I’m supposed to live with my boss and her husband, bad coworker is finally leaving, and more

by Alison Green on February 7, 2025

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

1. I’m supposed to live with my boss and her husband for months

I have been working at my company for two years, and I get along well with my boss, who is a woman in her early thirties. Her husband also works for the same startup and we are all on a work trip together for a few months in a foreign country. The company is providing community housing (with private beds and bathrooms) for commuting workers that holds about 10 people, and a few two-bedroom condos.

Before we arrived, my boss, her husband, my coworker, and I were under the impression that we would be the four people filling the two condos — me and my coworker in one, my boss and her husband in the other. When my coworker arrived, she was taken to the community housing and given a room, and when we arrived, my boss and her husband were moved into one bedroom of an apartment and I was moved into the other bedroom of the same apartment. When I asked if my coworker and I were going to move into the other condo once it became available in a few days, I was told no.

I brought up the problem to my boss’ boss and said that I am concerned about living with my boss and her husband for the next three months, but for the short term it is not a problem. He said that it’s a valid concern, and that he would work on it and that I should suck it up for about a week.

About a week has passed, and my coworker who I originally was going to live with has expressed her preference for staying where she is because she is already settled in, and I was informed by my boss that I am to keep living with her and her husband for the foreseeable future. This is so my boss’ boss and another male coworker can live in the other apartment and my coworker can stay where she is.

I am quite uncomfortable with this situation and have expressed this to my boss, my boss’ boss, and the person in charge of housing, and I am not sure what to do next. I am excited about this job and really enjoy working with my team, but working 72 hours a week with my boss and her husband and then going home with them is just a bit too weird for me. Any advice?

How firmly have you told your boss’s boss and the person in charge of housing that this won’t work for you? This isn’t less-than-ideal housing for a couple of nights in an emergency; this is three months of your life outside of work, and they almost certainly have other solutions available if you make it clear that the current plan is a no-go for you. If, out of a desire to be flexible and not demanding or to seem like a team player, you’ve been anything less than than crystal clear that this is a no for you, it’s time now to get much more emphatic.

Talk to your boss’s boss again, state firmly that you’re not on board with this, and say you need to make arrangements to move, whether to the community housing where your coworker is or somewhere else. For example: “I was willing to do it for a week like you asked, but I’m not comfortable with this for longer than that. I’d like to move to the community housing where Jane is or, if that’s not possible, to a hotel or other solution.” If you get any pushback: “Given the length of the trip, it’s really not feasible and I wouldn’t have signed on for it under these conditions. I can take the lead on finding a place to move if that’s the fastest way to handle it.”

2. My bad coworker is finally leaving … should I stay?

I’ve had issues with my underperforming coworker, Sanford, as long as I’ve been with my small nonprofit. From missing agreed-upon deadlines 90% of the time, to saying misogynistic things to coworkers in meetings (he singles out our foreign-born female coworkers — never the males — to repeat things back to him, to make sure they understood it, despite them being fluent in English and just being one of the people listening in a group meeting), he has been a “missing stair” in our organization for years. Despite this, our CEO saw it fit to create a completely new director-level position for him, promoting him by two levels and firmly setting a ceiling on my career path within the organization, as his new role took parts of what I would do at that level.

Despite all the flexibility, raises, and promotions he’s received despite his skills and work ethic (or lack thereof), Sanford has landed another role outside of the organization and is leaving. Many of us are celebrating, but I’m left in a tricky situation. I’d also planned on leaving, in large part due to being tired of cleaning up after Sanford, but now my path for growth seems to have opened up.

Do I stick around and see if Sanford’s absence helps make my job easier and clears the way for my career growth, or do I continue to pursue other opportunities? I am in the final stages of interviewing at several other companies that would pay me substantially more than what I make in my current role.

Keep pursuing those other opportunities. Sanford is leaving because he got another job, not because your organization decided to deal with him (in fact, the opposite — they promoted him) so if you stay, you’re staying at an organization that not only accommodates Sanfords, but rewards and tries to retain them. They didn’t suddenly see the light and become a better place to work, and if another Sanford comes on the scene tomorrow, you’d have no reason to believe they’d do anything differently with the new one. Their handling of Sanford says something about who they are as an organization; you shouldn’t change your plans just because this one manifestation of those problems is gone.

