my new job has so much drama it made the news, out-of-order bathroom, and more

by Alison Green on February 21, 2025

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

1. My new job has so much drama it made the local news

I started a job as an accounting manager less than a month ago. I had been out of work for a while. I was let go at my previous job, I think because my boss didn’t like or need me. I’m a quiet, anxious person and she was the opposite. I was still on probation there and it was a shock.

So, I’ve been looking for a new position but also working contract and doing well. I interviewed for one particular job I thought was a good fit. The hiring manager and I hit it off right away. I felt she was an empathetic, kind leader. She offered me the position, but I also received an offer from the company I was contracting with (for more money). I’ve been in some really bad work situations in the past, and I have a bit of trauma from it.

I declined the job with the contractor and accepted the other one based on my rapport with the boss and the mission of the organization, which appealed to me. On my first day, my boss was working from home. Then the rest of that week, she worked from home. I finally asked her about it, and she said there had been some accusations of a “toxic workplace” towards her and her boss and she was working from home for her “protection.”

One night shortly after I started, I was watching the news and there was a news story about the accusations of toxicity and mishandling of clients from nine of the 15 or so workers in my organization. They were interviewed anonymously on the news.

I’m wondering if I should just start looking elsewhere? I fear my boss, whom I still like, will be fired. Knowing she is mostly the reason I took this job (and a pay cut) what do you think would be my best option?

Whoa, I can see why you’re alarmed! But before you decide on any action, ideally you’d get a lot more information. Luckily, there are a lot of people you can talk to, and none of them are going to be even slightly surprised that you want to; if anything, they assume it’s coming. Talk to your boss! Talk to your coworkers! If there are other senior leaders besides your boss, talk to them too. All you need to say is, “I saw the news story and hadn’t known anything about the situation previously. Can you fill me in on what’s going on?”

Take everything you hear with grains of salt, since everyone will have their own agendas — but ask people to share their perspectives with you.

What you know so far sounds pretty damning — but it’s possible there’s more to it that would paint a different picture. Then again, even if the people making the accusations are off-base, the organization is likely in for a rocky road for a while as it works through whatever is going on.

If you think you’d want the other job you were offered, you can reach back out to that company and ask if the offer is still available. The sooner you do that, the higher the chances of it still being open … but once you do that, you should be ready to take it.

(Also, never take a job based just on a good feeling about the hiring manager. This is true for everyone, but especially since you’re someone who’s actively trying to avoid another bad situation. Managers can come across very differently in interviews than what they’re actually like to work for. Here’s some advice on how to spot bad jobs ahead of time.)

2. Working from home while men’s bathroom is out of order

If a company allows its male employees to work from home for a couple days while the men’s restroom in the office is closed for repairs, but does not offer a similar benefit to female employees (because their restroom still works), is this gender discrimination? Ordinarily, allowing men to work remotely but not women obviously would be very illegal, but in this case there’s a very good reason to allow the men to (in fact, forcing them to come in to the office when the bathroom is broken would probably violate OSHA) that doesn’t apply to the women.

You’d need an employment lawyer to tell you for sure, but I wouldn’t think the company has much legal risk, given the set of facts. The remote work on those days isn’t being offered as a perk; it’s in place because there will be no available bathroom facilities for those employees.

The most likely risk to them would be if they have denied intermittent work-from-home as a disability accommodation and claimed that it’s not possible for any of these roles; since it’s apparently possible when they see it as useful, this would be fodder for anyone who wanted to push back on that.

3. I get flooded with canned LinkedIn messages every time I post a job

I lead a recruitment team in a mid-sized manufacturing firm. We are inundated with resumes for almost every role (which is a good problem to have!), but I dread posting IT openings, even though that is my favorite area to recruit for. Within minutes of posting developer roles, I will get 50+ canned LinkedIn messages that all say the same thing: “My X experience at Z makes me a great candidate for this role! Are you open to a call to discuss how I can help your company?”

In fact, I am NOT open to a call. I have 400+ resumes sitting in our ATS to sift through and my limited interview spots will be given to candidates who have taken the time to apply online so that I can review their resume/application. I have always made a point to respond kindly to every LinkedIn message (other than spam) because I know how difficult and demoralizing a job search can be, but I am finding myself increasingly frustrated.

How can I respond kindly in a way that lets them know that while they think they are giving themselves an edge by approaching recruiters with a canned message, 400 of their competitors have completed online applications for my recruitment team to review? To be clear, there are some occasions where I welcome these messages, such as roles that require a unique skill set or if they are having difficulty with the application, etc. These are not that. Suggestions?

Relieve yourself of any feeling of obligation to respond to those messages and just delete them. They’re the hiring equivalent of spam and, just as you don’t reply to spammers to explain why their approach is ineffective, you don’t need to reply to these messages either. If you really want to reply, you could say, “Please submit an application on our website and we’d be glad to consider you” — but frankly I wouldn’t even do that, as it increases the likelihood that they’ll continue to use LinkedIn messages to try to pitch themselves outside of the system you’ve set up for considering candidates.

You’ve told people how to apply. The ones who want to will follow those instructions. You don’t need to spend extra time funneling people over there when they’ve ignored that.

4. HR hasn’t kept up with local employment regulations

I work in the New York office of a consulting company with 1,000 employees across more than 30 locations in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. At the end of December, I saw an article about how all private employers in New York, regardless of size, will be required to offer at least 20 hours of paid prenatal leave to all employees as of January 1, 2025. I had heard nothing about an update to my employer’s leave policies, so I emailed the HR department to ask how much paid prenatal leave the company would be offering, as well as more granular details about the policy’s implementation. The HR department replied saying they had no knowledge of this state regulation and would have to look into it. I was quite surprised by their admission of ignorance. They are now working on updating the company’s policies but told me it won’t “go live” on our internal site until February.

HR has also consistently dodged my questions about how they are going to make people aware of this new policy, instead deflecting by saying they’ll update the internal policy site. I don’t think anyone is regularly checking that site, so I assume they are intending for this benefit to slip under the general radar.

Is it reasonable to expect an HR department to (1) ensure the company is compliant with the laws of the places where it does business; (2) ensure that employees are made aware of updates to employment policies? I’ve never been impressed with our HR department – in my time at the company, they’ve been generally obstructive, misinformed current employees on immigration matters, and protected illegal behavior. I know all of that is coloring my view of their competence and of this particular interaction. But it seems wild that I should be informing HR of how to remain in compliance with state regulations!

I’m also wondering how much I can do to make sure my colleagues – not only in New York, but also in other U.S. locations – are aware of this policy. I’ve been keeping my cohort informed, but would it be out of pocket to send an email with a link to the new policy (whenever it goes live) to my whole office if HR won’t?

It is reasonable to expect an HR department to ensure the company is compliant with the law in the places where it does business. That is, in fact, a key responsibility of HR. It’s also reasonable to expect that they will share changes to employment policies.

That said, it’s surprisingly common for companies to miss changes in employment law that will affect them, particularly if they have employees in multiple jurisdictions. It shouldn’t be common— at a minimum, there are subscription services that will alert employers to legal changes in the states where they operate, and any company with employees in multiple locations should be using those if they’re not monitoring on their own — but it happens way more than it should. Regardless, once your company became aware of the new requirement, they should have acted with more urgency; the law went into effect January 1, not a month later.

A “good news — new benefit for New York employees” message to your coworkers wouldn’t be out of line.

You may also like:
{ 338 comments }

{ 338 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    A reminder: We’ve had a recent increase in trolling here, and you can help me by NOT RESPONDING to it. If you engage, you are ensuring that troll will reappear.

    Instead, please flag the comment for me (just reply with a link, which will send your comment to moderation so I’ll see it). If you want, one person can respond “reported” so others know it’s been dealt with. But please do not engage. Thank you.

    Reply ↓
  2. Free Meerkats*

    For #3

    I admit to not knowing a lot about LinkedIn; though I have an account, I don’t even remember my login credentials.

    Does it have the option to set an auto-response to messages? If so, set one up that basically says all applicants must apply online at {insert web link}, no response will be provided here.

    If not, simply do as Alison says, ignore and delete.

    Reply ↓
    1. LadyAmalthea*

      Also, could you include on the listing “Due to the high number of applicants, we cannot respond to individual messages.”?

      Reply ↓
      1. Mutually supportive*

        I thought this too, or “If you are interested please apply through the process outlined above. Request for individual calls at this stage will not be responded to.”

        Reply ↓
      2. fhqwhgads*

        Yeah. It’s very nice that OP has been responding to people, but if they want to keep the kindness and not need the effort, put in all the postings (which they indicate are causing this) that individual contacts will not get a reply, and then when people keep doing it, ignore them. Not that OP can’t just start ignoring them now, but it might comfort them personally to have that coverage of, not only are you not obligated to respond to these people, but you did, in fact, tell them that already.

        Reply ↓
        1. WillowSunstar*

          I wonder if some of the requests for calls back are coming from people using Chat GPT or similar apps nowadays? It wouldn’t surprise me if people weren’t putting a lot of thought into their responses.

          Reply ↓
    2. Mairead*

      Sigh, LI is currently full of advice on ‘how to make your application stand out’ and one of the most recommended strategies is to message the hiring manager directly.
      I dunno, maybe it could be helpful if only a few people did it but once it becomes common practice all it achieves is to generate more noise and annoy people.
      I agree with Alison – no need to respond to these messages; just delete them.

      Reply ↓
      1. Rotating Username*

        This particular situation feels beyond that to me–obviously automated messages, because all identically phrased and arriving within minutes of the job posting. My feeling is it points toward “scam”, like another variant of the things that a couple of letter-writers have reported about a different person interviewing for a position than the one who shows up.

        Reply ↓
        1. anon who can't pick a handle*

          I would bet anything that these all look alike because LI now pushes AI to help you “strengthen” your application.

          Reply ↓
          1. Strive to Excel*

            Or people are following generic hiring advice and figuring “a generic message is better than no message at all!”

            Reply ↓
          2. Miette*

            This. Also, it actively prompts you to contact the hiring manager, or the person that posted, and this is likely why it’s happening to OP. I don’t use the job posting side of it, but I wonder if this is something that could be turned off?

            Reply ↓
    3. Cabbagepants*

      I’d recommend just using the platform settings to block these annoying people. LinkedIn has an option to turn off messages requests from people you are not your 1st-degree connection (InMail). You can also block connection requests from most people.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bike Walk Bake Books*

        Seems unlikely that a recruiter would already have connections from all qualified candidates though. Sounds as if they do want the individualized contact option for other specialized positions so this is harder to handle with a single blanket action.

        Reply ↓
    5. learnedthehardway*

      When I send recruitment Inmails out, it includes the specific way to apply for the role. If people ignore that and contact me directly, I decide how to respond based on how much I need candidates. If it’s a role that I’m not getting any candidates for, I may respond to set up an interview. If I’m getting a decent flow of applicants and/or I’m really busy, I’ll redirect them to the way to apply.

      After that, it’s up to them to decide what to do. If they’re interested, they’ll follow the process.

      Reply ↓
      1. duinath*

        Yeah, I think being able to follow directions is pretty key to many positions, personally. This type of message doesn’t really present the applicant in the best light, in view of that.

        Reply ↓
    6. TM*

      I personally doubt whether many of those “prospective applicants” are actually the individuals sending those floods of messages. I have a feeling – no evidence – that certain kinds of recruitment companies operate profiles on behalf of the individual. And/or scrape information from profiles with certain keywords and send the spam purporting to have these individuals availabile for hire.

      I say this as an IT professional who logs into LI twice a year to delete spam from “recruiters” purporting to have found me the perfect position (based on obscure matches in my job history), when it is 100% obvious they have not read the first sentence of my profile.

      So I think there are “recruiters”, perhaps bot-driven, that play both ends against the middle. If they get interest from both sides, then a (generally clueless) agency recruiter takes it from there. Just like Ashley Madison other dodgy dating sites of yore.

      Out of hundreds of these recruiters’ “offers”, I have had maybe six that represented identifiable real jobs that were publicly advertised. Only ONE (an HR staff member at a govt-adjacent org) had read the first sentence of my profile and specifically addressed it when she contacted me. I actually wrote her a thank-you reply and said how much I appreciated her attention and professionalism, and that I was disappointed I wasn’t available, but I certainly would have applied otherwise. I got a very gracious note in return within the hour. After many, many years on LinkedIn, that is the only “cold” contact I’ve bothered keeping.

      Reply ↓
  3. KJC*

    Unfortunately, both my husband and I have separately had the experience of accepting a job with someone who seemed very nice (and seems very nice to everyone who meets them) who turned out to be very very difficult to work for. These are people who have great energy and are kind in casual conversation while being tyrants to employees. Both people were not really self-aware about how difficult they were. I think if I had talked more directly to other employees first I might have gotten a little more information. That said, as an employee myself, I’m not sure I would feel comfortable being fully candid about a tyrannical boss I was working for, given possible repercussions if it got back to them. So tricky!

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellis Bell*

      I think in that situation, it’s more important to listen to what people don’t say. You’re looking for feedback from someone genuinely enthused about their boss who clearly feels it’s okay to speak freely. Many poor bosses have good skills when it comes to baiting and faking a healthy attitude short term. But it’s much more difficult to get other people to do that for you convincingly.

      Reply ↓
      1. Aww, coffee, no*

        Seconding the ‘listen to what people don’t say’. Due to my company set up I have a direct manager, and a site manager*. If asked, I will happily tell anyone (and everyone) that my direct manager is amazing; every time I read another AAM I’m grateful for how good a manager he is all over again. My site manager is fine.

        Look at the above and tell me which of the two you’d want to work for.

        To be fair, site manager really is fine; he has faults and I would feel comfortable sharing them with anyone applying to work for him, but he’s not actually a bad manager, he just suffers in comparison.

        *Direct manager oversees my work and does my annual appraisal, etc but is in a different country to me. Site manager is who I report to on a day-to-day basis so he’s the one I tell if I need to work from home, or will be in late since he’s the one who’d notice I wasn’t there, and to a certain extent he can set day-to-day priorities.

