boss runs hot and cold, collecting cash to give to staff, and more

by Alison Green on November 25, 2024

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

1. My boss runs hot and cold

I work in a mid-size non-profit as a fundraiser. I’ve been in this field for 20+ years and am used to the pressure that comes with this job. I joined this organization a year ago and have been successful. I’ve met my fundraising goals, implemented a few new projects, and built strong relationships with donors. That said, I’ve never been more stressed or anxious in a job and I don’t know if I can stay here.

My boss is combative and very hot and cold. One day she will yell at me, tell me that she “hates my work,” and tell me that I waste her time. Other days she will tell me that I am doing great and is very friendly. She has said things like, “I am combative because I care.” When I first started, she told me that her last team complained to HR about her, HR told her who said what, and everyone who spoke up is no longer working here. She implies that she fired them because of what they said. She also has told me that “they couldn’t hack it here.”

I attend a lot of events with donors as part of my job and when we were working on seating for a small dinner, she told me that I shouldn’t be seated next to a donor because “you aren’t fun.” She made this comment multiple times in front of a colleague. It was embarrassing. The purpose of the dinner was to cultivate and fundraise for the organization. I need to sit next to people to do my job.

Part of my job is to plan events to cultivate and steward new donors. I came up with a new type of event, got it approved by her, and invited people to attend. After the invitations went out, my boss told me the CEO “is very mad at you. You should have gotten this approved.” She had approved the event, and she got angry at me when I voiced my confusion. I don’t have meetings with the CEO and never get anything approved directly from him.

These are just a few examples from this month.

I feel like I am constantly failing even though I am meeting my goals. Am I being too sensitive? My spouse suggested that I talk to HR, but I worry that I will be fired because of what she has told me about the last team. Do you have any advice?

Find a new job and get out of there. Talking to HR about a bad manager is risky under the best of circumstances: at best, their power to do anything is often limited, and at worst, it can get back to your manager and cause tension in that relationship with. In this case, HR already has a track record of disclosing complaints to her and not preventing her from retaliating against the complainers. HR isn’t an option when you know that history.

Your boss is a jerk who is never going to support you, and as long as you stay in this job you’re going to feel stressed and insecure. The best thing you can do is to get out.

2. I’m not trying to blame anyone, I just want to fix mistakes

I’m having a strange recurring issue at work that I don’t know how to approach. Let’s say members on my team build teacups. The teacups have to be built to exact specifications or they don’t work right.

I am the subject matter expert on building teacups, but my boss assigns builds to people randomly. Some people make the same mistake on the builds over and over, which causes problems when customers try to use the teacups. I’m not tasked with reviewing builds, which in itself is a problem. I do try to catch problems if I can, but I don’t have the bandwidth to catch them all.

When a build is found to have a problem, my first question is, who built the teacup? If the same mistakes are being made repeatedly, I want to look at retraining or going over our guides to see if they need to be clarified.

My boss has started to get angry at me for asking who built the teacup. A serious problem with a teacup build came to light yesterday, and in response to my question of who built it, she snapped that it didn’t matter who built it.

I think it does matter, especially if the same person is making the same build mistakes, because I would like to retrain or go back through the steps with that person. Relying on me to find errors is not sustainable; I’m covering several jobs at the moment and everyone else on the team is new.

I’m not looking for someone to blame; I want to fix the process so we can cut down the error rate. I also don’t want to keep fixing the same mistakes over and over again, when the person doing the build should not be making the same mistake over and over again.

I don’t know how to approach this with my boss. I had the same problem at a previous job. I don’t know how to communicate that I’m not looking for someone to blame, I want to fix whatever in our process is leading to the same errors.

Have you said to your boss explicitly, “I’m not looking for anyone to blame or get in trouble. I’m asking so that I know if we need to retrain so we have fewer errors in the long run”? If not, say that.

But if you’ve said that and it hasn’t changed anything, then combined with the fact that you got this same feedback at a previous job, I suspect there’s something about the way you’re communicating that is coming across as blamey, even though you don’t intend it to. For what it’s worth, “who built this?” both is a reasonable question to ask and can easily sound like, “I’m asking because they need to know this is unacceptable.” So you might try softening your wording — for example, “I’d like to give whoever built this some tips on how to avoid it — do we know who I should talk to?” That’s less efficient to say, but it’ll probably land differently.

3. Collecting cash to give to staff

I work as a staff member in an academic department at a large state university. We have 10 staff members, including fiscal specialists, advisors, communications specialists, etc. We eliminated receptionists, secretaries, and other more traditional positions years ago. But, dating back to when we had a department secretary and office assistant, there is a tradition of the faculty passing the hat to collect money to give in cash as a Christmas present to us staff (and the sum can be fairly significant, especially because two of us have always opted out, which means more money goes to the others). Of the staff, four of us have PhDs; a couple make more money than the lowest-paid faculty members who are chipping in for these gifts.

I’m always fighting to have staff seen as equals with faculty. I find this variation on tipping to be demeaning, and I’m frustrated that it continues (because some of the staff just want the money). Am I being oversensitive?

I don’t think you’re being oversensitive, but I also think you’re probably fighting a losing battle as long as the other staff members want to continue the tradition.

4. Recruiter said candidates lie about needing visa sponsorship

I am hiring for a new member of my team working within a small department in a very large university. I’ve done hiring in this role before and this is my first time using our university’s recruiters to help lighten my workload in the process.

We receive a lot of applications from people who are students in a masters program at our school, who have only worked outside of the U.S. in the past. This is very common for this role as it is classified as a STEM role by the government (it’s not) which means it does technically qualify for an O-1 visa. However, we do not sponsor visas within our department.

We have questions in our application system that ask if an applicant will need sponsorship now or in the future. As long as they answer no, I accept them as a viable candidate and I’ve never thought twice about it. When I was speaking with a recruiter about our role, he remarked that we had many international candidates. When I brushed that off because I don’t really care, he reiterated that “we do not sponsor” and then followed up with “people lie on those questions all the time.” That part made me uncomfortable. I was in a meeting with my boss and a more senior recruiter and no one else reacted.

I made a joke about how candidates could technically lie about anything, but I’m still thinking about his comment and if I should have said something then or should say something now. For what it’s worth, I’ve ignored his advice completely and am interviewing some great candidates.

People lie on all sorts of questions, which is why you verify the things that matter. As it happens, this one is easily solvable because employers are required by law to verify new hires’ ability to work legally in the U.S. before they start work, so if someone is lying about not needing a sponsor, you’ll find that out pretty quickly.

In your shoes, I’d sure as hell be wondering if that recruiter is rejecting all international applicants on the grounds that they might need sponsorship even if they don’t — and if that’s the case, he’s violating federal law, which prohibits discriminating based on national origin. It might be interesting to ask him — or his boss — if he is in fact doing that.

5. I think our doctor’s note policy is illegal

My company is mostly remote, but has recently begun a policy where employees in cities with enough employee density come into a coworking space once a month. I have no problem with the policy — it’s great to see people, while still working mostly remotely! However, our HR team, in an attempt to stamp out any possible edge cases where an employee might not be able to come in for coworking on this day, has implemented a bunch of rules that are annoying in some cases (for example, if your childcare falls through and you need to stay home, you must use one of your PTO days, even if you can work with your kids around), and possibly not legal in the one I’m writing about.

Specifically, if you’re sick and need to stay home on the coworking day, you’re required to send a doctor’s note to HR. In my city and the city where the company is headquartered (San Francisco and New York City), there are laws stating you can’t require a doctor’s note unless an employee is out sick for more than three days. These laws are pretty easy to find with a simple Google search. Our regular sick time policy in fact states that a doctor’s note is only required if you’re out more than three days, but the policy for the coworking days states that if you’re out just that day you must provide a note. I’ve heard of at least one employee who needed to stay home sick on a coworking day, and was pinged by multiple people in HR (including the head of HR) saying they must submit a doctor’s note, and generally giving them a hard time about needing to stay home.

Is there a (tactful) way to bring up that we may be running afoul of local employment laws with this policy? Am I missing something?

I’d say it this way: “I’m concerned that requiring a doctor’s note if someone is sick on a coworking day violates the law in San Francisco and New York City, both of which prohibit requiring doctor’s notes unless the person is out three days or more.” You could add, “I don’t want us to run afoul of the law, and I think we likely need to change that to comply.”

This is the same matter-of-fact “whoops, we might be getting this wrong” framing that you’d use for a concern that felt less fraught (like if you needed to point out that you were using the wrong deadline for a city tax filing or something else similarly boring).

You may also like:
{ 349 comments }

{ 349 comments… read them below }

  1. Daphne*

    LW2-
    Are you doing root cause analysis on all build problems and identifying trends? Bc if you jump right to retraining individuals without confirming that a training problem is the issue, then you won’t be fixing the problem. You should have a root cause analysis process that includes collecting the operator, but also collecting other information.

    1. Bambue*

      Is this also something where you have flagged the larger goal to your manager and ask for assistance in creating a strategy? Laying out the problem of inconsistent quality and it’s impacts and ask what their thoughts on solutions might be. It might reveal differences in priorities, or a different approach to training that doesn’t feel as blame-y to people.

      1. Ellie*

        Yes, the way you take the blame away is by lifting the data up a level so that no names are involved. OP, you have a couple of options, but I’d start by cataloguing what errors were made and when across a decent length of time, to see if quality really is a problem or not (it might not be – some processes run faster when not every problem is caught and that’s not a bad thing). Then I’d develop a training plan to address the main failings that you’re seeing. Since your manager won’t identify people, you’ll have to train them all. Or, could come to your manager with suggestions such as you reviewing all the complicated teacup designs, or similar.

    2. AcademiaNut*

      It also makes a big difference whether this process is part of your job, and if your colleagues know that it’s a part of your job.

      If you are tasked with analyzing failures and retraining you people don’t directly manage, they should be told that this is part of your task, and that it’s diagnostic rather than accusatory. Then, within that system, you can work with your boss on the best way to approach it, both practically and in a soft skill way that doesn’t upset people unnecessarily.

      On the other hand, it sounds like this might not actually be part of your job, and you’re taking it on yourself to investigate and act. Does your boss want you tracking down individual teapot makers and retraining them and going through the errors with them, or does he simply want you to give him the information, for him to decide how to handle it? If you don’t have your boss’s backing for this, then it might be something that is useful, but not your job, and in that case your coworkers and your boss are likely to respond badly.

      1. Kella*

        Yes, I was very confused by this part of OP’s letter: “I’m not tasked with reviewing builds, which in itself is a problem. I do try to catch problems if I can, but I don’t have the bandwidth to catch them all.”

        This seems to say OP has decided independently that catching these problems and trying to find the source of them is something they should do, but it is not actually part of their job to do that. It’s possible the manager’s frustration stems from OP taking on managerial tasks when they don’t have the authority to do that.

        1. T2*

          I noticed that too. The process I use is to ask myself the following questions:

          Is there an issue?
          Can this be overlooked?
          Is it my place to correct it?
          Do I know how to be gentle and kind about it?

          If any of these answers is no, then I don’t worry about it.

          The gentle and kind bit is really important. I like the genuine compliment/issue/ appreciation sandwich approach especially with peers.

          For teapots it might sound like this:

          Fergus I really appreciate your efforts and work ethic. One thing to think about, on page 3 of the design document, it says that our handles need to be big enough for two fingers., and not just one. Some of our clients need the bigger handles. Looking at this order, the handle seems more like a 1 finger design. What do you think?

          Then stop and listen. Let them be heard.

          And end with, I really appreciate your efforts. Let’s make a few and see how it goes.

          This really works for me. And if it doesn’t, well, then that is on the bosses to take more forceful action.

          1. Yorick*

            Consider exactly how you use the compliment sandwich. To me, starting with “I appreciate your work ethic” is patronizing.

            1. Worldwalker*

              Yes. I’m not a little child who will go bawl in the corner if my fragile feefees get hurt. If my boss finds a problem in my work, I want him to tell me, not pad it with a lot of “kindness” that doesn’t get the job done.

          2. BatManDan*

            For several reasons, the “sandwich” method works AGAINST what you hope to accomplish. Two of the (undesirable) effects are: you “train” people to expect negative feedback any time they receive positive feedback, and you run the (high-percentage) risk of making the person think that the thing that needs to be corrected is not a big deal, and it ends up not getting corrected. (This “sandwich” theory is one of many concepts that sounds like it SHOULD work, but in practice, does NOT work.)

            1. KateM*

              Oh yeah! At ExJob it was a must to use sandwich for feedback and as a result, I never knew what my feedback actually was. Was “the issue” an actual issue or a filler because the formula demanded it? Or maybe it was “the compliment” that was the filler? Am I actually 1 out of 10 or 9 out of 10 or something inbetween? Am I mostly good or am I near to be fired? No idea…

              1. Worldwalker*

                Exactly. Just tell people what you mean, don’t try to wedge it into some kind of confusing formula. If my boss thinks I do good work, he’ll tell me that at other times, not only when delivering feedback. And it won’t be sandwiching some kind of criticism.

                I would go mad trying to figure out what something like that is actually saying.

                1. Kella*

                  While criticism of the “compliment sandwich” method is fair, two things make your suggestions here not helpful/relevant advice for OP2.

                  1. OP2 is not the boss of the people they are apparently attempting to give feedback to. It is not their job to deliver criticism which means not softening it in any way is likely to come across as bossy and controlling.

                  2. OP is being direct in their language currently, and their boss is mad at them for it. So, “Just tell people what you mean” has been tried and isn’t working.

            2. Hell in a Handbasket*

              Alternatively, it could also make it feel like a BIGGER deal, like this mistake is such a big issue that you have to tiptoe around it, or like I’ve given you the impression that I’m defensive/fragile/etc. To me, a simple “Hey, this handle needs to fit two fingers and is a little small — can you please enlarge it? Thanks!” is perfectly polite and a lot more palatable.

        2. Cinn*

          It’s the ““I’m not tasked with reviewing builds, which in itself is a problem.” that gets me. Does the LW think that the fact that there’s no review step is the problem, or that the problem is that they personally dont review builds?

          1. Myrin*

            I read that as OP being the only person who could feasibly review builds/is qualified to do it but as it stands, nobody is doing it at all.

            1. Zelda*

              This was my read, too– product is going out to customers in an unusable condition, which is going to cost the company immediately in returns and remakes, and long-term in reputation. I don’t think it’s a point against the LW that they’d like to fix that.

              1. RobW*

                But if it’s not their job to do it and they’ve been told that it’s not their job, then OP is overstepping and management can be legitimately annoyed with that.

                1. JustaTech*

                  Yes, and this can be incredibly hard for some people to wrap their heads around: “wait, management doesn’t care that there are errors going out to customers?”
                  And sometimes the answer is yes!
                  It might be because they don’t think they have the bandwidth, and that the impact is minimal. But it could also be something like mid-level managers do know and care, but need to collect a certain amount of data before upper management will budget for a Quality review team, or a Corrective Action/Preventative Action system, or whatever.
                  Now, personally, if I was a manager doing this, and I thought that LW would be able to restrain themselves for a while on the error-correction front, I might tell the LW *why* I want them to lay off.

                  But since the LW doesn’t seem to be listening to what the boss is saying, I can see why they haven’t earned that trust.

                  (We’re having a related issue at my work now where my boss is having an incredibly hard time getting folks to *only* do what is on the client’s contract, and not do what they’re used to, which is to do it “right” and fix problems before being asked. It’s a big mindset shift for all of us and it’s causing a lot of friction.)

              2. Worldwalker*

                “Would like to fix that” is a very different thing than “has the authority to fix that.” Depending on how committed the company is to their employees staying in their prescribed lane, that could be a massive problem. (I was just watching a video about the Morro Castle disaster, which mentioned that the radio operator could only send out a distress call if instructed to by the captain — who was dead; so he sat on a burning ship and did nothing)

                1. Kit*

                  Morro Castle is a little more complex than that; the ship’s executive officer was acting captain, and he was slow to give the authorization to send a distress call because he didn’t recognize the wireless operator who came to alert him and request that approval, but there was someone who could authorize it. The delay led the fire to damage the radio equipment sufficiently that the signal integrity was lost fairly quickly, and then electrical power was cut entirely, which was a major complication… as was the fact that the chief wireless operator had a criminal history both before and after the Morro Castle affair, including arson and murder, both attempted and successful. (In fact, he later died while imprisoned from a subsequent murder conviction.)