3. New manager is changing things for the worse

I work in a grocery store bakery. My teammates and I all have things organized in a way that is best for our efficiency. This new assistant manager has rearranged things into a mess. I have allowed this to go on out of respect. It’s just not working. I have gone to my bakery manager as well as store management bout it. What do I do now? I have changed things around since no one has helped me. And she just changes it back. She has not been receptive to speaking about it. She struggles with a power struggle.

The thing about being in a power struggle with your manager is that the manager is nearly always going to win because of their power and authority relative to yours — or at least that’s the case if you’ve talked to levels of management above you and no one cares enough to intervene. You and your teammates can certainly try talking to your manager as a group and explaining why you want to switch things back — and that’s worth doing if you haven’t yet — but ultimately if you can’t convince her, you don’t have much recourse.

In that situation, your best bet is probably to roll with the changes for a while. If a month or two from now they’re still causing problems, raise it again at that point; sometimes when you’ve made a good-faith effort to roll with changes but can still point to problems, that’s an easier sell than when you resist them from the start.

4. Is it illegal to hire someone just to fire people?

I’m writing a novel and I have a character who is hired solely to make people redundant before moving on. I heard from someone recently that it is illegal to hire someone for the sole purpose of making people redundant/firing them, only to get rid of them after they’ve completed this job. Is that true?

You mean hiring someone specifically to conduct layoffs/firing but not keeping them on after that? Like George Clooney’s character in Up in the Air? It’s not illegal to do that. Typically, though, if a company brings in someone from the outside to do it, they’d go with a firm or contractor (also like Up in the Air), not hire a full employee to do it — but it wouldn’t be illegal to have them be an actual employee if for some reason they wanted to. (That said, your use of “make people redundant” makes me think you might be in the UK rather than the U.S., and I can only speak to U.S. laws.)

You may also like:
{ 60 comments }

{ 60 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Artemesia*

    A former BIL’s career was to be a lone ranger in Europe who was hired to fire people. I know he worked in England, the Netherlands and I think in France. He was just as delightful a person as you might imagine of someone who chose this line of work. He was however a consultant doing this not an employee.

    Reply ↓
  2. MsM*

    LW2: Not only do you have no reason to trust they won’t hire another Sanford and deal with him similarly, you should probably assume they’re going to look outside the organization to fill the gap he’s left. They already had a chance to put you in a leadership role, and they effectively said, “No, we’d rather have literally anyone else.” And you know that’s not your fault, on account of all these other companies champing at the bit to hire you. It’s theirs. Don’t give them the chance to take you for granted twice.

    Reply ↓
    1. Can’t think of anything clever*

      One of the things I’ve seen is if they do promote LW to Sanford’s job suddenly there’s a completely different set of rules and standards, sometimes driven by “We don’t want another Sanford” and thereby difficult or impossible to meet. So, yes, leave!

      Reply ↓
  3. Laupey*

    #4 I think the LW meant something different. I think they’re wondering about this scenario: I have a llama groomer I really dislike but can’t get rid of for some reason. So I hire a second llama groom. Later, I’m told I can only keep one llama groomer, so I get to lay off the original one and keep the second one. Thus, I hired a new llama groomer to make the first one redundant and therefore easier to get rid of.

    Reply ↓
      1. Myrin*

        That, and the “a character who is hired solely to make people redundant before moving on” which clearly has the second llama groomer as the agent.
        (Quite apart from that, though, that’s actually two different scenarios – in the part I quoted, the second llama groomer left their job on their own, in the part sarah quoted, they are fired.)

        Reply ↓
      2. M*

        I suspect it’s actually that LW4 has *heard* that the scenario Laupey describes is illegal, internalised that knowledge as “hiring someone to make someone redundant is illegal”, and is now confusing the two.

        Reply ↓
    2. GammaGirl1908*

      I didn’t even consider this second scenario largely because I’ve seen something like the original scenario happen!

      I worked for a small business (~30 employees) that brought in a new employee. It wasn’t clear at first what her role was, but eventually we figured out that she essentially was an efficiency advisor / expert.