        Reply ↓
    2. Snow Globe*

      Even if the manager turns out to be as great as expected, it’s also worth remembering that people change jobs all the time, and that new manager could leave or be reassigned within a year. If this isn’t a job that you’d want with a different manager, don’t accept it just because you like the current one.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Yep! I’ve twice been hired by a manager I really liked, who then left in my first few months. In one case she admitted she knew she was leaving when she hired me and picked me because she thought I’d be a good successor, which is sweet, but I’d picked the job because I wanted to work with her! Obviously not liking the manager is a good reason not to take a job but just the vibe of the manager can’t be the main/only reason you take it.

        Reply ↓
      3. Cabbagepants*

        In my 3 professional jobs I’ve worked for the hiring manager for: 0 weeks, 1 week, and 3 weeks. At this point it’s funny.

        Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          My hiring manager received a probably-terminal diagnosis, took early retirement, and… seems to be doing great now and is enjoying living abroad!

          Reply ↓
      5. Olive*

        And unless the job is in hiring or HR, it’s likely that any given employee won’t be working directly with the hiring manager very often in the future.

        I had a wonderful experience with my current company’s hiring manager. She’s a great person and great employee. But our work never overlaps now. I’m happy with my job and my team, but letting my positive feelings about the hiring manager affect my understanding of what the actual job would entail would have been a mistake. (I do think that having an overall good interviewing experience with a company is important though).

        Reply ↓
        2. MigraineMonth*

          I think “hiring manager” refers to the manager who has an opening on their team and you are being hired to work under, rather than just someone in HR who does hiring.

          Reply ↓
        3. Miette*

          I’m a bit confused by this–isn’t the hiring manager typically the direct manager of the person/team being hired-for, hence the name? At least that’s been my experience?

          Reply ↓
          1. Doreen*

            That really depends on the type of work – I had at least three jobs where hiring was done in groups that went through multiple weeks of training together and people were assigned to various locations at the end of training. If anyone actually ended up working in the same office as their interviewer, it was pure chance. But that’s a specific type of job.

            Reply ↓
        4. fhqwhgads*

          “Hiring manager” is not usually used to mean “the person in charge of hiring within hr”. “Hiring manager” is generally used to mean “the person who will be your manager once you’re hired”. It is not very likely any given employee won’t be working with their manager often in the future.

          Reply ↓
      6. emmelemm*

        Yeah, that’s my take on “liking the hiring manager a lot”. As we know from numerous AAM letters, a hiring manager may leave/transfer/go on maternity leave/who knows what else fairly quickly after you start, so don’t absolutely count on working for them.

        Reply ↓
    3. 1-800-BrownCow*

      The former HR manager at my company was like this. Super friendly and outgoing when you met her. Horrible manager to work for and since she was HR, it was horrible for everyone else too. I was glad to not work for her directly, but it sucked when you had HR issues as it was basically her and an assistant.

      Reply ↓
    4. Original Poster T*

      Just spoke with one of my coworkers. She says the staff are all b!tches and troublemakers. I’ve also spoken to another person in my department, and she says my boss and grandboss are fine. I realize taking the job based on my impression may not have been the best idea. But, I’ve dealt with 5 or 6 horrible, horrible bosses in my career and am literally traumatized by it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Mockingjay*

        One point to consider: some of my favorite managers were the “mean” ones. Because they held everyone to the same performance standard. They outlined expectations, ensured we had the tools to do our jobs, and allowed us to execute our tasks while maintaining a good balance of oversight to track progress and reasonable freedom to use our skills and experience to accomplish our work.

        These bosses were also the ones who firmly held individuals accountable. If you talked to these employees, they’d tell you that boss was the worst person in the world. But the managers were actually doing what they were supposed to do.

        Follow Alison’s advice, talk to your boss and give it some time. If you are truly uneasy about this job, you can reach back to Former Job, but keep in mind the reasons you left that job will still be there.

        You didn’t ask about this, but I’m concerned that you took a paycut for New Job. Without delving into your personal circumstances, on a professional level, you always want to keep moving up. Of course cuts happen; I took a paycut to escape a very bad job myself. But I held out (and it was tough and took a long time) at Bad Job until I found a company where I could flourish and would be able to quickly make up and surpass the salary difference. If you decide to stay for the interim while you look, comb through the AAM archives about interviewing and assessing potential jobs. The archives helped me do a far better selection for myself, including turning down several roles that weren’t going to be what I wanted, even though I was desperate to escape. I’m really glad I held out for the right fit.

        Reply ↓
        2. Susan*

          Agree. I once had a great boss that somehow perfected that almost impossible balance of giving employees the direction they needed without micromanaging. I was shocked when I learned that some of my colleague’s didn’t like her. She could be a bit abrupt, but she would not hold your mistakes against you as long as you fixed them.

          Reply ↓
        3. AnotherOne*

          mean can be perception.

          not always. sometimes mean is just the boss who takes out all of their feelings on their employees.

          but it can also be holding people to expectations or changing things in an office.

          Reply ↓
      2. xylocopa*

        Oof. I get where you’re coming from, but honestly I would also be uncomfortable with a coworker who describes the staff as “all b!tches and troublemakers.” However much truth there might be in it, she’s also caught up in the toxic atmosphere. This sounds like a place that won’t be good for you in the long run.

        Reply ↓
        1. Slow Gin Lizz*

          Agreed. No matter what the real story is, there’s so much drama here and it sure sounds like you would like (and deserve!) a low-drama workplace. I don’t think anyone would blame you for jumping ship.

          Reply ↓
          2. MigraineMonth*

            Agreed. Even if your hiring manager is a lovely person and all the complainants are troublemakers, this is clearly a toxic place to work. It *made the news* for being a bad place to work.

            There are three likely possibilities here: 1) your hiring manager is actually toxic; 2) your hiring manager is not capable of managing out toxic employees; 3) your hiring manager is being hamstrung by some higher level of management that won’t let her manage out the toxic employees. None of those are good possibilities.

            Reply ↓
      3. ABC*

        It’s amazing what an impact they can have, even long term! I had a bad one 30 years ago, and I’m still feeling the effects!

        Reply ↓
          1. Slow Gin Lizz*

            There was some drama at my last job wrt a nightmare coworker who was grabbing power and usurping my ability to do my job. My supervisor stuck up for me as much as possible but once I realized this coworker had it out for me I found a new job and left pretty quickly. I’ve been in my new position for about 9 months now and I too am still feeling a lot of the effects from that nightmare coworker even though nothing at my current job is anything like it (current events, however….in some ways, very similar, so no wonder I’m still dealing with some trauma wrt my last job).

            Reply ↓
      4. Rex Libris*

        If it were me, I’d try to get a broader consensus, and also some detail like, when they say they’re troublemakers, what do they mean by that, give an example, etc.

        Many people think their bosses are tyrants or causing trouble merely because they actually expect them to do their jobs, or God forbid, their boss tries to change literally anything about how they do their job. Not saying it’s the case here necessarily, but you’ll probably need more information to get a feel for that.

        Reply ↓
        1. Original Poster T*

          This is what my boss said when I asked her about it. She said they were not following some procedures and got called out on it at the end of last year. She and her boss did a complete audit of their work and they were not pleased.

          Reply ↓
          1. Miette*

            I am fascinated now! So these folks were audited on some procedure, didn’t like it/whatever needed to be done to fix it, and went to the media in retaliation, claiming toxic workplace and mismanagement?

            Reply ↓
            2. Lisa Simpson*

              I left a job because I inherited staff that were that toxic. Our field had very strict requirements for safety and liability. They had not been properly supervised in the past, and had made up their own. I retrained them on the correct ones, they told me that I was wrong and was unqualified, and that I couldn’t tell them what to do. (Not even minor things like, please be on time for coverage-based work! Because I didn’t understand the “arrangements” they’d all made in the past, that apparently left half the staff stranded without replacement while they all moseyed in on their own schedule.)

              Finally two of them screamed at me “You can’t tell me what to do!” in public while HR refused to get involved to back me up and I left.

              Reply ↓
      5. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        I was going to recommend that you take some time and try to get a read on the situation and figure out what’s going on. As someone who also has to deal with anxiety, it can be hard to stay the course and figure things out because making a decision ASAP will reduce my anxiety levels. Sometimes, it’s important to sit in the discomfort for a bit so you can get the information you need to make the best choice you can in the circumstances.

        But this doesn’t sound good. There are clearly interpersonal issues going on here. If your concern was having a toxic person in a position of power above you, that may or may not be the case here. Consider also whether you’d be OK in an environment where it sounds like there’s a lot of interpersonal issues. Maybe you can just refuse to get involved in the nonsense and not let it bother you and maybe you can’t. No judgment.

        If you decide to keep collecting information, see what you can get in terms of concrete examples of behaviour. If other staff are “troublemakers,” what particular trouble have they made? If the boss and grand-boss have been accused of being toxic, what, specifically, did they do to give people that impression? Of course, people are going to have different perspectives. Like Mockingjay says, one person’s tough-but-fair boss is another person’s mean boss. And people might straight-up lie. All in all, this sounds like a whole mess and I can see why you’d want to bail.

        Reply ↓
    5. learnedthehardway*

      Agreed. Personally, in the OP’s shoes, I would reach out to the other company and ask if they would reconsider hiring her for the contract. The new company sounds highly unstable and it doesn’t bode well that the hiring manager is in the NEWS for being a tyrant/bully. The only reason the OP didn’t take the other role was that it was a contract – I think it’s likely that (if the role is still open) they would be willing to re-offer the role.

      I’d also ramp up my job search again to a “semi-active” state – just to be on the safe side.

      But at the same time, I would lean into the new role/company – the OP is there (at least for now) and needs to make the best of things. Try to build relationships/connections with other people in the company, demonstrate that you do good work, observe to get a handle on the politics, etc.

      Reply ↓
      1. Original Poster T*

        Just to clarify, I was working contract at the other company at the time and they offered me a permanent position. I’m kicking myself over it.

        Reply ↓
    6. Anonym*

      The worst boss I’ve had in nearly 20 years was genuinely a very kind, empathetic and personable human. They were also incompetent, very bad at organizational politics, and couldn’t say no to anyone. The result was radically increased workloads for the team, damage to the partnerships needed to do that work, and shocking delay in even starting the hiring process when nearly half the team left, so those of us who remained nearly broke under the strain. It was such a relief when they were made redundant.

      Reply ↓
    7. juliebulie*

      I once hit it off with the hiring manager, and then he was transferred on my first day. His replacement was under the gun and did not want any noobs, so I was gone at the end of my training period (during which I received a small salary but no commissions – and I sold a lot of furniture).

      Reply ↓
      1. Melody Powers*

        I hit it off with a hiring manager and then she quit suddenly on my first day. Didn’t even come in. I came to find out that all of the people I was working with were teenagers working part time. I suspect she was feeling guilty about wanting to leave and then seized the chance when she hired me: a competent adult with full time availability. I definitely learned not to count on working with the hiring manager.

        Reply ↓
    8. Ann O'Nemity*

      I’ve had bosses I’d grab happy hour with in a heartbeat—but managing a team? Absolute hell. One was fun, energetic, but constantly distracted by the next shiny thing. Another was kind and empathetic, but so focused on keeping the peace they couldn’t lead or fight for what the team needed. Great for brunch, terrible for business. Turns out, good friend material does not equal good boss material.”

      Reply ↓
    9. 2025*

      My current job’s interview with my mgr was very nice, friendly, thought it would be great. Got hired, and she told me the first day, first meeting, she made a mistake hiring me. I swear she hates me just a bit more with every month. Been there 2.8 months. It’s tearing me down. She doesn’t even want to talk to me so my training as her assistant was pretty much non existent. She took away most of my assistant duties and I’ve been doing something completely different for most of this time.

      Reply ↓
      2. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Ohhhhh, no!!!! I hope you are able to get out of there asap and also find some help so you can move past your abusive boss. She sounds like a nightmare and I hope you are able to recover yourself with minimal damage. Hugs.

        Reply ↓
  4. Smurfette*

    Re OP2’s letter:

    >Managers can come across very differently in interviews than what they’re actually like to work for

    I’ve experienced this myself. I had a manager who was smart and interesting. In a social situation, they were also relaxed and fun to be around, and this is how they came over in the interview (it was a tiny company so the interview was informal).

    Turns out that as an employer / manager they were an abusive tyrant. I managed to stick it out for a (really awful) year. They were taken to the labour court by another employee, and received a warning letter from our biggest client about the way they spoke to their staff.

    I should have asked more questions / done more investigation but I was fed up with my current job and in a hurry to move; and the company had only 3 other employees* – so not many people to ask.

    * Turned out they were all the owner’s siblings which was a huge red flag but I only found out afterwards.

    Reply ↓
    1. WoodswomanWrites*

      Oh no, that sounds like a nightmare workplace. I can’t imagine finding out that all your co-workers are siblings of the owner after you took the job. So glad you’re out of there.

      Reply ↓
    2. Richard Hershberger*

      I lasted three years with my Terrible Boss. He was sufficiently notorious within the industry that I used my lasting three years as a selling point in interviews. He was later disbarred. I recently learned that the ruling is taught in regional law schools as how to get disbarred without commingling client funds, which is the usual way. He was essentially disbarred for being a jerk. Not officially, of course, but he made another lawyer so angry that the other guy launched an investigation. My guy followed some questionable practices that ordinarily he could get away with, but not when he had made himself into another lawyer’s project.

      On the other than, he hired me when I had little experience. In retrospect this was not an act of charity but of necessity. I doubt that anyone with experience would have taken the job. But it did get me the experience I needed to make a career out of this.

      Reply ↓
      2. Sovreignry*

        I used to work for a lawyer who, when it was mentioned that I worked for him, three separate people, unprompted outside of the mention of where I worked, either handed over a business card saying to apply, or dropped [Boss’s Name] is an mfing ahole.

        And one was my Dad’s boss in IT for a Fortune 500 tech company who prior to that owned his own IT contracting firm, which is how far spread this reputation went.