          2. not nice, don't care*

            In my experience it’s pretty common for the people/person responsible for fixing problems to be excluded from the reviewing processes/catching problems parts of a job.
            Super frustrating to have other people’s mistakes or training errors cause unnecessary work, and even worse to be chipped at for trying to save headaches upstream, and/or have the boss refuse to delegate responsibility.

        3. Samwise*

          Although it might affect their job — do the errors make it harder to do their assigned work? That would be a legit reason to discuss errors with the manager. Otherwise, OP could perhaps flag errors they note in the course of doing their own work, but stop with just noting them for the manager. Or even better, ask the manager if they want to hear about such errors as you come across them, or not.

        4. Ansteve*

          I almost wonder if it’s a situation where, yes it isn’t LWs job to catch them but LW ends up with having to fix the customers issue when batches go out wrong. So it would make since that LW would want to take a proactive role to get ahead of issues and save the headache.

      2. Agree*

        Yes, I got the same impression. If OP does further steps in the processing and they have their own problems because of that, they are in a position to speak up about it. Same, if they are tasked to catch errors, review or rework. If they “only” are a peer, it is not their position to judge the work of their colleagues. The customers will do that through claims (which opens up the possibility for official failure analysis).

      3. Allonge*

        This – it needs to be clear to everyone why you are doing this, LW! Is your boss clear on why the quality control thing is an issue? It seems like there is a lot of miscommunication here.

        And, frankly, even then, starting with ‘who did this’ is going to cause issues; is it possible to collect recurring problems which then you could do a training to everyone on?

        Sometimes one-on-one is the way to go but one of the ways to be sure you are not assigning blame is to do reminders on teapot glazing to everyone regularly.

        1. T2*

          It certainly could be the case that someone who puts out otherwise perfect work might be causing disruption to others who are doing acceptable work with style and tone issues.

          Thus causing more harm than good.

          1. Allonge*

            Yes – one of the things that is difficult to advise on, not knowing what teapot creation is a standin for – there are places and processes where quality is super important and indeed every error needs to be caught, fixed and as much as possible, ensured it will never happen again and, well, there are places where you aim for a 80% quality rate on average with 58% once in a while still not a total disaster, as long as it’s done timely.

            LW needs to be conscious of what applies in their field; obviously we can just guess here.

            1. Worldwalker*

              If you’re making spaceship parts, 100% quality is essential. If you’re making paper party supplies, not so much. Some idea of the business area would be helpful here, even if it’s just “aerospace” or “consumer goods.”

              Nobody is going to die if their paper rainbow unicorns have their stripes misprinted; someone is going to die if their airplane crashes.

              1. Allonge*

                And a company can also decide that their 300 dollar paper rainbows need to be within 99.999% of the specifications.

                I am saying because most of us don’t work in fields where people die and I am also relatively sure that most get-this-right-or-someone-dies fields have quality control that is not based on any one person’s initiative.

      4. HonorBox*

        Your third paragraph highlights some of what I was thinking, too. If OP isn’t tasked with reviewing builds, perhaps the issue the boss is taking with the whole thing is that they are reviewing builds informally.

        If there’s no formal way of reviewing, maybe that’s something to highlight in a conversation with your boss. But tracking people down and trying to retrain may not be what you need to do without specific direction to do so. Of course people are going to respond poorly.

        1. ferrina*

          And the boss may choose not to have a review process. If so, LW needs to accept that.

          Best Practice and What the Boss Chooses To Do are not always the same thing. There can be many reasons for this- maybe the project doesn’t need Best Practice and the boss chose Good Enough Practice to get the work out on time. Maybe someone above the boss is blocking boss from hiring a QA specialist, so boss is proving a point. Maybe boss doesn’t want to actually manage their people and evaluate their work.
          But any which way, none of this sounds like it’s in OP’s authority.

    3. Cat Tree*

      Yeah, “retraining” is an easy answer but it’s rarely effective by itself unless you’re revamping the entire training system.

      I had a job where it *was* my job to do root cause analysis and I did have access to names of people involved but I rarely shared that info with anyone. One of our biggest problems spanned multiple operators, shifts, and workstations. Retraining would have been quite useless. Ultimately I had to change multiple things about the process including some equipment changes. In that case knowing who made the error mattered because it showed that it wasn’t an issue with training. And also it was job to do this.

      1. Thegreatprevaricator*

        Yes this! We all make mistakes, but if mistakes keep happening and are often not caught then you have to ask yourself if it’s a problem with systems. It’s not my job to review this kind of thing but ‘who made the mistake’ is often the least useful question to ask in my business.

        Like I noticed a big sign had been placed on our internal system that said on a certain screen ‘you are completing the teapot invoice for *client* . Please make sure the invoice relates to *client*’: and I immediately understood that somehow a client had received the wrong invoice with potentially confidential material in it. Simple human error with a system that made it possible for that error to happen. So going forward the solution would be to address the point in the system rather than focus on retraining. Pretty sure whoever made the mistake just forgot to double check and on our system it’s horribly easy to do. Thus answer was address system not individual.

      2. JustaTech*

        Yes! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been on projects looking at a cluster of specific failures or errors and had someone (usually someone pretty senior) say “well if everyone would just follow the batch record”.
        Like, dude, that’s clearly not working, and asking people to “just remember” 147 things for every process is even less likely to succeed! (Especially for the night shift!)

        I’m all for training and teaching, but for things that need to be done exactly right every time (and the same way every time) I’m an even bigger fan of engineering solutions (devices, processes and systems).
        People mis-type the setting on an instrument? Lock down the instrument so you don’t have to type in the settings, you just hit the button.

      3. MigraineMonth*

        There’s an entire category of human error that no amount of retraining or exhortations to “just pay attention” can eliminate. Clicking the left button when you mean to click the right button. Throwing clothing in the trash bin if the laundry and trash bins are right next to each other. Administering hydrotopamine instead of hydrotripamine .

        You have to change the system, instead. Disable one of the buttons. Move the bins to different locations. Use tall letters for the medications (hydroTOPamine). Add a human or system double-check.

    4. Annony*

      Yes! You need see if there is any way to add a tracking sheet to record lot numbers of supplies used, who did what and when. That way you don’t need to ask. You can simply pull up the information for all builds that went wrong and see if there is a pattern.

    5. Reluctant Mezzo*

      True that–and yet there are people you could train for a hundred years and still won’t get it. Sigh.

  2. Caramel & Cheddar*

    2) I definitely could have written this letter. I generally don’t care if people make a mistake in and of itself, but I do care that they fix it and that they learn from the mistake so they don’t repeat it. If it’s happening over and over, I do the same as you and double check whether our documentation is clear, they need additional training, or if there’s something else going on that I’m unaware of. I’m also really clear when training what the common mistakes are eith certain tasks so people can be on the lookout. Lastly I point out the mistakes I make myself because nobody’s perfect and I’ve found people feel a bit reassured that the SME isn’t perfect either.

    The only thing I’d add to the suggestions here is that sometimes it’s genuinely a performance issue and you need to be able to share that with the boss since it doesn’t sound like you have supervisory powers. Maybe your boss doesn’t ultimately care about the errors because that staff person has some other responsibility that trumps the teapot stuff, and that’s definitely their call, but it’s a call they should make with all the information at hand. Getting managers to actually keep their staff accountable for their work quality is really difficult IME but all you can do is share feedback and hope for the best.

    1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      I wondered if the boss already knows who’s making all the mistakes, and is protecting them from a performance process for some reason – so then boss gets oddly defensive on behalf of the underperforming person when OP keeps asking “which teapot builder did this mistake”.

      1. scandi*

        or boss knows who is making mistakes, has taken appropriate measures, and it’s none of lw’s business that a coworker is/will be receiving further training or put on a performance improvement plan. it doesn’t sound like lw is in the kind of job role where they would be informed about a manager’s actions relative specific coworkers.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Maybe the boss did already say that and OP is not hearing it. OP has already been told at a previous job and this job to not ask the question who did it. Yet they persist.

            1. MassMatt*

              I felt as though this was the most important part of the letter, along with “it’s not my job to review for mistakes”.

              These two items probably explain why LW’s boss is getting angry in this situation.

              Is LW qualified to do this? Are they neglecting their assigned work in order to instead hunt down the person who made the defective teacup? Once they find out who made the mistake, is their message to them truly as kind and factual as they describe, or does the person approached feel persecuted for making a mistake?

              1. Worldwalker*

                The thing that stands out to me is that this same thing has happened in a previous job.

                That’s where you start looking at “the common factor is you.”

                1. Pescadero*

                  Or the common factor is the companies involved.

                  A friends father was a quality control engineer that worked in a bunch of low paying manufacturing plants. He noticed that first thing in the morning, and right after lunch they were seeing spikes in defects.

                  He also smelled a lot of marijuana around the same time.

                  So he suggested drug testing to the companies owners… and their answer was “We can’t hire anyone for what we pay if we drug test, so find another way to fix it”.

                  Some problems are unfixable by choice.

              2. Typity*

                After an error is caught, “Who did this?” or any variation thereof is probably gong to sound accusatory-to-hostile. As Alison said, just a rephrase to focus the question on what LW really wants — a path to preventing more problems — rather than Who Is To Blame might make a big difference.

                Some places, people evade, cower, or flee when a question of fault comes up, and in others, “So sorry, that was my f**kup, let’s fix it” is the norm. How the question is asked really matters.

              3. sparkle emoji*

                Agreed with both of you. Before you try to do root cause analysis on the next teapot LW, do some about what is causing this trend in reactions between bosses.

                1. sparkle emoji*

                  didnt refresh, was referring to pastor petty and massmatt but typity and world walker also have good points.

              4. AnotherOne*

                yeah, it felt like OP may need to take a moment to reflect on what is and isn’t their job.

                even if they are a SME in teacups, does their manager want them trying to figure out why there are build problems?

      2. Different Anon*

        Sometimes that defensiveness can also come from the boss themselves not having a good sense of how to keep the mistakes from happening without deferring to OP’s knowledge.

    2. RIP Pillowfort*

      I really wish the OP had been clearer as to why they’re doing the flagging. I’m in a separate unit of an overall bigger office. Our work in interconnected so if I flag errors, it’s in the context of things like being outside of policy, cost, etc. But I’m also supposed to flag errors because I’m in a senior position.

      We talk about the decisions regarding training, etc. in the management meetings and sometimes the errors are the “just fix it” variety where it doesn’t make sense to hash out who or why it was made until later.

  3. Artemesia*

    A good fundraiser is gold; they are hard to find and you will be able to find a job somewhere that isn’t crazy. You are better off looking before she fires you or badmouths you or makes you life anymore miserable. This woman is nuts and thrives on hurting people. Take your amazing skills somewhere else.

    1. MsM*

      Honestly, LW, you’ve probably got enough experience to be an executive director somewhere yourself if you want. You don’t need to put up with someone who wants you constantly off-balance and questioning yourself because you’re better than her and she knows it.

      (Once you are safely out of there, though, consider sending a letter directly to the CEO and/or the board explaining why you left. HR might not be on the side of the people she pushed out, but they might be interested to know why they’re having retention problems.)

      1. linger*

        Also worth noting, OP2 only has Boss’s word about HR’s shenanigans. This is potentially a self-serving story to keep anyone from complaining to HR, from a source known to be unreliable in other ways. If possible, that story should be confirmed with some of the former employees before writing off HR entirely. But OP2’s highest priority should be getting their accomplishments onto their CV and getting out.

        2. Snow Globe*

          I had this same thought. I would consider telling HR what the manager said about previous employees who complained, along with the statement that LW does not know if this is true or not, but thought HR might want to know this is what the manager is telling new employees. Only say this after you’ve turned in your resignation with another job lined up.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            I would not tell HR. If its true, they would just report back to Boss. If its not true, they haven’t bothered to notice that the people who previoiusly complained aren’t there anymore. Either way, talking to HR is a waste of time apparently. HR is gonna let Boss be herself whether through incompentence or complicity.

            1. duinath*

              My two cents? It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, it never mattered, and for future reference and also for anyone else who’s reading this:

              When your boss tells you they fired someone who talked to HR about them, that is your cue to find a new job and leave as soon as you can.

              True or not, saying it is enough.

          2. ferrina*

            If OP says anything to HR, I would wait until the exit interview.

            But the boss sounds egregious enough that she’s probably a known issue, and this probably won’t be the tipping point to fire her if someone is protecting her.

        3. Observer*

          OP2 only has Boss’s word about HR’s shenanigans. This is potentially a self-serving story to keep anyone from complaining to HR, from a source known to be unreliable in other ways.

          That’s a really good point, and I was wondering about that, too.

          So, I agree that *if possible* to discreetly check with the last team.

        4. Worldwalker*

          Good point.

          Many years ago, I watched the manager of a small online game get pushed out and fired because he trusted a single person — one of the player-staff — for his information. (I had been one of those staff and recently resigned, but I still had plenty of access to the inside, some of it from the two people involved) He made decisions based on what this person told him, took actions, etc. And eventually got fired for incompetence — replaced by the guy who did this to him, which is what that guy wanted (a paid job) all along. (said guy eventually got fired himself, and threw an epic tantrum)

          I learned from that: Never trust a single conduit for information. Even in the best case, your information is still biased by the reporter — they tell you what they believe you will think is important, which may not be what actually is important. And in the worst case, they’re deliberately sabotaging you to angle for your job. Or drive you out, in this case.

          You are dealing with someone known to lie like a rug. Don’t trust what they tell you about HR, or the CEO, or whether it’s currently raining outside.

        5. linger*

          OP’s update (below) upon escaping (yay!) seems to confirm in passing that HR was functional after all (e.g. overturning Boss’s demand for OP’s notice period to be unpaid).

      2. Observer*

        HR might not be on the side of the people she pushed out, but they might be interested to know why they’re having retention problems.

        I think it’s worth clarifying that HR is almost certainly not interested – they *know* why the retention issue exists. But The CEO / Board might care.

    1. .*

      Yes, but I wish more advice was given to help the letter Rider deal with the day-to-day annoyances until they can get a new position.

      1. DJ Abbott*

        I posted some below, which may or may not make it through moderation. Basically Boss is all about venting her feelings, and doesn’t see other people as people. OP can keep this in mind and try to ignore it while she finds another job.

      2. Observer*

        I wish more advice was given to help the letter Rider deal with the day-to-day annoyances until they can get a new position.

        Realistically, I don’t think there really is anything they can do except look for another job. Because basically, the only way to avoid the crazy is to be a mind reader and even that might not work. So, the only thing the LW can do is to stop caring so much. And that’s not really possible unless they know that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

      3. Unkempt Flatware*

        IME, these people are weak and will buckle at the first real display of a backbone. If I were the OP, I’d start putting a hand up and firmly telling her never to speak to me or about me like that ever again.

        1. MassMatt*

          Sometimes this can work, many times it will result in a nuclear escalation. It’s hard to know which is which and I wouldn’t chance it until I had a new job lined up.

          Sometimes the advice to “stand up to the bully on the playground” results in the bully enjoying an enormous beatdown of the upstart.

          1. not nice, don't care*

            Some orgs tolerate bullies because they can act in ways that badmin can’t, at least overtly. Bullies can clear out employees with ethics and boundaries.

        2. LaurCha*

          Some bullies operate this way, but not all. Narcissists stay on their BS and find new ways to get their fix.

          Gray-rocking her nonsense might help, but she’ll probably escalate to try to get a reaction.