      During the huge recession in 2003, the company lost a lot of business, and made a few costly mistakes. She came in to advise the company owners on the best path forward. On her advice, they decided to make huge changes to the company goals and business lines, which involved letting the staffers go who were handling the old areas of business. They sacrificed most of the staff to save the company, which was hard for me as a victim of the layoff — especially because it wasn’t clear as it was happening. They just told me when my last day would be — but which I can understand looking back.

      The efficiency person was on staff for maybe a year, if that. Now, I don’t know whether she was always intended to be short-term, and whether that was the agreed plan all along, but it would make sense if it was.

      Reply ↓
    3. froodle*

      LW2: I worked for a company that promoted a mediocre worker (though a top flight kiss up kick downer) up multiple levels.

      While he was mediocre at the individual contributor level, as he climbed the ranks to Assistant Supervisor, then Supervisor, then Manager, more and more of his lack of ability and even deeper lack of character was exposed.

      Over time he went from standard model Mediocre White Man to Nightmarishly Incompetent Buffoon, with Power Trip actions and Micromanagement Grip(tm).

      Eventually, he left. Those of us who’d spent years being ground into the dirt beneath him breathed a sigh of relief. I personally told myself he was dead, and I’d never have to see him again. That’s the level of awful he routinely and gleefully inflicted on his subordinates.

      …and then,he came back.

      (The job he left for was in our government, where non management is heavily unionized, and also our government had just very publicly taken a beating in an anti bullying lawsuit from a high level doctor about her treatment during COVID. So when he tried the behaviour that got him rewarded at Old Job, he was given the choice to leave or be fired.)

      My Old Job looked at this recently excised tumour on the groin of it’s workforce, and essentially said “oh, the mean old Government won’t let you bully and throw your weight around? Don’t worry, here you can victimize as many peons as you want!”

      They hired him back, at a higher role, with more power. Two months in, he was already repeating his previous behaviours.

      Trust me on this. Like a faceful of oozing pustules, Sanford is simply the most obvious and distressing symptom of a much bigger disease.

      Reply ↓
    4. Lab Snep*

      Ahahaha. This actually happened to me at a design job.

      Apparently the person they hired to replace me BEFORE I WAS GONE left on his own accord out of disgust and 6 months later I found out they couldn’t KEEP ANYONE.

      Revenge.

      Reply ↓
  4. Charlie*

    I interpreted #4 differently: the way I read it was that a company hires Jane, claims now that they have Jane in the position she can take over John’s job duties and they don’t need him anymore and can justify laying him off, and then once John is gone Jane leaves since her whole schtick is repeating this pattern.

    If that’s what you meant, LW, I’d rethink it – seems quite convoluted as a business plan. But I might be misunderstanding!

    Reply ↓
    1. Cogitator*

      Also I don’t get what advantage there would be over hiring someone who actually does the same job as John and having them just stay.

      Reply ↓
      2. JM60*

        The purpose may be to hire someone at a lower salary to fire someone who you were paying a higher salary. Employers sometimes do it when the job market favors employers and candidates are desperate.

        Reply ↓
    2. WS*

      It would be much easier (in a UK or Australian workplace, anyway) just to make the position redundant, so you can make John redundant. I’ve done this (we had a single-person satellite office in a smaller town, it didn’t work out) and it’s legally very straightforward if there’s no similar position to move that person to.

      Reply ↓
      1. Emmy Noether*

        Yes, if the goal is to have no-one in that position, simply letting John go “because of redundancy” is the straightforward way. Redundant doesn’t have to mean it’s being done twice (the way “redundant wording” usually means the same thing is said twice). It just means superfluous, or no longer needed. Jane is not needed for this plan (one could even say she’s redundant).

        What is illegal in a lot of places is to let John go “because of redundancy”, and two days later hire Jane (permanently) into that position. You have to actually eliminate the position long term for the “redundancy” reason to count. I’m not entirely sure how reversing the order would be seen. If it’s too close together (create a second llama groomer position, hire Jane, a week later “oops, only need one llama groomer after all”, fire John) it might be too obviously trying to skirt the law, and therefore also illegal. If you hire Jane and then let both Jane and John go, that wouldn’t be illegal, just pointless.