        I lasted 1 11/12 years at that place before stumbling bass-ackward into my current role.

        Reply ↓
    3. Slowest Knitter in the World*

      I’m curious if it has ever gone the other way: that a manager is great in practice but that doesn’t come across in an interview. I’ve had one excellent manager that I was VERY wary of when she interviewed, but that was more because I was new on the job and had just come out of something closer to that abusive tyrant situation more than anything she said/did.

      Reply ↓
    4. fhqwhgads*

      Yeah plus it’s not even just that they can come off differently. It’s also that in an interview, you and they might be discussing how they do things or what they do in certain situations. What someone says they do, and what someone does are often completely different. So basically, even if they’re not a lying liar who lies, you have no way of knowing in advance that what they say they’ll do is what they’ll do.

      Reply ↓
    5. Delta Delta*

      I had an internship where the manager said in my interview, “I’m such a great manager.” And you know, I saw that whole parade of flags coming my way and I took the position anyway. And she was not, in fact, a great manager. But it was an 8 week internship so *shrug emoji.*

      Reply ↓
  5. Mark*

    #2 I think the company could have been cleverer about it if they had communicated the restroom closure differently. Such as, “Any worker who uses the male restrooms will need to make arrangements to WFH next week as the restroom will be unavailable. “. Not quiet saying in you are male work from home, but saying if you are a worker using these particular facilities then these are your arrangements.

    Reply ↓
    1. AnonAnonSir!*

      I’m potentially opening up a can of worms as I know different people have strongly held opinions on this, but this is why I think more public bathrooms should be multisex. There *are* still bathrooms available in the office (with lockable cubicles); ergo there are still facilities for the men in the office to use when they come in.

      Reply ↓
      1. Emmy Noether*

        I’ve recently seen more facilities where there was a urinal room (not sure if there were also stalls in there) and a stall-only room, labeled as such (actually, labeled in some cutesy way, but I got the idea. I did have to point a few confused people to the “ladies’ “). It’s one way around the issue.

        I’ve also long held the opinion that when smaller facilities have two identical closed room single toilets, labelling them by gender is bonkers.

        The considerations also change depending on how public those toilets are. There’s safety considerations, and then there’s how comfortable one is making bodily noises in earshot of people of a different gender one knows (I personally do not care – bathrooms are places that depend on polite fiction of not noticing anyway, but I think I may be in the minority.).

        Reply ↓
          2. Emmy Noether*

            I’m thinking disabled people would go into a stall, or into the separate handicap accessible bathroom, according to their needs? Like they do now?

            Reply ↓
            1. Archi-detect*

              urinals are required to be ADA accessible if there are two- that is what the short one is about. it works nicely for kids but that is a side effect

              Reply ↓
              1. Emmy Noether*

                I admit that I have never been in a room with more than one urinal (I’m a woman), so I’m not sure of the usual setup. I’m also not in ADA land. I can only theorize that a urinal room could also have a short one? Seems obvious. And you could also like put one stall in the corner of the urinal room if there’s someone that absolutely wants to pee into the urinal and then immediately poop in a stall (do people do that?) instead of just doing both in a stall in the first place? Or you can just have the separate accessible washroom with a urinal and all the bells and whistles.

                Like those practical things all seem to have fairly easy solutions that are not very different from current solutions. There are legit arguments for and against this idea, but this line of reasoning seems disingenious at best.

                Reply ↓
                1. ThatGirl*

                  The height may not be the problem so much as not being able to stand to use it – but I don’t think it’s an ADA violation if there are accessible facilities available.

          3. Chirpy*

            The ones I’ve seen were traditional women’s and men’s rooms relabled as Unisex with a sign saying “this one has stalls” and “this one has urinals”. The one with urinals still had some stalls. It was just labeled so that people who might be uncomfortable walking into a room where urinals were in use would know not to pick that one.

            Reply ↓
          4. Dasein9 (he/him)*

            No more than the existence of stairs violates the ADA. There must be facilities that disabled people can use; that doesn’t mean there may not also be facilities disabled people can’t use.

            Reply ↓
        2. DJ Abbott*

          “when smaller facilities have two identical closed room single toilets, labelling them by gender is bonkers.”
          Yesterday I went to an appointment at a place I hadn’t been to before, a large office building downtown. When I needed to use the restroom, they gave me a code to punch in the door. I accidentally tried to punch it into the men’s room, and it didn’t work.
          This is an excellent reason to label (and lock code) restrooms by gender. For safety.

          Reply ↓
          1. Emmy Noether*

            I’m not entirely sure how that increases safety. If you’re already in there, I’m assuming that the code won’t open the door in any case (wouldn’t particularly want to be accidentally walked in on by someone of my own gender either).

            If you’re not already in there, and you’re… what? Running away from someone, trying to get to a place of safety? Then (1) what dystopian nightmare is this where that’s the best option?! And (2) you’re going to be too slow punching in the code anyway.

            Reply ↓
            1. Emmy Noether*

              Ah, I’ve just thought of the third option, which is someone lying there in wait. Which… maybe a code could reduce (not eliminate) that.

              I guess I have never had safety concerns in the contexts where I’ve seen these kind of bathrooms (mostly small restaurants, offices and the like). They’ve never had a code either.

              Reply ↓
              1. Antilles*

                Yeah, I don’t think I’ve *ever* been in a building that has single stall restrooms with code-locked doors. Not saying they don’t exist, but it’s certainly not common. In my experience, the most common type of single stall restroom has locks on the inside, but if it’s empty, you can just turn the handle and walk right in.
                Besides, even if there is a code, if someone really wanted to ‘lurk in wait’, I feel like getting the code would be trivial. Hey, the men’s room is in use and I’m about to explode, can I just use the other one? If it’s a single stall restroom, most people would accept that explanation and tell you the code on the spot without hesitation.

                Reply ↓
                1. Bike Walk Bake Books*

                  Several buildings in the downtown of my small city have code-locked single stall restrooms. They’re usually not labeled by gender although some are. It works to make the restrooms available only to customers who have a code so they’re not used by people who don’t have a specific reason to be in the building or business. Some are in restaurants, some are in a hallway and accessed by customers of multiple businesses on that floor.

                  Which is why we need more publicly available restrooms in more places, so people can go to the bathroom with privacy and dignity regardless of whether they have money to go to a restaurant.

            2. Lisa Simpson*

              Cameras. It reduces the number of men with access to the restroom to install cameras.

              How many news stories have we heard “If you used the ladies room at Speedy’s Coffee in XYZtown between December 3 and January 8, you may have a claim?”

              Reply ↓
              1. Dahlia*

                If it reduces the chance of cameras being placed there, then why do we see it on the news so often?

                It’s almost like that’s not true.

                Reply ↓
          2. Anna*

            But presumably you lock the door from the inside once you’re in there, no? Shouldn’t that be sufficient to keep out any predators? And if a lock won’t keep a predator out, a sign on the door won’t be much use either.

            Personally I (woman) feel uncomfortable if I can see people use the urinals, but if a man comes out of a stall, I couldn’t care less if he washes his hands next to me.

            Reply ↓
          3. Amy*

            What safety issue is there with identical closed room single toilets? That just seems ridiculous to decide that one closed toilet with a door that is identical to another one needs to be for one type of genitalia versus another type.

            And I’d be extremely annoyed to wait for my gendered toilet when another one is open available. I’m a woman and find stuff like this retro and silly in 2025.

            Reply ↓
            1. Umami*

              I simply don’t. There’s a restaurant my opposite sex spouse and I frequent weekly. They have two single-stall restrooms but have them labeled by sex. I will use whichever one is empty, and he is always frustrated when ‘his’ restroom is occupied. I tell him, just use the other one, we totally get it!

              Reply ↓
          4. Bagpuss*

            I don’t understand, what is the reason? And why woud it make a difference if there are two single, closed room toilets, whether they are each available to all or each available only to a specifc gender?

            I don’t understand what you think the safety issue let alone why having a key pad resolves it.

            Reply ↓
          5. Agent Diane*

            Could you clarify what you mean by “for safety” in this situation, DJ Abbot?

            Because I cannot work out how a sign on a door makes a single user restroom ‘safer’. Someone intent on harming another person will not be put off by a sign. Or by a door code they could easily acquire.

            Reply ↓
            1. Ann O'Nemity*

              I’m not DJ Abbot, but I assume they mean that trans people are less safe when forced to use the restroom that aligns with their sex assignment at birth instead of the one that aligns with their gender identity.

              Reply ↓
              2. Emmy Noether*

                But this situation is kind of the opposite? Forcing people to use a specific gendered bathroom by only giving them one code.

                Reply ↓
            2. DJ Abbott*

              I’m sorry, it was early and I was thinking of restrooms with more than one stall. Without security like coded doors, predators can wander into buildings and restrooms. I was very glad it’s coded, because there is no entry or floor security in that building. I felt much safer with the restroom coded.
              Someone upthread also makes a good point that people might camp out in publically available restrooms. Sadly, if there is an opportunity to do the wrong thing, someone will take it.

              Reply ↓
          6. SimonTheGreyWarden*

            Man, the more I hear about how we need to worry about “safety” in the restrooms, the less I want to let my 7 year old son go to the bathroom in public without me. Obviously he’s in mortal peril!!!

            /s

            Reply ↓
          7. Corey*

            Love that you dropped this for everyone to speculate instead of taking a few seconds to explain wtf you are talking about.

            Reply ↓
          8. fhqwhgads*

            Any place I’ve seen with a bathroom code is doing so in order to prevent people from trashing the place and/or camping out in there. It’s not about “safety” with regard to anything gender related, and I’m not even really sure what you’re trying to imply?

            Reply ↓
        3. Reb*

          I was so happy at the cafe last week when I saw both their toilets were unisex. No having to debate which one to go in.

          Reply ↓
          1. Lenora Rose*

            IANAL, but I’m fairly sure “This one has a urinal” “this one doesn’t” would be adequate for legal compliance with building code.

            Reply ↓
            1. IL Public Building Admin*

              It’s probably not! For explanation: in my state we have some fun building code vs legal code quirks. To pass building codes for public buildings, restrooms have to be labeled by gender, I think to prove you have facilities for women, as a holdover of when women were excluded on the basis of no facilities. But then, under state law, all single use restrooms need to be labeled as all gender. So the signs go up to pass the building code and then come back down and are relabeled before actually going into operation. Ain’t the law fun?!

              Reply ↓
        5. Nichole*

          In California, single occupancy bathrooms are legally required to be labeled as all-gender! It’s been the law since 2017. I’ve seen lots of businesses that haven’t changed their signs, though.

          Reply ↓
        6. Baunilha*

          My previous workplace had two gendered, single toilets per floor. My floor had like 15 women and just 3 men, so we often used the men’s toilet. Other floors were the other way around. The only actual difference between the toilets were the sign on the door and the color of the tiles (pink for women’s, blue for men’s), so they were gendered in theory, but unisex in reality.

          Reply ↓
        7. Polyhymnia O’Keefe*

          My former workplace (in a community-centre-type space, with lots of use by people of all ages) changed the bathroom signage a few years ago. They’re not single-stall, but what would have traditionally been “men’s” and “women’s”. Now, the signs on the door say (and have graphics of) “Stalls Only” and “Stalls and Urinals”. The eventual goal is to have true gender-neutral washrooms with single-stall toilets and a communal sink area, but that’s an expensive renovation down the road. In the meantime, the signage aligns with the company’s values of being trans-inclusive, but has honestly not made much of a day-to-day difference in the bathrooms that individuals choose to use.

          Reply ↓
      2. Allonge*

        The thing is, it may well take more effort to make that change just for this week than to ask the impacted population to WFH. One is a cultural change that is politically fraught right now, the other is a justifiable temporary measure.

        I don’t disagree with you in principle and on a larger scale; I just understand why it’s a different consideration when they need to tackle the issue OP is describing.

        Reply ↓
      3. Helvetica*

        Honestly, my first thought (from a European perspective) was exactly that – why can’t the men exceptionally use the women’s bathroom? I’d understand better if it was the opposite and say, the men’s bathroom had urinals and only one stall, that it would be an inconvenience to women but in this scenario, it should be fine.
        Then again, I am someone who thinks the discussion about the “dangers” of unisex bathrooms is ridiculous and who will use the men’s if at someplace the queue to women’s is awfully long and there are stalls available. The toilets are the same.

        Reply ↓
        1. londonedit*

          Yeah, same. And I think all, if not the vast majority, of the gender-neutral loos I’ve encountered have been single-stall ones anyway. Where I work we have a ladies’ loo with several stalls in the one room, same for the men’s, and then dotted around the building we have gender-neutral loos which are literally just their own little room with a loo and sink. So anyone can feel comfortable using those. I’ve seen plenty of gender-neutral loos in places like restaurants and bars, too, and those usually take the form of a row of little rooms each with their own loo and sink. Additionally, disabled loos are pretty much always on their own, as a larger single room with a loo/sink etc and all the adaptations for people who struggle to use the other facilities. In a pinch, as long as there was no one needing to use it, you could always use the disabled loo. But it sounds like it’s different in the US.

          Reply ↓
        2. Falling Diphthong*

          An actual difference in the US vs Europe is restroom doors with big gaps all around. I do not understand the reasoning in the design, but particularly note it when in a restroom here designed to be intersex–the door to the stall is much more like a normal door.

          Note: I am a huge fan of unisex restrooms.

          Reply ↓
        3. Texan in exile on her phone*

          That was Old Job’s solution. The only working men’s room was at the onsite gym in the locker room and men would have had to *wait* which is of course completely unreasonable, so they converted the women’s locker room into a men’s room as well.

          Thank goodness men were relieved from the horror of waiting.

          We women, on the other hand, didn’t get to use our locker room for a week, but omelette/eggs, I guess.

          Reply ↓
        4. Nancy*

          Because some people have very strong opinions about that. If this is a US company, I understand why they just don’t want to deal with that right now.

