

        1. atalanta0jess*

          This may not be correct. My husband has an unusual name, such that on facebook there are only 4 of them. Those four are him, his dad, another similarly aged guy from his hometown, and HIS dad, and they are all the same type of pacific islander.

          1. Tippy*

            My first name is unique enough that there are 6 of us in my state. Coupled with my semi-unusual last name, I’m it. I’m not saying that it’s always the case but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

    2. KateM*

      OP writes “it’s easy to find someone with a unique name” but never actually says that New Hire does fall into this category – maybe he doesn’t.

      1. Margaret Cavendish*

        I think it’s reasonable to assume he does! OP included the comment about a unique name as a way of confirming they’re reasonably sure that New Hire and Sex Offender are the same person.

        If New Hire doesn’t fall into this category, and his name is actually John Smith, then there would be no reason for OP to mention unique names at all. It would be completely irrelevant, almost like saying it’s easy to find people who like to eat steak when we know for sure that New Hire is a vegetarian.

    3. Magpie*

      I have a name that sounds very unique but surprisingly, there’s another person in my mid sized city with the same name who’s close to the same age. Thankfully she’s never gotten up to anything because I imagine it would be very easy to confuse us when doing background searches like the LW did.

      1. soontoberetired*

        i have a very unique last name but there are at least 4 other people in the midwest near me with the same name and if we are related, it goes back to the early 1800s. My great grandfather was an only child. :) I know they exist because I would get phone calls for them when landlines were the norm.

    4. Dinwar*

      I have a somewhat rare combination of names, shared between my father, grandfather, me, and my son. People who have known us for decades still routinely get us confused, much to our amusement.

      I also know a guy who had a similar first and last name, but different middle name with similar-looking letters–think “R” vs “B”, something like that. The guy I knew got into some trouble with the police over a warrant on the other guy, and he had to show up in court with three forms of ID to prove that he wasn’t the one the cops wanted to arrest.

      I have a lot more stories, too. One involving digging a grave in the wrong position. It does happen, even with fairly rare names.

  6. Zarniwoop*

    #1 Does your job involve contact with minors? If not, unless you think this guy deserves to be sentenced to lifelong poverty he needs to get a job somewhere.

    1. not like a regular teacher*

      He was hired in violation of company policy. He can get a job somewhere that doesn’t have that policy. Or go back in time and not solicit a minor for sex.

      1. Nodramalama*

        Why are you so convinced that you know everything that has happened being the scenes to be this convinced you’re correct? For all you and LW knows the reason the background check took a long time is because their new coworker shares their name with this person.

      2. TheBunny*

        Neither you nor OP actually know this. The assumption OP is making is that policy was violated or this person wouldn’t work here. That’s not necessarily true.

      3. L-squared*

        Policies change all the time. Assuming OPs job isn’t complaince, its not her business.

        The company and manager chose to hire this guy. So whether policy changed, or the manager just wanted him bad enough, its not her call.

        Maybe the company decided “well, we have someone found liable for sexual abuse who is going to be president, so maybe our policy is outdated”

        Who knows. But it’s not OPs call, so she can either deal, or leave.

      4. Fluffy Fish*

        This is absolutely not something we know. OP THINKS that is what happened.

        Did you ever stop to think the check took so long because it did find this criminal record and its actually someone else with the same name?

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Once someone has served their time, imo they should not be shut out from jobs where their offence is not relevant.
      In the case of a paedophile, of course they should never at any time in the future be allowed a job with access or contact to children.
      Otherwise, either keep them locked up forever or allow them to work.

      If HR found this was indeed the person with the conviction, then they also know the date. They decide the boundaries of their employment policy.
      HR might possibly discuss their policy restrictions in the abstract, not about this particular case. Or they might shut the OP down immediately. So long as the OP stops immediately, it should be OK to ask. However, I suspect the OP really wants to know whether HR can be forced to rescind the offer, rather than merely to explain it.

      Maybe the conviction will be 7 years old by the time he starts work, or maybe they decided that because the victim was an imaginary one in the sting, it didn’t fall within their definition of a crime against an actual person. Maybe they are in the process of changing their policy e.g. reducing the 7 year limit.

      1. I didn't say banana*

        I agree. Research shows that people who are employed are less likely to reoffend. Also, the vast majority of convicted sex offenders never commit another offence. Keep this guy away from kids, sure, but don’t keep him away from all of society forever.

      2. OneAngryAvacado*

        Actually, I would argue that accuracy when it comes to two serious topics (sexual abuse, and whether certain people should be allowed to work or not) is PRECISELY what we should be aiming for. People who approach this topic without being accurate and thoughtful are the ones I don’t trust to be mature discussants.

      3. Elbe*

        This is such a hard situation. Because I agree with you, in a general sense, that once people have served their time, they shouldn’t keep being punished.

        And yet… It’s understandable that other people on the team would be deeply uncomfortable working with someone who has behaved in ways that are significantly immoral. This is affecting the LW’s work environment in a very real way, even if the new hire isn’t doing it intentionally.

        When you attempt to commit horrible acts against a child (and then unapologetically defend yourself), people not liking you is a natural consequence of that behavior. And people not liking you absolutely affects your ability to get a good job where there are lots of applicants.

      1. Paint N Drip*

        I have seen that successfully completing a program or parole can downgrade a charge, Google indicates California and Utah might do it

      2. anon here*

        In New York, we would take conditional pleas that would, after completing certain requirements, allow withdrawal of the original plea and entry of a plea to a (usually lesser) charge and a pro-forma sentence. Misdemeanors could turn into non-criminal violations, felonies into misdemeanors. They almost always required fairly intensive programs, restitution, community service or similar–not the one-day lunch hour program.

  7. allathian*

    Are there really no circumstances where contacting the EAP/getting care would be a condition of employment in the US? Seems odd given that employees in at-will states can be fired for basically any reason or no reason at all, as long as they aren’t fired for sexist, ageist, racist, ableist, etc. reasons.

    I work for the government in Finland, and here someone with substance abuse issues can be ordered into rehab as a condition of employment. Similarly, an employee with mental health issues severe enough to affect their work seriously enough to require intervention can be ordered to at least start the process of getting those issues under control.

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, everywhere I’ve worked in Europe would allow time for treatment – up to 2 years in FinalJob/Germany – but would also require that treatment as a condition of continuing employment, if the issues caused work standard or conduct to fall below the required standards.

    2. Adam*

      I think those things aren’t done *because* the US is mostly at-will employment. If you can just let someone go if they’re not working out, you don’t need to put conditions on their employment. The reason to have special conditions on employment is if it’s hard to fire someone normally and so you need carve-outs for unusual circumstances.

    3. The potted rhododendron*

      Can you please tell me why 50% of your posts remind us that you live in Finland? It’s not germane to everything and it’s becoming very Johnny one-note.

      2. UKDancer*

        Because often work rules and customs vary significantly. This is a US-run site so I expect many of the posters are as well and if one is not then it’s as well to make clear the cultural context one is posting from. This is why I have UK in my name so it’s clear where I’m posting from as it affects my experiences.

      3. londonedit*

        Presumably because whenever someone outside the US doesn’t mention it, you get people saying ‘Where do you live????? This is not a thing here’. So it makes sense to head that off at the pass. Not everyone is a regular reader of the comments.

        1. Hlao-roo*

          Yeah, if I’m remembering correctly, allathian had exactly that sort of “this is not a thing here!” pile-on in response to one of her comments that did not state that she’s in Finland fairly recently (sometime in the past year I think?) so she’s been mentioning Finland more often since then to head that off at the pass.

      4. Nodramalama*

        Well for one thing, where they live is directly relevant to their attitudes towards work. For another, if you find their comments annoying, just scroll right past it?

      5. Donbeadork*

        Except it is germane here. US laws/customs and Finnish laws/customs vary, so them telling us their point of reference is important.

        1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

          And even in the States, often a gov’t job and a private sector job are completely different beasts. So Allathain’s noting her location and job make sense to me, too. It’s not as if she disparaged anywhere else by doing so.

          1. amoeba*

            And which state you’re in also makes a lot of difference, right? So you also often see “I work in California and here…” Because, well, it’s relevant!

            1. I Have RBF*

              Exactly. Workplace laws and customs vary by country and state. A comment on “laws here” needs to reference where “here” is. When I make a comment about California work rules, I reference that I live in California.

      6. Mad Scientist*

        Well that was needlessly aggressive. Not everyone who reads this site regularly reads the comments and remembers usernames.

      7. Tell me you are...*

        Because context is key to understanding? Because we are constantly reminded that most people posting are in the US and those norms therefore are the default, so when discussing anything that diverges it’s important to qualify? Because it is relevant information?

      8. fhqwhgads*

        Because every time they post without mentioning it, someone follows up asking what country they’re in.

      9. biobotb*

        Because if someone is talking about the local laws/regs where they live, it can help to know where that is?

      10. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

        I am a data point. I read AAM every day (or if I miss a day, I get a fabulous catch-up day) and often read all the comments. While I recognize many usernames, I don’t remember all the details. I certainly had not noticed that Allathian mentions that they are from Finland a lot. And nor do I expect people to remember things about me, so if they’re relevant, I mention the details. This isn’t a social media site where we all have “About” pages, after all.

    4. Empress Ki*

      It’s okay to mention where we are from.
      I didn’t even know Allathian was in Finland, as I don’t read each and every comment.
      I would have wondered in which country an employer can order someone to work on their mental health issues.

    5. Kez*

      This is interesting to me, because I think it might be a case of how US equal employment law, disability accommodation laws, and at-will employment interact differently from other nations’ laws governing similar issues.

      The idea of mandating a specific treatment for a chronic health issue brings the employer into fairly risky legal territory here in the US. The EEOC and ADA make clear that employers are prohibited from requiring employees take any kind of medical test or assessment that is not “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” This means that a warehouse worker who will be lifting heavy boxes can be required to receive a physical which ensures they are capable of performing this work without injury, but the same exam would constitute illegal discrimination for an office job that is primarily performed at a desk (even if the employee might occasionally be asked to lift something heavy, it would not be seen as “job-related” and therefore the business would get in trouble for not creating a safe accommodation).

      In a real court case (Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority) an employee was exhibiting erratic and dangerous behavior that led her employer to insist she attend therapy as a condition of employment. Now there are a lot of details that went into the deciding of this case (including what was clearly a very difficult web of personal relationships in this workplace) but the end result found that mandatory counseling does meet the criteria for a required medical examination.

      So, if an employee is told that they must attend counseling or be fired, the counseling must be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” Otherwise, it’s illegally imposing a restriction on employment for a (presumed) disabled employee that would not be imposed on a (presumed) nondisabled employee. In the case of a typical office job, as compared to a therapeutic mentor or other social-emotional support career, the employer would almost certainly fail to meet the legal threshold.

      The recommendation from a legal standpoint is to focus on job performance standards and follow the typical process for performance improvement. Ideally, you mention the resources available to employees, but you never require any specific off-hours actions, especially around seeking medical treatment. If the employee makes choices that lead to improved performance, you’re good! If they do not improve, you follow the typical procedures for terminating at-will employment.

      Some people might see this as unfair or callous. Why not mandate the therapy and work out a supportive structure for the employee from there? The primary reason is that a person has bodily autonomy and should be able to dictate the terms under which they will seek treatment. In America the criteria for forcing an individual into any kind of treatment program are extremely high, and with good reason. Once a system exists that can override a person’s right to choose how they treat their body and spend their (non-work) time, it is going to be susceptible to abuse. An individual may have religious, cultural, or personal reasons to avoid certain kinds of treatment that should not be overridden simply because their employer believes they know what will best resolve their performance issues at work.

      That brings us to the second issue: employers are not their employees’ doctor. The LW or any employer might have good reason to suspect that therapy (or medication, or a yoga regimen, or a dietary change, you see the issue here) will resolve a performance issue. However, the picture we paint of ourselves in the workplace is usually quite distinct from how we describe ourselves to medical professionals being paid to help us. An employee who is adamantly averse to attending therapy because of traumatic experiences in a similar setting earlier in life should be able to discuss their treatment options with a medical professional, not their boss. Even if it weren’t wildly inappropriate for your employer to diagnose and prescribe treatment for a condition, there is never a guarantee that a specific treatment will work!

      This is the final point, and the one I would suggest the Letter Writer, who sounds deeply sympathetic to this employee, consider carefully: health is complex, and it is not possible to guarantee that any specific treatment will achieve any specific outcome. If this employee goes to therapy, you might see improvements at work. You might also see work performance suffer as they exhausted by processing difficult experiences afresh or realize that they’ve been spending more time and energy on work than makes them happy and they want to pursue hot air balloon touring. Regardless of what path an employee takes pursuing treatment, you as an employer can only evaluate their performance, lay out reasonable expectations and consequences, and follow through within the bounds of the law.

      2. Account*

        Thank you for this well-reasoned and well-explained explanation. Internet comments sections usually default to “Well it’s because America is terrible!” or “It’s because the European countries are communist!” But you’ve done such a good job of explaining WHY this particular part of the system is the way it is.

      3. Hush42*

        This makes a lot of sense. But I am curious where the lines a really drawn-
        My sister in law’s mom has an issue with alcohol and it got to the point, a few years ago, where it was negatively impacting her performance at work (she was going in drunk). She works as a 911 operator so it was an issue of public safety. She was on the verge of being fired when one of her co-workers helped her research the benefits they have and she was able to attend rehab paid for by the county that she works for, and was able to keep her job because she agreed to go to rehab. But I suppose the difference is that her employer didn’t require her to go to rehab, she volunteered to go to rehab if it meant she kept her job.

        1. I should really pick a name*

          The result should be the requirement, not the process.
          What if she went to rehab and was still going to work drunk? Technically she met the requirement.

          Now it’s understandable if the arrangement was “I’m going to rehab, please wait until I’ve gotten through that to make any decisions.”

          Also, it’s entirely possible that the requirement wasn’t legal. Companies definitely do illegal things, sometimes without realizing it.

  8. Nodramalama*

    Lw5 I had both a maths and science tutor in my last year of high school and would be very confused if they suggested their priority was to be my cheerleader. I wanted their priority to be improving my maths and science skills so I could do better in my exams.

    1. KateM*

      Yeah, I’m sure that parents (at least those who do job interviews for their children’s tutors) can do the cheerleading themselves, what they need is someone who teaches the material.

      1. bamcheeks*

        This really depends! There are lots of children who need to know that someone other than their parents, who is an expert on the material believes in them. Tutors aren’t interchangeable and it’s great that LW can articulate what their strengths and approach are. That might not be what every customer is hiring for, and that’s OK. They can hire someone else.

        1. Paint N Drip*

          Totally agree. Learning needs to start from a place of being willing to learn, and if a kiddo is at the point of needing a tutor their confidence and love of learning might be beaten down a bit. I’d guess OP serves this niche rather than the ‘push it to the next level’ tutoring

      2. Dust Bunny*

        You would think, but a lot of parents don’t (mine did, but I had a lot of friends whose parents either didn’t seem to care or were actively so critical that they made generally good students feel worse).

      3. Dontbeadork*

        I’ve had students who really just needed me to be a cheerleader for them. They could do the work, but between their parents’ high expectations and the sudden shift from general science in middle school to a more focused, higher standards class in high school (pre-AP in my case), they bobbled. Often just a little encouragement/reassurance is enough for a kid to find their feet again, sometimes we needed to work more intentionally on the subject matter. A good tutor would be flexible enough to know which would best serve the student’s need.