        Reply ↓
        1. Ellis Bell*

          Yeah, if the OP means redundancy in the UK sense, then the best way to make it illegal is to hire someone else for the position; hiring someone else proves the position is necessary to the business and therefore not redundant. Eliminating a position is totally legit though.

          Reply ↓
        2. londonedit*

          Yep, in the UK the *position* is made redundant, not the *person* in that role. So you can’t say you need to make the position of Assistant Llama Groomer redundant to cut costs, and then two months later hire someone in the position of Assistant Llama Groomer.

          I read the question as being more ‘can we hire someone to come in and do the work of making people redundant’, and I’m not really sure whether that would work in UK law – though presumably that person would know that their job would be to come in and fire people and then leave? So I guess as long as they know that and their employment is all done by the book then it would be fine? But what you can definitely do is hire a consultancy firm to come in and look for where costs could be cut and things made more efficient, and they might well recommend redundancies as part of that. They might even do the actual work of determining which positions to make redundant and then doing the consultation and announcements to staff etc.

          Reply ↓
          1. bamcheeks*

            I think this is actually pretty common/- in my most recent job search I was looking at jobs at the project-lead, head of, deputy/assistant director level in areas that bordered on HR and organisational development, transformation etc, and I saw quite a few university jobs that were clearly, “pls come and restructure our organisational chart”. Most of them were open-ended jobs, but a few were fixed term for 12, 18 or 24 months on the expectation that there was a specific timescale already in mind. They tend to be somewhat circumspectly worded because “oh, HR is hiring someone to restructure, guess redundancies are on the horizon” isn’t a great look. But it is a truth universally acknowledged that you’re never more than 4 years away from a restructure in HE anyway.

            I genuinely can’t think of any reason why this wouldn’t be allowed, and I’m wondering how LW had got the impression it would be. If you live somewhere where fixed term contracts are allowed and redundancies are allowed, why would you not be allowed to hire someone in the former to do the latter?

            Reply ↓
        3. Lexi Vipond*

          Yes, this is what I started trying to say earlier.

          It seems unlikely that there’s a law that specifically says you can’t recruit a second person to do something, then decide after a while that you only need one person and keep the better performer, only to have that person leave of their own accord. But if it starts to look like you did it all just to get rid of John, that’s when it might get you in trouble of some kind.

          Reply ↓
    3. I should really pick a name*

      That was my first thought, but then that leaves them with no one doing the job.

      Why not just skip the middle man and lay off John because the job isn’t nedded anymore?

      Reply ↓
  5. Ashley Armbruster*

    Yes, LW2, leave that org if you can for a better place!

    I’ve dealt with a few Sanfords before, but I’m surprised he left. I wonder why?

    Reply ↓
    1. Artemesia*

      I have often seen non profits hire high level management by the old boy’s network and put gross incompetents who had stunk up one organization right up there near the top of theirs. It is one of the. mysteries of life.

      Reply ↓
      1. MK*

        In my experience (and I have spent part of my career investigating similar cases), there is usually some payoff at some area that a regular employee/coworker of the incompetent person cannot know. Systems like the old boy’s network aren’t really about doing favours simply out of favouritism, it’s about trading “favours”; often these people bring something of value to the company. Also, and this isn’t a reference to OP who I am sure knows their situation best, often it’s a case of “gross incompetence with an asterisk”, in that the problem coworker generally sucks but is great at one thing that makes them valuable (and their exasperated coworkers are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that, not unnaturally). Last case I looked into, the person was everything their coworkers complained about, but she was also responsible for 50% of the company’s sales, and the others didn’t want to believe that. Not that it’s a good idea to retain a problematic employee because they perform well in one area, but still, it’s not a mystery why the company kept them on.

        Reply ↓
        1. Emmy Noether*

          And sometimes it’s just the perception (by the decision makers) of them being valuable, no actual value. Some people are skilled at selling themselves and nothing else.

          And sometimes the favours being traded are not about the company at all. Keeping the in-group in power is a self-interest goal of its own. John will promote Michael over Aaliyah because that way there’s less competition above the glass ceiling for John and John Junior as well.