          Reply ↓
        5. Probably Should be Anon Here*

          The engineer in me wonders if there could be some sort of alternating time system set up where staff can be instructed that the first half of every hour is the women’s time, and the other half is the men’s time (or whatever increments work). Maybe with a janitor monitoring the door. Of course, exceptions could be made for “if I don’t get to a toilet right now, it will be all over” situations.

          Reply ↓
          1. MigraineMonth*

            If you have to put a guard on the door who decides whether or not “I just realized got my period and need to put in a tampon before I bleed through my slacks” is a sufficiently good reason for me to use the restroom, I think it’s not a good system.

            Reply ↓
          2. Lenora Rose*

            I’m sure your custodian has better things to do than hover around a door, and they definitely don’t want to hear about everyone’s emergency bodily functions… or the likely cleaning outcome if they question everyone who’s *already* on an emergency run.

            If you want to make it unisex, make it unisex. If you think the men at your office can’t be trusted to do the normal routine of use a stall, wash their hands and get out just because the person in the next stall might be a woman, you have much bigger problems than a broken restroom.

            Reply ↓
          3. New Jack Karyn*

            When I gotta go, I’m gonna go. The custodian does not want to have that conversation with me. No one wants to have that conversation with me.

            Reply ↓
          1. She-Hulk SMASH*

            Gender-neutral or effectively gender-neutral (two single locked rooms) are much more common in Europe than in the US, in my experience. In Europe we’re generally much more happy to just use whatever toilet is available.

            Reply ↓
        7. Ann O'Nemity*

          It may be an OSHA issue if closing one restroom means there are now not enough toilets. It could legitimately be less about gendered restrooms than the actual number of toilets.

          Reply ↓
        8. fhqwhgads*

          The only thing I can think of is there is some minimum number of toilets per people, although I don’t recall exactly what it is and do recall the ratio being ridiculously huge, but anyway, if halving the available restrooms for the week would put them out of compliance for a week, then getting the people out of the building, rather than everyone sharing the remaining restrooms, would be a fairly logical way to go.

          Reply ↓
          1. NutellaNutterson*

            That ratio is always wild to me. Especially when the calculation is based on an assumption of continual use vs timed/rush use. I remember attending a conference where the main ballroom had literally two stalls in the adjacent women’s room. While that might be acceptable during an actual gala, when there’s a 10 minute break between speakers, that’s not at all functional. This was in the late 90s in a major US city. I assume they’ve retrofitted since then, but it’s still absurd that they did what must be the absolute minimum in the first place.

            Reply ↓
      4. No thanks*

        Some of us are deeply uncomfortable using shared restrooms at all (that is, those with multiple stalls), let alone gender neutral restrooms. If I were expected to use a gender neutral restroom while that reserved for my own sex was being repaired, I would call out sick until the repairs were complete. If no such facilities were available, I wouldn’t accept the job in the first place.

        Some of us feel very, very strongly about this for reasons that are deeply personal to us. I for one regard the proliferation of gender neutral restrooms with dread. This provision of such restrooms, even for a short period, is an absolute nonstarter.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sportsball*

          In 99.99 percent of places, a gender neutral bathroom is literally just a room with a single toilet, its own sink, and a locking door. AKA a “powder room” like you’d find in someone’s home. In a lot of places (especially smaller restaurants or say, gas stations) that is the only type of bathroom available. Anyone can use it including a parent needing to change a baby’s diaper, a parent with a small child, someone with mobility issues and/or a mobility aid like a wheelchair, etc.

          So being all “gender neutral bathrooms: blargh!!!” Is a really weird and facetious take when you’re basically saying, “hey you know those single-person bathrooms that have been around FOREVER, might be the only public bathroom available in some places, and that are the equivalent of what we all have in our homes??? I’m going to suddenly act like they’re literal hell on earth just because a bunch of idiots said so.”

          Reply ↓
          1. No thanks*

            I thought I was perfectly clear about this in my original comment but, for the removal of doubt, I am talking about restrooms with multiple stalls. I would prefer it if all restrooms were self-contained rooms with a single toilet, but unfortunately that isn’t the world we live in; that doesn’t mean men and women should be expected to share a single restroom with multiple stalls while at their most vulnerable.

            Reply ↓
          3. STLBlues*

            This is always what I find so funny about people who are so against general neutral bathrooms.

            I built my house with entirely gender neutral bathrooms. That’s how “woke” I am!

            Reply ↓
          4. Crooked Bird*

            Wow, way to bring up something the commenter was clearly not talking about and cast them as the enemy for allegedly being against it. The original discussion was about some people feeling fine with multiple-stall shared-gender bathrooms and “No thanks” was emphatic that others do NOT and for difficult personal reasons. Pivoting to “single private gender-neutral bathrooms are the most common and are perfectly private and just fine”… well, it would’ve been OK I guess without the implied “you bigot” at the end.

            Reply ↓
            1. No thanks*

              I sincerely appreciate your response. I really can’t understand how anyone could imagine I was talking about the type of restrooms most people use at home, but surely this many people can’t be arguing in bad faith? I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my original post, but I think by now my meaning is crystal clear.

              Reply ↓
        2. Morning Reader*

          The gender neutral restrooms I’ve seen are all a single room with a solid door that locks. No one would be in there with you. I don’t understand the problem.

          Are there gender-neutral restrooms in the American style with flimsy doors that don’t go all the way to the bottom? That would be a problem. It already is, sharing with those of the same gender. I would favor a campaign for single gender neutral restrooms everywhere, with solid doors and locks for stalls in any remaining multi-toilet facilities.

          Reply ↓
          1. Hlao-roo*

            US-ian here and I have seen/used two types of gender neutral restrooms:

            1) The type you describe, single room with solid locking door, sink and toilet in room.

            2) Big room with multiple sinks and individual stalls. Stalls have solid locking doors that go from the floor to the ceiling and solid walls that go from the floor to the ceiling (so, much more private/secure than the single-gender restrooms with flimsy doors/stall walls that have big gaps between the floor and the door/wall and the door/wall and the ceiling).

            The first time I was in (2) I did feel a bit odd* seeing people of a different gender going into/out of the stalls and washing their hands. But I didn’t feel unsafe. And now that I’ve been in those types of gender neutral restrooms, I prefer them because the stalls are much more secure/private than they are in single-gender restrooms.

            *The odd feeling was a bit of my brain going “am I in the wrong bathroom??” and also a bit of “this is different from my normal bathroom-going experience.” Not bad, just different.

            Reply ↓
          1. No thanks*

            Read my comment more carefully. I am explicitly referring to restrooms with multiple stalls. It wouldm’t even occur to me to refer to single-toilet restrooms of the sort found in most households as mixed-use, gender neutral, or anything other than a restroom.

            Reply ↓
            1. Sportsball*

              I gotta be honest, the type of bathroom you’re talking about, is rare at least in US bathrooms. So I can’t really see this being something that is a frequent issue.

              Reply ↓
              1. No thanks*

                It is rare, but it’s becoming more common, especially in cities and college towns (i.e., where all the good jobs are).

                Reply ↓
                3. STLBlues*

                  Real question: Why does it matter if someone of a different gender is in a stall next to you?

                  You shouldn’t be interacting or looking in at the person in the next stall even if it’s a single gender bathroom.

                4. No thanks*

                  You shouldn’t be interacting or looking in at the person in the next stall even if it’s a single gender bathroom.

                  I know that I shouldn’t be interacting with others, but many other people don’t seem to have got the memo. I’m not going to spell it out for you, but if you really can’t imagine why some of us are so opposed to gender neutral restrooms (with multiple stalls, for those who don’t understand the difference between such facilities and those found in most households) then I envy you—you clearly haven’t encountered some of the less pleasant elements of society.

                5. mlem*

                  Honestly, citation needed, because like most of the people responding to you, I’ve never seen this and my region has scads of cities and college towns.

                  (Your other comment, about “the less pleasant elements of society”, does not make you sound like you’re arguing in good faith, by the way.)

                6. Ask a Manager* Post author

                  This is apparently a regional difference because in my experience public bathrooms are far more likely to have multiple stalls than to be single occupancy. (Single occupancy is much rarer here.) Let’s agree to assume they exist and they are not rare, even if they’re not common where you are. Thanks.

                7. Pescadero*

                  As of 2019 – about 160,000 of 33 million businesses in the USA had gender inclusive bathrooms.

                  So less than 0.5% of businesses even have a gender inclusive bathroom – and most of that 0.5% is single occupancy.

                8. No thanks*

                  Thank you. I’m going to take a walk because this is getting a little too difficult to continue talking about but I appreciate the responses from those who understand what I meant.

                9. Ask a Manager* Post author

                  And maybe y’all might consider the reasons someone could have an unusual amount of trauma associated with bathrooms and tread a little more lightly. Thanks.

                10. Emmy Noether*

                  I don’t know about the US, but they have started to appear in more progressive spaces in Switzerland. The Eurovision Song Contest coincidentally just announced they will relabel the venue bathrooms to be gender neutral. I can see gender inclusivity being a priority for the ESC (the last winner is nonbinary).

                11. Emmy Noether*

                  Also, @No Thanks, I understand what you mean, even though I don’t personally feel that way. I think this is one of those warring accomodation type things. I think if some single bathrooms were provided in addition to the multi stall ones, that would solve a bunch of problems at once.

                12. Annie2*

                  Sorry that people are being rude to you. I have also definitely experienced all-gender bathrooms with the flimsy stalls with gaps. I don’t have any particular trauma but I still hate them. You can see through the gaps. I do not like the idea of men being able to see me peeing through the gap in a stall. This is not my hill to die on because I would prefer trans people be safe and accommodated, but it is absolutely uncomfortable and you’re not a horrible person for thinking that.

              2. Sillysaurus*

                It’s fairly common where I live in the US (Portland, OR). I’m a big fan, personally. Reduces lines. And I don’t care who sees me washing my hands.

                Reply ↓
          2. KHB*

            I really dislike this argument being used as if it’s some kind of gotcha. In addition to the single-versus-multiple-stalls issue, which as already been pointed out, I share my restroom at home with a very specific different-sex person with whom I’m in an intimate relationship, which is a very different situation from a multi-stall restroom available to all people of that gender.

            I’m also quite comfortable appearing naked in front of my partner. Surely you wouldn’t take that to imply that I should be just fine with taking my clothes off in the presence of any or all random men?

            Reply ↓
            1. Pocket Mouse*

              Bathrooms at home are only one (very common) example of all-gender toilets. Presumable your guests use yours, and you use your hosts’ as well – it’s not *just* the person you’re in an intimate relationship with.

              But anyway, think of toilets on airplanes instead if you wish. Everyone’s in the same line, and each stall’s door is floor to ceiling and locks. The only difference between these and multi-stall all-gender bathrooms is the placement of the sinks (inside individual stalls versus communal) and that on a plane, more people can see who’s in line to eliminate their body waste.

              Reply ↓
              1. Bumblebee*

                I always find it amusing that people who have such meltdowns about gender-neutral restrooms don’t seem to understand that this is how planes work.

                Reply ↓
                1. No thanks*

                  Is this a conscious attempt to misunderstand what’s being said? It isn’t about self-contained rooms with a single toilet; it’s about restrooms with multiple stalls. Whether you agree or disagree, do you understand the difference?

                2. Phony Genius*

                  I know of one Japanese airline that did label their onboard lavatories by gender, about a decade ago. I’m not sure if they still do this.

        4. Smithy*

          During COVID, a few theaters near where I live turned all of there multi-stall bathrooms into being all genders (essentially removing urinals). Which given the disparity of need for men/women during intermissions makes so much sense. However, they also still have two single room options for someone with that preference or other needs that require more space/privacy that than the larger disability stalls.

          In the context of theater, as a woman this change is so appreciated because of the intermission disparity impact. However, I’ve been in a few hotels with all gender multi-stall bathrooms, and when immediately dropped into that situation it can be jarring at first. Over time, I’m able to acclimate – but I think for a workplace understanding that may not and just avoiding the dynamic all together makes sense.

          Reply ↓
          1. KHB*

            I’m glad, at least, that they removed the urinals (and I guess converted the space to all stalls), rather than keeping the plumbing fixtures the same and just slapping “all gender restroom” signs on the doors (which often has the effect of having men use both restrooms, while women continue to limit themselves to the one with all stalls, which is the opposite of correcting the disparity of need).

            Reply ↓
        5. Seven hobbits are highly effective, people*

          Just to share my own, different experience, I feel deeply uncomfortable in single-gender spaces, also for personal reasons. All-gender restrooms definitely lower my stress level.

          There’s no one situation that makes everyone comfortable.

          Reply ↓
        6. Lenora Rose*

          Would this apply if the walls and doors of the stalls were the floor to ceiling kind or is it just the fact that so many places have stalls with obvious gaps? Does it apply if the sink area is the only public shared space?

          Just trying – without denying or downplaying your discomfort – to figure out what the actual barrier is, and what would alleviate the issue.

          Discomforts around bathroom stuff can get weird.

          A restaurant I’ve been to has the floor to ceiling stalls, then a shared sink space, and what makes me feel slightly uncomfortable isn’t the stalls, which are private, it’s that there’s a doorless arch about 1.5 x the size of a normal door between the sinks and the actual restaurant area. Due to other things in the set-up, there’s a natural 20 foot gap to the nearest table and the airflow seems to run towards the washroom and away from the food, so it’s the visibility, not contamination, that has me feel a bit weird. You could see me washing my hands from some tables! This feels strange when we’re used to doing it in private. And yet, I’m doing exactly what the people at tables would want me to do, and washing my hands (and I still use the full 20-second standard). In fact, since it’s a bit visible, if anything, I think handwashing compliance went UP. But it feels weird.

          Reply ↓
        7. different seudonym*

          I’ve been harassed in a public restroom by someone who, like myself, was the gender assigned to that restroom. It was a surprisingly debilitating experience.

          However, I’m not aware that there is real evidence (as in, significant data demonstrating a general pattern) of cross-gender harassment or assault in all-gender public restrooms. I am, though, aware of transphobes publicly claiming that that is a problem in single- gender restrooms, as part of a broad transphobic campaign that has gone on for some years now.