        3. Worldwalker*

          And if the boss is in fact acting like this out of some sense of insecurity, that might work. But it’s much more likely that it’s fanfic, and if you try it, the boss will say “I’ll speak however I like, and if you say another word, you’re fired.” Even if they are weak, don’t bet against them doubling down.

      4. Strive to Excel*

        Day-to-day advice:

        First, understand you are dealing with someone bananapants. They are the problem, not you. Stock up on small comfort items; extra fuzzy socks? Good tea? Get things that will be a bright spot in the day for you.

        Second, CYA absolutely everything. All instructions written. Email the boss with “just to check – per our conversation today I’m doing X, Y, and Z.” Do not go to HR. Also, boss and work are now on a personal information stoppage.

        Third – ignore any implied snideness and emotion in what Boss says and treat it on face value. Boss: “You can’t sit next to donor, you’re boring” Response: “Hmm, if I don’t sit by them it’ll be hard to fundraise. Do you think there’d be a better way to do this?” Boss: “The CEO’s mad at you, you should have gotten this approved!” Response: “Oh – sorry, I didn’t realize new forms of events required CEO approval. I’ll be sure to run it past him next time. Is there a way to get it approved now?”

        Be completely polite, let the snark wash over you, and get out as soon as you can. Consider leaving without another job lined up if needed, and feel free to cite “due to health issues” – because your health is going to get damaged if you stay at this job longer!

    2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      Succinct and to the point.

      OP1, if you are questioning whether you are too sensitive after that list of things that happened in just one month (whew that was exhausting), then your work norms are already being warped. Get out before they warp further.

  5. Daria grace*

    #1 this place is so full of bees you could run a whole honey factory off it. There’s multiple layers of problems here. It’s not just that your boss is a jerk which is more than enough reason to get out of there. There’s also that she’s unable to assess what good work looks like- she keeps changing her mind and fun is not the primary thing you’re looking for in a senior fundraiser for example. Your HR that allows people to be fired in reprisal is also a huge problem. Even if your bad boss were to win the lottery and disappear tomorrow, a spineless, underskilled HR is likely to continue to contribute to problems with their replacement and other staff. It will also likely become increasingly hard for you to bring passion to fundraising for an org where horrible things are happening.

    Experienced fundraising professionals are usually in demand and you likely have skills you could transfer to adjacent roles like sales. There’s very unlikely to be a way to fix the situation you’re in, move onto better things.

  6. Eryn*

    For #1: Do they KNOW the people who complained got fired? Because if that info is just coming from the boss, it would be good to verify if she’s putting a chilling effect on going to HR to protect her own butt.

    But either way, I’d definitely be looking to be elsewhere & then decide if I wanted to ask for an exit interview.

    1. Roland*

      I has the same thought. Don’t believe what she says justj like that, she has no credibility. May be worth asking tenured coworkers what happened to previous reports of this boss.

    2. WS*

      Yeah, they may have moved on so as not to have to deal with this boss and she’s trying to intimidate you (and shore up her ego) by saying she fired them.

    3. Ganymede II*

      I completely agree. Unless you heard this from a reliable 2nd source, or if HR has shown itself to be dodgy in the past, I would not take this account at face value.

      Same with the comment from the CEO, btw. The CEO might be pissed, and she’s throwing you under the bus as “never asked for approval”. So, if you have it in writing, find that approval email, reply to it, add the CEO in receivers and ask “I understand that you wish you had been involved in the approval process. I’m happy to do so in the future. Should I CC you in the proposals in the future, or would you rather hear from Samantha when I share the proposal with her?” It’s an escalation, but she’s already throwing you under the bus, so you might as well follow her lead.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        I agree that the comment about the CEO could entirely be a lie. Or it could also be that the CEO is pissed because OP’s boss told her that OP didn’t ask for approval at all (aka, lied to the CEO just like she probably lied to OP). Either way, what Ganymede here is a tricky act to pull off, but one that you could try if you are okay with stirring up more drama. If the CEO is decent, this could be the catalyst that spurs her to see how bad your boss is and do something about it, but it could just as easily cause you a lot more problems with your boss and the CEO so don’t do it if you’d rather just fly under the radar and quietly move on to a much better NP without a boss who is full of bees.

        Equally, you could try just talking to the CEO and not put anything in writing about it. This option is just as dangerous but is a possible route to take if you think the CEO is decent. But honestly, even if the CEO is decent, it’s a much better option to just quietly leave because the CEO could have her hands tied or, as was the case with *my* terrible coworker, the CEO might get really defensive because she’s the one who hired your terrible boss and won’t entertain the possibility that she made a bad hire.

        Get out get out get out, OP. You will breathe so much more easily once you have a normal, decent boss.

        1. Quercus*

          Another option would be to meet with the CEO in person. The excuse for the meeting is to clear up the miscommunication about the approval for the event; the real reason is to feel out their attitude towards Boss. It’s just possible CEO is capable of assessing Boss objectively, but doesn’t quite have enough info, and if so, OP could provide it.

    5. Observer*

      t would be good to verify if she’s putting a chilling effect on going to HR to protect her own butt.

      To some extent, I agree. But the information *still* needs to go to the Board / CEO. Because either way, HR is almost certainly incompetent. This level of turnover and a *whole team* that “can’t hack it” should be a blaring foghorn spraying red paint all over the place that something is wrong. It’s the kind of thing that even non-HR professionals should recognize as an issue.

    6. Elbe*

      When I first started, she told me that her last team complained to HR about her, HR told her who said what, and everyone who spoke up is no longer working here. She implies that she fired them because of what they said.

      I feel like the LW doesn’t realize that this is a threat. She’s preemptively telling them not to raise concerns because HR is on her side. Even if what she is saying isn’t 100%, this is a really bad sign.

  7. IrishMN*

    About the last letter: in these types of situations I am always curious – assuming LW doesn’t work in HR and sends this email to the general HR mailbox, what would you do if they simply don’t respond or email back to say something to the effect, “You don’t work in HR, you don’t need to worry about it.”?

    Is this something that could be anonymously reported (although if you were the only person asking they would probably know you reported it)?

    1. Bilateralrope*

      If that’s the response HR gives, then the only option left is to have a lawyer bring it up after the LW is personally impacted by this illegal policy.

      1. Observer*

        No, this is absolutely reportable. I do agree with the others about what the best steps are, but in theory, this is the kind of thing you could report. And in fact, if the company does it’s mandatory regulatory trainings, and posts the proper notices, the number to report should be included in that information.

    2. bamcheeks*

      Same as you’d do if you worked with another department and they weren’t doing their job in a way that impacted your job. Email, follow up, then phone call: if that still doesn’t work the go to someone higher up in that team or ask your manager to escalate it if that’s the way things work at your level.

      If HR is screening out applicants that you want to see, then you need it to be addressed.

      1. Lexi Vipond*

        I think this is the sick note one, so other people’s note or lack thereof probably doesn’t affect the OP directly.

    4. RobW*

      If the company’s HR changes policy after being informed of a policy that violates laws, then it was just an oversight on their part, easily corrected, no harm, no foul. But if they don’t respond or change the policy assume they know it’s illegal but are going to continue with it until someone complains to the authorities.

      So complain to the authorities. I know SF has a webpage to report local labor violations, I’d bet so does NYC. The state of California also has an anonymous reporting line.

      “We’ll knowingly violate laws until we can’t” is basically FAFO as company policy. I hope they find out.

  8. Bilateralrope*

    For LW1, I’d be tempted to complain to HR between getting a new job and giving notice. Just to see if I can get a nice settlement over the predicted retaliation.

    1. Malarkey01*

      Do you mean a settlement based on company policy? There’s nothing illegal about retaliating against an employee for complaining about management. Complaining about a manager isn’t a legally protected right.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        What? Yes, that is totally illegal. You cannot retaliate against someone because they complained about you. Allowing people to complain about management is actually a protected right. You cannot take action against someone who complained about management.

        1. Zelda*

          AIUI, that’s only for complaining *about something that is itself illegal*. That is, it’s illegal to retaliate against someone who stood up for their legal rights by getting the boss in hot water with egal authorities. There’s nothing illegal about “retaliating” against someone for ordinary kvetching.

        2. Insert Clever Name Here*

          Retaliation is illegal in the US only when it is related to certain, protected actions. General interpersonal complaints are not protected actions. It’s not good business to retaliate against employees for that, but it’s not illegal. From the US Government’s Wage and Hour Division’s page on Retaliation:

          Most of the acts enforced by WHD have regulations that prohibit retaliation, harassment, intimidation or the taking of adverse action against employees for:

          – Inquiring about their pay, hours of work or other rights
          – Asserting their worker rights
          – Filing a complaint about their worker rights
          – Cooperating with a WHD investigation

          Maybe there are state laws that include other things, but “my boss is mean” is very unlikely to be protected.

        3. Ask a Manager* Post author

          Not true in the U.S. That would only be correct if the retaliation was for reporting discrimination, harassment, or other legally protected behavior. If the retaliation is just for complaining that your manager is a jerk, there is no legal protection.

          1. Malarkey01*

            I know you’ve done a few great columns about employment protections and law. I think it might be a good time for a repost- I’m seeing more and more newer people to the workforce that confuse hostile workplace and unpleasant workplace, legal discrimination versus protected classes, harassment (as it bothering people) versus sexual or protected classes based harassment, and this example of retaliation.

            I really really wish colleges and high schools would cover basic employment rights and unfortunate non-rights.

            1. Zelda*

              The misunderstandings of what protected classes are are especially damaging– the assumption that marginalized people get “special rights” because they “belong to a protected class” fuels all kinds of claims of “reverse racism” and other unfounded resentment. I have linked certain AAM columns so many times elseweb…

        4. Observer*

          You cannot retaliate against someone because they complained about you. Allowing people to complain about management is actually a protected right.

          I’m pretty sure you are wrong. There are two types of situations where the a worker would be covered. One is if the behavior complained about is illegal. Which doesn’t sound like the case here. The other is “concerted activity”. So, if someone had this discussion with another person, they would be protected. Going to HR is not considered “concerted activity” unless they go as a group, in which case, I’d want to talk to a lawyer. Also, it depends on whether people are “exempt” or “non-exempt”. it sounds like the LW might be exempt.

  9. Lemonwhirl*

    LW 1 – Please run. Your manager is way out of line and you do not deserve to be treated this way. I hope you are able to get out soon and in the meantime to keep the negativity and toxicity out of your head.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        I would say this is a situation where you should give the usual two-week notice to avoid giving the boss ammunition against you (she’ll lie about you anyway, but at least you can be truthful when you say you gave notice) but if she ups her terrible-ness during your notice period, feel free to use AAM’s scripts to say you had agreed to work your notice period but you won’t subject yourself to her abuse and you will leave early.

        1. RobW*

          And also, give your notice/resignation directly to HR rather than the manager. When they ask why you’re bringing it to them tell them you expect retaliation up to and including firing on the spot if you go to her, based on what she has told you. You’re bringing it directly to them because you want it on the record that you were not fired for any cause but that you quit and gave proper notice, and you don’t trust your boss to tell the truth about you.

          If they’re any good, they’ll have So Many Questions, but at that point you’re already leaving. Answer their questions as much or as little as you like on your way out. Then go to your new job and don’t look back.

          Obviously, once you’ve found a better job and given notice, do not entertain any counteroffer.

          1. Slow Gin Lizz*

            Good news! OP posted in a comment that she got a new job and is gone from there! And, shocking, here’s how evil boss reacted:

            I am sure no one is surprised to read that my boss did not take my notice well. I gave the standard two weeks notice and she called me unprofessional and said that it wasn’t enough time. Luckily, I called HR directly after that conversation and they confirmed that two weeks was the policy. My boss spoke to the CEO and she demanded that I leave immediately without pay. HR reversed that mandate after a few days and I was paid out for my remaining time.

  10. TheBunny*

    LW#1

    I totally relate. I have a boss who runs hot and cold too (although not as bad as yours) and it’s impossible to ever feel on an even keel with them.

    One day my boss is fine, the next she’s acting like my existence annoys her…and she’s telling me I’m too friendly to the team…which was odd feedback, I’m never the too friendly one. :)

    I don’t have anything super helpful to add on how to deal with this…I just wanted to let you know that even when it’s not yelling, a boss like this makes it impossible to ever feel like you are doing a good job.

    If my boss also belittled and yelled…I’d leave the job, 100%. Best of luck!

  11. Combien*

    Anyone who’s in the situation of contributing money to staff holiday funds–particularly if you’re in academia–how much do you contribute? Our department has four staff members and around three dozen faculty. I’m an assistant professor and feel awkward asking colleagues. I have no idea whether $40 or $100 is more appropriate. TIA.

    1. Jessica in higher ed*

      When my academic department at a public university did this, our then-chair laid out some suggested amounts by rank (while also emphasizing that the whole thing was optional and secret), and it was $50 for assistant professors.

    2. KeinName*

      I find this highly problematic! Check out Utrecht university’s implementation of the Dutch Recognition and Rewards programme – they eliminated distinction between academic and non-academic staff, because research is a team effort. I‘m support staff with a PhD and would find it really condescending. Our researchers, even young ones, earn a good living, as do I. But those on temporary contracts should not be made to pay money to those in permanent employment, nor do I want handouts. I’m fine with being paid for me work by my employer (granted I’m in Europe, in a great welfare system).
      You’ll never get the respect of academics if they tip you.
      You could send out the link to the Utrecht system, and the colleagues who still want the tips could be given an official bonus by the department head.

      1. Perihelion*

        I’m really glad this is the case for you—but I will say that in our department we *know* that the staff aren’t particularly well paid. We all hate it and would like it to change, but salaries are decided at the college level, so we really can’t do anything about it. I don’t think anyone in our department thinks if it as tipping—it’s a combination of saying thank you for all you do for us and our students, and you deserve more monetary recognition for it. There’s also really no pressure to contribute (I could leave money in an envelope for the chair and he’d never know who did or didn’t drop it off), which I think is also important.

        1. metadata minion*

          Not that I’d say no to a cash gift, but as a university staff member, I’d honestly find it more meaningful to get a card with something significant written in it. An extra $150, or even $500, isn’t going to make a big difference in my overall financial welfare and I have a more stable and better-paid position than the adjunct faculty. I don’t mean to imply that you’re not already also doing this, but the single best thing you can do to support your departmental staff is to advocate for them to the library administration.

          1. Samwise*

            That’s nice for you, but not true for all. There are plenty of people for whom $500 would be a lot. $150 is a good amount for lots of people — that’s groceries, dental visit for a kid or two, a utility bill, etc.

            I contribute to the holiday collection for our cleaning workers. Their pay is crap, their work is crap, their boss is crap.

        2. Sacred Ground*

          Your department may not think of it as tipping but that’s what it is. I’m probably getting overly hung up on the semantics here but, you know, words matter. Not calling something what it is can lead to denial or failure to acknowledge a problem.

          You’re all paying the staff extra out of your own pockets for doing their jobs well because you know their actual employer does not pay them appropriately for the amount of work they do or the level at which they do it. Nobody expects this to change, and everyone just accepts that the staff’s base pay is well below what it should be.

          The amount you all pay them is arbitrary, decided by your own individual judgement of their work (and none of you are their managers), the amount paid follows no particular rule, and all of this is off the books, likely unreported income.

          And you’ve all been doing it for so long that it’s become traditional, expected but optional. The only way to know this is if someone flat refuses and everyone, peers and managers, respects that. Has that ever happened?
          How is this not tipping, exactly?

      2. Artemesia*

        When I was in a Research 1 University the policy was that this sort of thing was forbidden. We did collect money for the janitors to give a Christmas tip but secretaries and other support staff were not tipped. I would think in a research lab tipping other professionals would be really condescending. Our collection for the janitors was on the QT because it was contra policy.

    4. Perihelion*

      I do $40 unless money is tight that year, then I do $20. Which isn’t a lot split between our four staff, but sometimes it’s what I have. Our department is really good about not pressuring people at all, which helps. (We’re also a small college in a LCOL area, which may change some of the amounts in question. None of us are paid like we’re at an R1).