      4. Eukomos*

        It’s not uncommon for people to hire tutors with expectation that the tutor will help the student with class content, and then the tutor discovers that the student is doing fine with the content and the best way for them to improve their grade is to improve a study skill of some kind instead. A very common example is controlling test anxiety, or setting up an effective study schedule. It frequently comes as a surprise to non-teachers! There’s a lot more to teaching than laying out facts in front of a kid and telling them to memorize them.

        1. Alternative Person*

          Diagnosing the issue is a big deal! Sometimes helping them improve their test approach makes a big difference.

    2. Cheerleader*

      I worked as a calculus tutor in college and a lot of my job, especially with women, was building up the confidence of students that they did, in fact, know enough to solve the problems.

      Call it cheerleading. Call it deconditioning internalizing years of hearing girls are bad at math. Call it building up confidence. Regardless, most of the time that was what students needed to improve. Yes, I did that by showing them how to solve problems while convincing them they could do it again later without my help, but that’s mainly what I did. And it worked.

      1. Nodramalama*

        Ok well, I am a woman and I am also actually bad at maths and I needed a tutor to help me. Which is why they were hired, and the results were very clear in that my grades got better

        1. bamcheeks*

          But people need different things? Nobody is saying that building confidence is the ONLY approach. Some people understand the process but need more time to practice it, some people need to understand the bigger picture so the technical process makes sense, some people need confidence and motivation. Why is that remotely controversial?

          1. Apex Mountain*

            I don’t think that’s controversial, but as you mention it sounds like building confidence IS the only thing the LW is mentioning in their approach which is why the advice is to mention both that and tangible results

        2. biobotb*

          And it sounds like Cheerleaders’ tutees also got better as their confidence improved. So why would confidence-building not be an appropriate aspect of tutoring?

        3. fhqwhgads*

          Some parents hire tutors because the kid is struggling and need more one-on-one assistance than they’ll get in class, or the teaching style of the teacher isn’t working for them and they hope the style of the tutor will or some other flavor of “the kid needs or wants help”. Other parents hire tutors because they want their kid to be Academics All The Time How Dare You Get A B+ On Anything All You Will Do Is Study, or something more in that vein. Are we trying to get a D to a B, or a C to an A? Are trying to get an A- to an A+? Are we aiming for “any passing grade”? Are we trying to take a kid who does know the stuff but gets so stressed out by tests that they make silly mistakes and score poorly even though they could teach another kid how to do the math?
          The outcomes the parent expects in those scenarios are different. What will actually help the kid will be different. What the tutor might do to both help the kid and placate the parent will be different.

      2. Cj*

        calculus was one of the most difficult classes I took in college, mostly because I hadn’t taken a math class since 9th grade algebra.

        I didn’t have a tutor (but did manage to get a B in the class), but if I did have a tutor, what would have built up my confidence was understanding what they were telling me, and doing well on practice tests that I would imagine good tutors give you.

        the way you describe your approach, while you did try to build up their confidence, you say you taught them how to solve the problems. I would assume this was so they would do better on tests, and get a better grades.

        the way the letter writer described what they do, and what they told the parent, it sounds more like they only do the motivation and cheerleading stuff, and don’t necessarily give the student the tools to do better on tests/grades. which to me is the whole point of having a tutor.

        if the letter writer does give the students practice problems and, in the students show improvement after their tutoring, then they should be explaining that to the parent as well as telling the parent that they try to motivate and be a cheerleader for the student.

        1. Cheerleader*

          Yes, all true, but most of them actually did know what to do, they just didn’t have confidence that they did. So the showing them what to do was mainly part of a mechanism to trick their brain into thinking they’d learned new material.

          Now, I wouldn’t advertise it that way to them, and if I did it would almost certainly be a lot less effective, but I can understand describing it that way to someone else asking about how to tutor math.

          I guarantee you every single one of the people I tutored genuinely believes I taught them the material, but in actuality it was true maybe 25-30% of the time (if that).

          1. Spooz*

            I spent a lot of time at school thinking I wasn’t very clever and worrying that I was going to fail my exams. I was at one of the top schools in the country and consistently ranked in the top half of the class on tests in most subjects. I could really have done with a cheerleading tutor to convince me I could really do it! I often sort of froze because I just quietly panicked, even though I managed to unfreeze myself enough to complete (and pass well) the test. I’m sure I could have been truly excellent at something if I could have spent all the effort on improvement that I instead spent worrying silently.

        2. Jackalope*

          But the LW did say that she does that. She specifically mentioned going over material at the beginning and end to make sure her students had a better grasp of it at the end. Her method of discussing it with her students may lean into the cheerleader bit (“See how much you’ve learned? It feels like a difficult concept, but you’ve made a ton of progress today.”), but she’s still checking to make sure that her students are actually growing in understanding.

      3. Delta Delta*

        And in this context “cheerleader” could be a shorthand for OP’s teaching style. There isn’t one correct way to do things.

      4. Emmy Noether*

        Yes. I didn’t officially tutor, but I did help quite a few classmates study in exchange for snacks, and the #1 problem seemed to be the mental block from believing that Math Is Too Hard. I always considered them being less stressed and afraid a greater success than whatever improvement in grade (but I did it as an act of friendship, so that seems natural).

      5. Mango Freak*

        But wouldn’t you measure the success of that in some way? You were a tutor, not a therapist–you were building their confidence so that they could get better grades, right?

    3. Florp*

      I have a son with a learning disability. Half of his tutoring was just-the-facts learn the skill, and half was absolutely confidence building. Every new class and teacher gave him a sense of “what fresh hell is this,” and having someone other than his mom say “I think you can do this” before a test, and “I knew you could do it” after a test was golden.

      I have a friend who owns a tutoring business, and she says the smart kids are most in need of confidence building when they need a tutor–they are used to getting things right away, and struggling with a subject is a new and daunting experience.

      OP5–my son had tutors ask him, at the end of a semester or unit, if he could name something he mastered, whether it was the subject itself or a study skill he developed, or if still needed help on something. Obviously you need to keep your students’ privacy, but you can anonymize those discussions and use them as examples of success when talking to parents. You can also use that as an opportunity to (gently) explain the idea of continuous, incremental improvement. No one suddenly gets good at a subject–it’s a marathon, not a sprint.

    4. darsynia*

      This is well put. As a mom I would be concerned about a tutor who was focused on the cheerleading alone rather than the encouraging + results, and I would quite frankly be taking the language as a possible red flag to avoid admitting that they don’t usually get results. I don’t mean this as rude to LW5, more than it’s good to have a perspective on why someone might Not Have The Same View when it comes to those questions.

      I can find free cheerleaders for my kids! I’d be paying for access to a tutor that can help them do better.

      1. darsynia*

        (I would like to add, everyone needs something different, and that’s okay! I don’t want to devalue the cheerleading part as much as illustrate, for the person who wrote in, why it might be that people are reacting in maybe a negative or confused way. Sidestepping results or saying ‘the important part is that they feel good’ feels concerning to me, crucially *even if that statement is true*)

      2. Alternative Person*

        Yeah, as much as I hate the test driven environment, unfortunately these results matter especially because tutoring aint cheap. Having some examples of successes on hand and presenting the confidence boost as a bonus might be the way to go.

    5. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      LW5 here. Let me clarify that I use the style of cheerleader and confidence builder, while actually doing homework and test prep on class topics almost all the time. Frequently the students I work with are not getting much cheerleading at home or school, so I want to be on “Team Student” as much as possible.
      I tend to start a session with a check in of “how do you feel about this topic? do you understand some of it/none of it/all of it?” and then I ask the same question at the end. During the tutoring session, as the student grows in independence (hopefully) I will give them lots of ‘good job’ and ‘well done’ remarks. If I have to correct them, I will say ‘so close’ instead of ‘that’s wrong!’
      Another tool for me is that I am not afraid to look things up I do not know [thank you internet on my phone!] so students know it is okay to not know everything.

      1. Nodramalama*

        Ok but what you’re describing is an approach, not the outcome. As a tutor the common sense deliverable is that the child’s grades improve.

        1. MMC*

          As a professional tutor, you know you cannot dictate what happens with a student’s grade (especially if it’s incremental, like B to A.) You can point out that helping with study skills and cheerleading often leads to better grades.

          I would not take a client whose parents want a guarantee of a better grade.

  9. HiddenT*

    LW3: I would suggest if it comes up again, maybe try to reframe it as “I’d be fine with being called ‘widget mentor’ instead”. Being called a “mom” in this setting is understandably gross in a gendered way, but asking them to reframe it as you being a mentor makes it feel more professional, I think, because it sounds like you very much are acting as a mentor even by selling your expertise, it’s still obviously helping a lot of people in the industry. It may also help them rethink how they frame gender in professional settings, which is also good!

    1. New Jack Karyn*

      I really like this! It’s requesting a change, but in a way that preserves the relationship.

      1. On Fire*

        Widget Wizard was my thought, too. :-) Or something similarly alliterative + impressive for the actual term in LW’s field.

    6. Florp*

      Mentor is a much better word!

      FWIW, when someone calls me mom in the workplace, I point out that they are essentially setting up a power dynamic in which they are the child, and do they really want to signal that they should be taken less seriously? I never act as if I’m offended, I just say it warmly and with concern for them, and it works really well without upsetting anyone. I think I’ll add that I prefer mentor from now on.

    7. anonymous anteater*

      I prefer widget whiz! Although widget is a placeholder for this letter, so we are all brainstorming the wrong thing, lol!

      1. Observer*

        I prefer “mentor” because it gets at what people are trying to say in a way that “wiz” doesn’t. But it does it in a way that’s not gendered.

    10. Kay*

      This is exactly what I was going to say. Find a word that you like that is ungendered and suggest that instead, like “guru” or “coach” and redirect to that.

    12. CanadaGoose*

      Yes, I came to the comments to see how many others wanted to suggest another term to define the work/role, and I agree that mentor is a good fit. And after doing the “what might a privileged man doing this be called?” thing in my head, OP4 may also like to claim “thought leader”.

  10. Ellis Bell*

    LW5, maybe you can use your own assessment methods for your success stories? The grades they’re getting in school are one way to assess, but you must have your own tests to find the student’s level at the outset, to plan lessons that address their misconceptions, and to then sign off that they’ve met the goal you set for them. When I tutor, I specialise in reading and writing strategies so I have an assessment that measures reading age at the outset. If it’s high I give them a formal exam style assessment with a set mark scheme and we mark it to find strengths and weaknesses. We’ll do another after working together on the goal set. It needs to be in line with what they’re working towards in school, or you’re pulling against the teacher. If it’s low, I give them a more bespoke test that measures reading speed and accuracy to test if they have a decoding issue, and if they do, I set out a decoding strategy (and might suggest dyslexia testing and strategies). At the end of our time together, I can tell you their reading age has improved by X years, their reading speed/accuracy has improved by Y, and their grades in exam conditions have improved by Z. I’m sure you do something like this, how else would you set out a plan of action? I do recommend working with teachers were you can, though.

      1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

        I struggled this summer to generate appropriate assessments and activities that hit the sweet spot for a student starting high school who was missing very basic math skills from grade school because of 2020. They were getting by but we were not going to spend the summer drilling flashcards or worksheets. The teacher threw a packet as well, which was neither here nor there. The student would forget most topics from week to week. They play a musical instrument at a very high level, so it seemed obvious to me that motivation was key. So now we are going to go over a PSAT book so the math piece will be more practical because test-taking just goes faster if you internalize your math facts. If you don’t, the natural consequences of low test scores follow… no teacher needs to be involved with this story.

  11. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP4 (sick but still going to come in) – I thought at first it could be due to “one weird trick” he thinks he’s discovered to calling in sick without using sick time, but if it’s not that I think for some reason he feels “guilty” (or similar) about using sick time, or that it will be held against him. So in saying he has these symptoms but is still going to come in, if his manager then says don’t come in it removes his “agency” in calling out sick. Has he worked in places before where using ‘too much’ of your sick time will get you Talked To – I wonder.

    1. Brain the Brian*

      Similarly, I was thinking that he seems to see sick time as something to use only for an “unexcused” absence — like you would at school or, perhaps, in some retail settings. He needs a reality check on the way sick leave functions in an office setting: you use it when you’re sick, and there’s no concept of “excused” versus “unexcused” sick leave.

      1. anon here*

        Interestingly, this can vary by workplace in opaque ways. My old job had a couple of “unplanned” days, which were scarce and didn’t roll over, and I found myself very reluctant to use them, even when very obviously appropriate (stuck in a blizzard three states away).

        My job now has “sick leave” in a separate pot, but in our timecards it’s coded as “sick, no note,” “sick, with note,” “sick, family”, etc, and there are technically rules (if you are using more than three consecutive sick days, you need a note; no more than five sick days a year can be used to care for family), but in practice, I’ve never heard of anyone being called on the carpet or questioned. (Which is the important bit.) But I can see someone getting nervous or scarcity-minded by all the caveats and subcodes, etc.

      2. Frankie Mermaids*

        I also immediately thought of a retail environment! I had a full-time retail gig out of college. I was paycheck to paycheck and hourly, so calling out meant losing money. It took me a while once I was in a corporate salaried gig to separate the idea that “using sick time” means “can’t buy groceries next week”. I think it would be a kindness to this employee to make sure he understands the sick day benefit and that it doesn’t roll over to the next year. If he’s early enough in his career to be sharing all the dirty details with his supervisor, he may not understand other norms.

      3. Where’s the Orchestra?*

        Agreed – this sounds like very young and new to work force employee with a side of oversharing. Even if it’s an attempt at some weird Sick Leave hoarding hack I think the solution is the same – have a conversation with the employee about Sick Leave usage, office norms, and what information the company REALLY needs (wants) with regards to using sick leave and a call out.

    3. Riggs*

      Yeah, I definitely read this as him not wanting to use sick time, but I don’t see it as guilt. If he’s “young and new to the professional world” I think it’s more he’s used to being a poor college student and hoarding every resource he can. He has the sick leave but doesn’t want to spend it until he absolutely has no other choice, because that’s the “cheaper” and more prudent option.

    4. Kimmy Schmidt*

      “He didn’t want to use his sick leave. His claim is that he didn’t call in, was totally willing to come in, and I told him not to, so he shouldn’t have to take the sick day.”

      This combined with the laundry list of gross-sounding symptoms absolutely sounds like an anti-work lifehack to not have to submit sick time.

  12. ImGettingOld*

    LW1 – Think this is the first time I’ve adamantly disagreed with Alison. This isn’t a “could” raise, it’s a “absolutely should” raise with HR. Sure, there may be a reason they are okay to be in this organisation… but child protection should be everyone’s business. The more people who actively care, the better!

  13. HolyGuacamoleBatman*

    #1: If your job involves contact with minors, I agree it’s a problem. But otherwise…well, I understand your gut response, but unless you genuinely think it’s to the benefit of society that ex-cons are barred from all employment and pushed into a state of instability which makes reoffending more likely, the guy’s got to work somewhere.

    1. Roland*

      This is where I fall. Easy to say when it’s not my coworker of course, it’s a lot easier to be enlightened in theory than in reality. But morally I believe it’s the correct take.

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      If the convictions were for crimes against adults, I’d definitely feel justified in asking HR for reassurance about my safety, what precautions would be taken etc.

      However, with offences against children and in a job with no contact or access to them, or in 100% remote jobs, then I’d just be expressing my (natural) moral disapproval of them and going NIMBY.