          Therefore, I both question the idea that strict gender segregation will prevent bad behavior in public restrooms, and assume that expressions of fear about all-gender restrooms are at least misinformed, if not made in bad faith.

          Reply ↓
          2. Some Words*

            Ironically, my experience with someone behaving badly in a restroom was the same gender. She’d stand at the door of the stall and peer in at whoever was in there (through that notorious gap around the door). It happened often enough that she was referred to as the “bathroom peeper”.

            Reply ↓
      5. Strive to Excel*

        Which introduces a new issue; even if all your bathrooms are unisex, do you still run into OSHA challenges if half your bathroom capacity is down? And if so, how do you then fairly allot who gets to WFH?

        Reply ↓
        1. Allonge*

          You say I need X people to WFH and at least Y in the building. Volunteers please for each? Otherwise we draw lots (for the relevant categories of people).

          Reply ↓
      6. Susan*

        I went to a woman’s college. Most of the bathrooms had a little sliding thing over the women’s sign that could change it to men’s when a man went in there. I don’t understand why they didn’t do something like that.

        Reply ↓
    2. Ellis Bell*

      Wouldn’t there still be single use toilets available? In the UK most public buildings have at least one disabled toilet, which is for any gender to use and is usually a lockable small room with a basin and toilet inside. I’m thinking of my own building which employs a couple hundred men; as well as the men’s toilet which is located centrally, but there two or three single use ones dotted around too. I don’t really know if that would cut it as a replacement, though.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bookworm*

        There may not be single use bathrooms. The facilities for disabled individuals will be a larger stall in female/male bathrooms. I’ve worked for plenty of places over my career that had no single use bathrooms. Note: I’m in the US.

        Reply ↓
      2. Elf*

        My understanding is that generally in the US there will be an accessible stall within the men’s and women’s loos, rather than a separate larger single room like we do in Australia and sounds like you are describing in the UK.

        Reply ↓
      3. Cai*

        Unfortunately, laws in the US don’t require a separate individual restroom. My office doesn’t have any single restrooms anywhere in the building, only the gendered restrooms and the gendered locker rooms for the gym.

        Reply ↓
    3. Christmas Carol*

      Forty years ago, I spent a lot of time in a very old college building, built so long ago that women weren’t expected as students. It was a five story building, and had 5 Mens rooms, one on each floor, but only 2 Womens rooms, on floors 2 and 4. Most of the fifth floor was used as office space, but all the female students/employees had to go downstairs to use the facilities.

      Some one had the bright idea to hang sign on the floor of the 5th floor bathroom with a changable arrow and 3 choices: Men, Women, and Empty. Worked fine, nobody cared, nobody died from having to use a toilet that had also been used my a member of the opposite sex, none of us delicate female flowers were damged by seeing a urinal, and the homemade sign stayed on the door for at least the rest of my career.

      They did eventualy hang a 2nd sign in the inside of the door though, saying something like Don’t Forget to Change the Sign When You Leave.

      Reply ↓
      1. Zephy*

        My high school had restrooms at either end of a rather long hallway. Essentially ten water closets – literally just a small room, maybe 9 sqft, with a locking full-length door and a toilet/sometimes urinal inside. Sinks were on the outside, basically in the hallway. Boys’ rooms had a toilet and urinal, girls’ had just a toilet. Originally, all of the boys’ restrooms were at the south end and all of the girls’ restrooms were at the north end of this hallway that was, again, probably fifty feet long. At some point, someone decided to flip half of them, so that both ends of the hallway had 5 boys’ and 5 girls’ restrooms. But they only moved the signs, so the girls’ restrooms at the south end had urinals as well as toilets in them, and the boys’ restrooms at the north end had only toilets in them without urinals. It would have made basically no difference to just declare them all gender-neutral, maybe mark the ones with urinals in them in case someone had a particular attachment to using that instead of a regular toilet (or just take out the urinals). But, as this is a public school in Florida, they probably check first to make sure students are using the “correct” room to piss in. That’s only half of a joke.

        Reply ↓
      2. PhyllisB*

        I was a long distance operator for years, and when I first started it was only women who worked in that area so we had one large multi stall ladies room. When we started getting male operators they were required to go to the first floor for a restroom. And we didn’t have an elevator so five flights of stairs each trip. Of course this generated a lot of complaints but there really was no way to add another restroom on that floor.
        Our local office ceased operations in the early 90’s. I can’t help but wonder if it was still open if regulations would have required alterations or if they would have had to build a whole new facility.

        Reply ↓
      3. Lisa Simpson*

        My dorm had been built to have single-sex floors in the 70s, so when they went to coed floors in the 90s they just built a cinderblock wall down the middle of the restroom, dividing it in half. Rumor had it some ladies’ rooms ended up with urinals on their side, but that wasn’t my wing of the building so I never saw one.

        I think this change was mostly due to gender imbalance in enrollment, by the time I graduated the number of men on campus was very low. The straight dating scene was grim.

        Reply ↓
      4. Grimalkin*

        My college converted one of their dorm buildings that had been for male students only into a coed dorm. (Some floors were single-gender, some were split down the middle.) This meant that even the newly-designated women’s restrooms had urinals. While I was an awfully sensitive and anxious person in general while in college, having to use a bathroom with (unused) urinals present never phased me.

        Reply ↓
    4. Mockingjay*

      Even simpler: “The men’s restroom will be unavailable next week due to repairs. Please see your supervisor to arrange WFH if needed.”

      Sometimes we overcomplicate things. If one restroom is out of commission, that might run afoul of OSHA or local codes for the number of bathrooms required per X employees. It’s a temporary situation and WFH allows the company to meet the law while continuing work.

      Yes, there is a larger issue of needing nongendered restrooms. But the reality is that most existing workplaces have two gendered restrooms and those will likely not be converted anytime soon. Most businesses lease premises and property developers are loathe to spend money on remodeling unless compelled by code or statute, or to entice new leases.

      (What would really help in the short run? Better fans. There is no excuse for the anemic performance of bathroom fans.)

      Reply ↓
      1. Evan Þ*

        Simpler for management when sending out the notice, but probably more complicated for the supervisors who now need to “arrange WFH” with every affected person individually.

        Reply ↓
    5. JMC*

      The way things are going in this country OSHA won’t even be a thing anymore and employers will get to do whatever they want with no consequences.

      Reply ↓
      1. fhqwhgads*

        I am not a building expert, but my understanding is this tends to be more of a building code thing than an OSHA thing.

        Reply ↓
  6. Work environment*

    #2: With some letters, I really wonder about the work environment. There needs to be some bigger picture conflict or else I cannot see how WFH for a few days, unannounced, not free to schedule as required, could be interpreted as “benefit” instead of an “accomodation”? Is the company that stingy?

    Not everybody prefers to work from home (interference with dropping off the kids, no space or office equipment available, distraction and so on).

    Reply ↓
    1. Bookworm*

      Maybe I’m misinterpreting your comment, but there are lots of employers that are now stingy with WFH. Look at all the 5 day RTO.

      My company overwhelmingly prefers employees in the office. WFH is only occasionally approved for things such as having repair work done at home or while sick. The few times I’ve WFH, even while sick, are a treat. I’m female and not having to wear a brea is fabulous. :)

      Reply ↓
    2. Allonge*

      A benefit is whatever people like that the company can / is willing to offer. Lots of people like working from home; probably some of the women working at this place would appreciate to, even for this short period.

      An accommodation has, as far as I understand, legal meaning: a medical need to use the bathrooms every 20 minutes can be accommodated by WFH or by seating the person very close to the bathrooms etc. In the case OP is describing it’s an accommodation in a different sense I think (not a lawyer); it’s accommodating the situation where the men cannot use a bathroom for certain days in the office.

      But because it’s desirable, it can be seen as a benefit at the same time. Like, if the company supplies nice warm winter coats to staff working outside, it can be something that the in-office workers would want, even if it’s not needed for their job, right? So it’s both a benefit and an accommodation / work measure.

      And sure, if WFH is available normally, there is less of an issue. But lots of places don’t allow WFH or very little of it, for various reasons. That one thing does not point to a conflict to me.

      Reply ↓
      1. Work environment*

        “Like, if the company supplies nice warm winter coats to staff working outside, it can be something that the in-office workers would want, even if it’s not needed for their job, right? So it’s both a benefit and an accommodation / work measure.”

        I haven’t thought about it like that, but that makes sense. Thanks for providing this example!

        For me, it just seemed such a leap to consider this potentially discriminatory. It is possible that this the case nonetheless, but given the circumstances I considered this a practical solution. This reads like a small office with only one bathroom per gender. And depending on the numbers and gender ratio between the employees it might not have been so easy to just make the men use the women’s bathroom instead or to make sure all women are comfortable with this without prior communication.

        Reply ↓
        1. Allonge*

          I agree it feels quite a leap to arrive at discrimination!

          But – for better and for worse – discrimination has entered the public consciousness as a thing to watch out for an at first look, as this is along gender lines, it’s not that wild a thought, especially if you would want to WFH. How come the guys get to?

          Reply ↓
        2. fancy pants math girl*

          It might be discriminatory if women are not allowed to WFH when their bathroom is out of order, or if there is a pattern of giving the men WFH or other benefits (in the common sense, not the legal sense) but not giving women comparable benefits in similar situations, or perhaps even if the men are given these benefits as a matter of course, but the women have to go thru an onerous process to request them or suffer some negative consequence from requesting or using them.

          IANAL but that’s my understanding

          Reply ↓
    3. Person from the Resume*

      WFH is something a lot of people like. Depending on the commute (and if other life stuff is planned into the commute), it can be a treat to be told to skip the commute.

      The women restroom users can be envious that the male restroom users get a few extra WFH days. But

      I agree it’s like me being envious of everyone being off for 4 days because of the blizzard my city got but since I work from home all the time and my power and internet worked the whole time, I worked too.

      Sometime something can feel and be unfair, but it still equitable. In this case people are working in a place that has a bathroom they can use during.

      Reply ↓
  7. Lady Lessa*

    Frequently my work involves knowing and dealing with chemical regulations. I appreciate how hard it can be just to find updated regulatory information. So, I am not surprised at LW4’s HR issues. Sometimes, even when I ask the regulatory experts at our company, I have trouble getting the information. They are a small department, but still.

    sigh.

    Reply ↓
    1. Judge Judy and Executioner*

      I once worked at a company in state 1 that was acquired by a company in state 2 within a few weeks of my start date. They had no idea school district taxes existed because they weren’t a thing in state 2. It took FIFTEEN MONTHS to get accurate payroll tax on my check. Years later, I worked at a place that paid only monthly until I got a message that they were non-compliant in my state and would start paying me 2x a month to follow state law.

      To summarize, HR people SHOULD know about local laws, but they often are overworked and not proactive. In their defense, I would not expect an HR generalist to be a payroll tax expert in all 50 states, but that’s why many companies outsource payroll.

      Reply ↓
    2. Always Tired*

      I am signed up for news letters about changing regulations in my state and good lord, you get an alert the day it first gets introduced in the state legislature, and when there is a vote on it, and the legal cases the pause it, and the date the court clears it to move ahead, and the date it goes into effect. It can be dizzying to keep up. Add that it sounds like HR is dealing with multiple states and countries, it is possible to fall behind, but it’s still a bad look.

      Also like, when the state is gonna make you increase a benefit or leave or whatever, roll it out a bit ahead of time and make a big deal like you’re doing it out of care and concern for your employees, rather than admit you are only doing good because the state said you had to.

      Reply ↓
  8. A Book about Metals*

    I’m not sure I get the overall point of #2 – the company is making a short term workaround for no men’s bathroom. I don’t see how it’s discriminatory unless a similar thing happened with the women’s restroom and they couldn’t WFH.

    I’d think of it more like the heat wasn’t working in a building – you might send those people home for the day but you wouldn’t do that for employees in a different building whose heat was still working

    Reply ↓
    1. Caramel & Cheddar*

      #2 read to me as either a “settle a bet” type question (i.e. LW and their colleagues were debating it and wanted an authoritative answer from a neutral third party) or as a question from someone who themselves would love to work from home but can’t, and was seeing if there was some sort of legal argument they could make that would get the bosses to capitulate (e.g. everyone gets to work from home while the men’s bathroom is being repaired).

      Reply ↓
      1. A Book about Metals*

        Someone could “accidentally” clog the toilet or crack a pipe in the women’s room to test the theory :)

        Reply ↓
          1. A Book about Metals*

            Unless you’re working in a monumentally dysfunctional office I’d say it’s more the exception than the rule

            Reply ↓
      2. Phony Genius*

        The one thing I’m sure about is if there’s a pattern of the men’s room frequently being “out of service” and the women’s room is always working, there could be shenanigans at play that should be looked into. (This is hypothetical; nothing in the letter suggests that.)

        Reply ↓
    2. Antilles*

      The second paragraph is where my mind went too. I occasionally get emails about another office being closed for various reasons (power outage, Internet issue, weather, etc) and their employees will be working from home for a couple days until the situation resolves itself.
      I have never once felt mad about the fact I’m forced to be in the office while they’re WFH, because it’s not “discriminatory” or them getting some special perk. It’s just a temporary thing for a few days caused by an obvious impossible-to-predict situation.

      Reply ↓
      1. I Have RBF*

        Yeah, during the LA fires they let some people who normally work in office at my company work from home in case they needed to evacuate.

        Reply ↓
    3. Parenthesis Guy*

      Fundamentally, the solution provided means that men get a privliege that women don’t receive. There is a good reason for it, men don’t have a working bathroom, but it does mean that there is a different treatment for women than men and men are getting an accomodation that women would like. The way to fix this is give men and women equal accomodations and let women work from home during this period.

      Your heating case isn’t particularly relevant here. There’s no potential illegal discrimination by letting people in one building work from home and forcing another to come in. There is potentially illegal discrimination by treating males and females differently.