          Reply ↓
          1. Cabbagepants*

            The hell of it is that many organizations don’t know how to evaluate talent and so “big talker who impresses your management” is the only basis for evaluation.

            Reply ↓
    2. Metal Gru*

      “I’m surprised he left. I wonder why?”

      My take on it is he genuinely believes he deserved those promotions, doesn’t see a problem with his behavior, and has convinced another company of his worth… probably he’s the type who gets by in life through schmoozing and “networking”.

      I’ve seen a few instances of this where someone was promoted out of their league due to the “boys’ club”, golf buddies or whatever, moves on to a similar level position elsewhere that has genuine expectations, falls on their face.

      Reply ↓
  6. Insert Punny Name*

    @Alison, I read Letter 5 differently (but you may have additional context). I think they are asking whether it’s illegal to make a new position and hire someone simply so another person/role can subsequently be rendered redundant, particularly if the company has no intention on keeping the new person and/or new role.

    Reply ↓
  7. Cheap ass rolling with it*

    LW3 — malicious compliance!

    CYA and document everything your new manager says and follow it to the letter. Let chips fall where they may; if/when are messed up, I expect upper management will begrudgingly recommend returning back to old ways.

    Reply ↓
    1. glt on wry*

      Unfortunately, in the food industry, you’d be out on your ass. This industry doesn’t have the same protections as white-collar jobs.

      Reply ↓
  8. Nodramalama*

    LW3 a lot of people, including me, are reluctant to accept change when they think their current system is working. But it sounds like maybe you’ve been starting from a position that the changes are bad. If you operate from a good faith position or even an agnostic one then the changes can just play themselves out.

    I also think ignoring the changes and treating it like a power struggle is a mistake. For better or worse, she is in charge.

    Reply ↓
    1. MK*

      The bigger problem is that OP is starting from the position that she has to agree to any changes. The phrasing about allowing the changes to go on is particularly telling.

      Reply ↓
    2. Chance*

      The changes are less efficient and have made a mess. The LW isn’t just in a position where they don’t like change, they are writing after bad results from bad changes.

      Reply ↓
      1. boof*

        I’m taking the LW at their word that they think things are a mess/worse, but no context as to why their manager made these changes and whether they’ve tried to roll with them for long – I’m not even sure what the changes are (ie, rearranging ingredients on the shelves – would be really annoying but I think you’d probably get used to it eventually vs can say “hey, we always use sugar and flower together, can we put them back near each other” etc etc

        Reply ↓
    3. Michigander*

      I’m not sure this would qualify as a power struggle because, well, the LW clearly has less power than her manager. It’s not really a struggle when she has the power to fire you if you don’t comply with the rules.

      Reply ↓
      1. bamcheeks*

        It depends how united the staff are. That’s the point of unions, of course, but it’s true informally too. If the whole team or department disagrees with a manager and is willing to keep fighting, the power to hire and fire is a lot less useful than if it’s just one person.

        Reply ↓
  9. Chirpy*

    LW 3: sometimes it works better to go along with the new changes, so that when a problem inevitably comes up, you can figure out a better way to suggest the other way of doing things as a solution. For example, at my old location, we put loose “teapot lids” in a big assorted bin in the warehouse. At my new location, my new department head didn’t like this idea when I floated it. But the “teapot lids” come in small boxes of 6, and it’s annoying to have a bunch of half-empty boxes on the shelf. So I did it her way for a while, then came up with a slightly modified solution: two smaller assorted bins – let’s say one is for “square lids” and one for “round”. Instead of emptying all partial boxes into a giant bin like before, now I only put the last 1-2 from a box in the assorted bin. It keeps her happier, but also still solves the problem of a bunch of nearly empty boxes cluttering the shelf.