    5. Person from the Resume*

      Don’t have a holiday staff party if the company doesn’t pay for it. (I’ve worked for the federal government so I understand why organizations funded by taxpayers aren’t allowed to pay for holiday parties.)

      Instead hold a holiday gathering/lunch/dinner/drinks at a restaurant where everyone pays their own way. During work hours.

    6. noodle prof*

      I’m a new-ish junior prof in a department that does this and I personally hate it and never contribute. My view is that the chair should find the holiday bonus money in the department budget and just give the staff end-of-year bonuses (the amount we collect for the staff could absolutely be found in the department budget, it’s really pennies in the scale of how much we spend on other things). I’m not willing to contribute my own money towards gifts for staff.

      1. FuzzBunny*

        Unfortunately, this isn’t allowed at all schools. I’m a former department chair (at a community college, which may or may not be relevant) and would not have been able to give a bonus. Heck, when I had an evening meeting for our adjunct faculty, I got pushback on my request to use funds to buy them pizza.

        1. noodle prof*

          fair. at my institution, I could imagine there would also be pushback or significant bureaucratic hurdles. I get that it’s not easy. But there’s no incentive to try if the faculty continue to happy do a collection, so I don’t know what the real barriers are. In any case I just quietly don’t participate and it hasn’t been an issue, just a pet peeve of mine.

    7. daffodil*

      A special academia challenge is that everyone is underpaid and status doesn’t always equal compensation (ask me how I know *scream*) but in my case anyway there are a few staff members who support me directly and I do want them to feel seen and appreciated.

  12. Jinni*

    LW #4 – yes people do lie about sponsorship. I’ve had friends that do this on the theory that they are such great candidates that the employer will change their mind. It sometimes works (in private employment).

    THAT SAID, I also know a lot of people who were born here and their parents promptly went home/somewhere else abroad. So they have foreign work/undergrad credentials AND are eligible to work in the US.

    His thinking is problematic. You’re overriding him, but I’d worry others aren’t.

    1. KeinName*

      Also, how strange is it that your department can decide to go against uni policy with not giving out sponsorship?

      1. LJ*

        Perhaps if the sponsorship has to come out of each department’s budget – the university *can* offer sponsorship (as an employer), but it doesn’t mean they have a policy to offer it no matter what.

        1. Nonsense*

          It’s totally a budget issue. Sponsorships are $$$ because there are a lot of legal hoops to jump through.

      2. I should really pick a name*

        Where do you get the impression that the department is going against university policy?

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

        There are loads of roles in a university that cannot give out sponsorship. It really depends on the role and the department. For example, A department that is only funded by student fees (like mine) may not have the funds for sponsorship. Likewise, a part time employee is not going to be able to have sponsorship because of the costs.

    2. Aly*

      I’ve seen on a lot of veterinary employment pages that foreign vets assumed that potential employers would just pay for their many thousands of dollars of required tests to get licensed here and wait the 2 years it often takes on top of the visa fees. I completely believe they would be misleading about their status. Honestly a lot of them don’t even do the basic research to see what they need to work here and assume that the US automatically accepts degrees from the entire world to be licensed.

    3. Guacamole Bob*

      In my organization, I’ve learned that one of the screening questions we should have our HR recruiter ask candidates in initial screening interviews is about work authorization and visa status, along with things like the salary range (which we don’t post, sigh) and our remote work policy.

      Candidates lie or misread the question or make mistakes or have a non-standard situation that doesn’t fit the choices on the check box portion of the application all the time, for this and on other kinds of questions. I wouldn’t let it get to the full interview stage without confirming with the candidates during screening that they’ll be able to take the job if offered.

      My initial reaction to OP’s letter, based on some bad experiences, is “oh, no, if you’re excited about these candidates in interviews but haven’t talked to them about work authorization then you’re about to find out the hard way that you shouldn’t leave these questions for the offer stage.” I hope that’s not the case! But it’s happened to me in the past and it was a painful bump in that hiring process.

      1. Annony*

        I think if many of the applicants are students, they very well may not understand the visa requirements and answer incorrectly on a form without intending to lie. Clarifying at the screening stage is not a bad idea.

        1. Guacamole Bob*

          Situations can also vary. We lost a good candidate who was coming out of grad school and had something like 2-3 years of work authorization already sorted, but would require sponsorship past that. I wish our HR could have let us hire him just for those 2 years because he would have been terrific (and lots of people straight out of grad school stay in the role only that long anyway), but it didn’t fit within their policies.

          If I were a candidate in that position, I might not take myself out of the running with a simple yes/no check box and not consider it lying.

          1. anon recruiter*

            Yeah, this specific situation with a STEM related masters is very common. LW absolutely should screen for this given it sounds like they are in a STEM related niche.

          2. DancinProf*

            This right here! I work with students on F-1 visas, who are eligible to apply for a year of work authorization post-graduation, plus a further 2-year extension if their degree is in a STEM field. On several occasions I’ve had those students ask me how they should be handling that sponsorship question. I tell them to answer “No” because as of the time they’re applying, they do not need sponsorship. If the question includes “or in the future,” the “No” is a bit of a fudge, but at least they’re not pre-emptively ruling themselves out.

            1. Analyst*

              As someone who is hiring and has this issue…how does this help them? They’re not getting the job once this comes out. Can’t sponsor visas means can’t sponsor visas; we’re grant funded and we literally can’t, legally. We’re not hiring anyone who would have to be renewed either, because we can’t do that and we don’t want someone who has to leave in a year or 2. How does it help them to make it further in a job process for a job they literally can’t get? It wastes everyone’s time and does not make a good impression.

              1. Guacamole Bob*

                This really varies by job. There are some places that would be happy to hire someone for 1-3 years even if they couldn’t stay indefinitely, especially for more junior roles.

                From a business perspective I’d be happy to have a good analyst for that amount of time, though my org’s HR department isn’t willing to hire people on these visas.

          3. daffodil*

            I just had one of these hiring for a faculty position. The candidate wasn’t trying to be deceptive, he is authorized to work in the US (for now) and he brought up sponsorship during the phone screen. Disappointing, our institution is too small to absorb that cost or have systems in place for doing it.

      2. Cathy*

        Yes, I agree. If you can’t sponsor a visa, you have to confirm the candidate already has the right to work in the U.S. at the very start of the screening process, otherwise it wastes everyone’s time. We actually require U.S. citizenship (which is legal because our employees must obtain security clearances), and even though the requirement and the reason for it are clearly stated in all job postings, at least 20% of our applicants aren’t citizens. Even if a resume has only U.S. schools and jobs, I still ask the question in the very first phone call.

      3. Observer*

        “oh, no, if you’re excited about these candidates in interviews but haven’t talked to them about work authorization then you’re about to find out the hard way that you shouldn’t leave these questions for the offer stage.”

        Yes, this is true. But the LW is also correct that people lie about all sorts of stuff, *all the time.* Look at some of the letters we’ve seen here or some of the high profile cases that have hit the news.

        So, I agree – make sure to verify this stuff *before* you spend time on interviews. But verify *everything* that’s make or break. Whether it’s degrees, certifications, or work authorization. This one is, as Alison points out, relatively easy to verify most of the time, so there’s that.

        1. Guacamole Bob*

          Yes to your last paragraph – the whole purpose of HR screening to me isn’t to assess whether the candidate would do well in the role, it’s to get all this make or break stuff sorted out up front so you’re only interviewing people who might be able to accept an offer. Salary, work location and anything about remote or hybrid arrangements, work hours if there’s anything nonstandard, travel requirements, degrees and certifications, work authorization, whether the role manages anyone – make sure you’re aligned with the candidate before moving to interviews.

          I don’t mean verify as in asking for paperwork before the interview stage, but a conversation rather than a checkbox in an online application.

    4. M2*

      The recruiter could just be telling LW to not get their hopes up with a candidate. We have it in job descriptions and HR says it on the phone screen but people get through who think they are so great they will get sponsorship. It doesn’t happen if it says on the description no sponsorship. It is really frustrating to go through the process and then find out your first choice needs sponsorship and I have had this experience and seen it in other departments. Maybe the recruiter is telling you this so you don’t get your hopes up and for you to know the organization can’t sponsor.

      We do sponsor but then the job will say it in the description that we will sponsor but with the costs and budgets down many organizations are first trying to find people who can already legally work here. If someone says they can they get through but I have seen more times than people would imagine someone saying they legally work here and then when they get an offer suddenly need sponsorship. Even if we could sponsor I would never do it for someone who tried to game the system like that. It’s poor judgement in my opinion.

      1. Miracle*

        x2 the stakes are very high, we have had people slip through the process for a long time before it was realized. I do understand why someone would warn you on this.

      2. ken*

        FWIW I was specifically given the advice to lie on these questions at a career seminar for internationals at an Ivy league university. I do think it’s more likely to work in private industry but the thinking is that you really have nothing to lose if you wait to disclose until you’ve caught the eye of the hiring manager. It’s worked for me when the restriction on visa sponsorship wasn’t as stringent as the job ad suggested, but I’m aware there’s a risk of running into people like you who would be turned off on principle.

        Confirming the actual situation early is in everyone’s interest because in my experience job ads / application checkboxes aren’t always a reliable, complete source of information either. No
        justification to discriminate as a first step though, if that’s what’s happening.

  13. John*

    LW2 – is it maybe a matter of when you’re asking the question? Based on “A serious problem with a teacup build came to light yesterday, and in response to my question of who built it, she snapped that it didn’t matter who built it” it sounds like that’s your first question when the issue came up. This depends on field/job of course but I would assume the first priority is fixing the issue, and then later you can figure out how to train people to prevent it. So if you’re asking about who caused the issue when your boss is trying to fix the issue, that could be the source of your boss’s irritation.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      Yeah, a lot depends on the extra context of why their boss doesn’t care about who made the errors. OP seems to imply that the boss is simply “relying on me to find errors”, while also being seen as wanting to blame others. I think as well as your point about timing and prioritising the fix, the type of mistake matters; perhaps the boss views a particular type of mistake as inevitable and they just need someone to catch them. I would probably wait until the work was fixed before phrasing it as: “It’s actually easy to prevent this type of error with some tweaks to the training system. We could cut down on the error rate by training people to (do a secondary check, have a checklist to hand, do X before y)”. Before I address this with everyone, do we know if it’s just some people unaware of this, or is everyone is making this mistake?” Also, it might be the boss’ experience that when one person has a misunderstanding, practically everyone has the same misunderstanding. If something is missing from the training or checks, then it becomes a common misconception.

    2. londonedit*

      I agree; I don’t really think there is a way to make it sound less accusatory if your boss is saying ‘We’ve had another complaint about a wonky teapot’ and the first thing you say in response is ‘Who made it?’. I can see why the OP needs and wants to find out who made it, but it seems like that needs to not be the first thing they ask – otherwise it’s likely the boss will think they don’t actually care about fixing the mistake and just want to conduct a witch-hunt. Even softening it with ‘Oh dear, can you let me know what the issue was, and which team was involved? I’ll have a look and see where things might have gone wrong’ would help, I think.

      1. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

        Agreed.

        From a configuration management perspective, “who made it” is only one of a bunch of questions that should be asked together.

        “who made it, when was it made, which equipment was used, where’s the process checklist/audit, etc.”

    3. A Penguin!*

      OP2: I came down to the comments to say something similar. In my corner of the engineering world, when something’s gone wrong the first questions should be about how to fix the immediate problem. Once that’s handled we can (and should!) move on to root cause / figuring out if it’s preventable in the future. “Who built this” is immaterial to fixing the immediate problem, and both I and my bosses would be annoyed if that was a first response to “it’s broken”. Whereas once there’s a fix or a plan for a fix in place we’d be much more receptive to it.

      1. BluntBunny*

        Yes I agree I work in a STEM, we would do a 5 whys and a problem solving exercise. Who caused the issue would never come up. The first why is the teapots has defects. 2nd why is it was made poorly. 3rd why could be, there was equipment failure or the proper process wasn’t followed. 4th why could be because there’s isn’t a written procedure for the process or the process isn’t clear, or equipment isn’t well maintained or there’s no quality checks in the process. 5th could be the procedure is out of date etc. This will help you to identify the route cause and then corrective actions they do not include X person doesn’t know how to make a teapot properly.

        1. PatM*

          I agree 100%. “Who” and “Where” are not the first question you ask when trying to solve a problem; they are the first question you ask when trying to assign blame.

    4. xylocopa*

      Yes. “Who” is a reasonable question–but if it’s the first question out of your mouth it’s going to sound accusatory, pretty much always, and “who” isn’t the first step in solving the problem anyway.

      1. All Het Up About It*

        Yes!

        This was my thought on what might be the issue here. It’s not that OP’s plans to retrain/fix the process so their are less errors are a bad one, but if their Boss’s most pressing priority is to fix the teapot, worrying about who to train and the process as a whole needs to wait until AFTER the error is fixed.

        The fact that the OP got this same feed back at their old job, and they aren’t currently assigned to review all projects makes me feel like they are overstepping or aren’t fully understanding their role. Maybe the Boss is fine with the number of errors at the moment and isn’t looking at changing the process. Maybe that’s why OP isn’t assigned to review all projects. I feel like there are some missing puzzle pieces here. Like are they relying on OP to find all the errors? Or to fix the errors that happen? Because it sort of seems like they think it’s door one, when it might be door two.

  14. Jessica in higher ed*

    LW4, our system asks a couple of questions similar to yours, but I only take the answer as a vague indicator. It’s not so much that people are dishonest, but they might not understand the phrasing of the question, or their own circumstances and options. So the answers aren’t always 100% reliable, but I don’t think our candidates are lying to us; they really have nothing to gain from doing so.

    I will disagree though with Alison’s comment in her first paragraph that you’d find out pretty quickly if someone did need sponsorship. I don’t know if yours are academic-year positions, but when we hire someone, we’re normally making an offer around March for a position to start in fall. If we waited for the I-9 verification to turn up a problem with their work eligibility when they were about to start work, we might have to scramble to hire anyone at all, and we certainly wouldn’t still have a shot at that year’s best candidates.

    My recommendation would be to ignore those application questions completely (and make sure your recruiter isn’t screening on them) when you pick your people for first-round interviews, but then in those interviews, tell (not ask) everyone that visa sponsorship is not available. That way people who’d need it can self-select out, but you’re not accidentally eliminating anyone who doesn’t need it.

    1. M2*

      The issue is many people won’t self select out. They will think they are so wonderful if they get an offer they will get sponsorship. I have experienced this and family members who work in academia also have seen this as well. I would put it on the job description (maybe in bold) and have HR and the hiring manager make it very clear there is no sponsorship at all.

      1. Nola*

        Alison has had at least one question where someone needed sponsorship and asked how bad it would be to fib about it during the early screening stage in the hopes the employer would love them, offer them the job, and then they could ask for sponsorship as part of the negotiation stage.

        So, yeah, people definitely have that mindset when applying and needing sponsorship.

        1. bamcheeks*

          I would also say this is one of those things where you need to be careful about the wording of the question. If you ask something like, “Do you need sponsorship to work in the US?”, people are highly incentivised to think, “Well, my current visa lasts until December 2025, so I don’t technically need sponsorship NOW…” A question like, “On what basis do you have the right to work in the US?” [drop down menu of options] [if you select a time-limited visa, please indicate the end date of your current visa] is much harder to game.

    2. Miracle*

      I would say this is a screening question when scheduling interviews. Its also tricky because you can’t discriminate on national origin and so you have to be tactful in screening for this. We don’t encounter it often, so it has fallen off of our checklist in the past.

    3. fhqwhgads*

      I think part of the crux of the question is that it sounds like the recruiting is screening on them, whether OP wants them to or not, which leads to the potentially illegal discrimination.

    4. Jessica T.*

      I also disagree with Alison’s suggestion of relying on the I-9 process. I had a friend whose boss hired someone who had work eligibility upon hiring somehow. But after she’d been in the job for a while, she disclosed she would need visa sponsorship in the next year. (Their organization was not familiar with such things and just… no one ever asked.) They basically discovered after a couple of months that they went through the whole hiring and training process (and cut loose other good candidates) for someone who was, essentially, a temp.

      Alison is right that this is an “important and must verify” thing. But I would say verify earlier and repeatedly. Ask on the application — and use “now or in the future” language. If nothing else, it signals that you are aware. Then confirm/tell in the phone screen or interview, to be really clear and be open for questions. Then the I-9 is the final check.

      In my friend’s example, if they just would have asked this woman clearly at some point, I don’t think she would have lied (as your recruiter seems to think). And then they could have resolved it. But by the employer never talking about it clearly, it gave her the chance to gamble with starting work and hope to convince them when it came up.

      1. Coverage Associate*

        Yeah, I have only ever been asked for I9 paperwork on my first paid day or even later. I get that might not be best practice, but it’s very common. I am not sure I would want it any other way, because I am not sure I would want to provide copies of my identity documents electronically to an employer whose data security I have not seen in action.

        I know some employers do it by video or something before the first day, but yeah…

        In academia, where timing is strange and tight, can part of the I9 be done at the offer stage? Or something similar? I’m not in academia, but I’m usually asked to sign an offer around the time I am setting a start date. People are less likely to lie in hard copy than on internet forms, so I would at least repeat the question in the offer paperwork.

  16. J*

    LW #2, teacups:

    You could consider a more strictly depersonalised quality control or post-mortem process. If you can’t do formal reviews before shipping your teacup, maybe you need a regular meeting where everyone presents the teacups they’re working on. Even better if you can do a quarterly review of all teacups that shipped, say, in the last three months. Then you’re not asking to review only the lousy cup-builders; its much less accusatory and still likely to surface recurring problems.

  17. Name's Seuss*

    That’s very harsh, and doesn’t give people space to grow from eg learning how to communicate in an emotionally abusive household.

    1. bamcheeks*

      If this is in response to the comment about people who shout not being managers, it’s really ok to say you have to unlearn poor conflict management skills BEFORE you’re given power over people!

    2. Channah*

      I’m unclear who you are replying to, but assuming it’s Luna (as that seems the best possible fit for what you wrote), people in that situation ought to do that growing and learning BEFORE becoming a manager. It is not reasonable or appropriate to inflict their maladaptive responses on others when they have that power over them (or ever, but especially when you have managerial control over someone’s career and income). Part of developing the skills to be a manager involves these interpersonal challenges, and it’s incumbent upon anyone seeking that career progression to work on these things as part of their development.

      People can have all the space they need to grow. They just can’t do it while abusing their employees.

    3. MK*

      No one is saying that a person who yelled once should never be a manager; but no, it’s not harsh to say that a person who yells (present tense) shouldn’t be one.

    4. Nonsense*

      By the time you are a manager, you should know how to communicate without yelling, regardless of your background. If you are still yelling, you’re unfit to be a manager. Simple as that.

    5. Observer*

      doesn’t give people space to grow from eg learning how to communicate in an emotionally abusive household

      Factually untrue. There are many, may places and ways for people to learn how to communicate appropriately, *if they so choose*, before they go into management.

      Furthermore, being able to manage without yelling at people is a *core competency*. That means that it should be an integral part of the job. Every job has some baseline requirements that not all people *can* meet, and no reasonable person expects those requirements to be waived just because it’s not their fault. Like, firefighters need to pass some health tests and they need to be able to pass some physical capacity tests.

      This is especially important when other people can (or will) be hurt by the lack of that qualification. People should not have to be subject to that kind abuse to give someone an opportunity to learn how to communicate.

      And if someone *chooses*, as is apparently the case here, then it’s not even a matter of giving someone a chance.

    6. Ginger Cat Lady*

      No one said they could NEVER be managers. Just that the learning how to communicate without yelling at people should come BEFORE being managers.
      Which I absolutely agree with. I believe that people can grow and change and learn to communicate AND I believe people who yell at other people shouldn’t be in management until they learn to do better.

    7. tabloidtainted*

      In addition to what everyone else has said, if you get all the way to a manager-level position and haven’t learned that yelling is unacceptable, are you ever going to learn?

    8. Helewise*

      What’s harsh is working for a manager without emotional control. A management position is based on a person having the skills to do the job; control-through-yelling shows that someone’s skills aren’t there yet.

  18. Get out*

    #1: Not only has HR proven to be useless (giving names, not solving the situation, not protecting employees from retaliation), but your boss is actively trying to break your confidence.
    Also, she prounds herself that she got rid of people speaking up. There are people who really think that is a sign of power and strength, so please do not fall into the trap of thinking she possibly couldn’t have meant it “like that”.
    Take all those things at face value. Get out.

  19. KillDoctorNotes*

    Ugh, why are there still companies that require sick notes for anything less than an extended absence? Do they not understand how difficult they are to get? Or how many times a relatively minor but contagious or unpleasant illness doesn’t need or benefit from a doctor’s visit, especially if it’s something the employee has already been told how to treat? Especially these days when most doctor offices won’t give notes for anything without an appointment because they don’t get paid without an appointment.

    Even with longer absences, it can be difficult unless provided retroactively. Having a planned surgery with a two week recovery time? Require a note if you want, although if you can’t trust your employee perhaps that’s the sign of a bigger issue. But a two week absence from an emergency hospitalization? That note’s likely not happening until after you’re back.

    1. Coffee*

      They are basically making people to come to work when they have head cold, noro virus or influenza. Then they are pissed that everyone is sick

        1. Wayward Sun*

          In a lot of places it’s now “if you verifiably have COVID, don’t come in, otherwise you should show up.”

          1. Nah*

            or in most places here, “if you aren’t tested, people can’t say we knew for sure it was covid, so we’ll make it really dang hard to get tested in order to pretend it’s a cold and make you come in!” and then your immunocompromised coworker or their elderly mother or little kid gets sent to the hospital. :)

            (technically you can still get those at-home kits, but I remember they were winding up with a seriously insane amount of false negatives, and never heard of any changes to those stats. we still get them because at least it’s *something*, but not everyone has access to them and it’s also like 10-15 USD for one test.)

    2. Lynn*

      As for the doctors note, it depends on when they can see you and if they will see you depending on what you have

      A former manager of mine required a doctors note when I had the cold or flu… I called the clinic and told them what I needed… I was told that if I did not have a prolonged fever, the doctor would not see me

      I had to email my manager to let them know that

    3. Properlike*

      Good luck getting in to see a dr unless it’s a legitimate emergency! Big city here, have to wait three weeks minimum for an appt. They gave up on “we’ll see you on the same day” because they’re so understaffed.

      Not to mention that lots of people don’t have insurance and can’t afford that visit.

      1. Lynn*

        And a cold, flu, upset stomach, or low grade fever that can be treated with Aleve and so on are not emergencies

      2. Hell in a Handbasket*

        Even with insurance — my deductible plan means I’ll be out over $100 out of pocket for that unnecessary visit.

    4. Peter the Bubblehead*

      I had a job back in the early-90’s working for a department of the City of New York. (I don’t know if the law the Letter Writer wasn’t in place yet or if NYC itself was breaking that law.) It was department policy that if you called in sick for any amount of time, you could not return to work without a doctor’s note clearing you to return. My primary care physician only maintained office hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which meant if I called in sick on a Monday or Wednesday, I had to take a minimum of two sick days to acquire a note and go back to work. One year when I had to move multiple times, was dealing with family issues, work issues, and stress, I was calling out a day every few weeks and the department policy meant I ran through my sick leave quicker than I was earning it.

  20. Bananapant Modiste*

    #1 : “These are just a few examples from this month.”

    That many in ONE month? Getoutoutgetougetout before you burn out/have a heart attack/otherwise break down.

  21. Don't raise your voice*

    #1. The moment I read that the Boss is yelling at you, that was it, you need to leave. Bosses yelling at an employee is workplace bullying, simple as. Some people try to justify it as somehow being something a boss has to do often quoting those silly reality TV shows not realising the show has to create drama. A good boss would have no need to yell, they would calmly and carefully explain what you needed to have done, no fuss, no drama, no high rating TV show.
    Your boss is a bully who enjoys treating you badly, please leave

    1. PP*

      Indeed a boss yelling at you is bullying.

      When after an acquisition integration, the purchasing Fortune 50 company moved me to a new department, I learned that the department head yelled a employees. Luckily, I was in a different office and was never yelled at.

      Never until that horrible person yelled at me by phone because I was still out on family medical leave due to my mom newly bein in hospice facility.

      Horrible Boss harassed my godmother, and the hospice staff, until she bullied them enough interrupt being with my mom in the middle of her having a musician playing for her. They offered that only when people were close to the end. My mom had turned around and was laying in my lap.

      I’ll never forget or forgive that Horrible Boss.

      1. RVA Cat*

        Good lord, that’s even WORSE than the graveyard note and funeral phone call bosses!

        My heart goes out to you. My mom died in hospice five years ago this week. It was the hardest but kindest decision I ever had to make.

  22. Kella*

    OP1: I want to make something very clear to you: You will never consistently satisfy your boss’s expectations. How do I know? Because you’re meeting her clearly defined expectations, and she still gets mad. Even when you get her explicit approval on something, she gets mad and criticizes you for it. This is called an impossible expectation.

    You’re searching for the correct door to go through that will make her happy, not realizing that in addition to deciding which door is the correct one, she has the power to switch which door was “correct” one at the last second, making it so you’ve always chosen wrong. You aren’t failing but you feel like you are because your boss’s comments are focused on humiliating and undermining you, not on achieving positive results or even fixing problems. No matter how much you succeed, she’ll make you feel like you’re failing. This won’t change until you have a different boss/job.

    1. Mornington Crescent*

      THIS, a thousand times this.

      I’ve worked for a boss exactly like this and it was the absolute worst. Nothing was ever right, I was undermined and gaslit constantly about my skills and abilities, and she even tried to isolate me from the rest of the team. It didn’t get better until I left and once I had my ticket out, I was able to grey rock her successfully.

      I had to have therapy to successfully exorcise this woman and her treatment of me from my head. Get out now before it gets any worse!

      1. Not your trauma bucket*

        Solidarity, my friend. Went through the exact same thing. It took a couple of years to function normally, and I still have the mental and emotional scars. Congrats and getting out!!

      2. Slow Gin Lizz*

        I agree with Kella and Mornington. In addition, Mornington brings up an excellent point, which is GREY ROCK. OP, read up on it and do your absolute best to do it with your boss going forward. It’s really hard to do, but very effective with these kinds of people who thrive on getting a rise out of others. If you can avoid getting emotional in her presence, you will tilt the power imbalance more in your favor.

        I worked for a small NP for three years. After I’d been there over two years, they hired a chief development officer who was supposed to be in charge of all the fundraising but she didn’t do any fundraising at all, as far as we could tell. She mostly scheduled meetings with staff and tried to take over tasks that weren’t her responsibility, not because she wanted to do the tasks but because she wanted to take credit for the tasks being done so well. Only it didn’t work on me, because whenever she tried to take over one of my tasks (or, more specifically, tried to take over being the boss of me for one of my tasks) I’d grey rock and then my boss and I would discuss the task without her and just do whatever needed to be done – boss and I were a dream team and our dept worked really well.

        My boss and I pushed back on her constantly, and after awhile I realized that I needed to just get out because our CEO would take her side and let her take over things where she had no idea what she was doing (and, I might add, refused to learn any of it either). She also, by the bye, hired a subordinate to do all the fundraising that she wasn’t doing and I feel very bad for that person. During my notice period I spoke with quite a few higher ups in the org to let them know what was going on, but it sure didn’t make a difference. She’s still at the org now and, hilariously, I noticed the other day that she appears to have blocked me on LinkedIn. Shocking.

        Anyway, she wasn’t even my boss or grandboss, just someone I had to work with who was a c-level when I was not, and it was very hard to deal with her even for less than a year. After leaving, my stress level went wayyyyyyyy down. So my advice to you, OP, is to find a new job asap and in the meantime, grey rock all the time. Good luck!

    2. Ellis Bell*

      I can’t remember where, but I remember reading something about Jekyll and Hyde managers being a big lobster trap for employees, as they often struggle to get away from them. From what I remember it’s a combination of emotional burnout preventing them from job hunting and moving on, as well as getting addicted to the feeling of solving an impossible problem when they are pleased with you.

      1. Lobster trap indeed*

        I might be reading too much into the letter, but you see that boss is already getting to LW as they are questioning themself for being too sensitive.
        But the answer is: no. Boss getting as personal as “you aren’t fun” is not normal and not OK, and LW has every right not to be ok with this.

      2. RVA Cat*

        I feel this so much.
        Plus there’s the added hurdle that they can trigger childhood trauma, which warped your norms before you even entered the workforce. Ask me now I know :(

    3. Quinalla*

      Yes! You should get out OP, but until you do, you have to keep this front and center that it isn’t you, it’s your boss. No matter what you do, your boss may change the expectations last second and there is NOTHING you can do about it. If you can stay in that mindset, it will help you to not feel as frustrated and to not question your memory. I would try and get all instructions in writing or confirm all instructions in writing (Per our conversation, you want X done by Y and to include Z, A & B. – look at how helpful you are summarizing your meetings!!) It won’t stop your boss from being randomly mad, but it will help you to know that you are not misremembering.

      I had a boss like this for a summer internship and this was the best way I could deal with it. I also spoke up every time he was saying something that went against what he said previously, not to change anything about him, but to reinforce to myself that I was correctly following his original instructions. At the end of the summer, he actually confided in me that he thought I was a great intern because I “stood up to him” which what they hell dude. Why were you being such a jerk?

    5. Firebird*

      Thanks Kella for putting it so well. I’m going to share this with my support group. It fits a lot of work and personal situations.

      1. Kella*

        Thanks! I unfortunately learned it within the context of a romantic relationship but it’s widely applicable to any relationship with this kind of dynamic. When you’re doubting your own judgement of everything, it’s helpful to see facts laid out like this.

    6. spiriferida*

      Yep, exactly. The boss isn’t judging your work based on the objective reality of the situation. She’s judging your work based on her emotional state at the time, and that’s not something you can fix. You might be able to find coping techniques or ways to occasionally influence her mood in the direction that helps your work, but you can’t control other factors in her life or the organization that are going to make her take those things out on you.

  23. OneAngryAvacado*

    #3 – the whole concept of academics tipping professional services staff is pretty fraught, but also it might be worth a quick check to see how much your colleagues are making before pushing back hard on this. *You* might be earning a good enough salary to be able to turn this away, but that doesn’t guarantee everyone is and some of your colleagues may genuinely find this tradition a real boost – in which case, if you’re focusing on equality in the workplace, I’d focus less on the tipping tradition and more on getting your university to pay PS staff better.

    (Or it might be that all PS staff are paid the same as academics in your institution, in which case as a PS worker in the UK, I very much would like to know if your team has any openings…)

    1. Ferret*

      The letter clearly states that “a couple make more money than the lowest-paid faculty members who are chipping in for these gifts” – this isn’t a claim that they are all well paid, just that at least some of the academics are worse off.

      It may well be the case that PS staff are paid the same as academics, with everyone on very low salaries… in which case having one “side” tip the other isn’t really fair.

    2. E*

      Agree. Some of our staff make <30% of what the faculty do (eg temporary administrative), and some make within 80% (PhD holder). I will either happily contribute or not depending on what our staff wants, but I would expect the effects to be disparate.

      1. Pescadero*

        We have faculty who make less than staff – lecturers make similar money to the upper end staff, and less than upper staff management in my department.

        …but lecturers aren’t asked to contribute in my department – only tenure track faculty.

    3. cloudy*

      Yeah… I would definitely check this before acting.