      Reply ↓
      1. A Book about Metals*

        Not an attorney, but I would think the discrimination would be if a similar situation happened with the women’s bathroom and they were NOT permitted to WFH

        Reply ↓
        1. Parenthesis Guy*

          That’s not the sole definition of discrimination. If I found that my company was paying men $80k and women were making $100k, I’m discriminating against men. If, in response to this, I doubled mens salary, that would remove the discrimination against men but would open me up to a discrimination lawsuit from the women.

          What it comes down is that an equitable solution requires that men and women treated equally. It’s not equitable to say that men can work from home but women can’t. That’s still discrimination even if it comes from a reasonable starting point.

          Reply ↓
          1. A Book about Metals*

            “It’s not equitable to say that men can work from home but women can’t.”

            They’re not saying that though – they’re saying that for this particular circumstance, men can temporarily work from home. If a similar thing happened to the women’s restroom, i’d think it would be discrimination if the women couldn’t work from home

            I dont’ know if this is a relevant comparison but you don’t have to let every employee leave early on a Friday in the winter because some Jewish people need to leave early then

            Reply ↓
      2. bye*

        Except the context for why the men are WFH matters too. Why would all employees get the accommodation when they’re not all affected? My coworker does a couple of days WFH because she has ongoing medical issues, I’m not going to ask for that too because it doesn’t apply to me.

        Reply ↓
        1. Parenthesis Guy*

          Because you’re not allowed to discriminate based on gender, and this is a clear cut case of discrimination by gender.

          Your example is completely irrelevant. I’m allowed to discriminate against someone that’s healthy. I just have to give reasonably accomodations to someone that isn’t. Healthy people aren’t a protected class. Females are.

          The fact is that by curing the harms created by men not having a bathroom, you’ve created a new discrimination against the women by not letting them work from home. The only way to solve that problem is let anyone work from home, not just males.

          Reply ↓
          1. sarah*

            You’re saying this with certainty but I just ran this by my brother in law who’s an employment lawyer and he laughed and said no. So what is your expertise for the claim you’re making?

            Reply ↓
            1. Parenthesis Guy*

              Expertise to explain how this situation can be seen as discriminatory? I don’t think that’s necessary. I didn’t say this person would win a lawsuit.

              Reply ↓
          2. Silver Robin*

            Not a lawyer, but Allison and the employment lawyers she has brought here have been pretty clear that the law is that you cannot discriminate along any lines of the categories laid out in the law. So if you cannot discriminate “based on ability or medical status” (paraphrasing) that includes not discriminating against people for not having a disability or medical issue as much at includes folks who do. That is why “discrimination on the basis of gender” includes men, even though men are usually not the targets and the reason that was included is because women were the ones getting hurt (this has since expanded to cover non-cis genders but my understanding of the history is that this was a binary conversation).

            Reply ↓
          3. Thorn of Queens*

            Yes, it’s discrimination, but not invidious or illegal discrimination. Any time you discriminate or treat differently people based on gender, it’s important to inquire whether it’s for a permissible reason.

            I think a lot of people are confusing the fact that this doesn’t seem unfair with the notion that this can’t be illegal. But as an attorney, it was a good question and I understand why this person was curious.

            Reply ↓
          4. Broadway Duchess*

            Females are not a protected class any more than Black people or Asian people are. The law provides for people to not be discriminated against on the basis of, among other things, sex (all), gender identity, race, etc. Straight, white men are also protected based on the fact that they have a gender identity, a sexual identity, a biological sex, and a racial identity.

            Reply ↓
      3. Skytext*

        I think the “heating case” could absolutely be relevant. Let’s say the building where the heating quit working only has men working in it, and the building that has heat just so happens to have only women working in it. So they send all the men home. But it’s not because of gender but because of a facility issue. L#2 is really no different: “this” group of employees have no access to their restroom, so have to WFH, while “that” group IS able to use their restroom, so can come into the office. The “this” group just happens to be men, while the “that” group are women.

        Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        According to my maintenance person, nothing except water should ever go down the garbage disposal. Preferably clean water.

        Reply ↓
  10. DC Cliche*

    I get #4’s frustration, but I also wonder if the reason this one is so specifically urgent is that it’s personally applicable? If so, I would think long and hard about sending a bunch of emails, unless you’re doing that for every HR update in every jurisdiction the company operates in. If they’re a couple of weeks late in implementing an age-discrimination clause in California, are you emailing folks there? Are you as on top of fertility benefits in Washington, DC, or adoption leave in France? If there’s a personal stake to this angle, be particularly self-aware about how you’re doing so and how it may be coming across to colleagues with their own private frustrations or situations.

    tl;dr it’s super-frustrating and they should be on top of their workflow, but also be mindful of becoming a Karen.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW4*

      OP here — I have no personal stake in this. This isn’t a benefit I will ever use. The only emails I’ve sent are to HR directly.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nancy*

        Do not send company-wide emails on behalf of HR. That is not your job

        People make mistakes. They are now aware and will update the policy.

        Reply ↓
        1. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

          “They will update the policy” (in a document that very few people re-check after they’ve been employed for a minute) is nothing like “they will publicize the policy so that people will be aware of it”.

          Reply ↓
          1. Nancy*

            My job sends out updates every single time they change something and it’s annoying. Most of the time, it doesn’t relate to me, and if it ever did, I wouldn’t remember the update when I needed it anyway. People should be checking policies when they need a specific benefit/accommodation. That’s what the internal website is for.

            Reply ↓
        2. I Have RBF*

          The only emails I’ve sent are to HR directly. – LW4

          Please read for comprehension before you lecture a poster on what to do.

          Reply ↓
      2. Seen Too Much*

        I am in HR. I live and work in NY, but we have offices throughout the US. The new law you are speaking about is for prenatal visits only. Right now, there is no guidance on mandatory notice to employees. As HR, we need to track the leave separately from other time off policies, and we need to let pregnant employees know of their rights. It just went into effect and it takes a while, sometimes a year or more, to get written guidance from government agencies.

        That said, we, as a company, have updated our NY Addendum of our employee manual, and our poster company has sent us an updated poster. As a company we chose to not send out an email, but to post the information where people can see it.

        There are so many little laws that change every year, we can’t email about all of them. We update the manual(s) as necessary, and put up new posters as they are received.

        And with all of that – I still double check before giving someone leave information because the leave grid is huge and things don’t go into effect right away. For example, Maryland made a big splash about their new paid family and medical leave law. The bill was passed in 2022. It was supposed to go into effect Jan 1, 2026. It has now been delayed to Jan 1, 2028. It’s hard for HR to manage leaves. We are in the process of updating out grid, and I am sure there are going to be things we missed.

        Reply ↓
        1. Always Tired*

          As a California HR, I feel you. I used to be at a company with people in 10ish states and 7 countries. It was a nightmare to keep track of what passed when and when it would go into effect and oh look, another court case to delay it.

          For something like the NY prenatal leave (I just read about it) I also wouldn’t bother emailing everyone at the company, but would add it to my email template I use when I find out about an employee pregnancy. (I also have templates for bereavement leave, workers comp/injuries, FMLA/CFRA for themselves or for caring for others, jury duty, victims of crime/DV leave, and whistleblower/complaint process and protections. So much easier to have something ready to go that I just have to check and do some fill in, rather than write an essay every time something happens.)

          Reply ↓
    2. Amy*

      I wouldn’t worry at all about “being a Karen” when it comes to the reasonable expectation that companies provide legally required benefits around prenatal leave.

      And when women are accused of being a Karen, it’s another way of saying “sit down and shut up, lady” which in the context of legal maternity leave requirements feels quite sexist.

      Reply ↓
        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Can’t be denied if you don’t even know to ask for it.

          OP happens to know of this one instance, of course OP should tell everyone if they feel comfortable doing so. Do they need to monitor every jurisdiction? No. But if an employee happens to know of something then yes they should raise it and make people aware.

          Reply ↓
                1. Lenora Rose*

                  Which is not what the letter says. The letter says they will update a policy page there’s reason to think people rarely check, and not actually send out any kind of notification.

            2. Ellis Bell*

              The whole point of the letter is that OP asked if they were going to advertise this proactively and got brushed off.

              Reply ↓
            3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

              Literally HR said they would update the internal HR website. When asked about notifying people, HR remained silent. So yeah no evidence that HR actually will tell everyone.

              Reply ↓
                1. Caramel & Cheddar*

                  As someone who has managed an intranet in the past, I can confidently say that updating a site like that is a great way to ensure no one ever reads it but you can CYA by saying you posted it somewhere everyone had access to.

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

                  I do think a company wide email would be out of touch. I think it usually is the policy that HR updates their internal information so that its available for people. As long as it’s easy to find when someone looks for leave information.

                  I don’t think the OP would be out of bounds to send an email to just the folx that work in New York or maybe someone they know in that office as a way to say “hey I saw this info, thought I’d share to make sure your staff know.” but that might depend on the culture.

                5. MigraineMonth*

                  Lol, no it isn’t. How often do you think existing employees go reread the entire HR website to see if they happen to have new benefits?

                  I’m in a role where we sometimes need to communicate new features to users. Anyone who suggested only updating internal documentation and mentioning them in the release notes would get laughed out of the room.

          2. GreenDoor*

            “Can’t be denied if you don’t even know to ask for it.” This, I believe is why they’re being dodgy about it. Because employees in other locations are going to say, “if you must do it for NY, why can’t you do it for us, too.” (Which is a reasonable demand, IMO). After all, a company can can do MORE than the law requires for something like this. But they maybe don’t want to give this benefit to all and don’t want to have to explain why NY employees get something other employees don’t.

            Reply ↓
      2. DC Cliche*

        context is important: This is not about the reasonable expectation that companies provide benefits around prenatal leave (which I support) but about the appearance to other employees when you are sending emails about a policy that likely impacts >1 percent of total employees (employees in NYS who are, in this four-week period, expectant) when you are one of the impacted employees. It sounds like this is cumulative frustration on OP’s part about policies they are personally supportive of, and so that is likely coloring both their reaction and assessment of HR’s competence. Dozens of regulations go live on Jan. 1 because of how state laws are written and yes, it is notable when a colleague sends a note about 1 and not the rest.

        Reply ↓
        1. A Book about Metals*

          I don’t see why an employee sending an email about this would be an issue. What does it matter that the LW is one of the impacted employees or not? It’s just sharing information.

          What am I missing?

          Reply ↓
          1. Amy*

            Absolutely. Between company policy and legal requirements, maternity leave can be a complex beast in the US. I’ve taken two maternity leaves and one short term disability leave in New York – the legal requirements were different both times and it was difficult to parse even with a decent HR.

            I’d be eminently grateful for a colleague staying on top of this and alerting me if I might miss out on prenatal hours. It’s the opposite of being a Karen.

            Reply ↓
            1. DC Cliche*

              The suggestion *to be mindful of how you come across when you are not part of a department or a workstream*. For instance, these are vastly different emails:

              -Hey, Lunch Buddy! I know you’re expecting and your massage appointments are helping. Just saw this — looks like they can be compensated.

              -Dear Coworkers, Since HR isn’t sharing this info in a timely fashion, I thought you all needed to be aware of this new law in New York. Can you believe them!?

              Reply ↓
              2. Ellis Bell*

                Ok, but what about sharing news of a policy where the email was professional and polite and didn’t smack talk anyone? That’s what is being recommended. Difficult to believe that needed to be spelled out.

                Reply ↓
        2. Lenora Rose*

          They’ve specifically said they will never personally use this benefit, so I’m wondering how you’re defining impacted employees.

          Reply ↓
          1. DC Cliche*

            They did not say that until I commented that *if* this were something that impacted them personally, they should proceed with self-awareness. It was not, in fact, clear at the outset.

            Reply ↓
        3. MigraineMonth*

          If I’m understanding correctly, you think that LW is planning to send a company-wide email about NY state’s maternity leave law on Jan 1st because they are annoyed HR is going to be a month late announcing it. You feel that this would be overkill and a bit precious for LW to do this for a law that affects them but not to do so for laws that don’t affect them. Is that accurate?

          First, I don’t think the law affects LW. I also don’t think they are trying to send the email to the entire company (just the NY state offices) or that they want to do it *before* HR’s announcement. LW doesn’t think that HR is going to announce the change at all, which means employees who could have benefitted from the new policy might not know it exists. (Very few of us regularly re-read our benefits pages for changes.)

          Personally, I’d love to get an email from a colleague letting me know about a new benefit my company offered (if the company itself was staying mum). Even if it doesn’t apply to me personally, it’s still less annoying than the monthly “wellness” newsletters I get.

          Reply ↓
      3. JB (not in Houston)*

        I mean, that’s not what being a “Karen” means, but I agree that this is not the kind of situation where the OP needs to worry about coming across that way.

        Reply ↓
        1. Amy*

          The term has absolutely gone from one that describes a narrow subset of wealthy entitlement around things like kids running lemonade stands to a way of policing the behavior of women in general, a new way of telling women not to be “mouthy.”

          You can read many articles on this topic in the NYT, Guardian, Atlantic and even the term’s Wikipedia entry.

          Reply ↓
          1. Ellis Bell*

            It’s always really fun to ask people who use it what the term means to them (By this, I mean a real conversation in person, not so much online) “That word varies so much by context, what exactly do you mean?” There’s always an outside chance there’s a genuine point to the use of word but when it gets really fun is they actually have no idea, but are using it as a synonym for bossy, even though no one is being bossy and it’s just a woman being audible about a need.

            Reply ↓
            1. DC Cliche*

              No: I said that *if* this did impact LW personally, they should check themselves before continuing to escalate. The way the letter was written, it came across as they were incredibly frustrated with HR, and primed to assujme the worst. And, in my experience, 98 percent of non-HR folks don’t care enough about new policies that *don’t* impact them to both write HR and then write an advice column when they don’t like the answer, so yeah, that’s a stop-and-check moment for me.

              I’m not in HR, but I do work with the team pretty closely. It is .01 percent of our entire workforce, and had about 40 new benefits to roll out this year, between union contracts and employment law (we’re a public agency, so will caveat that we’re probably more strapped than a multinational consulting firm), as well as a new payroll software. Implementing means creating regulations that go in front of our elected bodies, updating antiquated systems, using pivot tables to identify impacted employees, and retraining timekeepers to code time properly. An employee emailing about how something will be implemented, and then taking it upon themselves to email *others*, because they don’t think we’re doing enough, would definitely get looked upon with bewilderment and, if done poorly, resentment.

              Reply ↓
          2. WillowSunstar*

            Doesn’t surprise me. I have generally gotten decent job reviews and had good rapport with my teammates, but got the typical woman’s “tone” feedback because, I guess, the manager couldn’t think of anything else to tell me. Now maybe women are told not to be Karens?

            Reply ↓
        2. MigraineMonth*

          It was originally used as a modern Miss Anne, specifically about white women who weaponized white feminine fragility against black people.

          It broadened pretty quickly into any white woman who used whiteness, class privilege and faux fragility to serve her entitlement.

          Unfortunately, it has also been adopted as a general-purpose misogynist insult against “uppity” or mouthy women.

          It’s up to you which of these definitions DC Cliche was using when they said that telling others NY employees about the new maternity benefit they were legally entitled to was “being a Karen” unless they also provided information on every other law affecting benefits in every country.

          Reply ↓
      4. Seashell*

        Totally agree. It’s not being mean or entitled to expect your company to follow the law, and, if you wouldn’t call a man a name in this context, don’t do it to a woman.

        Reply ↓
      5. Ellis Bell*

        Yeah, even if we put word usage aside, I’m always going to be alarmed at advice to just.. not tell other women about their legal rights. Why on earth not? But I don’t see any reason to conclude OP is using privilege unfairly to complain, or is even complaining at all, (or whatever is meant by Karen).

        Reply ↓
        1. Lenora Rose*

          This, it definitely is not.

          There are many meanings to Karen, but not ONE of them amounts to a slur, even the most negative.

          1: A white (cis) woman who calls the police on Black people for existing in a public space, often with a desire for the Black people to be “shown their place” and coming with a potential risk of violence to the Black people.

          2: A usually-white usually-cis woman who makes unreasonable demands of staff and employees and calls on their superiors to intervene in her favour, with a desire for the employees to be shown their place and coming with a potential risk to their livelihood.

          3: Any woman who calls for an authority figure to come and help resolve a conflict, whether reasonable or not.

          4: Any woman who makes an unnecessary public scene about something that could possibly be resolved more quietly. (This seems to be where DC Cliche is landing)

          5: Any middle-class or higher white woman who is defending a policy with racist or classist implications (eg, NIMBYism).

          6: (rarely) Any woman standing up for herself.

          Reply ↓
          1. Amy*

            And which context would you put calling a someone a Karen when it involves making sure her fellow colleagues have access to their legal protections and benefits around maternity leave?

            Especially at a time when women’s prenatal rights are being aggressively attacked and in a country that has some of the worst maternity leave benefits and outcomes for pregnant women of countries in the industrialized world? And far and away, the worst outcomes in the US are for women of color who are also less likely to have access to paid leave. Standing up for women’s rights and health is only a Karen move if you have a problem with women’s voices full-stop.

            Reply ↓
            1. Lenora Rose*

              Well, personally I wouldn’t call it a Karen move at all, but the right thing to do. Karen used to dis *all* women is misogynistic.

              However, if someone did use it, I’d usually assume they fell under 6, which is a blatant misuse of the term, as in its correct usages is about a person with more privilege (white, cis, middle class or higher) trying to lord it over and curtail a person with less privilege. I’m being generous to DC Cliche above and giving them a bit more benefit of the doubt.

              My entire point was that in none of those definitions is it a *slur*, which was the assertion made. The original was, in fact, punching *up*. (and the misuse is punching *down*).

              Reply ↓
          2. New Jack Karyn*

            As a card-carrying Karyn, I gotta disagree with your (6). I’ve been called a ‘Karen’ more times than I can count–usually when I’m speaking up against racism and/or classism.

            Reply ↓
    3. Lisa Vanderpump*

      I agree. If a coworker who isn’t in HR started sending out company-wide HR policy emails I would wonder why they have so much free time at work.

      Reply ↓
      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        It’s an email. You probably waste more time reading AAM than the email would take. And its not sending out company wide HR policy. It’s notifying people of their rights.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lisa Vanderpump*

          I don’t send company wide emails about my AAM usage. Sounds like HR is updating their site with the information.

          Reply ↓
          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Which is not notifying people of their rights, its just updating a website and then well if people even know to check for updates or not. It is not sufficient.

            I didn’t say you were notifying people of your AAM usage, I said it took less time to send the email notifying them of their legal rights — which at the moment is still protected activity — than you probably spend on AAM. But please continue to be obtuse about how HR is not even doing the bare minimum here.

            Reply ↓
            1. Lisa Vanderpump*

              I’m not being obtuse, you’re being weirdly adversarial about your misunderstanding of what I’m saying. The sticking point for me here is sending out a company wide email on behalf of another department. It’s not a good look. We can disagree without getting nasty. At least I hope so.

              Reply ↓
              1. A Book about Metals*

                I could see that being a problem if it’s announcing an employee had left, or there were layoffs coming, company was acquiring another, etc. But this example is literally just sharing information – I don’t see how it’s off base

                Reply ↓
                1. Shrimp Emplaced*

                  I’m with Book here — OP can send the email with a friendly, excited coworker vibe. Like, “Oh, here’s the cool thing I just learned about our benefits” and not a corporate benefit announcement.

                2. Lisa Vanderpump*

                  It’s like the difference between a company wide email pointing out a mistake in marketing materials vs going to marketing and letting them handle.

                3. Ask a Manager* Post author

                  Lisa, it’s not about pointing out a mistake, it’s about sharing something the OP is excited to learn. Maybe you’re envisioning something different than others here.

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

              For what its worth , a lot of larger companies have a HR website where any updates (including things like changes to parental leave) are put on the website. It is up to individuals to read for any need to know info on changes. This might be what the company’s policy is. They aren’t hiding information away. They just have a different way of communicating it than what the OP wants.

              Reply ↓
              1. MigraineMonth*

                Given the recent thread on AAM about how few people even read entire two-paragraph emails they are sent, I have doubts about how effective that would be at communicating changes.

                Particularly for brand-new policies. I think there’s a significant difference between an update like “We’re changing our parental leave from 5 1/2 to 6 weeks” (which expectant parents would find when they were reading about parental leave) and “Hey, we’re now offering maternity leave” (which no one would look for, because they know it didn’t exist).

                Reply ↓
      2. Ellis Bell*

        That’s going to vary widely by company culture and people’s general attitude towards one another. If you work in a place where people are generally suspicious of motives, or nosy about how much work other people do, or think it’s their place to police that, then there’s many things that will make you too self conscious to consider doing. If on the other hand the culture is one where actual slacking is managed, (and one email is hardly that), and people feel free and supported to be collaborative and helpful, they’ll know how to recognise a simply helpful heads up when they see it.

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

        But is it a company wide email or could the OP just send it to the few people in the NY office? They could say something like “Just found out you all have this new perk in your state. Thought I would make sure you all knew. And then link to the HR’s internal system or whatever.”

        Reply ↓
    4. clevernamehere*

      THANK YOU! Please remember that even if you are a 1000 person office, you are probably a HR department of 10 with maybe one person being an expert in leave and juggling 1000 other things. I’m in HR and oversee compliance, but I’m going to be honest, we are getting hit with so many state and local jurisdiction updates that it is very hard to keep up. Of course we want employees to get what they are entitled to (and this law is amazing and I wish more states would implement something like it) but know that we have to be mindful about how often and how we communicate and two we are most likely trying to update our policies and argue with our higher ups that yes, this indeed needs to be implemented.

      Reply ↓
    5. Quinalla*

      I think this is a strange take. If you see your company apparently not following the law, seems like giving them a heads up is not a big deal and the right thing to do? I know at my company, there would be gratitude for someone pointing something like this out.

      Also, it sounds like this HR is suspect already per OP with other issues, so even more important to make sure they are doing right by the employees.

      Reply ↓
      1. DC Cliche*

        They are not doing right per the OP on the issues that they personally have a stake in. HR could be doing wonderfully on workers’ comp and fertility supports and OP could have zero clue. I may think IT is annoying because they outsource all Mac support, but they do excellently at other things in my org. If you don’t have a good vantage point on the totality of a team’s work, my personal position is to simply have grace and be self-aware.

        Reply ↓
        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          I highly doubt they are doing great on fertility support if they didn’t even know about the new law on parental leave.

          Reply ↓
          1. Amy*

            Seriously. The only thing I’ve ever wanted from HR during fertility issues, high risk pregnancies, bed rest / paid disability and pregnancy leaves was clarity on my company and legal benefits around parental leave, the NY State Average Weekly Wage and the benefit calculation.

            If I lost 40 hours of prenatal paid leave, it would trump everything else.

            Reply ↓
        2. MigraineMonth*

          I don’t see how having grace and being self-aware cannot go hand-in-hand with letting my fellow employees know about their rights *when I know them*. We are human beings with perspectives; we aren’t unbiased observers with all knowledge, but those perspectives allow us to see important information.

          It is possible to be annoyed that HR isn’t bringing the company’s policies into legal compliance without bringing out the pitchforks. You’re allowed to advocate for better parental leave policies *even if you’re a parent*. It’s okay to tell other employees in your state about their new rights under state law even if you don’t know every state’s laws. You can also mention an exciting new benefit you saw on HR’s website in an email without saying “Because HR are the spawn of the devil trying to keep you from spending time with your babies.”

          Reply ↓
    6. Mark Knopfler’s Headband*

      I am going to ask, on behalf of all the kind and considerate women in my life named Karen: PLEASE stop turning a given name into a term of abuse. You are making things very difficult for a lot of people.

      Reply ↓
    7. bookends*

      Informing your coworkers of their labor rights is not being a Karen! I really don’t understand the cutting slack for HR here – if employees aren’t actually informed of a policy change, it doesn’t exist. Like, if you create a new vacation policy, stick it in a manual somewhere, don’t tell anyone about it, and don’t have any way of informing employees of their vacation balances, they don’t really have meaningful access to that vacation time. If OP has seen similar issues with HR conveniently not informing employees of legal changes/policies in the past as they mentioned in their letter, I think this response is completely justified.

      Reply ↓
  11. Venus*

    I think OP1 should contact the contracting company ASAP and see if the position is still open. If not then they can continue at the current place to see how it goes while keeping an eye out for other options.

    When contacting the other company I would include a link to the news article in the email, because it very quickly explains the change in circumstance in a way that’s going to make OP1 seem reasonable. In other words OP1 clearly isn’t indecisive, rather they started a job at a place that suddenly made the news for being toxic and everyone would understand their desire to leave. I think OP1 should contact the contracting company ASAP and see if the position is still open. If not then they can continue at the current place to see how it goes while keeping an eye out for other options.

    When contacting the other company I would include a link to the news article in the email, because it very quickly explains the change in circumstance in a way that’s going to make OP1 seem reasonable. In other words OP1 clearly isn’t indecisive, rather they started a job at a place that suddenly made the news for being toxic and everyone would understand their desire to leave.

    Reply ↓
  12. Phony Genius*

    On #2, maybe it’s legal, maybe it’s not, maybe it depends on state or local laws. But a better question is should the company have handled it this way? Would it be a big deal to them to just let everybody work from home for two days? This avoids any legal questions and prevents any resentment that could come from employees who feel like they were treated differently.

    Reply ↓
  13. DramaQ*

    I used to work in a very old building with plumbing that had been messed with sometime in the early 70s when there were no regulations. As such at least one or the other bathroom was ALWAYS going down. These were one toilet per bathroom so it could get pretty competitive as the day went on if all of us were in office. To use the other facilities in the building would have required my team have to take off all our PPE, change our shoes and sterilize before we could go to the bathroom. It was a PITA.

    Since the R&D people had the ability to work from home they would often use that when the bathroom went down. Then we were free to use the other bathroom. Our work could not be done from home.

    It was the nature of our jobs. By them working from home it took the bathroom usage down from 11 people to 5. We weren’t upset or offended by sharing bathrooms we did it all the time when we were down a toilet but if it went longer than a day or two I appreciated there not being a line.

    Seeing responses on here I can see why the company decided it was just easier to send the men home than expect everyone to share restrooms. Could it have been worded better? Probably. Do I think it was deliberate intention sex/gender discrimination? No.

    Reply ↓
    1. Lisa Simpson*

      I worked in a gym where the city was regularly doing overnight water main maintenance outside our facility. We opened at 5 am and the overnight work didn’t finish until 7 or 8.

      So we just had a gym and pool with no toilets or showers. Folks who needed to go were sent down the street to the gas station or the supermarket, which is totally legal and not a health code violation, not at all.

      Reply ↓
  14. j*

    Another reason not to accept a job just because of the manager: they might leave! I accepted my current role mostly because the manager seemed (and was) amazing… only to have her hand in her notice during my second week.

    Now, I was very lucky and ended up liking the job and the company, so I’m still here and (mostly) happy six years later, but I will still never make that mistake again.

    Reply ↓
    1. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

      This. I had a great interview process once, great match between job and skills, and they decided to bring me on permanently instead of as a contract. Before I actually started the job, the person I had interviewed with took a promotion and I was reporting to someone I’d never met before (and with whom I absolutely did not mesh). It did not work out.

      Reply ↓
  15. Another Academic Librarian too*

    Yes NEVER take a job because of the hiring manager. I was in a toxic work situation for 5 months (started interviewing at month four) I vetted the hiring manager through professional contacts. It was an entry level job in a profession I thought I wanted to be in. (but knew nothing) Everyone LOVED working for her. She was smart and great at her job. She was a terrific mentor and beloved by all.
    Yes, and it was all true. AND after 2 week in position she resigned and went to work for a client across the country. I was on my own trying to keep things afloat when they hired the new department manager.
    He took me to lunch and said, I reviewed your background and I never would have hired you.
    It was downhill from there. I lasted a year.

    Reply ↓
    1. Another Academic Librarian too*

      If this wasn’t clear- The toxic work experience was one that I jumped into at the time I moved for my husbands job. I was grateful to have a job but it soon became apparent that is was a bad situation. I obsessively vetted the one I was applying to , to avoid the same situation.

      Reply ↓
    2. Strive to Excel*

      Well. That at least sets expectations from the new boss. What a stupid way to approach a new department you’re taking over. I’m sorry that happened to you!

      Reply ↓
  16. Melicious*

    I have also been the one to inform HR of a state law change. I had done my research before going to HR to discuss my maternity leave, and they did not know of a recent change (in my favor). So, they really SHOULD keep updated, but if you need a benefit that’s regulated by law, always do your own research.

    Reply ↓
  17. Just Thinkin' Here*

    For #1 – While I’ve never specifically taken a job just because of the hiring manager, some of the other comments stating that the kindness of hiring manager isn’t part of the decision is a bit extreme. Most people leave their jobs because of [poor] management, so the manager is a major component of job satisfaction. Being nice and professional in an interview is a minimal requirement, everyone is on their best behavior. If the hiring manager is unprofessional or unkind, then I would not accept the position.

    Reply ↓
    1. iglwif*

      While I would not suggest taking a job just because you hit it off with the hiring manager, I would absolutely suggest not taking a job if the hiring manager can’t pretend not to be a jerk even for the length of an interview.

      It’s like those COVID lateral-flow / rapid antigen tests: False negatives are pretty common but false positives are very rare, so I trust 1 positive test more than 1 negative test.

      Reply ↓
  18. Sneaky Squirrel*

    #3 – It’s likely that the ones who are seriously interested in the job posting have already applied through the ATS and are now just trying to find ways to stand out. But if they couldn’t be bothered to read and follow the instructions of the job posting, then that’s on them.

    #4 -From a personal standpoint of someone not living in New York, I would be exceptionally annoyed if my colleagues in New York emailed me every time New York made a change to an employment or benefits law that only affected them just as I expect that my colleagues in New York would be exceptionally irritated if I emailed them every time the state/local jurisdictions made changes to an employment law in my area. I don’t think OP realizes that these changes to employee’s rights and labor conditions happen as frequently as they do. If this is a policy change that is impacting a very small subsect of the staff in the office, it’s not surprising to me that HR wouldn’t make a big special announcement about this.

    Additionally, it is so, so easy for a company with 1000 employees spread out so widely to miss changes to laws. Employment laws change so frequently at not just a country, state, and federal level, but a city and jurisdiction level as well When your staff work remotely, you have to have your eye out for everything; because even if you don’t have staff living there now, you could have staff living there in the future. There is no central repository for important news companies need to follow to stay compliant. Many of us are information sharing with our peers, HR companies, law firms, HR news sites to stay ahead, but it’s usually only a handful of people monitoring employment laws and news articles for the entire US/countries that they work in.

    Reply ↓
    1. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

      > There is no central repository for important news companies need to follow to stay compliant.

      Alison included this line: “at a minimum, there are subscription services that will alert employers to legal changes in the states where they operate, and any company with employees in multiple locations should be using those if they’re not monitoring on their own”

      Reply ↓
    3. blood orange*

      I came here to say this re: #4. In addition to it being pretty challenging to keep up with local, state, federal, and multiple jurisdictions, many HR departments are stretched thin. For instance, I’m the only HR person for a company shy of 300 employees. I don’t just do payroll, benefits and policies, either. I’m responsible for training, performance management, tech support on our HRIS, surveys, strategic planning, audits, total compensation, etc.

      Re: the other two responses on this thread – it is more challenging than it seems, and many many HR departments are mired in outdated practices and/or don’t have the authority to implement a paid service like the one “I have RBF” mentions. Additionally, that service would not cover everything for me (as it appears to; I have a similar service).

      With that said, I’m pretty good at staying on top of things with these methods – that poster service I noted, multiple free subscriptions, our HRIS community, a portal we pay for specifically designed to do this, to name a few. You have to get very good at finding those resources, and for the best ones (read: paid), convince your boss to get the budget for it. It should be easier, IMO, but it’s the job and it carries a lot of responsibility that directly affects your colleagues.

      Even with everything on my plate, I consider myself a decent HR department (of one), and I do stay on top of employment laws, regulations AND how frequently they change. I don’t think OP has decent, or maybe just not great HR, based on the details in the letter. They’re either willfully not great, or they have other factors stacked against them. I’d honestly guess the former based on what little I know, but some grace that it is a challenging position on average.

      Reply ↓
  19. iglwif*

    LW3: Someone may be advising people to do this, unfortunately! I was unemployed for a while last year and part of my severance package was “outplacement services”, which included webinars on things like how to use LinkedIn for networking. A lot of it was fine and normal, but I had to turn my camera off to hide my reaction when one of the instructors started talking about how you should find people at companies you’d like to work for, look at their profiles for literally any common interest you may have with them, and then message them to introduce yourself based on that. Later in the same webinar: When you see a job posting you’re interested in, message the hiring manager with a question about something in the posting and ask for 15 minutes of their time to talk about it.

    This is transparently bad advice for all kinds of reasons, but if you haven’t had to job-search for a while and someone is telling you this is how networking works now …

    Reply ↓
  20. Radish Cake*

    I wonder how much of #3 is because they’re recruiting for IT in particular – the tech industry is not doing well right now and people are extremely desperate. It doesn’t matter if you irritate a few hiring managers with a message if you’re already applying to 200+ positions a month.

    There’s also been quite a bit of advice floating around recommending that you cold message hiring managers to gauge their interest before applying online, since there’s a good chance no one is monitoring the ATS anyways.

    Reply ↓
    1. recruiteradjacent*

      “There’s a good chance no one is monitoring the ATS anyways.”

      What evidence is there to support this, from the folks that are spreading this? I have worked close to recruiters, have friends in recruiting, and they are definitely monitoring incoming applications. They just aren’t reviewing ALL the applications, and as we know, they’re not always sending out rejections. They do not have time to individually screen all 200 applicants that come in for a single position, plus handle all the other tasks that come with recruiting. Multiply that times multiple job postings on their plates. An applicant’s resume might be at the bottom of the list after the keyword search the recruiter does on those 200 applicants. It could also be # 30 out of 200, but the recruiter reviewed the top 15 to decide what 6 to send to the hiring manager.

      If they have viable candidates from the first wave of applicants and haven’t been given the directive to unpost the position, then sure, they’re not monitoring further incoming applicants. But unless it’s a spam position, the idea that the ATS is not being monitored is laughable. Recruiters have to jump through hoops to get positions created in their ATS’s. They don’t want to do the admin work to open a position to just collect resumes for no reason.

      Reply ↓
  21. mbs001*

    #4 – the 20 hours of prenatal leave would be included already in leave given by any company that gives paid sick leave to employees. it wouldn’t be an addition to any sick leave. This law will supposedly only protect people who work for companies that don’t offer paid sick leave.

    Reply ↓
  22. I'm just here for the cats!!*

    In regards to #4. I think theres a lot going on here. I think the OP feels that HR is trying to hide something from the New York employees. Yes they were wrong to not have known about the new update but it sounds like they are doing the right thing. They are putting information on the internal website. Unless this website is just for HR I do not see a problem for this. Many company’s use a website for any HR news or communication and it is up to the employees to look for any new information. My work does this. there may sometimes be a blurb on the company newsletter but it will say to go to the HR page for updates.
    Unless HR has had a habit in the past of alerting employees via email about changes I do not think them just putting the information on their website is a problem.

    Reply ↓
    1. Wilbur*

      At my company, updating the policy would mean that this change would be buried in a PDF that takes a bit of navigating to get to. It’s the equivalent of sticking the bag of chips in the back of the pantry. If chips aren’t something that’s ever been available before, why would someone be looking for them? It’s part of HRs job to communicate benefits, it’s a benefit that would make a pretty big difference to some employees. If they ignore effective communication methods then I’d equate it to lying by omission.

      Reply ↓
      1. Always Tired*

        There’s only so much we can do. I tell everyone about the updates annually in the all hands, in an email, and send everyone a copy of the policies. I have a big section labeled “PREGNANCY LEAVE AND RIGHTS” right in between the New Parent Leave and FMLA leave sections, that covers everything and no one but me and the really pedantic guy who likes to find my grammatical errors reads it. When someone comes and says “I’m pregnant, what do?” I send them a nice little email summarizing the leaves available, job protections, and rights, with links to more informative documents and the government websites they’ll need for SDI payments while out, and they usually don’t read half of that, either. Short of standing over someone’s desk and making aggressive eye contact while reciting everything, not sure what else I could do.

        I’m not saying OP’s workplace is doing well, I’m just saying I get told I’m being sneaky and no one told them about this and yadda yadda yadda when, in fact, I’ve made every reasonable attempt to communicate it. OP may also be unaware of other factors. Like, I wouldn’t send a NY employee wide email about new types of pregnancy leave right after one of them lost a pregnancy, but I also wouldn’t tell someone else that was the reason.

        Reply ↓
  23. MassMatt*

    LW #1 I get that you have been traumatized by bad bosses/work places, but I hope you will do some more research before accepting your next job so you can avoid this kind of thing happening again. Alison’s “how to spot bad jobs” is a great resource.

    Whenever I have interviewed somewhere, I try to get time to talk with other people working there. Many if not most interviewers offer this as part of the process (bonus points to them!). When they haven’t, I find asking if I can talk to some of the people I’d be working with generally does the trick. I have never had an employer act as though this were a strange or suspicious request, and would seriously side-eye any employer that did.

    This saved me from taking a job where “working some extra hours in a busy period” turned out to mean “work 60+ hours per week, and MORE in busy periods”.

    Reply ↓
  24. Susie*

    To LW 2 about the bathrooms: it seems odd they didn’t work around a deal with a neighboring office building or business, or a knocking system to use the one set of bathrooms or 30 minute rotating schedule. To let the men work remote as opposed to everyone strikes me as very exclusionary, and I would wonder if there are more example of preferential treatment of men in this office. If a group of you banded together and got a discreet consult from a trusted person in a parallel industry, or perhaps discussed with an employment attorney off the record there may be more things going on. Seems like an extreme response to some toilets being out of service whether it be technically legal or not.

    Reply ↓
  25. Filicophyta*

    OP3 Flooded Messages. I used to hire on a much smaller scale. I had a ready reply that said something like; “The answer to your question is in the job posting. Please read it again and apply as directed”.
    Only a couple times did anyone apply again, and they were never very good (or in one case they thought they were too good). So, why did I bother? Well, it only took a moment, and I hoped I might help a young newcomer who’d been given bad advice somewhere. But, as I say, it was very small scale, not in the hundreds, like you.

    Reply ↓
  26. CubeFarmer*

    #4: to be honest, the only time I’ve encountered a job description that was non-compliant with my state’s posting rules was for a search process run by both a search firm AND the organization’s HR. That search process had a lot of red flags that I eventually withdrew from the process.

    HR is intended to protect the company, not you, so I think the philosophy is “What issues are we most likely to be sued over?”

    Reply ↓
  27. Bonkers*

    Lw4: any chance there’s a slack channel that might be more appropriate to share about the prenatal leave? A company wide email seems (to me) like it would be way out of your lane, but a more casual outlet seems perfect.

    Reply ↓
  28. JadziaSnax*

    #1 – ooooh boy, this was so similar to my situation a year ago I wondered if I’d sleptwallk through emailing AAM and just didn’t remember it. HAVING been in nearly this exact situation, now a year into the job: the fact that your boss was not forthright with you about the news story and the accusations of toxicity seems like a huge red flag to me. My very first day of work my boss sat me down and was like “just so you know, a hit piece on grandboss & our department specifically came out in the local paper yesterday, I want you to read it and please come to me with any questions or concerns you have, here’s my honest take on the whole situation.” The fact that she seems instead to just be hiding from the whole thing doesn’t sound promising, and I’d probably advise getting out if possible.

    (A year in – the accusations of toxicity were DEFINITELY NOT WRONG, but my boss does a decent job of shielding us all from the worst of it. If he hadn’t I think I’d have quit from being retraumatized [have also had some deeply bad jobs in the past] a long time ago)

    Reply ↓
  29. Susan*

    I am shocked that the HR department didn’t know about the NYS law change. It has been a huge point of discussion in this state. Everyone in my small workplace is done with childbearing, and we all new. There have even been mainstream news outlet articles about it. I understand not being able to keep up with every esoteric change, but this is major. I wonder what other legally required benefits they are not giving employees.

    Reply ↓
  30. As I Live and Breathe, Raisin?!*

    I have also worked someplace that made the news due to the management’s behavior/actions and honestly the news didn’t even do it justice. One or two people complaining could be just people who are never satisfied but 9 of 15 is 60%. Plus how is upper management handling the accusations? If they are brushing off accusations from 60% of their workforce they probably don’t care about their workers.

    Reply ↓
  31. FunkyMunky*

    #1 – email the contractor company yesterday and plan your exit. I don’t think talking to your boss about this is a good idea, especially as she’s hiding at home anyway.

    Reply ↓
  32. Bikirl*

    #2 Whether it’s illegal or not, it veers toward discriminatory to let only the men WFH because the men’s restroom is out. The company could have handled this situation in other ways. For example they could turn the working women’s restroom into a one person at a time restroom for the time being, and given all staff the choice of working from home while the men’s room was being fixed.

    Reply ↓
  33. Rain*

    #3

    I’d include verbiage in the job listing to the effect of “Only candidates who apply through the website [or whatever system you have set up] will be considered.”
    Then you can delete those emails without feeling any guilt (I wouldn’t feel any to begin with), knowing that those people wouldn’t be good candidates anyway, since they can’t follow simple instructions.

    Reply ↓
  34. Random Academic Cog*

    LW 3, to further bolster the advice given, I’ve discovered through the years that people who don’t or can’t follow the instructions on how to apply or otherwise behave oddly bring that same approach to the job if they’re hired. Pay attention when they’re telling you, by their actions, who they are.

    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