    You do have to make a decent effort to follow the new way in order for this to work, though. And sometimes, the new way isn’t so bad once you figure out the logic. So it’s a case by case situation.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellis Bell*

      I think it’s tempting in a power struggle to decide there’s only two ways of doing things; the boss’s way and the original way that had been figured out by staff. I take OP’s point that their way was working, and the boss’ way is not, even after giving it a fair shake. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a third, fourth or even fifth way of organising things, and the boss may try some or all of them before deciding on the one they eventually like. It’s worth asking some respectful questions, or just keeping an open mind, about what the new manager is going for; does she need it a certain way for one of her job duties? Has she been told to do it? If you know what the end result needs to be from her perspective, you’ll have better luck at suggesting alternatives. But, OP needs to stop going rogue. Only a fool gets involved in a power struggle with a manager, even an inept one. Even if you’re sure that it’s completely due to inexperience and that the system they have set up will fail; just let them fail. You’ve said your piece.

      Reply ↓
  10. Higher-ed Jessica*

    LW2, Alison is exactly right. You didn’t have a Sanford problem, you had a leadership problem, of which Sanford was the most painful and irritating symptom. Just because this symptom randomly cleared up on its own doesn’t mean the underlying affliction has been treated or cured. Flee!

    Reply ↓
  11. Metal Gru*

    Letter 3 – assistant manager making changes.

    What did the store manager say when you spoke to them?

    The problem at the moment is that you keep changing things back (without any further discussion?). From the assistant manager’s perspective the letter would be like this: “I’ve recently made some changes to the bakery area because of [reasons]. Most people are going along with it but I have one team member who disagrees, and every time I’m not there keeps putting things back to the old way which we then have to undo. I don’t want to fire them as they are a good worker apart from this but this situation can’t go on, what can I do?”.

    If the changes are really detrimental, this will become obvious. I would document the discussions you’ve already had (and any future ones) and then let this play out. Whatever the consequences are, and whoever calls you on them, link it back to those changes (where relevant). Situations like this often resolve themselves once the consequences start happening.

    Reply ↓
    1. glt on wry*

      I really sympathize with OP#3. I know what it’s like to have a routine or a system on the floor and then have someone elbow in and try to change it. When that ‘someone’ is clueless, it really makes the changes even worse.

      So, does the assistant manager have experience in the industry? If so, there may be valid reasons this person wants these changes, and you will see the outcome later. If not, I agree that it would be aggravating to have to adhere to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

      It’s hard to adapt to a new routine, especially when you have something that you know works. But you might have to accept that it’s not your job to decide about changes and roll with it for now. Until, of course, management finds out it’s inefficient (this will happen, if what you say about your preferred protocols is true). So, hang in there, and maybe eventually management will see that you’re right.

      Ultimately, I wouldn’t get your shorts in a knot about this particular place. It’s not worth the stress. If management isn’t listening to you, trust in your skills and start looking to move on. You have the skills and the motivation — take it somewhere that will appreciate it.

      Reply ↓
  12. Difficult*

    I am struggling a bit with the answer for #1. This is a situation with so much power differential. What kind of leverage does LW actually have if they do not want to give notice or are required to stay with the company to have flight costs/travel costs covered when then go back?

    Reply ↓
    1. mm*

      perhaps I am too much of a corporate bootlicker, but in this economy and with little leverage, i would not put up too much fight about this. if i am understanding correctly LW1 h as their own bedroom and bathroom which means as much privacy as they can get in this situation. it’s only 3 months and the risk for making too much a deal about this is way too high

      Reply ↓
  13. allhailtheboi*

    TIL as a Brit why many letter writers don’t use the phrase “made redundant”! I always thought it would add so much clarity to “laid off/fired” but I didn’t realise it’s not an American phrase.

    Reply ↓
    1. Releeh*

      Yeah, Australians use redundant/redundancy too. Makes me wonder if the US has the concept of voluntary redundancy – I guess not, unless they do but musk has just never heard of it.

      Reply ↓
  14. Nathan*

    Thank you! I asked the question about redundancy! And indeed, I am in the UK.

    I’ve not heard of that movie, so I will have to check it out. I did think it was strange what I heard, that it is illegal to bring someone on to fire others, only to fire them once the job is done; I imagine it is all down to what was contractually agreed in the first instance!

    Reply ↓
    1. Michigander*

      If someone is brought on just to fire people, I would guess that they’d have a fixed term contract. So when they’re done, their contract just ends instead of them being fired.