      As someone who works for faculty members who get paid 5-7x more than me, I appreciate the random gift cards and whatnot they send along. I’d love for staff and faculty to be treated more equally, but I feel like that has to start with how we’re paid in the first place / how dramatically different our vacation time and benefits are / etc. Taking the little gift away but not addressing the larger issues doesn’t seem like it’s going to do anything but make morale worse among the lowest-paid staff.

    4. Jujuju*

      LW 3
      I just wanted to add another perspective, because I used to be a PhD student at a university department that did the same. While I understand the practise and know it’s done with good intentions, in my department PhD students were expected to chip in for administrative staff that earned more (and had considerably more job security) than us, which made me feel like noone considered the financial realities of low-level faculty (I’m not from the US; we were employed by the university and considered faculty, not sure, if it’s the same in the US).
      I’m not sure, if there is an easy solution that is fair to everybody, but I think you might find academic staff that would be happy to stop this tradition …

      1. Jaunty Banana Hat I*

        That is crazy that they’d expect students (even/especially grad students) to contribute for something like that.

        There’s nothing inherently wrong with the better paid profs chipping in to give something to lesser paid staff, but it should be entirely voluntary, and people should be giving relative to their job security/pay, with most of the onus on the tenured faculty. Adjuncts and students on stipends should not be expected to give at all.

      2. Jessica in higher ed*

        I’m in the US and would be appalled at the idea of asking grad students to pay for basically anything.

    5. bamcheeks*

      As another UK PS person, if the question was about what to do in the UK context, I’d make the distinction on grade rather than between professional services and academic! I’m on the same grade as a Senior Lecture/Associate Professor: I’d be absolutely horrified if someone was asking a early career researcher or lecturer on a short-term contract and £15k less to contribute to a “recognition” gift for me.

    6. Teatime*

      Yeah, I’m university staff. I have the same degrees as our faculty do, but get paid significantly less and also have far less benefits (Faculty have a significant housing assistance and benefit in a high cost of living city that staff cannot access). And that’s before we factor in grants. Staff in my department are treated as office furniture at best, and with disdain at worst by most faculty. I have been told that part of my job is to save faculty from their own mistakes because we can’t hold them to doing their own job requirements because tenure.

      I don’t think a single one of our faculty members would even deign to think of us during the holidays, but if they did, you better believe I’d take that money, just as reparations.

      It’s all well and good to think of yourselves as equal, but structurally (as long as tenure is in play) you’re not. Please talk to the lowest earning staff among you before making this decision, and certainly don’t ask non-tenured faculty to contribute, but a few extra bucks might REALLY make the difference to staff during the holiday season.

  24. Serendipity*

    LW4 – I sympathise with your recruiter, somewhat, I recruit for a very specialised technical field and the advent of global jobs sites and one click applying mean that there are large numbers of candidates who apply in spite of not having the right to work in my country can be overwhelming. It’s not unusual for 30%+ of candidates to be ineligible in this way. I have also fallen into the trap of getting far into the interview process before the candidate admits this, wasting large amounts of my time, my colleagues time and their own.

    That said the way they are dealing with this is completely inappropriate, I have found that asking both as part of your application form and then again as part of my initial phone conversation (with all candidates, not just those who are based internationally) with the candidate eliminates almost all instances of candidates who we would be unable to hire getting past this phase of our hiring process. Whilst yes, it does sometimes lead to me spending fifteen minutes on a call with a candidate who may not be eligible for the role it also means I have access to candidates who may, at first glance, appear ineligible.

  25. DJ Abbott*

    #1, your boss sounds like a person who is all about venting her feelings in the moment. If she’s in a bad mood she lashes out, making things up if necessary. If she’s in a good mood, she’s supportive. At the moment.
    Such a person doesn’t see other people as people to have relationships with, they sees them as screens to project their feelings on. She’s not going to change unless she wants to, and then it would take time and working with a therapist. So probably the best thing you can do is leave. I’m sorry I don’t have a better suggestion, but at least know it’s not you.

  26. 653-CXK*

    OP#1: Your boss is an unhinged, manipulative sociopath, and your HR department acts like dutiful lackeys for this manager than to defend the company and/or its employees. No sane person should work there.

    This would be a perfect case of leaving the company as soon as possible, without notice, because the second you give any form of notice, she will fire you.

  27. ijustworkhere*

    I understand the concern about a candidate telling you they need sponsorship at the last minute. You may have cut other candidates loose that you would have otherwise considered, and you’ve invested a lot of time into the hiring process with a candidate that you won’t consider now that you have all the information.

    And, despite all that, what your boss is doing is wrong. We have all the same issues with candidates for other reasons–they mislead about salary requirements, their skill set, their experience, their desire to actually leave their current jobs, why they left their last job……all kinds of things. This is part of the process of hiring. You use the vetting process to clarify a lot of things that you simply can’t clarify based on an application or a resume.

    Consider your vetting process a success if you ferret out these issues before you make an offer.

  28. Hyaline*

    LW#3–while I absolutely appreciate your outlook and fight to consider staff and faculty as equals, the reality is that, systemically, they’re not. Having been on both sides of that one, staff are typically paid less on average, have less flexibility in their working conditions and hours, are often given less respect in the basic rules and functions of the university, and of course you know that not every faculty member shares your views as you’re fighting to be seen as equal! I’m not sure that passing the hat and giving cash is the best option, but it’s going to be hard to get the non-shitty faculty to give up on the idea of acknowledging, at least once a year, the enormous amount of under-appreciated work staff do. (FWIW, I think giving a gift card and having everyone sign a card takes some of the weird factor out, making it less like a tip and more like a gift.)

    I know our admin makes more money than I do. I still happily pitch in on her holiday gift because she does so effing much and we would be screwed without her, and in the systemic disparity of the academic system, her work is not acknowledged the same way ours is. I thank her frequently throughout the year, but I’m grateful for the the opportunity to give her a gift, too. (And if our department stopped, I’d be getting her something on my own.) That said, it may be that your department has outgrown this tradition and with ten staff, most of whom are what our university would call “professional” rather than “support” staff, it’s no longer the same situation. But I still wouldn’t make a giant stink out of it.

    1. Sherm*

      100% agree. Faculty *are* higher-ranking in most places where faculty exist. It’s not just about the money. Faculty, even those who are non-tenured, are less likely be told to hit the road compared to staff, and their opinions are likely to be considered more. It is a little crass if they are literally handing out the crumpled pieces of green paper in people’s wallets (agree that gift cards would be nicer!) but opting out is really all one should do.

      1. Wayward Sun*

        One of the first things I was told when I started working as a university staff member was, “you need faculty as your allies, because they’re the only ones with political power.”

  29. Hyaline*

    #1–long term, get out. But since that’s unlikely to happen immediately, disengage from what she has to say as much as you possibly can. Pay literally no attention to her comments beyond the bare minimum required to do your job. Remember that when she says snarky crap in front of others, SHE looks bad, not you. You’ve already identified that she is an unreliable source of feedback, so don’t give her negative comments a single bit of real estate in your own head. See if you can find a mentor or confidante at work who you can rely on for honest feedback and support. And long term? Get out.

  30. RIP Pillowfort*

    OP 2- I work in engineering, I’m an SME, and I think because your first response is always “who built it” is the root of why it’s poorly received. Overall, you don’t seem to come up with solutions other than nebulous re-training. You’re focused on who did what instead of why they did it. And you are coming to this meeting cold. I deal with identifying errors in work for my office (I’m one of several) and if I approached my boss with “who did it” every time, he’d yell at me too. I can easily figure that out before I even go to the meeting through internal documentation. He wants me to have a solution to the problem and solutions to prevent it from happening again.

    I think you need to reassess your approach. You’re an SME. If no one is reviewing the new employees that is the solution- have a reviewer. If the issue is insufficient training, that’s the solution. Stop focusing on individuals, because you have a systemic problem. Systemic problems require systemic solutions.

    Note: This is assuming your boss will act on a systemic problem. But since you had this problem in another job, I think making sure you’re focused on the pattern will help it. But systemic solutions are also not popular.

    1. Cthulhu's Librarian*

      This is really well put.

      Who messed up is rarely as important as why. I’ve been the guy on a line who kept getting “retrained” on how to produce a part, without anyone ever looking into why all the parts were flawed.

      When I finally got a copy of the job specs, it turned out the issue wasn’t me – it was that the parts were supposed to be sitting on a cooling rack that was attached to a chilled water line for 3 minutes as they came out of the machine – but the chiller for the water line had broken down, and never been replaced. Initially management had adjusted the time cycle on the parts to keep them on the un-chilled rack for longer, but as the contract went on, and we stayed below expected production, they’d kept shortening the time cycle to try and meet production quotas, causing issues to keep getting worse.

      But continually “retraining” the machine operators was all QA kept trying… and surprisingly, that never worked.

      1. LuckyPurpleSocks*

        Whaaaaa? Please tell me they finally fixed the chiller, instead of assuming that retraining the operators would somehow magically bypass the laws of physics.

        1. Cthulhu's Librarian*

          I wish I could, but I doubt it – I got fired by the floor foreman at the end of the shift after I stepped off the line to point out the cause to the head of QC. Was told it was because I had left my machine unattended.

      2. Not Australian*

        A wonderful example of being up to your ass in alligators and forgetting that your original purpose was to drain the swamp…

      3. Delta Delta*

        Exactly this. “who did this?” is unnecessarily accusatory, when it could very well be that everyone did the thing but something else went wrong. A simple shift in language from “who did this” to “I wonder how this happened” could go really far in getting to the root of the problem. From there, it’s potentially possible to fix the problem.

    2. Engineering Degree Holder*

      Agree with you completely.

      This sounds like “soft skills” issue as opposed to a “quantifiable metrics” issue (even if the solution is ultimately to address it systemically).

      People will not listen to the content of your message, if they don’t like the way you deliver it. This is true in SO MANY AREAS OF LIFE!!!!!!

    3. Zelda*

      “You’re focused on who did what instead of why they did it.”

      I find that the easiest way to find out why someone did what they did is to have a conversation with them, which can’t happen without first asking with whom to have the conversation.

      1. Not their task to fix*

        But, as LW states, it is not even their officially assigned task to review builds, as it is not their task to find reasons for errors. LW is overstepping at this point and the reaction of their boss is clearly telling them that they need to stop.
        Maybe the company has a huge quality problem and a large amount of customer claims. But this is not on LW to fix of they are not tasked accordingly. If LW is indeed expected to catch errors, they need to be in a position to officially address this, e.g. through review of builds.

        1. Miracle*

          Funny thing, the boss is telling them to stop and LW is thinking the boss is doing it wrong. LW says, “I had the same problem at a previous job”

          Ask you boss how they want you to proceed. Follow their instructions.

      2. Cat Tree*

        If you’re going into with the assumption that retraining is the solution, that conversation is unlikely to be useful to anyone.

        1. Zelda*

          The LW says “I want to look at retraining,” not “obviously the solution is retraining.” That is, it’s a possibility, not an assumption.

          1. Observer*

            Sure, but why is that the first thing that comes to mind? Also, why are they so focused on training? I mean it’s good that they do acknowledge that MAYBE the guides are incorrect. But in order to find out whether that’s true, they have absolutely no need to know “who dun it”.

            In fact, it makes a lot of sense to not even ask the question when you are seeing repeat errors. When that happens and you have any reason to believe that the issue might be that someone does not know what to do, the *first* thing you do it look at the training materials. If that looks OK, *then* you look at the possible need for retraining.

    4. el l*

      That’s the nub and in their own incompletely-expressed way the boss is right:

      This is a systemic problem, and systemic problems require systemic solutions.

      Because the errors sound like they keep happening regardless of who. Also because it’s unclear whose job QC is, and it sounds like it’s possible that the instructions are at best imperfect. That’s the focus.

  31. HonorBox*

    OP5 – I’m not saying this to suggest that something that is illegal should still continue being done. But I’m wondering if there’s reason behind this policy. If people are supposed to be in the office one day a month and there is a pattern of people calling out sick on that particular day, maybe management and HR are trying to get ahead of that. Maybe I’m completely off base, too, but it seems like the policy is an attempt to fix an issue. It is fixing said issue poorly and illegally, but it could be that there’s more behind this.

    I’m reading this as people having an assigned day in the office, rather than allowing people to choose which day they’re coming in. That makes sense. So while mentioning that the policy may be illegal, maybe you could also mention that the policy could simply be that if a person is sick on the day they’re to be in the office, they just need to work with their manager or HR to figure out what day they will be in. HR could approach it in a way that conveys “of course you’re planning to come into the office and we want to make it easy for you to do so when you’re well.”

    1. Samantha Parkington*

      I had the same thought, that the company is only requiring one in-person day per month and is noticing a dramatic uptick in callouts. However, since the LW seems to think it’s annoying that employees aren’t allowed to perform childcare while working, I’m wondering if HR is trying to manage multiple known issues regarding the attendance policy.

      1. Cloud Wrangler*

        The childcare issue stuck out to me as well. It’s not an unreasonable ask by the company.

        A problem companies have been dealing with is people moving out of the area during the past few years. The company wasn’t told even those people are required to be within 50 miles of the worksite. (Special permission is rarely granted.)

        We have had supervisors who are required to be on site never showing up. Yes, you need to supervise the physical warehouse. Safety problems went through the roof due.

        HR is probably seeing a larger problem than the LW knows. Yes, there may be a legal problem with the one day doctor’s note. One question I have is, does the company accept tele-doc notes? We do. Has that question been asked?

        1. doreen*

          Also, these laws are rarely , if ever , as simple as “a doctor’s note cannot be required for fewer than three consecutive days” . Here’s an excerpt from the rules implementing the San Francisco ordinance

          Rule 2.4. In situations of a pattern or clear instance of abuse, an employer may require a doctor’s note or other documentation to verify that an employee’s use of paid sick leave was consistent with the Ordinance, even if the use of paid sick leave was for three consecutive work days or less.
          Rule 2.5. Policies or practices that require a doctor’s note or other documentation for instances in which the employee has used paid sick leave to attend an appointment are presumptively reasonable, even if the use of paid sick leave was for three consecutive work days or less

          The LW most likely doesn’t know if an exception applies in any particular case, and before I followed Alison’s advice, I’d make sure that the policy was to require a doctor’s note in violation of the law and not that the employer may require documentation for a single day absence on the co-working day.

          1. Observer*

            Rule #2.4 would not apply here. Because this exception is for *an* employee – ie an individual who has shown a pattern of abuse.

            As for the note for appointments, that’s also not relevant. They are requiring a note for anyone calling out sick for any reason, not just for appointments.

            1. Doreen*

              All I’m saying is that the LW should check the actual policy vs the actual law. Because if the policy says they “may” require a doctor’s note, that’s different than saying a doctor’s note is always required.

          2. fhqwhgads*

            If they’re requiring a note from ANYONE calling in sick on the in-office day, that is a violation.
            What wouldn’t be a violation is if a particular employee seemed to have a pattern of always taking sick leave on the one coworking day per month, then they’d be permitted to request a note from that employee. Or any employee with said pattern. Which is probably not all of them.

            1. LW 5*

              LW 5 here – to clarify, the policy is that anyone who is out sick on that day must provide a doctors note. I was (incorrectly) marked absent by mistake from one, and someone from HR reached out saying I had to provide a doctors note that day or by end of week at the latest if I was out sick, and I have not taken a single sick day since working at the company. It’s a blanket policy that was established at the same time the coworking days began (so it was not in reaction to a bunch of people trying to get out of them by calling out sick). The policy is clearly spelled out on internal documentation – there’s no hedging language about how it “may” be required in some circumstances.

    2. Mutually supportive*

      As I read it, they don’t have an office in each town. When there are enough people locally to be worth it, they are hiring a venue for that one day (it talks about a co-working space and “for this day” as if it’s just one day)
      If that’s the case then people calling sick on that day literally wouldn’t be able to donate different day to make up for it, as there is only one per month!

      They are worried that people will call out on that single day and *oops* looks like I’ve missed it again….

    3. Observer*

      If people are supposed to be in the office one day a month and there is a pattern of people calling out sick on that particular day, maybe management and HR are trying to get ahead of that.

      And so? As you note, of something is illegal, then you still shouldn’t so it, even if you have a reason for why you want to do it.

      That’s why it doesn’t really matter if there is more to it or not. This policy still needs to be changed. *And* management needs to figure out a better way to deal with whatever issue is showing up with the new policy.

      1. TheBunny*

        But it’s not definitely illegal. It might be…but there are carve outs that could make it legal.

  32. Parenthesis Guy*

    #4: My understanding from talking with HR about things like this is that it’s not so simple to always determine citizenship status when you have a thousand applicants for a job and that mistakes are made. These mistakes are presumably almost always caught before the end of the process, but it can be a bummer to have someone go through your process, accept an offer and then have it taken away because of something like this.

    I wouldn’t say that people lie about this all the time, but there may be confusion about what sponsorship they require and whether they require sponsorship. If there’s a mistake, it’s a big deal. The LW is right that candidates can lie about anything, but it’s one thing if they lie about not having a college degree (largely irrelevant if they can do the work) and if they lie about this.

    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      The issue isn’t that people lie; it’s that throwing out all foreign candidates as a blanket policy because of that is illegal. (He might not be doing that, but I’d be wondering after that conversation.)

        1. anon recruiter*

          I understand your read but I do want to say that LW’s attitude that the application filters will be enough was extremely concerning for me. IME, people make mistakes or assume they will be the exception to the company rule. If LW is not asking any questions in relation to sponsorship needs, they will have offers fall through until they learn to start asking.

          1. Parenthesis Guy*

            That’s interesting. From my perspective, I want the recruiter to be especially vigiliant regarding this sort of thing because I can’t confirm anything. But I don’t want to be the one who asks. I want the recruiter to own that. That’s why I’m happy to hear when a recruiter is being careful about that.

            For starters, I’m unable to confirm whether anything the candidate says is accurate. But also, I’m not an expert about visa statuses and all of that stuff so I can’t even determine whether what they’re saying is feasible.

            Basically, I want my role in the recruiting process to be the things that I’m good at and leave everything else to someone else.

          2. fhqwhgads*

            I don’t think the LW’s attitude is that application filters will be enough. I think the LW’s attitude is “you don’t chuck out the application at this stage because what’s in the checkbox might not be true”.

      2. M2*

        Maybe the recruiter is just telling LW so they know their first choice might need sponsorship.

        We have it on our job descriptions and then HR during the screen says we don’t offer sponsorship and then when they finally get to me I also say no sponsorship (to everyone) and I still have had the finalist then tell me they need visa sponsorship!

        Someone needs to be clear with the recruiter, but they should also be clear in the description and in the interviews after there is no sponsorship. It doesn’t always work but then you have been clear.

        People lie about all sorts of things and it is frustrating when you’re up front and candidates still think they are so great the policies don’t apply to them.

      3. Parenthesis Guy*

        Agree that just throwing out foreign candidates is illegal. It’s not clear in the letter that the recruiter is doing this.

        The letter writer is seeing applications for these applicants. If the recruiter is doing the first round checks before sending them to the letter writer, then they don’t have a blanket policy against hiring them or else the letter writer wouldn’t be seeing them. If the letter writer is doing the first round checks, I’d be very curious about more information about the recruiters role.

        In my experience, it’s not rare for an international candidate to make it to the background check before the offer stage before finding out there’s an issue with visa status and have offers pulled because of it.

  33. Rebbert*

    To file under “people will lie about anything” – we were recruiting for a job that required specific expertise with tribal communities. To reduce screening time, we added an automated question to our application page for this role that asked, “Do you currently work with or for a tribal community, or do you possess at least 5 years’ experience serving tribal communities?” Approximately 250 people lied and said yes. When I started going through the resumes manually, my pleasure at the huge number of people with critical expertise coming out of the woodwork quickly turned to utter disgust at the willingness of people to lie.

    1. Lisa Simpson*

      I used to hire lifeguards and some years 90% of the candidates could not swim. Like, I had to conduct swim tests in the end lane so I could walk along next to the person holding a rescue tube for safety purposes, and start in the shallow end so I could tell them to stop before they got into deep water.

  34. Anon1*

    #4, I wonder if the recruiter isn’t thinking about this issue in a more “bigger picture” way than what you’re thinking. I’m saying this because he had an issue with most candidates being foreign not with there being foreign candidates. So maybe he doesn’t want you to not consider those foreign ones but to have more candidates who are not foreign because in his experience a big percentage of the foreign ones will need sponsorship and he doesn’t want to end up with 3 finalists who will need sponsorship and have to restart the process.

  35. Laura*

    I’m LW 1 and I am so appreciative of all of the feedback and comments! I’m so happy to share that I got a new job and left last week. I am sure no one is surprised to read that my boss did not take my notice well. I gave the standard two weeks notice and she called me unprofessional and said that it wasn’t enough time. Luckily, I called HR directly after that conversation and they confirmed that two weeks was the policy. My boss spoke to the CEO and she demanded that I leave immediately without pay. HR reversed that mandate after a few days and I was paid out for my remaining time. I’m so glad I left and no longer have to work in that environment. Thank you for all of the feedback and I hope my letter and experience is helpful to others.

    2. Snarky Bosses Suck*

      I commented just before you shared your update! Congratulations on your new role! Glad that HR supported you through your departure.

      Good luck in your new role!!

    5. Khatul Madame*

      Good on you for leaving!
      From your post it seems that your HR is halfway decent and your boss may have lied about them throwing former coworkers under the bus.

    6. Sean*

      That is excellent news!

      Your old boss even managed to contradict herself right to the very end: she demanded immediate termination, while at the same time complaining that two weeks’ notice wasn’t anywhere near long enough.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Haha, right? It’s like all the people who ask you out and when you turn them down say, “Well, you’re too ugly and I wouldn’t want to date you anyway.” Um, whaaaat????

        Anyway, I’m SO GLAD you’re out of there, OP!!!! That’s the best news ever! Please update us after you’ve been at your new job for awhile and let us know how it’s going.

      2. MassMatt*

        It makes no sense, yet it’s remarkably common. As is treating people like they’ve committed a personal betrayal and abusing them during the notice period. Um, slam a door in my face when I’m doing you a favor transitioning my work to someone else to help you out? I guess I’ll just leave right now!

    9. 653-CXK*

      Good for you, Laura (LW1), both on getting out of there and the new job.

      I predicted that your now and forever ExBoss would pull the “your last day is effective right now” card because she was in no state to be rational – she would have tried to swamp you with work during those two weeks to try to make you quit earlier.

      And for once, your weak HR department made sure you were paid through the notice period, avoiding opening a new can of worms with your labor department breathing down their neck.

    10. Former Young Lady*

      As a fellow survivor of a Jekyll-and-Hyde boss, I am so happy for you! Please be kind to yourself in the days ahead. It’s always an adjustment to work for a rational person after dealing with this kind of abuse; remember, always, that you deserve the decency.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        This! It may take time to trust your new boss actually means what they say, or you may find yourself panicking over minor screw-ups, and that’s perfectly normal when getting out of such an abnormal situation. Give yourself some grace.

        We’re so glad you’re out of there!

        1. MAC*

          So true! I’m about to have my 3-year anniversary army current job and am just starting to believe it when my management tells me they value me, I’m doing a good job, etc. after years of gaslighting at previous jobs.

    13. Elbe*

      She complained that two weeks wasn’t enough time and then wanted you to leave right away?

      At this point, it should be clear to HR that this person is not making professional business choices. If time is needed to transition work, then spitefully trying to let them go early is bad business.

      It is so painfully obvious that her main motivations are just to try to hurt you and no reasonable professional would let that stand if they have any sort of concern for the business or their employees. Good for you for getting out! This place sounds awful.

    17. in a fog*

      So glad you got out — and genuinely curious if you and I worked for the same person. Your letter was so so familiar to me, even though I left 5+ years ago at this point.

    19. Observer*

      I am SO glad you are out of there!

      Is it your sense that your former boss was lying up and down, or that she was telling the truth, but that HR finally grew *some* competence / were pushed by the CEO to do their job?

    20. Nah*

      wait, the *CEO* demanded you leave after the boss talked to her? geez, very glad you managed to get out, and without the temper tantrum paycut.

      1. New Jack Karyn*

        Because HR was able to overturn that directive, I took it as “Boss went to CEO and demanded that I be let go immediately” and that the CEO agreed. HR was able to walk that back a little, and get LW a check.

    21. RVA Cat*

      So glad you escaped! I hope you can now detached your shoulders from your ears.
      “Runs hot and cold” is just a euphemism for abusive.

  36. Snarky Bosses Suck*

    LW 1 – Get out of there. I worked for a small non-profit where the Executive Director made life miserable for all staff (especially me), and I ended up walking away right before a major project was due. My mental health couldn’t take it. No matter how much I was told to focus on my work, to let her behaviour roll off my back, I just couldn’t. (Easier said than done to all who are suggesting that.)

    Does your non-profit have a Board of Directors who evaluates the CEO/ED? The one I worked for had an HR committee that oversaw things on that end. It might be worth reaching out to them vs the HR department. Or talk to an employment lawyer to see what your options are. You do not deserve to be treated so crappy.

    Strong fundraisers are a rarity, and do such important work. I hope you can find your next role quickly!

    1. Observer*

      No matter how much I was told to focus on my work, to let her behaviour roll off my back, I just couldn’t. (Easier said than done to all who are suggesting that.)

      I think that this a really important point. There are techniques that can help in many case, but in the long term, for most people getting out is the only really viable strategy.

      I’m glad you are working for a more functional place now!

  37. learnedthehardway*

    OP#4 – SOME international candidates will lie about needing sponsorship.

    In any case, this is the process I follow with ALL candidates – I ask them if they are legally entitled to work and whether they will require sponsorship. That way, I’m being fair and equitable to everyone. I also tell candidates that our background process will confirm their work status.

    I did have a candidate be “confused” a few months ago, and it just reiterated to me that if someone says they are on a visa or would need sponsorship, I need to get specifics from them – ie. how long their visa is good for. We got as far as an offer with this candidate who said they were legal to work. Turned out, they were legal when we spoke, but their visa expired before they were offered the role. I should have asked when it expired. If the candidate had been up front about the visa situation, the company would have hired them. But they weren’t and the company decided to hire someone else.

    1. anon recruiter*

      Yep, from experience on the recruitment side I’ll say this stuff gets complicated and a lot of applicants will make mistakes in good faith. They aren’t lying maliciously. Anytime where the company is firm on not sponsoring, it needs to be a “trust but verify” situation.

  39. Benihana scene stealer*

    I’m not sure I fully understand #2. The LW says it’s not their job to be reviewing these builds, but is it someone’s? It sounds like LW is trying to be helpful but maybe not going about it the best way?

    I don’t know what the advice should be, but it sounds strange that nobody is reviewing these things, yet they have errors but the boss doesn’t seem to care.

    Sounds like there’s a mismatch with expectations of what LW should be doing.

    1. Peter the Bubblehead*

      I will admit what the LW wrote sounds confusing, but my thinking was that while “QA” is not the LW’s actual job (they have other duties they need to fulfil that appear to take up a majority of their time) their boss expects LW to “QA” the product.
      The solution may be as simple as hiring a dedicated QA expert to oversee production and let the LW perform his own job.

  40. el l*

    OP1:
    “When people show you who they are, believe them.”

    That’s the HR retribution story. Run.
    Kyle

  41. Mermaid of the Lunacy*

    #1: I worked for a hot and cold woman early in my career. Made me cry one day, told me I was essential the next. Picked favorites that changed from day to day. Being young and naive, I assumed everything was my fault when I was not the favored employee and that things were turning around when she’d say something nice to me, just to be crushed the next time she came down on me. It really did a number on my mental health. I’m in my 40s now and I would not stand for ONE MINUTE of behavior like that again. Like the saying goes, when someone shows you who they are, believe them. This boss will just keep moving the goalposts no matter how hard you try. There’s something wrong with her. I’m sure you don’t need one more person telling you to get out, but GET OUT.

  42. Delta Delta*

    #1 – I see OP has updated that she got a new job, and that’s fantastic news! Hopefully the new job will be a good fit!

    I just wanted to commiserate about working for someone who runs hot and cold. It’s hard to a difficult and demanding job and do it well, and also never know if you’ve done the right thing because you don’t know how your boss is going to react. when it becomes harder to be at the job than it is to do the job, you need a different job.

  43. Bookworm*

    Letter 4 – I have a different take on this. The last place I worked had someone in HR who didn’t ask *at all* about right to work in the US when first screening applicants for a department that needed a number of positions filled. No one found out that these applicants weren’t able to legally work in the US until their first day when they were filling out paperwork and *none* of them were authorized to work in the US. That HR person ended up being fired. The hiring manager didn’t ask either, having apparently thought HR had taken care of that. What a mess.

    1. Observer*

      I don’t see why this is a different take?

      What happened at you last employer was ridiculous, and HR deserved to get fired – and the manager deserved to face some (lesser) consequences.

      But no one is advocating that kind of sloppiness in this case. Just that their recruiter should not assume that every single foreign applicant is lying. So, they *are* actually asking the initial question. The thing they need to add is verification early on in the process. *Not* a blanket (illegal and frankly silly) mandate.

  44. anon recruiter*

    LW 4- This recruiter seems like he may be ruling out on the assumption that a candidate may need a visa, which is absolutely not cool. But I do want to say as a recruiter, you should have a portion of the phone screen where you discuss your company’s position on sponsorship if this is a concern. Get a legal/company approved script, the recruiting team might already have one. I often see people apply to STEM jobs after getting a masters on a education related visa where they can stay for a year or 2 before needing sponsorship. They know they have to check that box to be considered and so they do, hoping that the company will reconsider. Again, if there is no flexibility, discuss it up front. Assuming the application questions are enough will waste both company and candidate time.

  45. Greengirl*

    LW#1, Get out now. This boss is a bully and is playing mind games with you. No matter how good you are at your job there is nothing you can do. She is also wildly unprofessional in treating colleagues this way and HR has not handled this well at all.

  46. What_the_What*

    For the staff member: Just send an email to the affected staff and say, “I’m really uncomfortable, especially in this economy, with lower paid faculty basically providing charity to us. I, personally am opting out, but I’d really love to just tell them to stop this tradition, completely. What say you?” GOOD people will immediately say, “I’m in for opting out, let’s end the tradition.” The ones who are like “but I count on this money to buy presents for Xmas etc…” well, you now know who you’re working with and what their character is. Alternatively, you could email the person who initiates it each year and quietly let them know that you not comfortable with it and to please exclude you from the “gifting,” or even ask if they’d be willing to leave the hat on the coat rack this year. They may be as sick of it as you are but feel like “well the staff will expect it,” and welcome a “no, we don’t.”

    1. holdonloosely*

      Taking the desire to continue the tradition as an indication of someone’s character is quite a stretch. For better or worse, it’s income that staff members have become accustomed to, through no fault of their own. People *do* count on money like that for Christmas presents, and assuming the staff members in question aren’t tooling around in Bugattis and Maybachs, they could presumably use it.

      I think it’s reasonable to push for a reconsideration of the tradition, or to approach the other well-compensated staff members about opting out. (I would be annoyed if I were a lower-paid staff member and LW3 were advocating for me to lose money on principle.) But it’s a conversation that should happen after this year’s holidays, not immediately before them.

      1. linger*

        It’s explicitly stated in the letter that, in this department, some of the faculty are lower paid than some of the staff.

      2. disconnect*

        And it’s clearly stated that at least some of the staff are paid more than at least some of the faculty.

    3. Nancy*

      Salary alone is not an indication of a person’s financial situation, and wanting to keep the tradition says nothing of someone’s character. The lower paid staff may need that extra money.

      LW3 can just opt out.

  47. Lacey*

    LW2: I feel your pain, but I also think maybe the letter needs more info.

    What is your boss expecting you to do when they say, “Hey this mistake has been made again” ?
    Because if it’s nothing. Fine. Just let those suckers fail.

    I know it’s annoying to see preventable mistakes continue (I mean, I really, really know) but if you’re the only one who cares, you have to ackowledge that you work for an inefficient company and that they’re not paying you to make them better.

    If the issue is that you’re being tasked with fixing these problems, but no one has an issue in preventing them. Perhaps you could bring that up to your boss. It takes more time to fix this than to teach people the way to prevent it.

    But, if your boss is like mine, he cares FAR more about not hearing about any problems than saving time, using company resources wisely, or even the company’s reputation.

    That gets old real quickly. So you have to decide if the other benefits of the company outweigh the obnoxiousness of working for a place like that.

    I’m personally wearing thin with my place of employment. But. There are some perks still keeping me here so I just try to care a LOT less about all of it.

    1. Observer*

      Perhaps you could bring that up to your boss. It takes more time to fix this than to teach people the way to prevent it.

      Yeah, but that assumes that it’s that people did not pay attention to the training they got. The *first* thing the LW should be asking is “What happened?” What’s next depends on a lot of factors, but generally “Who did it?” should be well down on the list if you are looking to prevent problems. This is especially true if there is more than one person providing problematic builds. Because that almost certainly means that something else is going on.

      1. Lacey*

        What else would be going on? That en masse they’ve decided to intentionally do it wrong?

        It’s more likely that they either
        1. Remember the training, but think they’re doing it a better/easier way.
        Which if the LW is being asked to fix the builds instead of the person who did the original, they’d never have a reason to realize they’re causing a problem.
        2. Weren’t trained well.
        3. Didn’t understand the training & don’t realize they’re doing it wrong.

        Depending on the line of work and the problem occuring, it could be some technical malfunction – but the OP would probably know if that was a possibility.

        When an issue could be the computer, I always give the benefit of the doubt & suggest we look at the software/app before I suggest operator error – but nothing about the LWs sounds like it could be a computer issue.

        1. New Jack Karyn*

          If a lot of people are making the same mistakes, there’s something going on that’s worth fixing. It might not be a training issue–it might be that there are just too many steps to the process, that it’s too easy to misread one factor for another, that there’s only one tool for X step in the process and it has to be shared among six people, etc. Or that the expected pace has picked up, and most of LW’s colleagues are new-ish, and are trying to keep up when they’re not actually fully up to speed.

          1. Lacey*

            Which are all things you’re going to discover when talking to the people who made the mistakes. I know people are really eager to tell this LW she’s wrong – but I don’t get why.

            How on earth else are you going to figure out what’s happening?
            It just sounds like this manager doesn’t want to manage.

  48. Worldwalker*

    #1: GET OUT before you internalize the toxicity and start thinking that it’s normal and you deserve it. That office is full of bees.

  49. Some Dude*

    LW5: When playing the “this looks like an oversight” card, I’d also mention the fact that the standard policy is three days, most likely to be in line with the appropriate labor laws. Maybe lends a little more to oversight angle, showing that clearly they have been trying to comply all along, so it must have just slipped their minds THIS time. *wink wink*

  50. Samantha Parkington*

    Alison, re: LW5:, some quick googling indicates that in areas with a three-day note law, there are exceptions if the employer has reasonable suspicion that employees are abusing the sick leave policy. It probably qualifies as one of those situations if a notable number of people are repeatedly calling out on the in-person day.

    1. Observer*

      Generally those exceptions apply on an individual level. In other words, you cannot have a broadly applied policy because you think that a lot of people are abusing leave. You have to have a policy that gets applies on a case by case basis.

    2. LW5*

      LW5 here – the policy was rolled out at the same time as the coworking days, so it wasn’t in response to a bunch of people trying to get out of them by calling out sick. My guess is HR was worried that would happen and made this policy to get ahead of it. I’m sure there are people who might abuse sick days because they don’t want to come in – but whatever solution HR comes up with to that needs to be in line with local laws.

  51. DrSalty*

    LW #2 – others have raised a lot of good points already, but even reframing the way you’re asking could be more productive. Consider the difference between “how did these errors happen?” vs “who made this error-filled deliverable?” The first gets straight to what you care about (accuracy and process improvement) without implying blame.

  52. Laura*

    The industry I work is very process driven. There are written procedures for absolutely everything. We are trained that quality issues are process failures not people failures. in 25 yea4s I’ve found that to be 99% true. Training or re-training if less effective than updating a written process so be more complete or better understood. In an environment like that, asking “who built it” is not the first question to ask. We first ask, “what was missed” and “how can we improve the process”. That’s not to say we disregard people entirely but it’s a last resort to say someone isn’t capable of doing a job. In fact, “we talked to so-and-so” or “we retrained” is not accepted by most of my customers as a corrective action solution.

  53. Aloe lover*

    #5 – does it matter if what days employees are in office? Does everyone come in on the same date, or they just need to be there once a month? If the date is flexible, I would suggest that they just make-up the date when they are sick or otherwise can’t come in. But the child care comment is troubling – don’t they have regular childcare already? That’s required in our company guidelines, and I suspect in most companies.

    1. Mutually supportive*

      It looks as if the company hires a co working space for one day a month. If you can’t/don’t make that day, there’s no other opportunity that month.

    2. Binky*

      The OP mentioned instances where childcare falls through, so days when the nanny is sick, or the kid’s school is out, or the kid us too sick to go to school.

    3. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

      Yes, they have regular childcare. LW had this: “for example, if your childcare falls through and you need to stay home”

    4. LW5*

      LW5 here – yes, it’s one specific day each month, so it’s not possible to make it up on a different day. And yes, people are expected to have childcare, but occasionally things do fall through (or something else comes up outside your control – e.g. something broke down in your house and you need to be there to let someone in for repairs, etc.). In any case, my bigger concern in the letter was with the sick note policy, since it actually seems out of line with employment laws.

  54. Matty*

    I fully agree with Allison in being cautious about going to HR about your boss.

    Back in my college years, I worked part-time at a large footwear retailer who had a “Safe2Call” hotline in which you could report issues or bad behavior “anonymously.” There was a time when I had to call out, so I let them know 5 hours ahead of time that I couldn’t make it into work that day. My boss told me she was going to put me down as a no-call no-show. Nothing was ever said to me about it, so I assumed it was just a threat by her to scare me into coming in. I told my co-worker about it the next day and she said I should call the holine about it.

    I seriously considered it, but I was worried that my manager would have found out it was me. And the trust between us would have gone right downhill if she knew I reported her like that.

    1. Observer*

      And the trust between us would have gone right downhill if she knew I reported her like that.

      I don’t mean to be snarky, but what trust existed in the first place?

      Your boss told you that she was going to *lie* about you! And your response (internally) was to assume that she wasn’t going to lie to the boss, but that she was lying to you. Either way, she was certainly not someone you should have had any trust in, whatsoever! And it doesn’t sound like she trusted you either or she wouldn’t have tried this on you.

    2. Matty*

      Edit: I think the proper name of that hotline was “Safe2Say” and I doubt it still exists today. The incident above occurred at DSW Shoe Warehouse in Mt. Laurel, NJ on March 27, 2010.

  55. madcartoonist*

    As a woman academic for over 30 years, I think the whole “tip the poor staff” thing is awful. I believe it’s a leftover from when the staff were exclusively underpaid and uneducated women, often spouses of faculty. Like “secretaries day” when everyone thanked admins for their low pay the rest of the year.
    Current staff are professionals; they should be paid appropriately and certainly not be tipped.

    1. k*

      i absolutely agree that current staff are professionals who should be paid appropriately. until that occurs, and while pushing for better wages and working conditions, please don’t take away the lil cash and gift cards we get at the holidays. i’ve noticed the perks of being “support staff” disappearing, while my salary, and faculty/exempt staff views of my work, aren’t changing.

      1. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

        Right, now academic staff are well educated but still mostly women and all very underpaid.

  56. IEanon*

    A lot of international students will NOT need sponsorship, based on the fact that they are eligible to work for up to 3 years after their graduation through their F-1 status, which is sponsored by the school that granted their degree.

    Please do not discriminate against these students in your hiring (general “you,” not necessarily OP). They can self-sponsor during that time for certain other visas, marry a US citizen, be selected in the diversity lottery, etc. Assuming that all of them are lying is incredibly bad faith hiring!!

  57. DefinitiveAnn*

    I once heard a senior colleague ask, when presented with a problem, “What I want to know is whose fault it is!” Since then, I have decided step one in problem-solving is “Assign Blame.” You can even have rotating blame assignments by week. Then, once blame is established, you can work on the real problem of solving the problem.

    This would not help LW #2, but it does tend to take the sting out of the question.

  58. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

    #5, My husbands job could easily be done 100% remote as he is a programmer. When he does go into the office he sits in his office on a computer. All of his meetings are via zoom, even with everyone in the office. But the company has a 100% RTO policy in place.

    Recently, my husband had surgery and was not allowed to drive for 3 weeks but was able to work from home as he was not on pain medication. He submitted the Dr’s note saying he was not allowed to drive, but that was not sufficient. They required him to formally appeal for a workplace accommodation. They use an outside company to process these accommodations which generated forms that he had to have his doctor complete. By the time they formally got the accommodation in place, he was already back to work in office.

    I really hope they had to pay the outside company a lot to process the absolutely useless paperwork since they have decided managers are not allowed to use their own judgement.

  59. Orora*

    #4. If these students are in the U.S. on an F-1 visa, they have the option of F-1 Optional Practical Training (OPT). OPT is work authorization for 12 months for graduates to obtain real world experience. There is an optional extension of an additional 24 months if the student’s degree is in a STEM field. It’s possible they are marking that they don’t need visa sponsorship because F-1 OPT is paid for and maintained by the student, not the company; there is a small progress report if the person is on STEM, but it’s only an hour or so of work.

    Of course, they prefer an O-1 because it has a three year term and is extendable indefinitely. But depending on your turnover, you could use F-1 OPT recipients to fill these roles for 3 years which is a good amount of time.

    Reach out to your school’s Office of International Students and Scholars to get more information on OPT to present to the recruiter. They’re missing out on some of the easiest hires they could make by not hiring international grads from your own school.

    (I work as an international office director at a small research institution.)

    1. Different Anon*

      This is more relevant at some institutions, but the LW may have international applicants who are Canadian or Mexican citizens. Some of them may be open to working stateside under TN status rather than doing F-1 OPT. These grads can fill roles for up to 3 years regardless of their field of study.

      These applicants fall into a different grey area from F-1 OPT recipients. Despite needing a job offer and a sponsorship letter from an employer, I could see some students not viewing TN status as needing actual visa sponsorship because it’s not an O-1.

      While a lot of large universities have research staff working under TN status, they’re more common in some disciplines than others. It wouldn’t be surprising if the LW is working with even internal recruiters who have no TN experience, so it’s all the more reason to get everyone connected with the international office.

  60. Elbe*

    LW 2’s issue seems reasonable enough, but the fact that they’ve run into the same issue with two separate bosses gives me pause. I’m thinking that one of the following could be the issue:

    1) The issues they think are severe and warrant a post-mortem seem less severe to other people. Maybe management does not want to invest time in a root cause analysis and training for mistakes they feel are minor. Could the company be intentionally trying to produce a product that is lower in quality than the LW’s own personal standards?

    2) The LW comes across as too invested in identifying the person who made the mistake, perhaps at the expense of fixing the issue in a timely way or considering other causes for the issue.

    3) There are business or interpersonal reasons why, even though the LW’s logic is sound, the company feels that the LW is not the right person to raise these issues. This could be the case if the LW has poor working relationships with the people who are making the mistakes, or their department as a whole.

    If the LW feels that none of the above apply to their situation, then it could be that some of this is actually by design. A lot of companies have been cutting costs lately by hiring less experienced people. It could be that this pattern of hiring inexperienced people and relying on one (over-worked, underpaid) sr. team member is actually a feature, not a bug. They don’t want to train and elevate the other workers because that would make them more expensive to keep.

    In my experience, companies who are resistant to holding people accountable are either deeply dysfunctional or they have reasons why the status quo suits them.

    1. Observer*

      The LW comes across as too invested in identifying the person who made the mistake, perhaps at the expense of fixing the issue in a timely way or considering other causes for the issue.

      Considering that this is always the first question they ask, I think that this is a very likely supposition. Especially since the boss is right – most of the time it does not really matter who built is, but what actually happened. And even when it does matter, it’s not useful to start with it, because you have to understand what went wrong before looking at who did it. In a case where it seems like more than one person is making mistakes, even if there are some people who make the same mistake multiple times, it’s almost certain that retraining is actually not going to make a real dent in the problem.

      Based completely on what the LW says, I would be willing to bet that the company needs to look at processes, tools, policies, hiring and what kind of training is being provided before thinking about *re*training by itself.

  61. PixelatedPurr*

    LW2

    This is best done as a private convo with your boss where you start by clearly stating your goal, verify your manager agrees it is a goal, and then work your way to the question “who could use some support?” Not all teams work this way, but clearly yours does.

    So you start by stating what you see as the problem.

    “Hey boss, I’m concerned that 30% of our teapots have been sent out with leaks.”

    If this directly impacts your work (like you work in customer service and have to answer the angry calls) explain that.

    “This has yielded 55 calls about broken items and each of those takes 10 minutes to resolve, lowering our overall call resolution volume.”

    Then wait. See what your boss says and if they agree its a problem. They may not. “Let it fail” is a tried and true technique for getting more staff assigned to your team. If someone is always preventing disaster upper management may not see the need for say a full time teapot inspector.

    If they agree its a problem move on to your ideas for resolving the issue. Perhaps something like this.

    “Since I have the most experience building teapots on this team, I’d love to help others avoid mistakes to save us cost and time. To do that I can either do training for the whole team or I can spend time helping particular individuals that are struggling a bit with this work. What do you think?”

    And again wait.

    If you know that a specific individual is having issues, you can reach out to your boss privately with something like

    “Hey boss, 7/10 of Fergus’s recent teapot builds have had leaks in the base. I’d like to help him by working on the next couple builds with him to see if there’s something in our process that’s causing the leaky teapots to slip through the QA process. What do you think?”

    And again, wait.

    Blameless culture has been shown to work well. And you seem to understand that the key to blameless culture is fixing the underlying problems with tools and training that cause people to make mistakes. So start with a concrete observation of the overall problem, and then supply your solution (retraining/mentoring individuals) as an option and be open to other options from your team or your boss.

  62. Sihaya*

    So the “teacup expert” is a QA expert on a dev team, right? There’s no dev team or process, and your boss doesn’t want to change that. Nor does the company want to pay for that. Normally there’s one solution from your point of view; start putting out the resume. Your boss is getting ready to tell you that the poorly built teacups are a problem you were supposed to catch, because it’s in your job title, nevermind your actual work description or assignments. I’m sorry.

  63. SJ*

    OP4, you work at a university and you only cite the O-1 visa, which is one of the most expensive and time-consuming work permits to get. It sounds like your recruiter is withholding info from you.

    Your open role might be H1B cap-exempt (so no lottery). STEM-OPT applicants do not need sponsorship now but might need it 3 years in the future. TN applicants from Canada don’t require traditional sponsorship, so often answer “no” honestly.

    “However, we do not sponsor visas within our department.”

    Push back on this, OP. You’re doing yourself a disservice if you don’t. Some of the best and brightest people in the world are already in the US with valid visas. It’s remarkably easy to hire many of them.

    Your recruiter’s suspicious distaste for certain “international”-presenting people might make you overlook your unicorn candidate, whether they need sponsorship or not.

  64. Rain*

    LW #3 here. Thanks for all of the comments, which provided some new perspectives for me. I did talk to other senior staff and our chair and incoming chair. All of the staff were informally surveyed, and one really wanted to continue the practice, and so it will. I did ask that in the soliciting e-mail our chair list the names of the eight staff receiving the money, so it’s clear to anyone reading carefully that my coworker and I do not participate.

Comments are closed.