      1. Parents*

        Fair enough, but if the workplace has events open to family members (holiday parties, etc) I think it would also be fair to ask how employee’s children would be protected.

        Maybe the answer is “we’ll tell everyone not to bring children to events”, which also fair enough.

    4. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      But the agency has a rule of no employment within 7 years. Why was it bent for this person — assuming it was? What is so special about this person they can overlook a very serious crime?

      That’s what I would want to know. The person doesn’t have to work at this agency which has this policy for everyone, not just poor misunderstood crimes against children people.

      1. Kimmiejo*

        The EEOC doesn’t like blanket rules about not hiring people with any convictions based on time and no other factors. My guess is that the OP has an incorrect understanding of the company policy on hiring people with convictions.

      2. Nodramalama*

        Considering none of us, including LW were part of the decision making process, we can’t know. For all anyone knows someone raised this issue with Legal and legal said, yeah we think trying to enforce such a broad policy is problematic. For all we know LW did not identify the right person.

    5. Hayleigh*

      I agree to that basic principle, but the issue here is that the company policy has been waived in this instance but not in others, and that provokes questions about why this is. If the company is willing to employ ex-cons, that policy should be equitably followed. And the OP definitely has standing to ask why it has not been followed in this case, and whether the policy is changing. Clarity and consistency are important.

    6. Elbe*

      I think this situation is hard because how things should work in theory clashes with how things actually work in practice.

      This guy having a job is good for society (lower odds of reoffending, follows our ideals of justice), but it’s very bad for the individual people that would then have to work with him. It’s deeply uncomfortable for humans to be forced to be around people who have broken social/legal/moral norms in such distasteful ways. The moral repulsion that the LW feels in this situation is very real and, I would argue, also good for society as a whole.

      It’s really not uncommon for past bad behavior to make a person unable to find a job for years on end, and that’s for non-criminal behavior that is significantly less serious (getting fired for being rude, taking credit for someone’s work, having a mental health-related blow up, posting deeply racist messages to social media, etc.). We’ve had numerous letters about LW’s who can’t find the jobs that they want due to their past reputations. In this case, the fact that it’s harder to find a job when people find your behavior distasteful is something that I would classify as “natural consequences for your actions” as opposed to “punishment”.

      I don’t think it’s wrong of the LW to report the rule bending to HR with the hopes that they will let him go if they agree the policy has been violated. I don’t think that that means the LW wants this guy to be unemployed forever, or that he’s being goaded into reoffending. It just means that the LW doesn’t think 6 years in the rearview is enough to be able for them to work with someone who committed such a serious offense. And, honestly, that’s fair. If the company doesn’t agree, though, it is very much out of the LW’s hands. The LW will either have to accept the discomfort or find another job.

  14. TheBunny*

    I read it as deep dive as just doing a Google search wouldn’t necessitate mentioning the open records state.

    I’m in the opposite position. I have a very common first name (for my age group) and a very common last name. You look me up and you will find all sorts of things, none of them me.

    At the risk of getting hit with the same “why are you defending pedophiles” comment, I fully believe what OP did was wrong and akin to eavesdropping or reading someone’s diary and discovering something they want to me but can’t ask about.

    I’m sure there are plenty of people who work in all sorts of places who have criminal histories that (to use OPs tomeline) go back 7 years and 1 month so they don’t show. Should OP deep dive every single one? Nope.

    And if OP were to do that, who decides what “crimes” pass and what ones don’t? And while we’re at it, who will be handling all the lawsuits once people are fired or offers rescinded outside of a very strict process that’s fair to all?

    And no I’m not being wild…certain people have different beliefs about what is and isn’t ok. Yes soliciting sex from a minor isn’t ok ever…but what if the person was 16? Is OP religious and all solicitation is wrong?

    At the risk of sounding harsh, the background took a while (which almost always means a potential hit) OP got curious, records are open in their state and now they have info that’s technically not their business.

    There’s a reason the person works there that’s actually none of OPs business.

    It’s also a heck of an assumption that HR made a “mistake” leading to him getting through.

    1. LL*

      It probably was a google search. In open records states, it’s very easy to find this type of info by googling.

    2. Three Flowers*

      Nah. It’s entirely possible it was a Google search. I once found out a college friend was in prison for a sex offense that way. He’d disappeared off Facebook and LinkedIn, and I thought “huh, whatever happened to X?” Googled his first and last name and the city he’d moved to, and there he was, on the sex offender registry. (Obviously his name was not super common in my country, but it’s not vanishingly rare—in fact, there were at least two people with it in that city. But we’re still talking first page of Google results.)

  15. TutoringAdvice*

    OP5 – I worked as a private tutor and ran an agency for many years and having a list of testimonials is absolutely the norm, most commonly with concrete success metrics like “gained entrance to XYZ competitive schools; got an A after being predicted a C prior to the tutoring” etc.

    Confidence building and nurturing a love of learning is also part of tutoring, but personally I find the confidence comes from the actual improvement in their skills (even if not in an exam-context). And when successfully create enthusiasm in the student for the subject, they typically improve their skills too!

    Your letter comes across as a little odd, as if you haven’t considered that your work should have measurable outcomes. I recommend looking round at other tutor’s profiles/websites, and you’ll see they tend to have lists of testimonials. It’s good practice to send a request for these once the tutoring finishes so you can build up your own list, as well as consider how much you tend to boost performance (so you can advise clients whether their goals are realistic, for example).

    1. Jaunty Banana Hat I*

      Yeah, as a former foreign language tutor (so admittedly not math, but the approach to skill building is similar, esp. related to confidence), it should be pretty easy to find out if your students improved their skills–most students will want to tell you this if you ask! Most parents will, too. Teachers probably can’t tell you results for individual students, but they can tell you if most or all of the students they’ve sent to you have improved. And this was always the first thing I was able to tout when speaking to new tutoring clients.

      And maybe it’s just me, but how are you not seeing and going over tests students take while they’re in the class? It was standard procedure for me to go over those with students to help them figure out what they missed and why (and praise them for what they got right). If your tutoring is working, you should notice grades going up over time.

      1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

        Frequently, tests are given back to the students and then returned to the teacher. I never see them at all.

    2. Math tutor*

      I agree! I was a private math tutor for many years, and LW5’s letter is pretty confusing to me. By a few months in I was accruing glowing comments from parents and students about the difference I was making for them — a lot of times these would come unprompted because they wanted to share how excited they were.

      I’d also be helping students prep for their regular tests and then going over them afterward, so even if we weren’t specifically grade-focused, I knew what grades they were getting and whether they were happy with that trajectory. Outside of grades, I could have listed accomplishments like helping students understand specific complex concepts they hadn’t before — or, yes, concrete ways I had helped them build confidence!

      And yes, a lot of tutoring can be confidence-building, depending on the student. But whether confidence-building or skill-building, it should still be having citable effects, right? It didn’t matter if I was doing more of the former than the latter; students would still be excited about the difference and enthusiastically tell me about improvements, which were sometimes grade-related and sometimes weren’t but either way were enumerable successes.

      (It’s also a bit odd to me that the LW probes for understanding only at the beginning and end of the session and that they don’t seem to see the same students year to year. My students would’ve screamed bloody murder if they couldn’t get me back the next year, and I ended up picking up a lot of younger siblings too — so I’d start with the oldest and then they’d feel it was so effective that I’d end up tutoring 1-2 younger siblings through every year of high school math/science as well. If the LW isn’t getting enthusiastic comments about improvement from clients or seeing excitement about better grades from students, and they’re not getting requested back the next year, it might be worth doing a double-check that they have evidence their methods are in fact working for students — I don’t know how I would’ve felt sure of that myself without some sort of positive feedback from the families!)

  16. bamcheeks*

    LW, I think it’s great that you can articulate your approach, but I would encourage you to think more clearly about how you recognise and measure success. This will help you pitch your services more effectively, AND make sure that what you’re doing has a real impact beyond making you and your student feel good for the time that you are in conversation with each other.

    This doesn’t have to be measurable things like “raised her grade from F to B”: it can also be things like, “client told me she was feeling much more confident in class and was willing to raise her hand and answer questions”. This kind of qualitative evaluation and feedback is really normal in coaching and tutoring work, and it would be good to build this kind of regular review into your plans and keep records of what both your students and their parents say.

    It would also be completely normal and OK to go back to some of your previous clients and ask whether they would be happy to write a testimonial or whether they can say what the impact of your tutoring was. You won’t get a 100% success rate, but if you’ve done a decent job there should absolutely be a few people willing to write a short paragraph about what a difference you made to their kid (or that the kid themselves can write!) And it’s also really nice for you to receive them!

  17. Tradd*

    I work in an US industry where you’re not allowed to employee felons at all under federal regulations (customs broker) *and* the names of employees involved in the brokerage department are reported to CBP. If a company wants to employ a felon, they have to get written approval from CBP. I think they’d have to be an exceptional candidate for a company to request approval. That being said, a freight forwarder I worked at years ago before I was a customs broker was lax with the pre-employment background check for a while and hired someone who we later learned had a felony for DUI and had served time for killing someone. A new HR head came in and had an audit done of employee records. Background checks were done on the new employees the checks hadn’t been done on. The guy with the DUI felony was fired. There was a period of about a year where HR staff wasn’t doing all sorts of things and background checks weren’t done.

    1. BellaStella*

      Yet a person with multiple felony convictions can be employed at a very high federal level and have a lot more access to a lot more stuff. Our systems are so broken.

  18. BirdGlass*

    OP1: I think your take on this is misguided. You talk about “crimes against people” and “against kids” – but there was no child or person! He has not, as far as you know, done any crime to a person or harmed any child. These kinds of operations, when they come from “online pedo hunters” are highly problematic and as you probably know have strong ties with right extremism. When they are actually used by law enforcement, that is a serious breach of the rule of law, in my opinion.

    1. Silver Robin*

      Actually, I have no idea about right wing vigilantes, though I can imagine it probably.

      Also, by my understanding, the rule of law literally lets police officers do sting operations. There are limits, but the technique of posing as somebody else to create opportunity for police to witness the crime is explicitly allowed. I am generally anti-police, so I dislike most things they do, but if you are going to cite rule of law, they get to do it.

      1. BirdGlass*

        I should probably have said fundamental principles of justice instead, my apologies. English is not my first language. There are many things that are allowed according to law in certain jurisdictions, such as corporeal punishment, internment of political opposition and journalists etc, that in my belief system are not compatible with fundamental principles of justice. This is one of them, since people should only be charged with crimes that they actually commit, not crimes we believe that they might be inclined to commit. When we depart from that principle, we open up the door to a kind of society that I don’t want to live in.

        1. On Fire*

          But it’s not just the inclination to commit the crime. Someone actually *attempted* the crime. Attempting is more than inclination, whether it’s murder, bank robbery, sexual assault, or contact with a minor.

    2. Smurfette*

      > You talk about “crimes against people” and “against kids” – but there was no child or person

      This person’s *intention* – which they acted on – was to have sex with a child, they sent explicit pics to someone they thought was a child. Are you saying that doesn’t matter because it wasn’t actually a child?

    3. Hyaline*

      Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with this. I literally could not care less if it’s “tricksy” that someone poses as underage and outs someone willing to solicit sex from them. How is this even debatable? The convicted party here solicited sex from a minor. That is a crime. It doesn’t matter if the person on the other end of the app was an adult or not–the solicitation is still solicitation. (He wasn’t being charged with having sex with a minor or intention to have sex with a minor–he was charged with the solicitation, which is an action he did in fact commit.)

      Ultimately, if I have to err on the side of being fair to pedophiles or on the side of protecting kids, I’m going with protecting kids.

  19. Michigander*

    LW5: I’ll be honest, if a potential tutor told me that they weren’t concerned with scores or grades, I would probably spend my money elsewhere.

  20. Grith*

    LW4 – as a non-American, I don’t know what the expectation would be for a US worker who has “run out” of sick days, but is still ill. I think it’s reasonable to assume someone new to the professional workforce also might not know this. You just need to have a conversation with them, approach it as training them on professional norms rather than anything else, and discuss both what they are expected to use sick days for and also, what happens once you’ve “run out” of sick days.

    1. doreen*

      It’s going to be different depending on the employer and the exact situation* so it’s reasonable to assume he doesn’t know what will happen. What’s not so reasonable is to think that “I didn’t call in sick, you sent me home so I shouldn’t take a sick day” is going to make a difference. Even in the sort of job where calling in vs being sent home might make a difference, the difference isn’t about taking a sick day or not.

      * A an employee hired less than a year ago who calls in sick every month or so for unrelated reasons isn’t necessarily going to be treated the same as a ten year employee with a chronic illness.

  21. ASD always*

    Re: LW3 – my husband is apparently referred to as a “Lab Dad” by the technicians he works with (who are mostly about 10 years younger than he is). He’s a team lead but not a manager, so occupies that same kind of mentor-space. Maybe it’s too anecdotal to say, but it feels like there’s a trend moving business norms to be more informal, for better or worse.

    Though for people who you informally mentor but don’t actually work with to think of you as a personal connection first and an entrepreneur second strikes me as quite natural.

    1. Ferret*

      That’s great for your husband but you can’t just take the gendered component out of this. The fact that this is Mom rather than Dad is pretty relevant.

    2. Paint N Drip*

      I know I don’t fall on the same side as many here on this, but I find this adorable! I hope your husband is a warm and lovely lab dad that keeps all his techs safe

    3. ThursdaysGeek*

      My spouse mentored post-docs before he retired, and a young chemist referred to him as her chemist dad, to the point that she gave him a dad mug when she moved on to another job. He was trying to set them up professionally, and did not embrace the label.

      It was the first time I’d encountered it, mom or dad, in the office, except for that job where my co-worker’s mom really did work there too.

    4. biobotb*

      I feel like “dad” lands a little differently, though.

      Obviously not all moms and dads function this way, but historically “mothering” has had more connotations of nurturing and tending to emotional and bodily needs, where as “fathering” has more connotations of guiding and teaching, which is much more appropriate for work.

    5. sacados*

      Very true. It’s not quite the same kind of work context, but I participate in a certain hobby where we practice together, go to events/competitions, etc. There’s one guy in the group who happened to mentor/help bring a lot of us into the hobby, so people call him [Hobby] Dad (or [Hobby] Granddad, if they were brought in by someone who *he* mentored).
      So I do think it is becoming a more common framing, especially for younger folks who grew up in the current online culture where Mom/Dad has become a shorthand for someone who encourages or teaches you things. (Current in the sense that the online culture of the late 90s or 00s is very different from now.)

      That said, I do agree that societal gender baggage makes “Mom” hit a bit differently than “Dad,” unfortunately. And especially in a business context like this, you can’t ignore that. So I get why LW3 is feeling off about it.

    6. K*

      Agree with Alison that the gendered aspects can make some people uncomfortable and that you shouldn’t do this if it’s making someone uncomfortable. But I will say that I do enjoy the casual jokey atmosphere at my work where we have affectionately called male and female managers “dad” and “mum”, and they have gotten in on the joke and even encouraged it. :-D
      I think we see it as meaning we are like a family and we look out for each other. And I have absolutely meant it as a nurturing thing with male managers who have been very supportive and even told me they were proud of me for getting a promotion. :-)

  22. Apex Mountain*

    If the policy is they don’t hire anyone for seven years after a conviction, and this offense happened six years ago, it’s hardly the scandal of the century that the company altered their policy by a few months in this case. I don’t know what LW should do, but I don’t think going after them because of the policy violation is the right move.

    1. fhqwhgads*

      I don’t know if this is part of what OP’s thinking, but if for example, someone they wanted to see hired was Black, or disabled, or female, but who had some other generally-accepted-as-less-bad-than-soliciting-a-minor conviction 6 years ago was not considered because of this policy – but hey policy is policy what can you do. But if the person mentioned in the letter is a white dude, well yeah, makes sense to be up in arms about why suddenly there’s wiggle room in the policy.
      Assuming this is not a case of “yeah that name seemed rare but actually it’s not and this is a different person and the policy has not actually budged”.

      1. Joron Twiner*

        That’s exactly it.
        HR waived the policy for someone convicted of say, drug use, or theft, or something minor and were probably unreasonably punished for it because of their demographics: OK understandable.

        HR waived the policy for someone convicted of soliciting a minor: why tho?

  23. A1C*

    OP1: assuming you are confident in the accuracy of your information, if you think a hiring policy has been violated, a report to your agency’s inspector general is an option. There may be an option for anonymous reporting if you’re concerned about possible retaliation.

  24. I was the one testing*

    OP3: I am reminded of the YouTuber Karolina Zebrowska. Some of her fans/viewers call her Meme Mom even though she is somewhere in her early 30s. I assumed they were a young demographic who spends a lot of time on tumblr where someone of that age would be about 20 years older than them and therefore in their eyes quite old and viewed as a friendly parental figure who gives them advice. That they are your own age adds to the confusion. Perhaps they use the word instead of ‘mentor’? I understand why you don’t like it, I wouldn’t either. It would be a kindness to explain the business aspect of why that word isn’t professional. I suspect they will be shocked because they have been thinking in informal terms of you and not realised you would want anything else.

    1. Paint N Drip*

      I think it’s worth mentioning the changing norms around the words ‘mom’ and ‘mother’ (in a positive way!) that more aligns with the colloquial ‘queen’ and ‘boss’ more than parent or caretaker – in plenty of younger groups, being the ‘X Mom’ is a compliment! I totally understand OP3 not WANTING to be Widget Mom, but I’d guess the colleagues are intending full respect with the moniker

    2. yirna*

      I’ll also throw in that people seen as foundational leaders have been called the “Patriarch/Matriarch of their industry” for ages. The vocabulary has modernized (and I admit, I wouldn’t want to be a ‘mom’ at work in any context) but if the title doesn’t go away after you’ve addressed it, thinking of it as being acknowledged as a core figure in your industry might help!

      1. Observer*

        Patriarch / Matriarch have very different connotations than Mom or even Dad.

        Mos is a personal term. Matriarch is much more of a leadership term.

  25. Global Cat Herder*

    My oldest (adult) child has a fairly uncommon name. He has a job where everyone has to have a background check every 2 years.

    His always takes WEEKS longer than everyone else, because he has to explain that while he’s Martin Victorlane VanderWarble, he’s not the Martin Victorlane VanderWarble who’s a domestic terrorist. The only way in which he and the other Martin Victorlane VanderWarble look alike is that they’re both vaguely human shaped. But my kid has to prove he’s not on the FBI’s most wanted list, that he doesn’t have any outstanding felony warrants in Kansas or Oklahoma, or that he’s never been to either state, and how does he even do that?? This last time, he had to submit photos to prove he didn’t have the “1488” facial tattoos that are clearly visible in the other Martin Victorlane VanderWarble’s booking photos, and they had to be GROUP PHOTOS with other employees whose background checks have already cleared, and those colleagues had to provide affidavits(?) that the guy in the photo with them is the guy applying for the background check, and he doesn’t have any facial tattoos.

    This is for a job he already HAS.

    LW1 may have seen booking photos and may be completely sure that this is the same person. Or there could be another person with the same very unusual name. Or by the time the start date rolls around, it’s 7 years and 1 day. The only thing we know for sure is LW1 snooped.

      1. Another Kristin*

        It’s like those stories you hear about where parents try to take their baby to visit family or something and find out their infant is on the No-Fly List

    2. yirna*

      I am (vaguely) aware that there’s an official letter you can get in those circumstances that says “same name, different person. not the terrorist.” I think it’s meant for travel purposes, but it might be a good letter to seek out and submit with the form if possible.

      On a related note, I heard of one unfortunate who shared both the name AND THE BIRTHDAY of a convicted murderer. He had a lot of issues with background checks, and also ended up with issues where the other guy’s records (e.g. credit reports) would be attributed to him. I’d honestly go seek out and add a really unique middle name, oof. “John ‘NotThatOne’ Smith”, perhaps.

      1. Annika Hansen*

        For travel, you can obtain a redress number. My brother-in-law’s friend, Pablo Escobar, needed one. While he is 30 years younger and looks nothing like famous drug lord, he has had issues traveling even though that Pablo Escobar has been dead for years.

    3. Another Kristin*

      Out of curiosity I just googled my own name, which is fairly unusual (at least the last name) and discovered that I have an exact name twin who’s an engineering professor at one of the universities in my city. So if someone calls me asking for advice on bridge design, I suppose I’ll know why!

  26. Morning Reader*

    I have a slightly different take on “widget mom” because I do see these parent terms being used in professional contexts at times to refer to a leader or expert in a field, and that’s different than being the “office mom” who brings baked goods and offers adulting advice to younger colleagues. I think of Alie Ward of the ologist podcast calling herself “pod dad “ (although she is, afaik, a woman.) In my library classes years ago, the professor often referred to the programmer (Abram?) who developed MARC as “Mother MARC,” in a context similar to “founding fathers.” It was cool. So, in this case, these colleagues appear to be using the “mom” term in a way that means originator, connector, the source of all. Very different than the office busybody vibe.
    Still, LW could and should shut it down if she feels it conveys the wrong impression. I think substituting another humorous and affectionate title could work. I suggest, “oh, I prefer Mother of Widgets” or maybe Widget Queen, or something non-gendered, like Widget Maven. Going to “mentor” or other business jargon words takes the fun out of it and I think it was intended as both fun and respectful.

    1. Silver Robin*

      I agree with the suggestion to keep the replacement fun, because that preserves the warmth of the nickname. It will also be very natural for them to ask LW what she wants them to use instead, and if there is no alternative, LW risks coming across as rejecting the good intentions behind it/being too stiff, when this conversation should be relatively quick and light to keep it from becoming a stumbling block.

    3. Gumby*

      Not to mention all of the “father of modern genetics” or “godfather of skateboarding” or even “mother of computer science” type of accolades. Those are used for founders in their fields or people who make notable advancements. It is an acknowledgement of exceptional expertise and skill. But a lot rides on context and even tone of voice.

  27. Bookworm*

    I’m with #1 LW. Definitely would bring it up to
    HR. If the employee is definitely the one LW 1 found, I definitely would not want to work with such a sleazeball. It definitely shows he doesn’t have good judgment.

    1. WellRed*

      Are you definitely sure about that? After all, OP doesn’t sound like they have standing to address this.

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      He has been given the job and it would be extraordinary to rescind an accepted offer just because a coworker disagrees with the decision (unless there are concerns about safety at work, which is not the case here)

      Do you think released criminals should not be allowed to work – and that you as a taxpayer should fund them for the rest of their lives of leisure?

      1. Joron Twiner*

        Taxpayers are funding prisoners in prison regardless.

        It is natural that humans feel uncomfortable working with people who have committed antisocial crimes, even if it is good for society that those people are employed somewhere.

    3. Mad Scientist*

      I think looking into his future coworkers’ personal background on his own shows that LW1 doesn’t have good judgement either, and I wouldn’t be surprised if HR viewed it the same way.

  28. Account*

    Tutor:

    You’re overthinking what a success story is! A good answer would be: “Definitely! One little boy from last year was so lost in math class that he would cry when his mom tried to help with his homework. But after six months he was so excited about it and said math was his favorite class.” Or, “I taught a high schooler who had struggled with English class all her life, and dreaded when they started assigning essays. But we worked together for a while and she wrote some great essays for her history class, and she was really proud of them.” Etc. You don’t have to have SAT score improvements on hand to demonstrate success.

  29. Bonkers*

    It would be great if workplaces implemented the same rules around sickness as daycares (and also provided enough paid sick leave to cover). 24 hours fever and vomit free, without the aid of any medicines. Otherwise, keep your germs to yourself, thank you.

  30. Ferret*

    LW5 – you might not have quantifiable metrics like increasing test scores from 50% to 73% or whatever but do you not have any examples of success? Your techniques and approach sound fine but surely you must have some way of figuring out if they are working, other than the student liking you?

    1. the 1%*

      I suspect this person just doesn’t understand why people hire tutors. Good tutors absolutely should track grades and test scores (and administer their own tests). That is how you objectively, quantifiably, figure out if what you’re doing works. If you have no evidence what you’re doing helps with the goal of improving the student’s performance, parents are going to think your services are a waste of their money.

    2. learnedthehardway*

      I disagree that the OP’s approach is fine – as a parent with a student who has just started with a tutor, my expectation is that my kid’s understanding of the subject matter, overall study skills, and grade will improve with tutoring. My kid is actually doing quite well in his classes, but he knows that he could be doing better, and I want to see him working to his full potential.

      It’s fine to be supportive and to not pressure the kid, but as a parent, I’m not hiring a tutor just to be a cheerleader. I expect to see some results. I know that my kid is responsible for getting those results, but I expect that the tutor will be providing tangible help so that he can get them.

      The OP could point to examples of her students achieving better confidence and knowledge of the subjects, better marks, more enjoyment and enthusiasm for learning, learning new ways of studying, etc.

  31. L-squared*

    #1. People will probably disagree with me here. And I want to be clear that I’m NOT defending this man. However, you seemed to go through A LOT of digging on this new coworker. Even in an open record state, you seemed to have gone a bit far. Just because something is publicly available, doesn’t mean you should go looking. Even past that, this isn’t your call. I think going to your manager is even overstepping. Management and/or HR made the decision. At this point you can deal with it, or move on to another job. I assume your job isn’t one working with children, or you would’ve mentioned it. I don’t even know his role. But you are adamant that apparently he shouldn’t have a job, or at least not one with you. And if you own a company or do hiring, that is your call to make. But for now, its not.

  32. Spicy Tuna*

    #3, I once had a boss that several other folks referred to as “mom” and while she was an actual mom outside of work, this woman was NOT AT ALL warm, friendly, nurturing or anything other than THE BOSS, so I was quite puzzled by this term used for her!

    #4, at another job, I had a coworker who would come in sick. She would be coughing and hacking away all day. Another coworker would arm herself with a can of Lysol and spray it whenever Coughing Coworker hacked near her.

    1. lizzay*

      #3 – irony??

      #4 – I had a coworker who would go crazy and bitch at everyone (not the offender) when someone would come in sick; yet, often found herself coming in sneezing & hacking, complaining that she just wanted to stay hoooome, but she has sooooo much work to dooooo… same coworker humblebragged about how much PTO she lost every year.

    2. Abogado Avocado*

      #3, I totally get your concern about the label. When I was a young lawyer, I’d go to court or depositions and get “mistaken” for being a clerk, a court reporter, a secretary, a client, a victim — everything but what I was. Later, as I developed a following in my legal niche, I, too, would be referred to as a “mom”. So, I responded that I was, in fact, the Czarina and they’d better start referring to me as such or I’d send them to Siberia. That always drew a laugh and the “mom” label went away (possibly to Siberia).

  33. Crencestre*

    OP4: You might remind your employee that if he DOES give a communicable disease to a colleague or supervisor that the result can be far more serious than those individuals simply having an annoying sniffle for a couple of days. If those colleagues/supervisors live with babies, very young children, seniors or people with compromised immune systems then any or all of those family members could be in very serious danger if THEY caught whatever your employee passed around at the office! Haven’t we learned ANYTHING from the tragedies of COVID-19?!

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, prepandemic I thought people who blithely walked around spreading their diseases were inconsiderate. Now I think they are potentially bloody dangerous.

      1. Lab Snep*

        The covid vaccine has kept me from dying, but every time I have gotten seriously ill was from coworkers coming in coughing and being “lol allergies” and then they were off sick for days and days.

        People still have the audacity to ask why I am masking now and then.

  34. AlwaysEditing*

    Regarding the “mom” title…I don’t watch much reality TV, but the shows I do watch are of the “adventure” or “athletic” variety, like American Ninja Warrior, for example.

    I’ve noticed that the women with children on these shows are oftentimes called out as “the first mom ever to…” or something similar.

    I’m childfree myself, but this is demeaning, right? It comes off to me as anyone having a child is automatically less tough or somehow weaker and, therefore, her accomplishments are more impressive. Or, even worse, hinting around the fact that a woman with a child somehow “found the time” to stay in shape or compete. Rarely do I hear the phrase, “The first dad to…”

    1. doreen*

      I don’t like it either, but I don’t think it’s demeaning , exactly. I think it’s more that there is a fairly recent tendency to describe “records” or “firsts” by slicing them up differently , for example describing a sports team as having the most wins on a Wednesday in September or describing someone as the youngest woman ever elected senator from a particular state. What that last one tells me is that a younger man has been elected in that state and a younger woman has been elected from a different state. Similarly, when hear “first mom” , I assume she is neither the first woman nor the first parent (who was probably also the first person ever , so he wouldn’t be called the first dad)

    2. Angstrom*

      A different spin: The fact that you see it as demeaning is a sign of progress! It’s only in the past couple of decades that elite athletes having children and returning to elite-level competition has become common. Thinking “Of course moms can do that! Why not?” is a significant shift in attitudes towards motherhood and athletics(or other high-level achievements)

    3. bamcheeks*

      I’m kind of torn in this one. Firstly, I don’t like people using “mom” and “has carried a pregnancy and given birth” as synonyms, because they are two different things. But if you have carried a pregnancy, it’s pretty relevant to any major athletic achievement in the same way coming back from a major illness, injury or surgery would be.

  35. Hyaline*

    OP4–I’d be mindful of the possibility that your employee has a chronic illness and knows how to manage it and what his limits are, but is giving you a heads up that he might seem off or be a little slower than usual. If he’s describing fevers, you can probably disregard this, but plenty of other stuff (nasuea, dizziness, headache, aches, stomach trouble, bathroom issues…) could be related to a chronic and–this is key–noncommunicable condition. Ideally, he’d share that with you (“Hey, I may seem off sometimes because I have IBS” or “I have MS” or “I get frequent migraines”) and the fact that he’s super open with the symptoms but hasn’t said peep about a chronic illness would be a little odd, but not out of the realm of possibility. He may not have a formal diagnosis, may be concerned about repercussions to being “out” as chronically ill/disabled, may still be figuring things out…in any case, I would focus on the *communicable* aspect here, not the symptoms.

    1. LW*

      LW here: I have a chronic illness (chron’s) and know this well. In the letter, I stated I wanted to tell him if you are “puking or running fever, stay home.” I said nothing about staying out with any other symptoms. Our circumstance is not a chronic disease.

  36. Been There*

    OP 2: I feel for the employee so much. I struggled (and still do) with this kind of anxiety.
    I don’t agree with some of the answers provided, and very few people understand what this kind of anxiety feels like (it’s an awful feeling when your body has this type of response and just does what it wants, and it’s like you are a spectator).
    I found that my anxiety was always at its highest as a newer employee. There’s extra pressure to make the boss happy and to learn/do great work, etc. It feels like the spotlight is on you. And someone with this type of anxiety may be putting too much pressure on themselves (making it worse).
    Can you match the employee with appropriate projects until they settle in? How much control do they have over their schedule/hours/day to day?
    I had an upfront discussion with my new boss when I was struggling. He was very understanding, and I was matched to other appropriate tasks and duties.
    I settled in, gained confidence, and have excelled since (multiple raises, new duties, responsibilities etc).
    I hate how society just writes people off too soon. See if you can help remove some of the pressure and fear this employee must be experiencing.

    1. Colette*

      I think the key thing here is that you initiated the discussion and took responsibility for asking for what you needed.

      There’s a big difference between working with someone who asks for accommodations and deciding for someone that they need accommodations (and what those accommodations should be). The employee is the person best positioned to speak up for what she needs, and it would be inappropriate for the OP to start shuffling her work around without her being actively involved.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        OP needs to approach this as if they had no idea how to cope with anxiety. Because right now they are going oh I’m anxious too, I can help. But its not their place to help without being explicitly asked, and even if then its to make work accomodations not so-called life fixes for the employee.

    2. Dust Bunny*

      Well, there is a job that needs to be done and sometimes the workplace can’t give as much accommodation as the employee wants/needs without making it a big problem for everyone else. I had a new coworker years ago who was anxious about pretty much all the core aspects of our job, to the point where we were covering probably 2/3 of what she was supposed to be doing. There weren’t other tasks to give her since we were all doing the same thing, and having her take part of the task and then hand off the part she couldn’t handle was confusing for clients and disruptive to everyone else’s work. We felt badly for her personally but ultimately, she couldn’t do the work in the place she was in in her life, and it meant that everyone else was still overworked. And the more she fixated on how much she wasn’t doing, the more anxious and shut-down she got, so there wasn’t a resolution in sight. I don’t know what the workable solution was there beyond letting her go and hiring someone who could function.

      1. Hyaline*

        I think it’s fair to acknowledge–sometimes a job is just a bad fit. Maybe that person could do better in a different type of environment or job functions, but it’s not ok to make the rest of a team shoulder the burden for someone who isn’t working out–even through no fault of their own–indefinitely.

    3. Anxiety managing anxiety*

      LW2 here: Thank you for the opposite perspective. It feels late to restart them slower, but it’s not the first time I’ve gotten that advice about on-boarding. I’m working on a script that will lay out expectations but also maybe offer a form of that. Of course, easier tasks comes with an expectation of faster turn arounds.

  37. Knitting Cat Lady*

    #3:

    I’ve embraced my role as office cryptid and font of useless knowledge.

    And the only time mum or dad gets used at all is when one of the colleagues’ kids forgot their keyes at home and stops by to pick up their parent’s key…

  38. Irish Teacher.*

    LW4, I suspect your employee is trying to impress you. You say he is young so probably not that long out of school where…there is often an emphasis on attendance and how “good kids come in as much as possible” and kids often get the impression that being present impresses adults.

    Yeah, the whole “it’s not a sick day because I was willing to come in” is bananapants from a work perspective, but…again at school, a lot of kids have the impression, not really true, that if mom or dad calls in and says they are sick, that means it shouldn’t count as a “day missed” because they had permission and certainly, if a kid comes in to school sick and gets sent home, that is usually not counted as a day absent.

    So I guess that is the perspective the employee is coming from, that sick days are “days you missed work and too many look bad,” but in this case they “had permission,” so it’s not really a missed day and shouldn’t be counted.

    While this is on the more ridiculous end, I think it is normal enough for young employees new to the workplace to think that the less days off they take, the better they look and that coming in sick makes you “look dedicated” (though I would have hoped covid changed that, but maybe not).

    My guess is he rang you up at least partly, not to let you know he might be a “little off,” but to draw your attention to the fact that he was such a dedicated employee that he was even willing to come in when sick. And from his perspective, you then told him to take the day off and still marked him down as being somebody who takes days off rather than putting his own needs aside and coming in anyway.

    1. londonedit*

      Good point – at school you have ‘authorised’ and ‘unauthorised’ absences, and ‘authorised’ ones are where your parent writes a note to say you were off sick (I imagine it’s done online these days, but in my day it was a literal note!). ‘Unauthorised’ absence is for things like truanting, or these days if the school doesn’t accept the reason for the absence (for example if parents take their children out of school for a holiday, or there was the case of a school recently that ended up making the national news because they’d decided ‘period pain’ didn’t meet their criteria for authorised absence – which they then had to u-turn on). Authorised absences still count as absences, but there’s no punishment for the student (unless the frequency of absence rises to an unacceptable level). I imagine this employee has an idea that if he calls the OP and she ‘authorises’ the absence by telling him to stay at home, it doesn’t really count as a sick day.

      Also definitely agree that it could be the case that he thinks calling in sick and being told to stay home will give the impression that he’s really dedicated – having to be told to stay off rather than bravely dragging himself in, etc. I’ve definitely worked with people (thankfully less so these days, as we can all WFH if we’re in that ‘too ill to want to commute and infect people, but not ill enough not to work’ situation) who would drag themselves into the office looking dreadful, just so their boss could tell them to go home, and they could a) make themselves look like a martyr and b) feel more justified in taking the rest of the week off, because the boss had told them to go home.

  39. Insert Pun Here*

    I have a former coworker who I’ve sort of lost touch with, and every so often I’ll be in a nostalgic mood, wonder what he’s up to, google him, and be reminded that he has the same name as a sex offender whose crimes were pretty widely reported. All of which is to say, (a) this kind of information is often very easily found and (b) can very easily get mixed up when people have similar or identical names.

    I work in a public-facing industry that’s highly reputational, so googling new coworkers is normal and expected. Public records (including most court records) are public because the state prosecutes defendants on behalf of the people; the people have a right to know what is being done in their name. Just because some public records can be difficult to access does not make them not public. It just means that your jurisdiction has a crappy (or underfunded, or both) understanding of what “public record” means.

    1. Good Enough For Government Work*

      In the UK we have two different CELEBRITIES (both singers, no less!), one of whom is in prison on horrific CSA charges, while the other is an apparently lovely gay man. They have exactly the same name, and are both Welsh as well. Poor H has had to insist on including his teenage/popgroup nickname in all publicity around him or he gets horrendous abuse from people who either can’t tell the difference or who assume that OF COURSE the gay man is the predator…

  40. Blue Pen*

    #4 — Whether the employee intends it, this comes off as manipulative behavior rooted in that unfortunately still-persistent notion that perseverance is everything in the workforce. Like Alison said, firmly telling him “no, do not come in,” is a start, but if after a while he still can’t make that judgment call for himself (assuming yours is an environment that doesn’t punish people for using sick time), I’d start to be a little concerned.

    I don’t love that he lists out his symptoms but cherry-tops it with “so if I’m a little imperfect today, that’s why! :D” Coming in sick is not the hero move he thinks it is, and if his colleagues haven’t already noticed that behavior, they will soon and it will do him no favors professionally/reputationally.

  41. GigglyPuff*

    OP4, also since you mention he’s new to working, I’d make sure he knows sick time is paid. I never thought to explain this but then got a new employee who was surprised when I said something off hand about leave and pay, and they had no idea it was paid time off.

    1. Slippers*

      And also the attendance policy. There are hundreds of jobs where calling in sick is counted against your attendance record and so many in a period of time results in discipline, even if they are confirmed illness/with a doctor’s note. If you worked in one of those environments previously, you may not know that taking sick leave won’t count against you unless it’s explicitly stated.

      1. sometimeswhy*

        Yes, these things. If your staff member worked retail or food service or gig work, no work may mean no pay to them.

        And there are still a lot of supervisors out there who value perfect attendance. I have a whole section of on-boarding with detailed instructions on how to request leave or call out sick or let people know you’re running late because your train is busted and includes the workplace norm of Not Giving Your Colleagues The Plague. It always surprises me how many people are visibly relieved by it.

  42. North Bay Teky*

    For the tutor:
    You do have success stories, your referrals from past students.
    “…as well as getting referrals from former students and their parents.”
    If the past students weren’t a success story, they would not be referring you.

    1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      Yes, and I should check in with those folks for their general impressions because they might know specific changes to grades or specific improvements

  43. Czhorat*

    Foe LW1, I’m a bit torn on this.

    Everyone’s initial reaction – mine included – is that I don’t want to work with a sex offender, especially one who offended against minors.

    That said, the justice system should have an element of rehabilitation. Ideally you pay your debt to society and are again treated as a normal member of society. As uncomfortable as I’d be working with him, the idea that this person never can again have a job is not a tenable one.

    If the rule is 7 years and his crime was six years ago we’re verging on hair-splitting; if he were hired *next year* there’d be no organizational barrier. Is it possible that the actual crime was earlier, and the date OP got was the trial date? Even if not, is our desired endpoint “this 35 year old man never again has a job?” If so, how does he pay for food, housing, shelter, etc?

    If the agency is working directly with teens that would be a different story – I’m fine with “this person can never again work with youths” as a result here.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      “If the rule is 7 years and his crime was six years ago we’re verging on hair-splitting”

      I imagine this is the response OP will get if they go to HR.

    3. Hyaline*

      I feel like maybe LW, probably like a lot of us, never directly asked themselves the question, “How would I feel about working with a convicted sex offender, especially one who was convicted of soliciting a minor?” and now is having to answer that question in a hurry. Because I agree in principle that, functionally, our culture has the expectation that someone convicted of a crime “pays their debt to society” and then ought to be able to return to normal life and support themselves…but I still have that gut reaction of “stay away” when it comes to someone who carried out this kind of behavior. The LW’s focus on the individual seeming to have no remorse for the action sticks out to me–they’re not seeing reason, fair or not, to believe this person has “rehabilitated himself.” (I, personally, would maintain polite but well-defined distance and would suck it up and work with the person. I would have no contact outside of necessary work contact, though. Some things simply make a person unsafe IMO, and this is one of them.)

      1. Czhorat*

        Oh, I said I was torn and that I *do* find the discomfort understandable.

        It’s when you step back to look at it (which is, to be fair, easier for those of us not directly dealing with it) – it gets more complicated and probably an issue that you probably have to just live with, whether or not you like it

        1. Czhorat*

          To clarify, this isn’t “LW is a horrible person and should flagellate themselves”, it’s “they probably have to take a step back and try to look at it from a distance, as hard as that may be”.

          1. bye*

            And other commenters seem to be misunderstanding this point. No one is saying you have to LIKE this new coworker if he is indeed the same guy who was convicted of this crime.

    4. Specks*

      I would personally want to know if I’m working with someone like that, even if I wouldn’t necessarily argue that they shouldn’t get the job if it’s not working with vulnerable populations. So I can keep my children safe from them, whether that means never talking about them in front of this person, not having pictures of them around, never letting them come into the room when I’m having a friendly chat with a coworker… obviously never bringing them to any events this person might be at.

      I really don’t think people treating you differently for the rest of your life is too big a consequence for a crime of this degree. The victims of such crimes end up facing lifelong trauma and consequences, and some minor social consequences for the offender, especially given how lenient courts are with sex offenses in general and how poorly our system is set up for actual rehabilitation, should not be out of question. This person didn’t get caught with some pot on them, they tried to have sex with a child (15 is a freaking child!).

      OP, I don’t suggest you start a witch hunt, but unless HR reassured you credibly that you got the wrong person, I would personally discreetly tip off your coworkers to whatever registry this person is on, so they know to protect kids around them. And if that results in the new coworker being treated coldly or differently, that’s a direct consequence of some horrible stuff they did.

    5. Elbe*

      As uncomfortable as I’d be working with him, the idea that this person never can again have a job is not a tenable one… is our desired endpoint “this 35 year old man never again has a job?” If so, how does he pay for food, housing, shelter, etc?

      I see this point made a lot here, and honestly I think it’s a bit off.

      We don’t know if the LW would be more comfortable working with him if he had gone 15 or 20 years without reoffending. It’s unfair to assume that the LW’s (reasonable) discomfort would continue on forever. All we know is that the LW is not comfortable working with him 6 years after his very serious offense.

      And the LW isn’t trying to doom him to starvation and homelessness. Presumably, he’d be covered under the same welfare system that everyone else is. If this guy has to be on welfare for a few years until people are more confident that he’s now trustworthy, isn’t that just a consequence of his own actions? A lot of long-term unemployed people are just unlucky, so why are the benefits we offer them not good enough for someone who is in this situation because they actively tried to harm a child?

      Additionally, the “he served his time” mentality is predicated on having a criminal justice system that rehabilitates its offenders. If the LW is in the US, I can say that everyone knows that that’s not true. Particularly for sex offenses, the sentences tend to be low and the recidivism rates are relatively high for such a serious crime (especially when the offender demonstrates no remorse). The system is flawed, and it’s not the LW’s fault that they have to deal with the reality of that.

  44. bleh*

    For those of us in the US, get used to situations like LW #1. Since half of the incoming administration are sexual offenders, odds are they will make it a policy effort, and not a crime.

    2. Head Sheep Counter*

      I am amazed that folk are ok with electing these people but not with working with them… seems like a solid disconnect to wish to be represented by someone whom you wouldn’t want to work with… but here we are.

      1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

        Bizarre as it seems to me, some of these folks don’t believe the people they’re electing are offenders. Mountains of evidence, criminal convictions, civil judgments, multiple witness statements, etc. etc. etc. are all just lies invented – trumped up, as it were – to discredit their heroes.

  45. Jules the 3rd*

    LW3: Maybe come up with an alternate label that you prefer, like “Widget Wizard”. It’s easier to say, “oh, let’s call OP Widget Wizard!” than it is to say “oh, let’s not call OP anything like that”. I know people who have built those nicknames into full-fledged brands.

  46. BL*

    LW1, this is absolutely none of your business and the fact that you deep dive colleagues tells me you have too much time on your hands. This person (if it is the same person) has apparently been rehabilitated and unless is working with children, deserves a chance to make a living like anyone else. If I were your manager or HR and you brought this to my attention, I’d be questioning YOUR judgement.

    2. Abacab*

      The manager would need to be very careful about punishing an employee for discussing work conditions with another employee. The NLRA protects such activity, and in the EVCO Plastics case (2007) the NLRB ruled against the employer when they tried to discipline employees after discussing their co-workers sex offender status.

      1. Mad Scientist*

        I mean, questioning their judgement is not the same as punishing them, but that’s still interesting.

  47. Can't spell 'Who Cares' without HR*

    LW #4: I’ve been reading this blog for years, and to this day I don’t understand this American idea of limited sick days. If the employee has a limited number of sick days, it makes total sense for them to try as hard as they can to come to work even when they’re not feeling well, so they can save up for some other future emergency. The only way you can demand sick people to stay home is by offering unlimited sick days, which I understand is fairly normal around the world (or at least is the rule in my country)

    1. I should really pick a name*

      It’s not the best system, but it is entirely reasonable to tell someone they need to use a sick day for an existing, communicable illness over a theoretical future one.

      1. Can't spell 'Who Cares' without HR*

        Then what do you do if you have 5 sick days a year and gets sick for a 6th time?

        1. I should really pick a name*

          You deal with it at the time, possibly with unpaid time off.

          If you are definitely sick now, it doesn’t make sense to conserve a sick day for when you MIGHT be sick.

          1. Analyst*

            Right, but many people can’t afford unpaid time off. And so they save their sick days for when they are too sick to work. Which…stinks for spreading disease but is a natural consequence of awful sick leave policies

    2. Apex Mountain*

      It’s starting to become a thing in the US. As some companies move to “unlimited” vacation policies unlimited sick time usually goes along with it.

      Having to count sick days and being given an allottment of them is barbaric imo

      1. Can't spell 'Who Cares' without HR*

        100%. I’m just baffled at how US companies manage to convince employees that this policy makes sense. As Alison has said so many times, people live under an abnormal situation for so long, they start thinking it’s all normal

      3. Blue Pen*

        Although I have “limited” sick days, it’s kind of a misnomer because I actually have 2+ months banked of sick time right now, which only increases the longer I’m here. (Any unused sick time rolls over at the end of the FY.) So, if I’m ever in a situation where I need to take all that sick time at once, I think that would probably start eking into paid medical leave territory, which is a whole other thing. Either way, I feel pretty covered.

      4. UnlimitedTimeOffIsAwful*

        Yes, but unlimited rarely actually means unlimited. In my experience it means however many sick days your current boss thinks is reasonable which is often less than you’d get if a company wide N sick days is imposed. And if they come out of the same “unlimited” bucket as PTO, using a lot of sick time means not getting much vacation time.

    3. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      I ran up against the limit of ‘sick days’ in my employment in the UK. It’s just here it’s not as clearly laid out. Past a certain amount they start to dock pay and eventually just let you go.

      Even here I’ve never worked for a firm with unlimited sick days.

      1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

        afaik, nowhere has literally “unlimited” sick leave, even if the limit is in years not days.
        e.g. in FinalJob (Germany) we had the standard 6 weeks per illness/accident on full pay followed by 2 years on 80% pay, but after that you would be let go, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

        Also although I had 3 incidents of 6 weeks off sick (different years) without issue during my 30 years there, I suspect if I had needed the 2 years added on each time then I’d have had problems.
        Other women freely took 6 weeks + 1-2 years per child, but maternity leave understandably is regarded differently, as a societal good.

        I’m not a fan of unlimited vacation as I suspect those regarded as “good” employees might be those who choose to take the fewest days.
        I had 32 days plus 11 public holidays which I had to take each year and that was fair, especially with comp days.

    4. Person from the Resume*

      It’s the employee’s responsibility to manage their sick days. But do not come into the office if you might be contagious.

      If you’re under the weather and might underperform it is the employee’s responsibility to assess themselves and determine if they can work well enough. That can depend what exactly they’re doing that day (simple busy work or complex calculations that need to be accurate). But if you’re coming in, don’t alert the boss ahead of time that you’re sick but coming in anyway in case you seem off. (That really feels like a brag or something.)

      Employee need to manage themselves and their sick days and shouldn’t be proud of coming in sick (it’s not a badge of hard worker).

      I don’t have unlimited sick days, but I have more than enough to take off when I am sick. A lot of American companies are stingy with sick leave, but not all of them.

    5. doreen*

      What exactly do you mean by “unlimited sick days” ? That is a serious question – do you mean unlimited paid sick days or unlimited unpaid sick days or that once you are out sick for a certain amount of consecutive days you get disability payments or something else? Because it’s really hard for me to imagine that any country requires every employer to keep someone’s job open and pay them if they are medically unable to work for a year or more. I do know of a US employer that claimed to offer unlimited sick leave to some employees – but it was really more of a “no preset limit”. They may have paid some people for a year, but certainly not everyone.

      1. pedro*

        In Brazil, you can take up to 14 sick days paid by the company. If it goes beyond that, you take an unpaid leave and apply for govt benefits that will last for as long as you need before returning to work, and your employer can’t fire you during that period. You can take as many 14-day stretches as you need throughout your employment, as long as they don’t refer to the same illness

  48. Kan*

    OP #4 – Beyond “if you are sick, stay home”, I’m annoyed on your behalf that the other side of the equation is “I’m coming to work, but may look like I’m half-assing it, so please don’t hold it against me.”

    I’ve said something like “I’m not at full capacity” VERY occasionally at work, but if it’s coming up frequently, I think you can also say “If yoit doesn’t rise to the level of ‘sick day’ and you decide to come in, you don’t need to text me. Just come in as you normally would.”

  49. Blarg*

    #2: If the anxiety is impacting your employee’s work enough to where you are considering an improvement plan or termination or something, then you should suggest the EAP and whatever leave options might be available, such as FMLA and/or (ideally) paid family leave. In a regulated industry, “I lost my job because of mental health issues” may have pretty significant career implications. In that context, taking some time away to really work on it may be a good option. BUT your role is to a) tell the employee what issues there are with their work and what you need from them, b) what the potential next steps/consequences are, and c) inform them of options available through your organization such as leave. Then your job is to support their efforts but not dictate how they handle their options.

    1. Anxiety managing anxiety*

      LW2 here: I’ve had several conversations with them about whether to start Short Term Disability, they say they are up for work and won’t pull the trigger. Realizing there’s a mental component is more recent and I have suggested the EAP… but that’s going to be a very slow return on investment, if they even pursue it.
      Based on other replies I’m working on an expectations script along with an offer to consider accommodations or restarting them on easier tasks (to a point).

  50. daeranilen*

    Oh, LW5’s question hits me in my heart. I tutored college writing for 4 years and then taught college writing for 7. One of the things you butt up against constantly, especially in writing where “correct” content is more subjective, is that any good tutor training program will stress that your job cannot be get the tutee good grades. You of course WANT that as a side effect, but AIMING for “my tutees get good grades” incentivizes bad tutoring, the same way teaching to the test incentivizes bad teaching. This does not help you land a private tutoring job where the tutee or the parent only cares about whether they have a better grade at the end of it.

    That said – I promise you, you have success stories. It sounds like you and I are in agreement that most tutees need a supportive sounding board to help them figure out what they already know, practice vocalizing their own thought process, and – yes – identify and resolve gaps in their knowledge. Try to think of examples of the third that overlap with the first and second. One of my great tutoring success stories was a student I taught to identify and fix comma splices excitedly going, “WAIT! THAT’S A COMMA SPLICE! I KNOW HOW TO FIX THAT!” at a later appointment for a different paper – a small thing in the grand scheme of good writing, but a quantifiable achievement that hugely boosted her confidence. I know you have stories like that, too.

    Good luck!!!

    1. Professional Tutor*

      Yes, this! I have been a tutor for 20+ years, and there is a difference between what you ACTUALLY do and what you need to TELL people you do – This is not lying or manipulating! As daeranilen said, if you actually focus on “improving grades” you’re not doing your job well – that strategy leads to short-term results that fall apart next semester; what you’re REALLY doing is trying to get them to understand the material in different ways so they can implement it themselves when you’re not there, teaching them strategies or study skills to survive tough teachers, etc…and the side effect will be good grades.

      But that’s not what nervous parents who don’t know you yet want to hear. They need to hear those “good grade” results because it’s their money and their kid’s terrible GPA that’s motivating them right now. So yes, you should be able to cite “success stories” of improvements (examples of which many have already commented) because what you ACTUALLY do may be more esoteric and less interesting to them right now than the thing they want to pay you for.

      I think this is applicable for lots of jobs, by the way. A good coffee shop worker may feel that their ACTUAL job is to make someone’s day a little brighter, but what the customer wants to hear is “I make a good cup.” A doctor may feel that their actual job is improving long-term health, but the patient needs to hear “I have a good track record of patients’ surviving surgery.” Both need to be true to be good at the job–but the paying client doesn’t always need to know your behind-the-scenes motivations or philosophical approaches.

      1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

        LW5 Thank you for your empathetic perspectives. I feel confident in what I do and how I do it, but it is weird to have to defend it. I understand why so many folks here clearly want numbers and data and track records [nothing touchy-feely I guess]. Now I realize that I will not work that way ever, at all, and it really gave me focus for my little tutoring gig. I don’t want to work with teachers or generate my own pretests or take most of the other suggestions. There are parents who are not going to like my style and it is better to figure that out sooner as opposed to later. I know how to build rapport with kids and that usually gives them better grades. [as a technical aside, some teachers won’t let kids take tests home to go over]

  51. Smurfette*

    OP5,

    I have an autistic kid who is in high school. He struggles with languages but does fine with maths, IT, etc. He has an English tutor.

    My expectation is that she helps him to pass English (which is a mandatory subject; he cannot graduate high school without it). *That* will build his confidence. I’m not looking for a cheerleader, and would not hire someone who positioned themselves that way. I hope that doesn’t sound harsh but it’s really not what my son needs (or wants) in a tutor.

    His tutor also speaks to his teacher on a semi regular basis, so that they are aligned on where he is struggling and where the tutor should focus.

    Getting referrals means you’re a good tutor – but if you’re open to adapting your style, you might consider asking about teacher interaction, etc.

    1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      I understand your perspective completely and your needs are specific for your situation. I say I am a cheerleader and confidence builder but it is never at a cost to the material the student needs to cover. I just try hard to build a relationship and rapport with the student over time, so they know that they can trust me and ask me questions about any topic and I won’t make them feel stupid for asking.
      The main reason I don’t contact the teacher is that often the student doesn’t have the best relationship with the teacher [because their grade is bad] and I would rather have only the student’s perspective and not have the teacher’s opinion coloring what’s happening. That is my choice and I have contacted teachers a few times, but I also try to get the student to advocate for themselves with questions and concerns, so there’s that alternative communication piece as well.

  52. Thomas*

    “ Since you know he did get background checked, presumably your employer is aware of the conviction”

    Or the background check got it wrong. I think that possibility might give me reason enough to raise it with HR.

    1. Person from the Resume*

      It seems much more likely that the LW (not a professional background checker) got it wrong instead of the professional, but maybe.

      Given it’s not the LW’s job do this and thus it’s extremely intrusive to gather this info on your future colleagues, I’d recommend caution about revealing that the LW did this.

      Frankly I don’t buy the excuse I only decided to do this because his background check took longer than normal and he has a very distinct name. The LW probably does this for a lot of coworkers and people in their life. This isn’t a positive trait even if the LW found something troubling (and accurate ???) this time.

  53. Jason*

    Letter Writer 1, you absolutely can bring it up to your employer. I had a similar situation 20 years ago when I was a waiter. Someone told me they knew a new hire was a convicted rapist. I found him on our state’s sex offender registry and showed it to my GM. That dude was fired immediately.

  54. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    2. You need to take a step or three back from this and return the responsibilty to your employee. By which I mean DON’T give them or suggest solutions – simply state what you need to see happen (like ‘getting through a day without disruptive behaviour’) and then listen to them for what they need to achieve that.
    Sounds cold doesn’t it? But from one who’s been in that situation more than once it’s actually the far kinder thing to spell out EXACTLY what will be the consequences if this doesn’t get mitigated somehow. It was a shock to the system at first, but realising it was my responsibilty to get fixed and my decision how to get it fixed made me feel a little more in control and reduced the anxiety.

    To this day I have severe anxiety issues, but I don’t show them at work.

    1. Anxiety managing anxiety*

      LW2 here: I’m understanding that now, thank you. I just don’t want to give a sensitive individual whiplash.

  55. TX_Trucker*

    #1 – Are you perhaps a supervisor or hiring official for other positions? If so, then I think it’s appropriate to ask HR if hiring guideline have changed. Many local government in the USA have “banned the box” and are also becoming more lenient about criminal convictions when hiring folks for non-safety sensitive position. No one wants to publicly announce they are hiring felons, but there might of been a quiet shift in policy.

  56. LongTimeReaderFirstTimeWriter*

    I’ve seen a number of letters where people have done their own background check. I do background checks professionally, and you’d be surprised how many unique names are not unique. I’ve seen people with the same first name, last name, and date of birth living in the same county. I’ve seen people who have done their ‘own research’ get it wrong and it can go very bad (in a law-suit against a person I was doing a background check on, the opposition did their own ‘research’ found a domestica assault case against the individual and tried to use that against them. The problem? Wrong individual, they just happened to have the same name! That’s first, middle, and last!). Those free people reports you see if you Google someone are garbage–even the very expensive records collecting services get information wrong all the time. I’m not saying LW1 is wrong, but you got to be careful when doing background research.

    1. Blarg*

      This! I have an extremely uncommon last name. My mother had the same last name as me and a familiar but uncommon first name with an even more uncommon spelling; our first names start with the same letter, so we are both M. Arglebargle for email/login purposes. I have now met distant cousins because they unintentionally sent me an email intended for their spouse, because their spouse is also M. Arglebargle — and has the same first name as my mother.

      I knew that my great-grandfather married and had a child with my great-grandmother and then abandoned them both and had a whole other family. This inadvertent email is how the other family found out they were family number two. :)

    2. Head Sheep Counter*

      Exactly and given that the process is taking time – I wouldn’t assume an error. An error would be… interviewed, background checked all in the same day… because that implies a quick surface (google) search… and even then evidently this would have been “caught”. So assuming that you know better than your HR (on this issue) is a bold spot to put yourself in.

      1. Peanut Hamper*

        The fact that LW expects a certain amount of time for a background check and no more is kind of……out there. If the agency started doing a background check, realized they had the wrong person, and then had to back up and check the right person, this would take time. LW is assuming they have seen the records of the correct person, and that they are not infallible. Their first instinct should have been to ensure they know which person they are talking about.

        1. Head Sheep Counter*

          Right? And its concerning to imagine that a random colleague would have enough of my actual details to feel confident that they had the right person (social security number, drivers license etc). I’m gonna go with they didn’t have that information because that level of data mis-handling points to a whole other kind of letter.

  57. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    4. Not saying this is the issue with your staff member but when I was a (lot) younger I’d do exactly the same thing – overshare way too much about being ill and then show willingness to ‘make an effort’ by trying to come in anyway.
    Why? Because that’s how I was raised. What I was looking for was a ‘don’t worry, you just stay at home but your enthusiasm is noted and will make a good impression on us’ message which of course I never got.
    Much like with anything management related, it helps to spell things out clearly. ‘I don’t want to hear that level of detail, if you’re sick just notify me and stay home so you don’t infect/gross out others’

  58. nuances*

    #1 – I’m curious what prompted your unofficial “background check” — is this something you do with all new coworkers, or did something about the individual make you feel uneasy which prompted the search? If it’s the latter there’s more opportunity to raise concerns.

  59. Former Gremlin Herder*

    LW#4-I’ve dealt with a very similar employee on our team, and our mutual supervisor had to have a very serious conversation with him about how it is important that be he be able to make the judgement call as to whether or not he can come in. That particular behavior has seemed to get better, but it was accompanied by a lot of other judgement and performance issues, so I’d keep an eye on this employee.

  60. nuances*

    #5 – if you’ve received a number of referrals through satisfied clients, that would be an easy thing to mention which speaks to your ability. If the interview gave you pause for reflection on if you’re actually helping the students, consider asking for feedback at the end of the semester/school year.

    1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      Yes, I think I need to figure out some sort of easy form letter or survey after finals to get a chance to see the improvement by letter grade and any other comments or feedback.
      Thank you!

  61. xylocopa*

    LW5 – I’m a teacher and tutor and I understand what you mean about not focusing on grades and test scores. I work in an area of adult education, ENL, where leaning hard on testing can even be detrimental. But! You can still think about measuring improvement, and also how to communicate that to parents and to your students.

    Think about ways that you already build in informal evaluations of your own. Do you set small-scale objectives for each tutoring session? Give very low-pressure mini-quizzes? Record work the student has done with you first when you begin working with them and then after you’ve been tutoring them for some time? Take some notes about areas they have trouble with, and come back to those later? When I take a moment to consciously evaluate myself–how I evaluate student progress in a setting that’s deliberately grade-free–it strengthens my lesson planning and teaching overall.

    And in terms of communicating with parents and students: “cheerleader” probably isn’t the word you want. Building confidence, yes! Downplaying getting right answers with you in favor of developing students’ sense of curiosity and willingness to ask questions and make mistakes, sure! Focusing on finding what the individual students struggles with and how you can strengthen those skills, rather than fixating on a pre-set curriculum, yes! Those are perfectly valid ways to teach and many parents will be enthusiastic about it when you put it like that.

    1. xylocopa*

      Plus what nuances says up there–are you getting referrals? do you have students who keep working with you over a long term? Those are signs of satisfied customers.

      1. MsM*

        And it’s okay to ask them to share with you how they’re feeling about their progress and whether they’re seeing results. It’s obviously not as concrete in terms of evidence as the testing suggestions above, but enthusiastic testimonials are really helpful.

  62. el l*

    OP2:
    Managers, here are boundaries for supporting your employees:

    It is their job* to figure out that “the why” behind my struggles are mental health/mental wiring, and it’s their job to come to you with a diagnosis. It’s not your job, and there comes a point at which it’s not just ineffective for you to address it, it’s wrong.

    It is their job to manage their symptoms/treatment so they can perform to the needed level. Your job is to communicate that level, and to give RAT** as needed. The rest is not your job, and there comes a point at which it’s not just ineffective for you to address it, it’s wrong.

    So here, you’re already in trouble when they’re not up to speed after 4 months, and you’re still covering apparently all their responsibilities for them. Your job is to set the standard and when they have to be there. How they get there is up to them, and if they’re not there, then the kindest thing for all involved is to part ways.

    *Not all these points came up in this particular letter, but related and we get these letters seriously 1-3 times each month.
    **RAT = company Resources, company Accommodations, and Time Off

    1. Anxiety managing anxiety*

      LW2 here: so glad RAT isn’t what I first thought it was! And thank you for the hard lesson… I will ramp up those three things (along with clarification of expectations), set some deadlines with clear consequences, and stop getting involved in their personal issues. It helps that I’m on a path through burnout myself.

  63. SunnyShine*

    LW 1 – Names aren’t as unique as it may seem. I have a generic name, but the combination isn’t that common. There’s a lady with the same name and birth date as me and who has a criminal record. Twice she has popped up on my background checks.

    Unless there is a picture of the person, I would be very wary of bringing it up. It sounds like it’s easy to find information so your company probably is aware.

  64. Madre del becchino*

    Years ago, I did a Google search for a college friend that I had lost touch with. His name was fairly common, so it took a little digging, but I finally found an article with a photo (so I knew it was the person I was looking for) — it was a mug shot, as he had been arrested for internet solicitation of what he thought was a 14-year-old girl…

  66. Observer*

    #2 – Anxious employee.

    Have one last clear conversation with them, then start working on managing them out. Either they will figure out some effective strategies in which case, you’ll be able to stop the process and all will be well. Or they won’t find strategies despite their best efforts and the sooner they are gone the better.

    Do *not* push for anything – medication, therapy, techniques etc. Nor is it your business whether they are “trying” things or not. All that matters is whether they can do their job.

    You are in a regulated industry doing risk reviews. That means that even if you are not literally risking people’s lives, the capacity for serious damage is there and you have a responsibility to make sure that the person you have on staff is not likely to do that. Right now, you know that they are not capable of safely doing the work. If they can’t change it, that’s it.

    1. Anxiety managing anxiety*

      LW2 here: Loud and clear. I think I can do all that with empathy by setting a schedule for improvement.

  67. LW # 4*

    Update to number 4.

    He came in this morning talking about how sorry he was he hadn’t come in yesterday, and I let him know that if he is running a fever or throwing up, he can feel comfortable just calling in sick because we don’t want to run the risk of getting others sick. He seems to understand. He has been with us for 8 months and has no college experience; this is his first professional job. He probably was just nervous.

    2. Hyaline*

      It’s hard learning norms around professional expectations! I’m glad he’s open to learning! He sounds like he is nervous, so good on you for providing a supportive but firm boundary for him.

  68. Lily Potter*

    LW#1 – to quote the late, great Ann Landers – MYOB. This is not any of your business, unless this guy works with kids/teenagers on the job. In addition, you’re going to look like a major busybody to your bosses if you march in with this background information only to find that they know all about it and there’s a very good reason that the guy got hired. (others in the thread have posted potential reasons, I won’t rehash here).

    I know that LW#1 says that they work for a government agency. I sure hope that agency is law enforcement or something requiring lots and lots of security clearance. A blanket ban on hiring anyone with any misdemeanor on their record in the last seven years seems harsh – this is going to cover things like DUIs, public intoxication, trespassing, and resisting arrest. Should someone applying to be a clerical worker at age 25 be immediately banned from a job because they were sloppy drunk outside a concert and got mouthy with a cop when they were 18?

    1. Specks*

      That’s not what LW is suggesting at all. There’s a world of difference between trying to have sex with a child (and 15 is a child) and getting drunk and behaving like a boor. We are perfectly capable of differentiating between the two. This is not some slippery slope where if we treat rapists or molesters like they don’t belong in society, suddenly anyone with a minor pot conviction has to be swept up in the castigation.

      1. Mad Scientist*

        I mean, that kind of is what the LW is suggesting, even if they don’t fully realize it. They say they’re concerned that the policy was violated, and the policy would apparently disqualify people for misdemeanors within the last 7 years (I say apparently because it’s possible that LW is misinterpreting that policy), which would absolutely include those other examples, not just sexual offenses. If the policy were specifically for sexual offenses, that would be different and I’d assume there would be a job-specific reason for it (e.g. working with children) and we have no reason to believe that’s the case here.

        For you, it might not be a slippery slope, but there are plenty of folks who feel strongly about other crimes (not just sexual ones) and would likely have opinions about things they might find on a coworker’s background check.

      2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

        “if we treat rapists or molesters like they don’t belong in society”

        Society is different to employment. No need to befriend them, but do we wish to deny them the means to support themselves financially for say x years, or indeed forever?
        It’s sensible to exclude them from jobs dealing with vulnerable people or in law enforcement, military etc but not a blanket ban on all jobs even when they are not a safety risk at work.

        Either lock them up forever – and pay higher taxes for this – or let them work to support themselves.

        1. Elbe*

          I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that this is accurate – not if the LW lives in a country that has any type of social services or welfare. It’s not the case that if this guy doesn’t work with the LW, he’s going to die of starvation on the street and may as well be back in jail.

          Realistically, the worst case scenario here is that he has the same low financial reality as everyone else on welfare – most of whom are not convicted sex offenders and who may need assistance through no fault of their own.

          1. basically functional*

            “Welfare” is not really a thing in the US. Social Security only applies to older adults and people with disabilities. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families only applies to people with children (and is temporary, and has work requirements). The Earned Income Tax Credit (the largest cash transfer program in the US) only applies to people who earn income. Food stamps, housing assistance, and Medicaid might cover some expenses but do not provide an income. Individual states may or may not have other programs available. In all cases, benefits are depressingly low. With few exceptions, it is just not possible to support yourself entirely on government assistance in this country.

    2. Jennifer Strange*

      While I don’t think the LW has standing to push back on this (and I do agree people deserve the right to hold jobs after serving time) can be please not conflate getting drunk and “mouthing off” with soliciting sex from a minor?

      1. Lily Potter*

        If a workplace bans all people with any misdemeanor from getting employed, it doesn’t matter whether the misdemeanor is public intoxication or solicitation of a minor. The result is the same. A blanket “no misdemeanors” ban means that there wouldn’t be room for differentiation between a job in a government preschool and a job pushing paper in an office. And that doesn’t make sense to me. As Retired Vulcan writes above – as a society we should be encouraging people with criminal records to support themselves financially once they’ve served their time.

  69. BigBugEyes*

    Juxtaposing letters #1 & #2 is an interesting though experiment. If the sex offender is simply a sexual deviant (still very immoral to assault children), but keeps to himself and is fairly competent at his job despite being someone to take caution with outside a professional environment, than would they be a better employee than someone with extreme anxiety who needs constant oversight and is stressful for her manager and coworkers? When I started out managing people it was for a company that did hire a significant number of felons. Not being a former felon myself, originally I was alarmed and terrified, but they usually ended up being my most reliable staff members (caveat, to my knowledge none of them were child sex predators).
    Note I am not defending his actions or suggesting he is a good person, only considering things from an employer’s POV. If the offender’s job is not in a position to accesses children or have significant authority over others, shouldn’t they be allowed employment?

    1. UKDancer*

      I think it depends what the felony was and what the employment is. There is for example a keycutting and shoe repair company called Timpsons in the UK which employs a significant number of ex-offenders and finds they have a low rate of reoffending. They are pretty careful in their risk management and a lot of their employees are convicted for drug and petty crime offences.

      I use Timpsons to repair my shoes because I want to support what they do and think it’s beneficial to society. On the other hand I would have severe misgivings if they were employing those with convictions for serious sexual offences in customer service positions.

  71. displaythisname*

    Is there any chance that the symptoms in #4 aren’t a communicable disease, but are, in fact, a hangover? That would fit with feeling bad, not doing his best work, gastrointestinal issues, but doesn’t want to spend sick days and not actually worried about getting colleagues sick. (I don’t want to write fanfic here, just flagging this as a possibility, as it is exactly what a lot of people say to their boss when they have a hangover and aren’t at their best.)

    1. Mad Scientist*

      Ohhh good point, especially because this person is new to the workforce. Something to keep an eye out for if it continues to happen frequently.

    2. Annie*

      I didn’t think about this possibility at first!

      That changes the advice to, “If you have a hangover, just tell me you have a hangover so I’ll know you’re not contagious.”

      That assumes someone who is hung over can safely get to work and safely do the job, however.

  72. Lark*

    #4 – I have done this, and it’s because I am obviously well enough to work but might be dragging, and I’m worried that my manager will think I’m being lazy. If I took a day off every time I had a headache or a mild cold, there wouldn’t be enough sick time in the year, but if I have a headache or am achey/vague due to a cold, I simply am not going to be able to muscle through the day as if I felt totally terrific.

    A manager at a former job busted out that “if you’re sick enough to talk about being sick, stay home!” bit, and I ended up feeling that I was being told to shut up and do better, because of course I could not possibly get all my work done if I were off sick every time I didn’t feel magnificent. It was not a great feeling and a sign that I was a poor fit for the role.

    2. DJ*

      Some ppl with chronic health conditions have to work anyhow. They either can’t get a disability benefit or can’t afford not who earn a wage/salary!

  73. Lemons*

    OP #1 — I’m sorry you’re dealing with this. When I found out similar info about a coworker, I had a panic attack, I know how troubling this can be.

    Your company hired his guy knowing all the details you know, and probably more. I don’t think going to them will do anything.

    Give him a fair shake as a coworker, but be mindful of how he’s treating others at work. Mine was the worst narcissist I’ve ever encountered, and a complete nightmare to work with. He felt like he could do whatever he wanted with no consequences, so keep an eye out to make sure yours is behaving professionally.

    One thing I never did figure out was grappling with knowing something that parent coworkers did not, and cringing every time they posted a photo of their kids on Slack. I agree with commenters that people should get second chances. But the employer has an equal obligation to the rest of the staff as well.

  74. H3llifiknow*

    I am a former teacher and for a success story, if asked again, I think you could say something like, “for me success is when I see a student I’m tutoring suddenly *click* with the material and that moment of epiphany when they understand the process to getting solution” or something less convoluted in that vein. But I know as a teacher, those moments for me were the best. When that one student who always took a little longer to understand the formula or how to get the problem solved suddenly lit up and just GOT IT. Use those little moments. You don’t have to have a big “well one student got a perfect score on his SATs after I tutored him” kind of answer.

    1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      I actually was able to do this at the interview. I doubled back to a moment when the student I had tutored the longest said at the end of the session she enjoyed math when she figured it out. !!! normally she does not care for it…

      1. MMC*

        And as you say, LW5, you’re not out for grades. Grades are the byproduct.

        Feel free to borrow mine: “My success is getting the student to a point where they no longer need me because they’ve internalized the learning skills.” But enjoying math is another huge win!

        1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

          It sounds like the dating app slogan that wants you to delete it because you found love…
          [I will def. use it if I ever have to interview again!]

  75. definitely anon for this one*

    Maybe this is because I’m a CSA survivor, but I am deeply unnerved by the number of people defending someone who is possibly a sex offender.
    It’s certainly possible that LW1 is mistaken, but I don’t think they’re wrong for feeling uncomfortable about this. Let them go to HR, ask, and see what happens.
    I obviously understand how necessary and important it is for people with criminal records to be allowed to earn a living, but if I found out that a coworker had knowingly solicited a *child* for sex (whether the child existed or not) I would not be able to continue working with that person. The dismissal of OP’s concerns has left a really bad taste in my mouth.

    1. Elbe*

      I’m so sorry that happened to you. I understand why the comments here would be upsetting.

      For what it’s worth, though, I think a decent number of the commenters here would feel differently about this situation if they, personally, were involved. Social ideals can seem really clear in theory, but are murkier in practice. It’s a social ideal that once a person serves his time, he should be given a second chance by society. But the reality is that no one coworker or company is obligated to give that him second chance.

      I think that the LW’s discomfort is valid. I wouldn’t fault them at all for going to HR and making sure that the company is aware that this is outside of policy. And if the company decides to move forward with this employee anyway, then I have a ton of sympathy for the discomfort of the situation that the LW is in.

    2. Colette*

      I don’t see a lot of people defending the possible criminal.

      But while the crime was horrible, that’s only part of the picture.

      It’s not the OP’s job to do background checks – someone else does that, so we don’t know if the OP’s information is accurate as it relates to the new coworker.

      We don’t know if the policy was broken, and the OP does not oversee the policy or have any authority to take action on it.

      And ultimately, if someone has committed a crime and served their sentence, they need to be able to survive after that, which means that either they are able to work or society needs to support them. Obviuosly, they shouldn’t be in a position to re-offend, but someone who committed this particular crime could work in many jobs that don’t involve contact with minors. That doesn’t mean that what they did was OK, or at the OP has to be anything more than civil to him.

    3. Mad Scientist*

      I’m very sorry you’ve experienced that.

      I haven’t necessarily seen comments defending the sexual offender so much as questioning why the LW looked into their background in the first place. Their discomfort is understandable, but to me, that only reinforces why it’s not a good idea to snoop. You might not like what you find, but you might not be in a position to do anything about it. If the hiring manager and HR decides that they want to hire this person despite their background (which they’re certainly already aware of if they did a background check), you can raise concerns but it’s ultimately their call to make.

      For me, it’s not really about giving people second chances, it’s just that I think it’s inappropriate to do your own background check on coworkers or future coworkers, regardless of what you find. In your case, if you feel like you’d need to run a background check on all future coworkers in order to feel safe because of personal trauma, and you’d be willing to leave your job over it if you found something you didn’t like, then that would be understandable! Trauma can make people do all sorts of things that would normally be considered inappropriate. But I do strongly believe that this kind of snooping is inappropriate in the vast majority of cases.

      And again, it’s less about the second chances and more about a slippery slope for me. Sure, we can all agree that sex offenses are terrible, but what if it was a different offense that some people feel strongly about, e.g. drug-related offenses? I’ve certainly had coworkers who would feel just as strongly as you do, up to the point of not being able to work with someone, over drug-related offenses or similar. My point is just that the ends don’t justify the means, and there are some things we’re better off not knowing about our coworkers, if those things are only going to make you uncomfortable without the authority to do anything about it.

      Again, very sorry you’ve experienced that.

    4. Aglet*

      I agree, definitely anon. Reading the comments make me think I should check everyone at work against the sex offender registry. I never would have thought that so many people would be against giving coworkers a heads-up not to bring their kids around, even to family events, if someone on the sex offender registry works there. Definitely don’t let your teens come in if they’re picking you up or dropping something off for you! I would have expected my work to warn me if someone on the sex offender registry worked there, but clearly that’s not going to happen if I have a boss that thinks like many of the people commenting here today.

      1. Aglet*

        I especially can’t believe that some people said it’s none of your business. Um, there is a sex offender registry because the government decided it’s everybody’s business.

  76. Head Sheep Counter*

    I am always surprised at how many keyboard warriors are out in the workforce. It has never once occurred to me to run my own background check on my colleagues. I have checked the news when there has been rumor of a news worthy occurrence (usually sad such as an accident).

    Perhaps I am naive but working in an environment where an extensive background check is mandatory – I have faith that the FBI generally has resources beyond my keyboard.

    To the LW I’d ask, why did you feel thus compulsion in this case? Do you do this for all your colleagues? Do you need more work? Have you considered joining the HR background checking team so that it is actually your job to do this?

    I’d be deeply uncomfortable working with someone who needed to go around HR to “find” information based on???

    I’d also be uncomfortable working with someone convicted on a serious crime but what I’d do with the information beyond discomfort would be based on my actual needs (eg do I work with kids and my colleague has a conviction for harming kids? do I work with financial information and my colleague has a conviction related to that?).

  77. Tupac Coachella*

    LW5: Higher ed student affairs expert here (sharing this to provide my context so you can more easily pick out and disregard anything that doesn’t apply to you).

    You should absolutely have a mechanism for following up and finding out what happened to the students you’ve worked with. Tracking your work from goals to outcomes is critical for ensuring that you’re having the impact that you think you are. It can be a little daunting to build an assessment process for yourself, but it’s not actually all that hard to maintain once it’s built, and it will really help with both answering these types of questions and improving your practice as a tutor. Here are some basic steps for getting started with an assessment plan:

    1. Identify a few key performance indicators (KPIs) for your work. What do you want *every single student* who works with you to get out of the experience? If someone gave a recommendation that showed you’d executed the role absolutely perfectly, what would they definitely mention? There are good resources online for structuring an effective KPI in education. I’d start with no more than 5.

    2. If you haven’t already, start a master tracking sheet using Excel or specialized software (it sounds like this is a personal business for you, so a spreadsheet is likely the easiest and cheapest option). Track your students by anything you might want to be able to filter by later that influences those goals-maybe age, school or school district, topic, number of sessions, etc. I recommend explicitly considering equity when you decide what to track. If your process works really well for students from well resourced schools or who share your cultural background but other types of students don’t have the same results, that’s important information for you to know. Also include contact information. You’ll use this spreadsheet to answer the question “am I meeting my KPIs?” later.

    3. I’d also suggest asking each student (and/or, if appropriate, parent) to identify one or two things that they want to accomplish by working with you and documenting that, too. As you work with them, the intention is that you hit all of your KPIs and also personalize your service to support their goals and developmental needs. For example, “your KPIs plus building confidence in reading” for a 6th grader may look different from “your KPIs plus being prepared to write a competitive college admissions essay” for a 12th grader, but both are measurable and in some ways comparable. It also gives you an opportunity for setting expectations; if the student’s goal is to go from a D in math to an A in one month but they only want to commit to one 30 minute session per week, they need to know up front that that’s probably not going to happen. Then you have a chance to have a conversation on what it would take to get to what they want and reset expectations if you can’t provide that. If you’re having issues with people feeling like they aren’t getting their money’s worth (which you may or may not be aware of, but could be hurting your referrals), incorporating this step into your process can help prevent that.

    4. Set up a mechanism for getting after-service data related to your KPIs-what happens when the student leaves you? Do they actually have the outcomes you, and they, expected? A simple mechanism would be a survey. “How’d I do? Did you meet your goals of X? How about Y? What would you like to share with me about your experience?” Include at least one question about each KPI, and keep it short. Add that info to your spreadsheet. Ask if it’s ok for you to share quotes, either with or without their names, and if they’d be willing to talk to future clients as a reference. Keep a separate list of quotes and references for your success stories. As others have mentioned, this is very common in this field. A written survey in e-mail or a Google doc is probably easiest, but is likely to have a lower response rate. Another option if you serve smaller numbers of students is to call or text them after a period of time (you would determine how long based on how long it would take to see results) to “check in and ask a few follow up questions.” More time consuming and doesn’t allow anonymous feedback (so more likely that they’ll gloss over negative feedback that could be helpful for improvements), but likely to have a better response rate, especially if you have good relationships already built. You might survey students, parents, or both depending on the population you work with. As you develop your process, think about whether you want to compare your outcomes strictly to your KPIs or if you also want to do some type of intake survey and compare the outcomes to that as well. (FWIW, I’m a fan of the intake survey; it’s a good place to start those expectations conversations and to socialize your KPIs so they have an idea of what they’re supposed to be getting out of it from your perspective. If they know what they’re supposed to be getting, they have a chance to say something sooner if they don’t think it’s happening, something that may not be obvious on your end until the goal isn’t met.)

    5. Analyze your data. This is the part that scares people, but it’s also the fun part. This is where you see your outcomes and identify areas for improvement. Choose an identified period of time (semester, year, whatever makes sense in your context) and use your spreadsheet to track progress on your KPIs in that timeframe. Then compare and draw conclusions. Break out the data to see what happened by the numbers during that time, and how related KPIs interacted together. (Again, good advice online for this, or you may consider attending a professional conference with sessions on assessment to dive deeper into how to do this well.) Maybe you see that you served 18 students that term, and all of them showed improvement on standardized tests, but 60% still rated their confidence on standardized tests as “low” in the follow up survey. This might tell you that you’re meeting your goals for academic achievement, but not in confidence in testing. That allows you to make adjustments specifically in the areas that aren’t already working well. It gives you an idea of where to start to serve your students better as a whole. You can also see the outliers-yes, only 10 of 17 of your cohort got an SAT score of 1200 or higher, but all 7 of those who didn’t missed at least two sessions, so now you know how to emphasize that attending sessions as scheduled is necessary because you have numbers to back it up. Likewise, if you see that all of your students score between 1200-1700 regardless of how many sessions they missed, you may not need to make a big deal about missed sessions for students with a goal within that range. As the data informs your work, you’ll be able to better predict the needs of your students, adjust where needed, and clearly demonstrate your impact to potential clients.

    From your letter you sounded like a caring and competent tutor, and I hope these tips help you get started with taking it to the next level, both for your students and yourself. You deserve to be able to wear your successes proudly! And nothing feels better than hearing back from a student that what you did together had a positive impact.

    1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      I am printing this out so I can read it at my leisure not on a teeny tiny screen. Thank you so much!

      1. MMC*

        I also do this work, and, with due respect, what’s suggested is much more than what’s expected at your level. Forget KPIs and the like. These are students, not widgets. Most parents (I am also one) simply want to know your methods and whether their kid is going to listen to you. They also want a tutor who’s not going to waste their money or simply walk their kid through rote memorization.

        Yes, you are a business, but understanding the nature of this very specific business and your audience is key. They don’t want percentages. They want to know you can help their kid. Period. Focus on the personal stories (no names) and have former clients provide references. Their success stories will make the difference. Plus: own your skill! It’s not one most people have!

        1. Tupac Coachella*

          I can see that. I thought about whether bringing in talk of KPIs and whatnot was too much, but went ahead and used that terminology vs “goals” because it’s specific enough to Google more information on what that means and how to write one that’s actually helpful. Whether parents care to hear them or not, it’s absolutely important for the practitioner to identify exactly what outcomes they intend to provide. I know there are very successful practitioners out there who shoot from their gut, and if that’s working for them, cool. In some businesses the scale is small enough that you know success when you see it, and probably don’t need any of this. If this is a full time gig, though, I see significant benefit in leveling up to be able to identify, assess, and communicate target outcomes. They may not need the percentages…but you do. In this type of work it’s a “be best” step, not necessarily a “you’ll fail without it” step.

  78. Freelance Bass*

    #3 Is there another nickname you can put out there? Building something like “widget wizard” or something along those lines into your branding would give folks something else to call you, which in addition to Alison’s advice might help “widget mom” go away.

  79. Another Millennial Emily*

    OP4, I work at a college with a lot of young people. Some of them say things like this to their managers when they are hung over, don’t want to tell the boss they are hung over, and don’t want to “waste” a sick day. They know they’re not contagious, but also want some cover story in place for why they’re not bringing their A game to work. No idea whether that’s likely for your employee, but it’s a possibility!

  80. DJ*

    LW#4 if the employee is well enough to work or would be spreading germs could he work from home. Win win for all. He gets his work done and doesn’t come back to a pile of work. No one gets what he has!

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      The Op has posted that his work can only be done at the office.
      There are many jobs where remote working is not possible, even for 1 day.

  81. Orora*

    What many folks seem to be missing here is that in most cases, the fact of a criminal convictions can’t be used as a sole reason to deny someone employment. There are exceptions if the convictions are job related (for instance, if the new hire was working as a school bus driver).

    An Employer That Considers Criminal Records in Hiring Decisions Should Assess Whether the Record is Relevant to the Job. An employer can assess the relevance of a person’s criminal history and how it relates to the risks and responsibilities of the job. To do so, the employer should consider:
    the nature and seriousness of the offense/crime;
    the time that has passed since the criminal offense or completion of the sentence; and
    the nature of the job.
    (From: https://www.eeoc.gov/arrestandconviction)

    Your org’s “no convictions in the last 7 years” policy is borderline illegal, and it’s possible that someone pointed it out to them.

    1. Lily Potter*

      LW#1’s employer is a “government agency” (the word agency screams state/federal to me rather than regional/local) so chances are that whatever policy is in place is legal.

      It occurs to me that the LW may not understand the nuances of their policy. Perhaps only certain positions are “no ______ type of misdemeanors in the past seven years” as opposed to a blanket policy of “no misdemeanors whatsoever” Examples: someone with a financial misdemeanor on their record could apply to work with kids but not in accounts receivable; someone with a solicitation of a minor misdemeanor could apply to be a mechanic but not a preschool teacher; someone with a a DUI could apply to be a hospital orderly but not a delivery driver.

    2. Elsajeni*

      It sounds like their policy is specifically based on two of those points, though — “crimes against people” (the nature and seriousness of the offense) “within the last 7 years” (the time that has passed since the offense or completion of the sentence). It does seem like the EEOC page you linked to implies that it should be more of a case-by-case analysis, but I can also see the organization’s side in saying, no, we want a clear guideline so no one is asked to make a judgment call that could lead to disparate impacts.

  82. Properlike*

    #5 – I wonder if you’re focused too much on the day-to-day incremental part of your tutoring so much that you’re missing the proverbial “forest.” What this parent and aunt are looking for is the “so what?” What is it that you do as a tutor different from other tutors? What is your ultimate goal for your students, in the grand scheme of your time together? You have everything else, but your reason for tutoring is the only thing missing.

  83. The Builder*

    LW 5, private tutoring of mathmatics and sciences is different than language arts or running a tutoring location business (ex. Mathnasium.) In high school, I tutored all subjects for at risk students. I transitioned to only algebra, calculus, differential equations, and all levels of chemistry later on. I tutored those subjects for a few decades. It seems you work similar to how I did.

    The textbook, student’s notes, along with returned quizes and tests provide everything you need to accomplish success with that student. No involvment with the math or science instructor makes sense to me. Asking students to update you with final grades seems wise. Every client of mine was not or barely passing when I was hired. Everyone finished with a B. Other follow up also provides proof of success metrics. Tutor someone in Algebra and know Chemistry is scheduled to follow. Hearing that they aren’t struggling with stoichiometry is strong proof of success. Same holds true for calculus followed by astrophysics or quantumn mechanics. (Those are covered in calc based Physics and Physical Chemistry, respectively.) These are the metrics/KPIs that potential client’s parents like to hear from private tutors.

    I used to say most clients had learned math phobia. Math courses build upon what was taught weeks ago. It seems that you help them master the missed material (not passing when hired.) Getting the client caught up, filling knowledge gaps, tutoring in the mode the students learns well in, mastering new material, and helping them learn to test well are all components to what you do. I see in the comments that cheerleader does not land as intended. Better phrasing will help.

    1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      I may not have even used the exact phrase cheerleader in the interview [it was a blur!]. The irony is that I was not hired because the student did not want to meet, even though the mother thought I was fine. I told the mother that I would be ready whenever the student changed their mind.

      I appreciate your perspective, because I agree that tutoring in math and science can be quite different from language arts. I think I just need to add a tiny bit of follow up at the end of the semester with the student or parent, depending on who is my contact.

  84. CzechMate*

    LW 5 – your answer is perfect *for a student*, but yes, as Alison says, a parent is only going to want to hire you if they feel like it’s worth the investment, i.e. Tim is failing math and we need to make sure he passes.

    Are there any families you work with where you feel you have a good rapport and where you think the students are making progress? If so, you can ask them if they’d be willing to provide some info to help with these kinds of things. This isn’t being smarmy–you can just ask the parent, “Hey, I’m looking to expand a bit and it’d be great to have some testimonials from families I work with. This will all be anonymous, of course, but would you be willing to share some more about how your child has been progressing?” You may find that of the families you talk to, kid’s math scores actually tend to increase by one letter grade when they work with you, or students who previously were about to be held back are now able to pass. These don’t need to be your main selling points, but you should keep that info (or even make a quick little promo sheet about your tutoring services and the results) to give to parents in instances like this.

    Again, your attitude isn’t wrong, and it IS the kind of thing you should say to a student–it’s just not what a parent wants to hear when they’re holding the purse strings.

    1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      You are right, I just need to thread the needle about my own strengths and style. I have impressive enough credentials to wow any parent, so my rapport-building isn’t usually discussed like it was in this interview situation, it just happens organically. I do have a few families where I have tutored several students and I should look to them for some positive words.

  85. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

    LW #1. What you can do with this info at work has been covered thoroughly. On the personal side, if this topic is on interest or concern to you, talk with your legislators. Why was someone who refused to complete sex offense-specific treatment still allowed to downgrade to a misdo and “successfully” complete their sentence? If you got a DUI and refused to abstain and do your alcohol classes, victim impact panel, etc would you get a successful discharge? Judges are constrained by the law, and an unfortunate side effect of the CJ reform effort has been some pretty big loopholes.

    Also agree that it’s not realistic to railroad convicted offenders out of every job. But if the rule is 7 years, it should be 7 years for everyone or no one.

  86. Tuesday Tacos*

    To the tutor, what’s wrong with following up with your students at the end of the year or after the tests? Let them know before they leave you for good that you’ll be getting in touch with a few questions to find out how they did. There’s nothing wrong with follow up, and I feel like they/the parents would like to know you care enough to ask how they did.

    1. LW 5, aka America's Next Top McGuffin*

      I think that I need to change my mindset. I have been so focused about not asking for grades or pressuring the students to perform better FOR ME that I have not asked important questions about MY PERFORMANCE as a tutor FOR THEM [and also in the eyes of the parents].

Comments are closed.