      Reply ↓
    2. HR Lady*

      Hi from a UK based HR person! Came to the comments to add some flavour in to this one.

      It isn’t illegal to bring someone in to fire others and then dismiss them in turn unless you are dismissing for discriminatory reasons that breach the Equality Act. Most times you would either use a consultant OR you’d bring someone on a fixed term contract with the express purpose of them doing the task and then leaving. Broadly speaking you can also fire someone for no real reason (again unless it’s discriminatory) during the first two years of their employment, that’s one of the reasons there is no statutory redundancy payments owed in the first two years of employment.

      (There’s a lot of nuance here and it does depend on how big the organisation is and how many people are being made redundant and if unions are involved etc etc. And all of this might change under the new employment rights bill. But your novel is probably fine!)

      Reply ↓
    3. CTT*

      Come back to the weekend thread if you do watch Up in the Air and report back – I am fascinated to know how it’s aged.

      Reply ↓
  15. froodle*

    LW2: I worked for a company that promoted a mediocre worker (though a top flight kiss up kick downer) up multiple levels.

    While he was mediocre at the individual contributor level, as he climbed the ranks to Assistant Supervisor, then Supervisor, then Manager, more and more of his lack of ability and even deeper lack of character was exposed.

    Over time he went from standard model Mediocre White Man to Nightmarishly Incompetent Buffoon, with Power Trip actions and Micromanagement Grip(tm).

    Eventually, he left. Those of us who’d spent years being ground into the dirt beneath him breathed a sigh of relief. I personally told myself he was dead, and I’d never have to see him again. That’s the level of awful he routinely and gleefully inflicted on his subordinates.

    …and then,he came back.

    (The job he left for was in our government, where non management is heavily unionized, and also our government had just very publicly taken a beating in an anti bullying lawsuit from a high level doctor about her treatment during COVID. So when he tried the behaviour that got him rewarded at Old Job, he was given the choice to leave or be fired.)

    My Old Job looked at this recently excised tumour on the groin of it’s workforce, and essentially said “oh, the mean old Government won’t let you bully and throw your weight around? Don’t worry, here you can victimize as many peons as you want!”

    They hired him back, at a higher role, with more power. Two months in, he was already repeating his previous behaviours.

    Trust me on this. Like a faceful of oozing pustules, Sanford is simply the most obvious and distressing symptom of a much bigger disease.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Australian*

      Yeah, I had to deal with one of these too: so glad when he accepted another job that I contributed generously to his ‘leaving present’, and then three months later he was back having leapfrogged two rungs up the promotion ladder. I was very vocal about wanting my contribution back. (And no, I didn’t stay long after that.)

      Reply ↓
  16. r..*

    LW4,

    the practice is awful, but AFAIK mostly legal. In companies practicing stack ranking/yank&rank the practice of hiring one or more incompetent persons so you can later fire them to meet a quota instead of actually having to fire a valuable contributor even has a name:

    Buffer hire.

    Reply ↓
  17. Ellis Bell*

    LW1, When your grandboss said “he would work on it and that I should suck it up for about a week.” He was probably hoping you’d just get settled where you were and used to having a household relationship with your boss and that the problem would go away. It sounds like the plan was always for him to have the apartment with a male colleague. I’d be more vocal about it not working for you and I wouldn’t let him fob you off with timelines about “working on it” since he’s already tried that once. A hotel, or swap with another colleague that you arrange yourself can be done more quickly, so volunteer to make the arrangements.

    Reply ↓
  18. CraigT*

    OP3, So three levels of management disagree with you? You allow them to do this out of respect? Your boss struggles with a power struggle? You keep changing her work behind her back? So what, you think corporate standards should be changed to meet your wants? You’re clearly an entry level employee for a reason. But, you aren’t smart enough to understand that. I would have fired you already. This company will eventually. And, you’ll still be convinced you are right.

    Reply ↓
    1. Myrin*

      Hey now, that’s a really harsh way of phrasing an actually valid thought/principle. But OPs don’t deserve to be told they’re too dumb to understand something, that’s just mean.

      Reply ↓
  20. Cupcakes are awesome*

    LW#2 be sure to confirm that Sanford is NOT working at one of the new places you are interviewing with!

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS