swiping on a coworker on a dating app, bosses gave a perk to their spouses instead of to employees, and more

by Alison Green on March 20, 2025

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

1. Is swiping on a coworker on a dating app grounds for an HR meeting?

Asking for a friend: They absent-mindedly swiped on a coworker in a dating app (whom they asked out once two years earlier). Said coworker was uncomfortable with that and went to HR, and they all had a sit-down about leaving said coworker alone.

I am all for not harassing people you work with romantically, but I am also conflicted — is swiping right on a coworker on Bumble or Tinder grounds for an HR intervention?

They are both on a dating app, after all — a place where you are opening up yourself to these kinds of interactions explicitly. And then the interaction has to be mutual anyway — both people need to “initiate” conversation here, without knowing if the other person has done so. (Apparently in this case their coworker was paying for premium rights to see who was swiping on them, and spoke with HR without initiating.)

Dating apps also location-based, and so a lot of coworkers might show up there. Having worked at a 500-person office, I probably have swiped on several without realizing! A lot of people also use these by quickly swiping, not necessarily making a researched decision every time.

I might be utterly off-base here, but I want to be sure not to alienate people I work with. What would be the correct etiquette here?

This doesn’t sound like someone who reported a coworker to HR simply for swiping right on them on a dating app. Their perspective is likely that the coworker had already asked them out and been told no, now they’re making another overture, and they work together so it’s extra aggravating that they weren’t respecting the original no.

It still could have been overkill to involve HR — but so much of this depends on how your friend handled the original rejection and how they’ve treated the coworker since then.

Related:
I matched with a coworker on a dating site
if you’re thinking of asking a coworker on a date…

2. Our bosses gave a perk to their spouses instead of to other employees

Our company is very small, three joint owners and three employees.

Our company has a business relationship with another company, and as a result they’ve offered tickets to the F1 Grand Prix in our area this year. Both bosses immediately planned to use the tickets on both themselves (this is understandable) and then both of their spouses. My question is about the latter — is it actually appropriate for them to share this perk with spouses instead of employees? It just struck me as a bit weird and self-interested for the initial instinct to be to share it with their spouses, who are unaffiliated with the company in any way outside of being their romantic partners, instead of with the very few employees they actually have.

I would love to have some insight on whether or not this is appropriate or normal behavior, as I don’t know if I should speak up and say that it bothered me that romantic partners who don’t work here were going to be seeing perks that employees are not.

It’s definitely a thing that happens with certain perks. It varies by company, but in a lot of workplaces there isn’t an automatic assumption that this sort of perk will distributed equitably, or that executives’ spouses won’t be included ahead of employees. You see it particularly with tickets, but you also see it with dinners out and trips (where spouses might be included too)

I don’t think it’s an outrage that warrants complaining about it, but it’s also not particularly gracious of the owners, and it’s something really good leaders wouldn’t do. Good leaders see that kind of gift as an opportunity to reward people, build morale, and make them feel like a valued part of the team (and that’s true even if the tickets were specifically a thank-you to the owners for choosing to give their business to the other company).

But while I don’t think you should complain, per se, there’s also nothing wrong with asking if employees can be included the next time something like that is offered.

3. My manager is from a country at war with mine

I am living in Europe but I have a lot of family in Ukraine. My job just hired a new line manager for my team, an external hire. Today was their first day on the job and we had a team meeting where we were all being introduced for the first time. After a round of introductions, they said, “I noticed that there are multiple people from Ukraine on the team. I am from Russia, I wonder how that will go.” My internal reaction was, “Yes, I wonder as well, and I really wish this wasn’t sprung up on me in a team meeting.” Obviously, we should all treat people as individuals, I don’t know what their position is on the war, and good for them for noticing the inherent trickiness of the situation. But they didn’t follow up with any explicit comments about what they believe, and even just that makes me worried about how I’d have to phrase things about them. My job has been happy with my performance so far but there has been periodic impact on my day-to-day work when family and friends had various losses, injuries, and close calls that affected me as well, and I generally gave context to my manager about what was going on without thinking too hard about how to phrase it.

Do you think my company should have done anything differently (other than not hiring a good candidate, which seems unreasonable)? Are there things that I should consider for dealing with this? In the past all my managers checked in with me on how things were going and while I don’t rant about my personal life, I haven’t had to worry about saying something controversial before, I guess I had the good luck of working with people who had similar views on political events that affected me personally.

It would have been odd if your company had done anything differently. People aren’t their countries, and there’s no reason to assume anything either way about the new hire’s stance; the only thing it makes sense to assume is that they’ll behave professionally no matter what political differences they might have with team mates (on anything, not just this). If that turns out not to be the case, that’s something you’d need to escalate, but that would be an aberration, not something anyone should go in expecting will happen.

The new hire’s comment was a little awkward, but it actually doesn’t reveal much and likely was borne out of feeling awkward about things themself.

I think, too, that if you’re affected by something affecting your family’s safety, it’s still fine to share that! It’s likely to go better if everyone proceeds from the assumption that all involved are decent people with empathy for others. If that turns out not to be the case, you’ll find out soon enough (and is something you’d need to escalate, per my first paragraph), but don’t ascribe that to them prematurely.

I hope your family is safe.

4. How to say “this was your idea” to my manager

I have a new skip-level boss who is making me insane. There are a number of ways she’s not good at managing and working for her is incredibly unpleasant, so I’m trying to get out even though I love my job. In the meantime, I need to survive a recurring dynamic.

“Andrea” will tell me to create a spreadsheet showing X, Y, and Z information. All this is available in our reporting system, but she wants it in a spreadsheet format. Then she’ll tell me to add on A and B. This will take me days to create. I’ll send it to her, and then wake up with comments all over the sheet: “Why are we reporting on B?” “How did you define X?” “What is this A column?”

The answer to all of those is… you asked me for it. You told me you wanted to see B so there it is. X is defined as exactly what you told me to pull. Column A is the column that you said you needed. I feel like either I’m stupid because I can’t understand why this keeps happening, or she’s forgetting what she asked for. She is unpleasant and does not take feedback well, so I am very hesitant to name the dynamic; my direct manager is kind but not able to shield me.

What’s a professional script for “I have no idea why you wanted this, but you asked for it so I gave it to you” when I get asked about things like this?

Start preempting the question when you initially send the work. For example, when you send her a spreadsheet with edits she requested, write this in the email: “You asked me yesterday to add A and B to the C spreadsheet, so I’ve done that here. A is defined as ___ and B is defined as ___. Please let me know if you want me to do it differently.”

If you miss the chance to do that and end up getting questioned later about why you did something she asked you to do, it’s fine to say, “My understanding from your feedback on Tuesday was that you wanted me to add A and B. Did I misunderstand what you were looking for?” Say this neutrally, like you’re genuinely curious if you misunderstood something, not with a subtext of “how do you not remember this?”

You can also try shooting her a quick summary of your take-aways when she requests things from you. For example: “To recap, I’ll add A and B to the C spreadsheet, defining A as ___ and B as ___, and will have it back to you tomorrow.”

5. Should I list myself as currently employed?

I am/was a federal probationary employee (i.e., I have less than a year of government service). Just over a month ago, I was swept up in the mass termination of probationary employees across the federal government. This week, I was reinstated as part of a temporary restraining order in a court case challenging the legality of that mass termination. However, in the intervening month, my entire unit was subjected to a reduction in force (also of questionable legality and about to face legal challenge). Therefore, when I was reinstated, I was immediately placed on paid administrative leave, which will continue until the reduction in force takes full effect and I am completely separated from federal service (in the absence of legal intervention).

I am of course applying for other jobs, but now that I’ve been reinstated, I don’t know how to represent or how much to explain my current circumstances in application documents. How do I list my employment status while I’m on paid administrative leave? Do I just use “present” as the end date of my government service and leave it at that? Or should I list the date I was terminated, which was the last time I did any substantive work as a government employee? If I list myself as presently employed, do I need to explain in my cover letter why I’m looking for alternate employment after less than a year on the job? Or do employers understand why federal employees are all searching for jobs at this point, regardless of their exact circumstances?

You’re still legally an employee there, so go ahead and list your employment as “to present” (so “May 2024 – present” or whatever). That’s reasonable to do regardless, and it’s especially reasonable given how much uncertainty is surrounding all of this.

You don’t need to explain the situation in your cover letter — hiring managers know — but it’s also fine to allude to it in a single sentence if you want to; just don’t use any more cover letter real estate on it than that. (More about that here.)

You may also like:
{ 471 comments }

{ 471 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).

    A change to previous requests: please don’t reply “reported,” either. Do not engage at all. Thank you.

    Reply ↓
  2. Zombeyonce*

    #2: While I agree with Alison’s advice, I do think it changes if one of the employees who didn’t get to enjoy the perk is the person who works most closely with the company that gave the gift. If I were, say, the main contact on that account and got skipped over in favor of executives’ spouses, I’d be pretty miffed. I’d think the gifting company would also be unhappy in those circumstances.

    Reply ↓
    1. Cmdrshprd*

      I can understand you being upset, but idk if the giving company would unless they gave the to you directly/specifically.

      If they gave them to the boss/owners it was most likely to gain favor with the people that pay to use them rather than person who interacts more with it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Yeah actually the company who gave the gift might be equally miffed if an underling/nondecision-maker was sent instead of the top people, who the company is trying to influence with this gift. It’s almost certainly not a “thank you.” That said, if it happens again I would be even more disappointed if the owners choose to go multiple times, not letting anyone else go once.

        Reply ↓
        1. Le Sigh*

          That is a crazy take. You’d be mad that a less rich person gave the person that makes money for them a perk?

          This is why.

          Reply ↓
      2. zuzu*

        My first year of law practice, I was left out of a client lunch at a very fancy French restaurant to celebrate the clinching of the client relationship explicitly because I was too junior and they thought the client would feel some kind of way if the firm brought along junior associates to the lunch, which the client was paying for.

        And then two of the partners got food poisoning from an oyster appetizer at the lunch and had to try to hide that while on a call with the client later.

        Reply ↓
      1. huh*

        But if the employee is pretty much the reason the relationship exists, shouldn’t they be included in the perk?

        Reply ↓
        1. PineappleColada*

          That’s just not how these things work a lot of the time. The gift is meant to curry favor/build the relationship with the top decision-makers. In a small firm, the owners.

          The gift giving company really wants the owners to use it in whatever way

          Reply ↓
        2. Rex Libris*

          Rightly or wrongly, these sorts of perks are usually aimed at whoever signed the contract, not whoever did the work.

          Reply ↓
        3. perks*

          Right! From the letter it seems like they have 6 people working there and received 6 tickets. I would think the vendor intended the 3 employees to attend, not rando significant others.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dido*

            I wouldn’t assume that at all, seems standard for an executive to bring his spouse as his +1 instead of a low level employee

            Reply ↓
          3. Username required*

            No – if I was the vendor I’d want the owners plus wives/significant others to attend. The owners are the ones that buy my services and pay the bills. I’m wanting to improve my relationship with them not their employees.

            Reply ↓
        4. Smithy*

          In the sense of why those types of gifts are given – often times the answer to that is just no.

          Even in something like nonprofit fundraising, I used to have a job where there were a lot of donor hosted events. Even though I was the primary contact with all of these donors, it was not uncommon for the invitations for more exclusive events/dinners to be sent to my boss (the Executive Director). As my boss hated all of those events, she’d always have me call and attend on her behalf. Usually the invitation would be transferable, but occasionally it wasn’t despite the event just being a fancy dinner or party.

          Also, given that my boss truly hated these events – on the occasions when it wasn’t transferable, and I believed genuinely important for her to attend – she would call in sick the day of and then have me ask if I could attend on her behalf due to her illness. Having gone to two dinners that way, I can say with 100% certainty…..I was not the target invite.

          Reply ↓
      2. LaminarFlow*

        Yes! TBH, I would assume that any perks/tickets given to a company will be used by the owners & whoever they invite, unless they don’t want it/can’t use the perk.

        I would also assume that if Company A wants the specific person who works directly with them at Company B to experience a gifted perk, Company A would give that person the perk directly, as opposed to giving the perk to Company B in general.

        Another factor to consider is if employees at Company B are expected to attend the F1 race with their managers on a Sunday (or any event outside of company time) is it infringing on their work/life balance? Is it considered overtime? Will employees who don’t care about an event feel obligated to attend, just to keep things cool with management? IDK. Probably a little overthinking in this last paragraph, but I don’t think it is out of line for the owners and their spouses to use the F1 tickets, as opposed to giving the tickets to employees.

        Reply ↓
    3. MK*

      That might apply when a client gave a perk directly to the person who did most of the work for them, and then the CEO butted in and took it for themselves. With such a small company, it’s unlikely.

      Reply ↓
    4. Works in IT*

      So far we’ve sent our team lead and his wife to every single vendor sponsored event for this one vendor we have. The vendor owns a company box in a hockey stadium and is always inviting us to go. He’s the only person on our team who LIKES hockey.

      To his credit though, he does ask us if we want to go. The only reason I even remember it’s hockey is last time he was asking me if I wanted to take them up on it I said “I don’t even know what sport that is!” and he told me it’s hockey.

      Reply ↓
    5. The Starsong Princess*

      Generally, when tickets are given out, the recipient receives a pair and brings their plus one. I’ve never received just one ticket for an event.

      Reply ↓
    6. Overthinking It*

      Given all that’s been said about managers not socializing with subordinates, I don’t see a better way of distributing the tickets than assuming the ones the people they were presented to will take their partners/family members/friends to use the companion seats. Pretty sure that’s what the donors intended anyway. And besides this is a tiny company, but if it were larger, how could you fairly distribute the “perk”? If there were even only one more employee, taking 3 underlings and leaving one out would have very bad optics – even if you drew straws. And if it were a large team, and you could only take one or two, well . . . that’s Favoritism!”

      Being able to accept that “Life is unfair” and “Rank hath it’s priveledges” will make you happier than stewing over it how to make it fair.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nomic*

        “I’m not supposed to socialize with subordinates, therefore I’m keeping this perk to myself and my wife” is a pretty gross misrepresentation of that dynamic.

        Reply ↓
    7. fhqwhgads*

      I think the entire framing of “skipping in favor of the exec’s spouses” is sort of a misread on the entire thing by the OP. Specifically because it is tickets.

      Vendor gives X tickets. Owners keep tickets for themselves. Take their spouses. That’s still just a flavor of “owners keep it for themselves”. Generally speaking, I’d consider a pair of tickets as one gift to one person. Could the owners have technically given individual employees one ticket each? Sure. And if the tickets were all being used for some sort of employee outing, that might make sense. But other than that, it’s fairly unusual to give a solo ticket to an event.

      If the vendor had given the owners, say, 4 VR goggles, and they each took two and gave the second to their spouses, that’d be giving the perk to the spouse. But the ticket example is a different context.

      Reply ↓
    8. JustaTech*

      On the gifting company being unhappy – years ago we had two teams at my site who worked with one vendor of a specialty item. My team was the main user and main contact, and the other team was a much more sporadic user.

      One year in January our regular vendor contact awkwardly brought up in a meeting something about us not liking the gift basket they sent in December. “Gift basket? What gift basket?”
      Turns out the vendor sent a gift basket and somehow the head of the other team got a hold of it and *ate the whole thing himself*! Didn’t even share it with his team!
      So the vendor thought we were rude for not saying thank you, because of course the other team lead didn’t bother to thank the vendor.

      But that was a case of mis-allocation of the gift and poor manners.

      Reply ↓
  3. Bflat*

    There’s no gender mentioned in the letter, but in the response it becomes a man swiping on a woman’s profile.

    “He” could have been thinking “she” might have changed her mind after two years and anyway wouldn’t see the swipe unless she swiped him too. Little did he know she’s paying to be able to see matches in advance and report them.

    Reply ↓
    2. Pumpkin cat*

      Yes, the not knowing about paying to see swipes is important. If the swipes only thinks it will seen if there is mutual interest, that’s important know! I think the other person overreacted. Asking someone out, followed by two years of nothing, than a casual swipe in a dating app (that shouldn’t have been seen if they were being normal) is not an escalation to HR issue. Something is perhaps missing here, maybe the swiper is extra awful/creepy and has been flirty with the other person too much.

      Reply ↓
      1. MK*

        The “followed by two years of nothing” part is an assumption, though. In most cases, when someone is fired/reprimanded/faced consequences that looked like a complete overreaction, it’s often in the context of that person’s behaviour being an issue, and the “minor” thing being really the last drop.

        Also, I think a person with good judgement wouldn’t try their luck again; that they might have changed their mind is a ludicrously inadequate reason, given an explicit rejection. And if going to HR is an overreaction, what would be reasonable? Talking to them themselves? Why should they have to initiate conversation with someone who makes them uncomfortable?

        Reply ↓
          1. Magdalena*

            In this case the OP is hearing about the situation second-hand though. As someone who does not work there themselves, they are necessarily not privy to that workplace’s dynamics.

            Reply ↓
          2. Kella*

            In this context, OP1 is not in a position to know whether or not this is part of a broader pattern. If there have been other problems, OP’s friend may or may not be fully aware of the significance of them, and if they are, they may not have shared that with OP in order to paint themselves in a better light. The people who’d have this information are the coworker who went to HR, and potentially HR as well.

            Reply ↓
            1. Observer*

              OP1 is not in a position to know whether or not this is part of a broader pattern. If there have been other problems, OP’s friend may or may not be fully aware of the significance of them,

              Exactly. And given that the description of this swipe was “absent minded”, I have to suspect that there is more going on than the LW realizes.

              Reply ↓
          3. Nodramalama*

            We can believe LW. LW didn’t write in about their own experience. They’re believing what they’ve been told, which is very much fair game to query.

            Reply ↓
        2. huh*

          They could just block the coworker on the dating app instead of going to HR. Keep screenshots or whatever in case they continue to escalate.

          Reply ↓
          1. MsM*

            Except that if they wait until it escalates, they may not be in a situation where they can wait while HR sorts through all the prior warning signs and wants to know why they didn’t report sooner.

            Reply ↓
          2. Fluffy Fish*

            It seems clear that they do consider the dating app interaction to be escalation.

            No one gets to decide for someone else what is “enough” harassment.

            Reply ↓
            1. Jessica*

              Ah yes, all those whiny babies who want to just do their jobs and not be treated like sexual objects at work.

              Reply ↓
            3. Beth*

              It’s not ‘whiny baby’ to be like “I already told my coworker I’m not interested and they’re still showing interest/trying to feel me out/obviously looking for opportunities to pursue me.” That’s bad behavior! Once someone rejects you, you need to move on, not lurk in the wings waiting for a chance to try again. “I didn’t think she’d catch me at it” or “it’s been a while, I wanted to know if the answer’s changed” aren’t good excuses, either.

              It sounds like LW1’s friend experienced pretty minor consequences here. They made a coworker uncomfortable; they had an awkward conversation with HR. I don’t think that’s disproportionate.

              Reply ↓
              1. Nomic*

                In general usage the co-worker wouldn’t have known about the interest unless they had been interested as well. It’s set up to be a perfect, “If you’re interested in me now we’ll both know, otherwise I know you aren’t, and you would never even know I checked.”

                Reply ↓
                1. Beth*

                  I don’t think that’s true! I’ve used a lot of different dating sites over the years, and while most of them don’t show swipes to free users, it’s been really clear on all of them that anyone who pays for the premium version can see swipes. That’s been one of the most advertised features. It seemed obvious to me that at least some people would buy the premium version, so obviously at least some people can see swipes. They’re not private.

                  I also don’t think it makes it OK even if there was a general expectation of privacy. “I know you rejected me, but I’ve been carrying a torch and looking for chances to try again, I didn’t think you’d catch me at it” is still a bad attitude! When someone rejects you, you need to take their “no” as final and move on.

                2. Gabby*

                  In addition to Beth’s comment, this isn’t true even for the free version on all apps. Hinge, which is the most popular app in my major US city for people seeking serious relationships, shows you a stack of people who’ve indicated interest in you. In the free version, they’re ordered from most to least recent and you have to make a decision on each one to reveal the next one (vs. the paid version where you can browse through everyone who’s interested in you) – but even on free Hinge, you can see people who have indicated interest in you, and you get a push notification – “Wakeem liked you!” – whenever someone does.

        3. PinkUnicornClub*

          I agree this person showed bad judgment, even only going off of the facts as laid out here.

          If, in fact, the extent of their interaction was, “was rebuffed for a date once, did not interact for two years, swiped right on a dating app,” that seems to indicate this person did not accept the rejection as a permanent thing. I don’t know that it warrants HR involvement – to be frank I don’t feel strongly either way – but at the very least, I’d be concerned this person hasn’t taken the rejection seriously enough, which can be a dangerous thing in a work environment.

          Reply ↓
          1. Skoobles*

            With only the facts in the letter, I think calling this “dangerous” would be a severe overreaction (and if it’s dangerous, it absolutely warrants HR! It warrants HR long before it reaches that point!)

            But being rejected two years ago and then swiping on somebody, an act that usually doesn’t do anything unless the person swipes back, is not in any way saying they didn’t take the rejection seriously enough; it’s literally just being open to the person having changed their mind with no pressure on them at all.

            Reply ↓
      2. Rogue Slime Mold*

        This seems like an emperor’s new clothes thing: The swipes on you can be seen if there is mutual interest OR a subscription fee. So it’s just flatly untrue that no one can see you unless you have swiped on each other.

        (Side note: I believe absent-mindedly swiping right on everyone gets your profile demoted, as it’s unexciting to match with such a person and may well be a bot.)

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          I have definitely heard of (mostly male, admittedly) friends who swipe right on every single contact, without barely looking, because they don’t get a ton of matches anyway and figure it’s more efficient that way. I guess they don’t realize people they know might see the swipes even if that person doesn’t pick you too.

          Reply ↓
          1. PokemonGoToThePolls*

            I had a friend who used to do this, who then complained that all of his matches were bots. Gosh, I wonder if there was a way around that?

            Reply ↓
            1. Rogue Slime Mold*

              … Okay, I really like the idea of an algorithm pairing bots with other bots. This is how we will avert SkyNet!

              Reply ↓
              1. Jackalope*

                There was one dating app that was working on (or introduced? It’s been awhile so I don’t remember the details) a thing whereby if you were interested in someone who was also interested in you, each of you would have a sort of avatar bot and the bots would do the first date so you wouldn’t have to take time out of your busy schedule to actually meet the people you wanted to date. Which really is a sign for the tech bros all having been replaced by aliens already, and aliens that don’t understand human interactions at that.

                Reply ↓
                1. Anna*

                  I don’t know about real dating apps, but it’s a real short story by Chinese scifi writer Xia Jia. It’s in Clarkesworld, issue 96 (sept 2014), titled ‘Spring Festival: Happiness, Anger, Love, Sorrow, Joy’ by Xia Jia, translated by Ken Liu. Scroll down to the segment ‘Matchmaking’ (though the other segments are interesting as well). I’ll put a link in the next comment.

                3. Emily Byrd Starr*

                  What is the point of that? If you don’t meet them, then how do you know if you want to go on a date with them again? And how can you be physically intimate? Unless I’m missing something, it seems that the bots meeting would defeat the purpose of dating.

                4. Rogue Slime Mold*

                  I’ve heard of people using AI to handle the “flirting with my matches in text messages, which I am far too busy to do.” (Outsourcing the warm-up to the butler, but in binary code form.) Other people would then do this back (“No sense wasting time on this step; it’s all bots”), and so maybe some app just formalized that and has the two AIs chat back and forth?

          2. Hannah Lee*

            I recently read somewhere that people who swipe right on everyone tend to get demoted on other people’s feeds. Something about how the programmers, algorithms don’t get the preferred level of engagement from people who tend to exhibit that behavior, so if someone else is on and Mr. SuperSwiper is one of 20 matches for that other person that day, MSS is at the bottom of their result list.

            IIRC it was some article about strategies for using dating apps – they advised NOT swiping right on lots and lots of people, for that reason.

            Reply ↓
      3. L-squared*

        This was my thought. I’d say the VAST majority of people aren’t paying for the ability to see who swipes on you, and because of that, I very much believe that this is a bit of an overreaction. The person who swiped didn’t even know the other person would have any idea about this, unless they showed interest too.

        Reply ↓
      4. Beth*

        Most dating apps make it clear there are ways to see who’s swiped on you. Their premium features are heavily advertised. It’s common sense to assume that at least some people pay for those features, and that you don’t know if any specific person has paid or not. If someone is wandering through the dating app world assuming no one will see their swipes, that feels like willful ignorance to me, not an easily-made mistake.

        I agree that it’s possible (likely, even) that there’s been some other flirting or pushy behavior that OP doesn’t know about. But even if it’s just the swipe, I don’t think there was an overreaction here. Trying to feel out if there’s mutual interest between yourself and a coworker who’s already rejected you isn’t appropriate.

        Reply ↓
    3. Orange Line Appreciator*

      The details in the letter don’t necessarily imply that the reporter was paying to see matches. Different apps work in different ways. For example, Hinge shows you the people who like you/message you even if you don’t match back, but the unpaid version of Tinder doesn’t show who likes you unless you like them back.

      We don’t know what app was being used, but we know the reporter felt that reportee’s actions were unwelcome and uncomfortable. That’s the crux of it, not whether or not they might have been paying for a premium version of the app.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nebula*

        The letter says that this is one of the apps where you have to have the premium version to see who likes you, and that the person swiped on had that premium version, whereas the person who swiped thought it had to be a mutual thing in order for the like to be seen. That is actually information that’s in the letter.

        Reply ↓
      2. Sloanicota*

        Also, I don’t know, being asked to speak to HR isn’t exactly a career ending punishment. They weren’t fired for this or anything. Someone was uncomfortable, so there was a discussion about that.

        Reply ↓
        1. Qwerty*

          I agree. The most functional companies I worked at were places where you went to HR *before* something veered into illegal activity or became discipline worthy. People would have uncomfortable and awkward conversations and situations would get resolved early when they were easy to diffuse.

          I think some commenters are also missing that just because you go to HR doesn’t mean they have to do something about it. People go to HR for all sorts of minor reasons or interpersonal disputes. The fact that HR decided to talk to the swiper means they were concerned about the direction this was heading OR there was more uncomfortable behavior than OP knows about.

          Reply ↓
    4. Rogue Slime Mold*

      Sincerely confused: Both you and OP are arguing that she wouldn’t even see the swipe unless she swiped on him. Yet there is a level she can pay for where she sees who swipes on her. So it’s not the case that people on the app are unaware of who swiped on them unless they have first swiped on the other person and there is no simple workaround to that, like say a monthly subscription to see exactly that.

      It seems there is a profound mismatch between people’s expectations of invisibility on social media and the reality.

      Reply ↓
      1. Spencer Hastings*

        OK, but it’s eminently possible that the swiper *believed* that the other person would never see it unless it was mutual.

        Reply ↓
        1. Nebula*

          Yes, I think this is a bit of a cautionary tale to be honest! Lots of people think ‘Oh no one *actually* pays for that premium version, right?’ – I have, to be honest, always assumed that if anyone pays for it, it’s gonna be men, I wouldn’t really expect women to. This shows that you can’t make that assumption, and your behaviour might be interpreted very differently than you think it will.

          Reply ↓
          1. Karo*

            Way back in the 2010s when I (female) was doing online dating, I paid for the premium version so that dudes couldn’t see that I was looking at their page. I’ll grant that it’s been more than a decade but the premium version was more of a protection for me than anything.

            Reply ↓
        2. Sacred Ground*

          Which just means the swiper didn’t do their own due diligence to find out how the app works before using it. That’s on them.

          Reply ↓
      2. Wayward Sun*

        Dating these days sounds like a complete minefield. I’m glad I’m no longer on the market, so to speak.

        Reply ↓
    5. Brosephini*

      I work at a volunteer org that deals with harassment for context. People who engage in harassment will severely downplay their actions when talking to their friends (and often anyone who will listen) especially when looking for validation that the pursued is being outrageous in their response. The letter writer believes them, and we can believe that’s what the letter writer was told (if the ‘friend’ isn’t actually themselves). I would really encourage people to look at these things through this lens. Harassment is so, so much more common than “overreactions’ to it are.

      Reply ↓
    6. NerdyKris*

      Also, it’s very easy to swipe right accidentally. Or you don’t recognize the person. I literally read the profile of a friend I’d lost touch with and looked at several pictures before only recognizing her as I swiped right.

      And that’s not counting the people that just swipe right on everyone trying to maximize their matches. BTW- don’t do this, it drops your ranking in the searches down because it’s the same behavior as spammers.

      Reply ↓
    7. Baunilha*

      Based on what we know, I think reporting LW’s friend to HR was an overreaction. If they hit on a coworker once, and two years later swiped right on said coworker assuming they would only see it if they swiped too, I really don’t see any harm.
      That being said, it seems unlikely that the friend would be reported just for that. So it makes me think that either they didn’t handle the first rejection well, or that something else has happened between the two interactions.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bast*

        This is where I fall on this too. It’s not that I don’t believe the LW, but that I believe LW may not be privy to EVERYTHING. The awkward thing about dating apps is running into people you know — everything from hey, who knew Uncle Kevin was on this thing anyway? or OMG that’s my best friend’s sister who just got married last month! There’s always ALWAYS the risk of it becoming really awkward, really fast, which is pretty understood when you sign on. I can’t imagine most people going to HR to complain that someone simply swiped unless there was either a major issue in the way the person handled the original rejection, the individual had expressly said “Never contact me again” or something happened during the in between. The reaction just seems a bit extreme if that’s not a Clifnotes version of the story.

        Reply ↓
      2. Resentful Oreos*

        That’s what I am thinking, as well. Dating apps are mainstream now, and – especially if you work at a large company, or the main employer in your area – odds are you will find a coworker on Tinder or whatever. (Remember the letter from the person who got a message from a coworker who had a really oogy profile?)

        Swiping right doesn’t incur any obligations. I think both people have to swipe right to even be set up to possibly chat if both of them want to. So I think there is a lot more to this story, involving the right-swiper being pushy, violating boundaries, or being otherwise inappropriate to the coworker in the past.

        Reply ↓
    8. Emily Byrd Starr*

      The state law where I live says that an employee will be fired if they commit S.H. a minimum of two times. I’ve always understood that the reason why it’s two times and not just one time is to prevent someone being fired over simply asking a coworker if they want to hang out sometime.

      Reply ↓
      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Sorry, that was meant to be a reply to Pumpkin cat’s comment above, particularly where they say:

        Asking someone out, followed by two years of nothing, than a casual swipe in a dating app…is not an escalation to HR issue.

        Reply ↓
        1. Emily Byrd Starr*

          Massachusetts. And why shouldn’t it be that way? Sexual harassment is illegal. The law is to protect the victims of SH.

          Reply ↓
          1. nnn*

            Are you sure about that? I can’t find any evidence of online. Maybe it was the policy of your employer, not a state law.

            Reply ↓
            1. Emily Byrd Starr*

              Maybe I’m remembering it wrong. Maybe it was that after the second time, an investigation had to be made. I do know that it was definitely two times before any consequences happened, because I remember a coworker saying “I wonder why it’s twice? I wonder why not just once?” and then I said, “Probably so someone doesn’t get penalized for just asking someone out.”

              Reply ↓
      3. Strive to Excel*

        If an employee is encountering another employee on an app which is founded around the basis of “find a relationship/connection here”, using the basic features of the app in the way that is intended, can you really argue for SH? I can understand if there have been other behaviors *in the workplace* that are not acceptable. I can understand messaging someone directly being not OK, or expressing interest through any other social media or communications app. I can even understand if there’s some sort of formal court order in place, or if the behavior is persistent! Making 3 dozen different accounts to find this same person and trying over and over again would be Not OK. But in isolation, absent of any other info than what the letter writer provided, this sounds like a stretch report.

        Reply ↓
    9. Strive to Excel*

      But even if you can see who swiped on you, you can still say “no thanks”, correct? It’s been a bit since I was on the apps and I know a lot of them have different features. I would go in assuming that even if someone can see if I’m interested, they just have to say “no thanks” and then we’d all move on with our days.

      I think it really comes down to how the employee has been behaving in the workplace. If it’s been two years of nothing, fine. If it’s been two years of just-at-the-line behavior, that’s different.

      Reply ↓
      1. Resentful Oreos*

        You can say “no thanks.” And even if both people swipe right there is no *obligation* to take things any further.

        I am thinking the employee had to have a history of being inappropriate, boundary pushing, or something else that made their coworker escalate to HR. Otherwise, I don’t know that you can go to HR for something that happens *outside* of work and is not work related. HR is not a recess monitor. (You don’t go to HR if you find out that Fergus is a lousy tipper, or Jane has the collected works of Thomas Kinkade decorating her home.) Unless it’s something that is likely to impact your work. So I’m thinking that there had to be a lot more going on as far as creeping the coworker out is concerned.

        Reply ↓
        1. Skoobles*

          You can absolutely go to HR for things outside of work and HR can take action on them, and HR can be unreasonable or play peacekeeper outside of what’s legally required.

          We either have to assume that the letter writer was being unreasonable, or that HR was misunderstanding; in the spirit of “believe letter writers” and with the knowledge different people treat dating apps very differently and have very different understandings of their conventions, an unreasonable misunderstanding by HR is believable.

          Reply ↓
  4. TPS Reports*

    LW #4: I had a similar issue with a skip level boss who was also really harsh and one thing that helped was asking her to put her requests in writing to me. I approached it as a communication issue “Hey Heather, you seem really frustrated that I keep missing the mark on these TPS reports. Can you recap today’s conversation in a quick email for me so I have something to refer back to when I go to pull the report for you? Feel free to add on anything else you might need when you send the email.”

    Turns out Heather was much better at explaining what she wanted (and why) in writing so I had less issues providing what she needed AND she got better at acknowledging that I had done what she requested….even if the report still wasn’t 100% what she had envisioned. It wasn’t perfect but it took her edge off.

    Reply ↓
    1. EngineeringFun*

      Agreed. I would also expect that those type of definitions are in the Excel sheet. Also, I would add a purpose statement at the top as to why you are creating this table. She’s not as in-depth into what you were talking about and therefore needs the background information. This happens to me all the time.

      Reply ↓
    2. Sloanicota*

      This is also why the advice to summarize the conversation right after it happens is good. Some bosses can’t be bothered to type out, but if you say “I will make column B the XYZ factor” they can jump in ‘NO, it needs to be the ABC factor!!” A lot of people I’ve found are better at correcting what they DON’T want when they see it, versus articulating what they do want.

      Reply ↓
    3. Lacey*

      Every incompetent boss I’ve had would be deeply annoyed by this request. But, I think that’s where recapping comes in.

      I used to do this with a client who constantly changed his mind and was only willing to convey his ideas on the phone while driving.

      While we chatted I would type up his requests and then email him, “So to recap our conversation, you want X, Y, & Z”

      This only sort of worked, because he would call me back to say, “No, you’ve missunderstood, I need A, B, C” and get frustrated when I did the email recap saying, “Ok, as discussed, A, B, & C” and would reply, “I’d like to discuss this in a phone call”

      But it did cut back on my having done a lot of pointless work between these conversations.

      Reply ↓
      1. ThisIshRightHere*

        This might annoy even a fairly competent boss (as I consider myself). If I–rightly or wrongly– thought I’d been pretty clear in assigning a tasker and someone repeatedly turned in products that were different from what I felt I’d requested, I’d be annoyed if the employee’s proposed solution was to have me do an extra step. At the least she could offer to recap via email and have me give a greenlight. But no, I’m not thrilled at the idea of taking additional time out of my day to email you a summary of a conversation we’ve already had.

        Reply ↓
        1. Grizzled*

          I agree, I would also find the approach annoying! Especially if it was prefaced by my employee telling me “you seem really frustrated that this isn’t working as you wanted”… that’s language that people use on their toddlers when they’re frustrated at a toy, not language you use for your boss! Better for the employee to provide the recap in writing, then refer back to it if the boss forgets. And if that doesn’t solve it, either accept your boss’s annoying trait and/or look for another job.

          Reply ↓
    4. Recently Promoted Cog*

      I’ve supported some similar project leads to LW4, and I found that my best tactic was to simply keep attaching new information to old receipts, restating the request each time.

      “As you requested below, I have pulled fields X and Y into the attached spreadsheet.”
      “As you mentioned in our meeting today, I have added fields A and B to the X/Y spreadsheet you requested on 3/15.”

      Don’t wait for her to ask “what the hell is this?” Every iteration should get emailed to her with a context-setting narrative. If you’re used to just doing it and telling her she’ll see it in the shared files directory, still email her the link and the context/explanation.

      Create the reciepts that will CYA, basically.

      Reply ↓
    5. Not In Charge*

      In response to “not 100% what she had envisioned”…. I related a lot to this letter because (though she is kind and great to work for), my boss often has trouble visualizing what something will look like, and so she’ll criticize or ask questions about things that she asked me to do.
      Now, before I make a big or time consuming change to something, I’ll make a shorter mock up of what it will look like or draft a little outline or something, and send it over for initial reactions. Obviously this only works for certain kids of tasks, but it really helps me cut down on wasted time when I can take advantage of early feedback.

      Reply ↓
    6. AtoZ*

      I will also add that my top performing employees are the ones who start working on what I ask, and then realize in the grand scheme of things B isn’t important to what I’m looking for, and if you tweak how A is calculated, it provides much better insight. They’re usually closer to the data than I am. They’ll come back to me with these suggestions and the overall report is much better than what I originally requested.

      Reply ↓
      1. Zephy*

        It sounds like your employees also feel empowered to take the initiative to change the parameters you set, which probably means they feel comfortable asking for clarification from you and also means you take their questions in the spirit they are intended and provide that information without issue. That means you’re doing a good job as a boss. There are plenty of bad bosses out there who consider any followup questions to be insubordination, and/or who don’t understand the work enough to actually know what they’re asking for until they get it and realize/decide it’s wrong.

        Reply ↓
  5. HannahS*

    OP1, I tend to agree with Alison, there’s got to be some context missing in the story your friend told you–doesn’t mean they’re trying to pull the wool over your eyes, but they might not realize how their actions are being perceived. It generally IS bad etiquette to ask someone out a more than once if they’ve already said no. It’s one of those things that can be incredibly charming on TV and is really, really unpleasant in real life. (Noting that I don’t think the OP said that it was a man and a woman.)

    I really don’t see anything wrong with trying to match with someone in your same company, especially when you’re in a company of 500 people. Obviously, avoid anyone in your reporting hierarchy and think twice about getting involved with someone you have to continue working closely with. But I don’t think that being an employee somewhere means you can’t EVER express interest in anyone who works in the same place.

    Reply ↓
    1. Daria grace*

      I don’t know that a swipe right rises to the level of asking someone out, just flagging that you’re open to conversation

      Reply ↓
      1. M*

        It’s more than being open to conversation if you’ve already been rejected by that person and they’ve gone to HR who has told you explicitly to leave them alone.

        Reply ↓
        1. Cmdrshprd*

          the hr and being told to leave them alone happened after the swipe not before.

          A swipe after a no is not another ask out because unless you swipe also, nothing happens.

          Reply ↓
          1. Earlk*

            Technically. But if you’ve been rejected by someone you work with you should er on the side of caution.

            Reply ↓
          2. Baunilha*

            That’s where I land. I really don’t see the issue with them swiping right two years later and assuming the coworker would only see it they swipe too, meaning the interest was mutual.

            Reply ↓
            1. Emily Byrd Starr*

              Why does everyone keep assuming that the person asked their coworker out two years ago? I see no mention of that in the letter, and for all I know, they could have asked their coworker out last week.

              Reply ↓
              1. FishyInDenmark*

                It is in the parenthetical

                “Asking for a friend: They absent-mindedly swiped on a coworker in a dating app (whom they asked out once two years earlier).”

                Reply ↓
                1. Emily Byrd Starr*

                  Yes, I went back and saw it again. Unfortunately, this website doesn’t allow you to edit or delete comments.

          3. fhqwhgads*

            I think the “absent-mindedly” bit is kinda blurring a lot here.
            If what happened was asked someone out two years ago, nothing since, skimmed the app and swiped right now, not necessarily realizing it was the same person, got the talking to and left the swipee alone, fine. The friend has done nothing wrong. Miscommunication. Everyone move on.
            But from the swipee’s perspective, a swiper claiming they didn’t realize it was the same person (or whatever “absent mindedly” is meant to mean here), and all sorts of other plausible deniability stuff is indistinguishable from someone who doesn’t take a “no” and wants to cover their ass.
            So since it’s the friend asking about what to do moving forward: be extra careful not to swipe at all on any colleagues.
            If the friend’s concern is “was I horrible here?” depends on all the in between time OP and we do not seem to have the deets on.

            Reply ↓
        2. Lenora Rose*

          This seems to misunderstand the order of events. Person A asked Person B out two years ago, and was turned down. Recently, A swiped right on B on a mutual dating app. THEN Person B spoke to HR and A was told to leave B alone.

          We can probably assume Person A knew it was the same person and swiped intentionally, though exceptions to both are noted above by users of these apps. What then becomes a question is whether this rises to the level of harassment or asking the other person out again. Which, YMMV, but at the minimum it’s ignoring the obvious signs of continued lack of interest. I think of it in the eye-rolling crassness level, like the guy who tells you you have beautiful eyes at work while you’re trying to talk about the TPS reports; not cause to speak to HR in itself, but I would add it to the list in case the whole thing escalates.

          I’m inclined to think there has to have been some other actions in the two years between where person A was perhaps not keeping their interest to themselves as well as they thought they did.

          Reply ↓
      2. Snow Globe*

        In a work context, you have one chance to ask someone out (and only if there is no chain-of-command overlap). If they say ‘no’, you don’t ask again, and you don’t act like you are hurt around them, you behave professionally. I don’t see why that is hard to understand.

        Reply ↓
        1. duinath*

          This. Also, that one chance should be considered carefully. Don’t just shoot your shot at work, only try it if you have reason to believe it’s welcome.

          Reply ↓
      3. Haggis*

        It indicates that you are open to a conversation about dating! This isn’t LinkedIn, this isn’t about networking, it’s an app where the purpose is for dating, something the person has already specifically rejected.

        If it was an honest accident, then the LW’s friend has learned they need to be more careful hitting on people at work, no harm, no foul. It could be that the co-worker is too sensitive, it could be that the LW’s friend hasn’t been honest about how pushy they were, it could be that the co-worker has been harassed before and wants to head off any recurrence. A conversation with HR is not the worst possible outcome.

        Reply ↓
      4. Arrietty*

        I haven’t used dating apps in years, but my interpretation of what people meant by swiping was always “I find your photo attractive”, based on the evident lack of having read any of the words. When you’ve already been turned down by a coworker, sending them a message that essentially says you’d still like to sleep with them is creepy.

        Reply ↓
        1. Banana Pyjamas*

          That’s my interpretation as well. I haven’t used dating apps (creepy imo), but the people I know who did all swiped quickly based on appearance. I’ve witnessed people swiping so quickly I thought they were playing games. I once asked what game someone was playing and they told me they were on Tinder.

          Reply ↓
      5. Qwerty*

        It indicates that you want a conversation about romantic relations – sometimes dating, sometimes just physical.

        The reputation of the app is also a factor. Some apps have a reputation of being just for hookups while others are seen as being for serious relationships. So that will also color the interaction. However none of the dating apps have a reputation of being about casual conversations and friendship.

        Reply ↓
      6. Beth*

        Continuing to flag that you’re ‘open to conversation about dating’ to someone who’s already directly rejected you isn’t appropriate. Once you’ve been rejected, you figure out how to move on and drop the topic entirely. The ball isn’t in your court to float your interest anymore.

        Reply ↓
        1. Emily Byrd Starr*

          Exactly. If they change their mind and become interested in you, THEY will most likely let you know. If they choose not to let you know and hope that you’ll ask them out again, then they’re so clueless it’s not worth dating them.

          Reply ↓
        2. Kay*

          Solid agree. It is concerning to me to see so many people basically saying you were told no, but now that its been a while you can give it another shot. WITH A COWORKER!! The bar should be really high for a coworker as it is!

          Reply ↓
    2. Cmdrshprd*

      “there’s got to be some context missing in the story your friend told you–”

      maybe, maybe not, the coworker might have other baggage coming into play that colors how they viewed the swipe, or friend has continued being creepy, but there does not HAVE to be more.

      “It generally IS bad etiquette to ask someone out a more than once if they’ve already said no. ”

      I would say a swipe is not the same as asking someone out, a second time, especially because most require mutual interest/swipes for a match.

      If it were a traditional site where people were open to message anyone and a person sent a message I would agree, that a message would be out of line after being rejected.

      Reply ↓
      1. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

        We don’t know the genders of the people involved but it is worth noting that, unfortunately, a LOT of women have “baggage” which includes experiences of being harassed etc including at work.

        There’s often a dynamic where something can be one innocent mistake from a guy’s point of view, and yet another annoying way of reminding you that you’re only seen as a sex/object (or a red flag of something worse) in a professional context.

        And remember that when women don’t nip these things in the bud early enough we get blamed for that too.

        Reply ↓
    3. Ellis Bell*

      Oh I think your second paragraph explains why I feel so out of step with other commentators. If it’s someone in the wider company/building then yeah, I agree it’s no big deal to indicate romantic interest (unless you’ve already done it and been told it’s unwelcome, obviously!) I immediately imagined the hypothetical was someone I was working closely with every day, and I would never put someone in an awkward position like that without a lot of encouragement.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jackalope*

        Yeah, when I think about dating a coworker I think of a former job with one of those 500+ people offices. I would never have dated anyone on my specific team, but outside of that I was potentially open to it. Never happened, but it was an option for me in a way that a small office or team would not be.

        Reply ↓
      2. JustCuz*

        Yeah that is the thing. I feel like a lot more context from the LW would enable this more succinctly. How closely do these two work? Do they sit side by side? Are they interfacing on projects regularly? Because it changes the level of uncomfortableness. If I turned down a person I have to work closely with, it will suck having to navigate that awkwardness for a while. But then for that same person to show *any kind* of interest 2 years later, I would find that exhausting to navigate all over again. I mean I could just ignore the swipe, but I could also see this as a time to have someone else step in to manage this situation.

        I think a lot of people get stuck on puting themselves in the position of the person getting spoken to about their behavior when they hear these situations as opposed to being the person on the receiving end of it. Two years to the person doing it will seem like a life-time ago, where to the person who has to again go through this unwarranted and unwanted awkwardness that they have no control over it can be really exhausting.

        Reply ↓
        1. Bast*

          I can put myself in both positions, and frankly, if the person had taken the rejection well, hadn’t really bothered me since, and didn’t throw a fit when I ignored the swipe, I’d let sleeping dogs lie. I’d be inclined to pretend it never happened. If there were mitigating circumstances — person had an over the top reactions when rejected, person engaged regarding why I didn’t also swipe on them, etc., that would be an issue. Part of the issue of dating apps, as I mentioned above, is their inherent awkwardness. You’re going to see Uncle Kevin is looking for love… and Uncle Kevin might also run into you. You find your best friend’s sister who got married last month on the app. You sign on with this understanding. I just don’t see swiping inofitself as problematic. Coupled with other things, yes, absolutely.

          Reply ↓
          1. JustCuz*

            Yeah … like I said … context is important here … and of course being able to *accurately* put yourself in other people’s shoes

            Reply ↓
    4. Your Local Password Resetter*

      Yeah, normally asking someone out on it’s own isn’t a HR-level act. But the fact that they were already rejected, and that this is very much their side of the story, definitely leaves a lot of room for HR-worthy actions in between.

      Reply ↓
      1. Abby*

        Yeah I’m also reasonably dubious about the characterisation of “absent-mindedly” swiping on someone they’ve already asked out and been rejected by. Swiping on dating apps definitely can be a pretty absent-minded activity, even with coworkers if it’s a big company, but most people don’t forget being rejected in a hurry, especially by someone they still see around a lot.

        It feels like they’re trying to say “oh it was totally a chill thing, I didn’t put any thought into it, this is an overreaction”, but personally if I’d been pursued by a coworker, told them no, and they reached out again through this medium, it wouldn’t feel particularly chill or casual to me!

        Reply ↓
        1. Cara*

          Yes! I thought it was a little disingenuous of LW to equate “accidentally swiping on a random coworker in a 500 person company” to “swiping on a coworker Friend knows and has asked out before”

          Reply ↓
    5. LifebeforeCorona*

      This is interesting. I used an app a few years ago and met up with a person. We talked and agreed neither of us were feeling anything. Several years later I took another job and run into this person on a regular basis because of my work. We obviously recognized each other and keep our interactions to a polite nod. One of the perils of small town living.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lily Rowan*

        It doesn’t have to be a small town – years ago, I had a “dating” profile that didn’t show my face. I got a super creepy response from a guy who worked at the same large employer I did! There was no way for him to know it was me, but whenever I saw him in the cafeteria, I internally shuddered a little. (Note: I got a lot of good responses too, and actually ended up dating someone I met that way.)

        Reply ↓
    6. Jonathan MacKay*

      I’m thinking of the possibility of the swiper simply having forgotten that they HAD asked them out in the first place. I do think it’s generally wiser to keep one’s dating pool AWAY from one’s place of employment, unless one has the lucky moment of hitting things off right away in person such that there’s no possible way of misinterpreting signals. But that’s unlikely enough to be in the realm of romance fiction, anyway!

      Reply ↓
      1. Grenelda Thurber*

        I feel like the swiper would have said they forgot if that’s what happened. I also think it’s unlikely the swiper forgot.

        Reply ↓
      2. Beth*

        Most people don’t forget being rejected by someone they ask out, especially if it’s someone they continue to see regularly. I’d have a hard time believing this.

        Reply ↓
    7. Sparkles McFadden*

      My experience is that HR, a department that exists to keep the company from getting sued, will have a meeting like this if a formal complaint has been made. Often, the formal complaint is because the complainant finally has something concrete, instead of “He keeps staring at me and he hovers around my work area for no reason and he makes sexual comments when I can overhear.” Generally, HR will say “Look, just stay away from this person OK?” and drop the whole thing. If the person *doesn’t* drop the whole thing and argues with HR or worse, goes to the person directly and says “Why did you go to HR? I didn’t do anything to you!” that’s when things escalate.

      Since the question is what the LW should do regarding dating apps, my advice would be: Don’t interact with coworkers on a dating app unless it’s someone who you don’t have to interact with on a regular basis. Isn’t the whole point of dating apps is to broaden the pool of people to meet?

      Reply ↓
      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Staring at someone and constantly being in their work space when they don’t have to be is a form of harassment.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sparkles McFadden*

          Yes, I am well aware of that, but HR will investigate something faster and in a more formal way if there is some kind of written proof like an email or some kind of log, or at least someone who has witnessed the behavior.

          The point I was trying to make to the LW was that there is probably a *lot* more to the story than his friend is letting on.

          Reply ↓
    8. Beth*

      Agreed. I don’t think HR would care about a swipe, in general. But there are a lot of contextual pieces that might raise it to HR level. A manager swiping on a team member, for example, they’d probably care about!

      The context piece that I feel like might be in play with OP’s friend is a pattern of harassment. The friend asked this person out 2 years ago and got rejected. Even if we assume nothing happened in the interim, the swipe-ee would be totally in the right to feel uncomfortable about the friend reviving their pursuit. It’s not comfortable to tell a coworker “no” and have them continue anyways. It feels like them ignoring your “no”. If the swipe-ee felt that way, I understand HR taking action.

      And I’ll be honest, I think it’s very easy for someone who’s carrying a torch for a coworker to give “I’m still interested, I’m not pushing it, but I’m right here waiting, surely you’ll come around and see how great I am eventually” vibes over time. If your friend’s been doing that (which, if they weren’t actively trying to be cognizant of the possibility and avoid it, it seems likely that there’s been some), then this swipe was probably the final straw, not the first issue.

      Reply ↓
  6. Jillian with a J dammit*

    In my industry, I would disagree with Alison (first time ever!). Tickets are given to specific people in most cases; if I’m given 4 tickets, it’s more like a “bring your husband and kids” invitation. It would be unheard of to give them to someone else, even another manager or employee, without asking the giver. I could say “Hey, I can’t use all these tickets. Would you like them back or should I give them to other team members?”.

    Reply ↓
      1. WS*

        Yeah, my brother’s company often gets tickets like these. Execs get first pick, then it’s open to all full-time employees via company Slack. Tickets go in pairs so you can take your partner/kid/whoever, but sometimes two employees go together.

        Reply ↓
        1. doreen*

          My husband has both received and given tickets through his job – they always go in pairs. Even if it’s the owner of his company giving the company tickets to an employee, they still are given in pairs. Tickets always go in pairs when they are actually being given away , whether it’s a gift or a raffle. The only time a single ticket is sort of “given away” is if the giver is attending the event and inviting someone to attend with them .

          Reply ↓
          1. Tippy*

            Same in my company. Whenever I’ve been given tickets it’s always a pair, sometime I’ll invite a coworker to go with me but it’s in the context that we’re friends outside of work, not as a coworker. Heck I’ve even been invited as the plus one by some bosses but it’s because their partner couldn’t go, not because of any contribution I’ve done at my job.

            Reply ↓
      2. Rogue Slime Mold*

        But I think the path then can be:
        1) Vendor sends 2 tickets to basketball game.
        A) Top person wants to go, and so takes the tickets and goes with a spouse, sibling, friend, etc.
        B) Top person doesn’t want to go, and so sends out an email asking if anyone wants the tickets. First to say “yes” wins. How far the email goes depends on the size of the office, but in a large place it might make sense to send it to a small group, then if no one bites another small group, so any disappointment at Marianne snagging the tickets is kept to a small number.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          Somehow the idea of Top Person bringing an unrelated friend (rather than a coworker) is worse than a spouse, to me! I don’t have to like it but we have a generally agreed upon standard in society that married couples do things as a set (wedding invites etc).

          Reply ↓
          1. Lenora Rose*

            I got tickets through work, and my spouse ended up sick day-of, so I took my mother in law. Is that really that inappropriate?

            Reply ↓
            1. Sloanicota*

              I don’t know, are you a Top Person (the owner of the business, who decided how the tickets were distributed and chose to distribute them to yourself) and were people being paid way less than you also hoping to go?

              Reply ↓
              1. Lenora Rose*

                I was probably the lowest ranked person who would have the opportunity, as the senior folk turned it down.

                But if I was the CEO, and it was the (non-work) day the event was happening, and my spouse got sick, I’d feel odd if I was judged for taking someone not from work.

                Reply ↓
        2. AngryOctopus*

          We did that at my old job when a vendor we used offered us their baseball tickets–company wide email, and whoever replied first got them. My current job has basketball tickets, and when my department gets them, the EA runs a raffle and everyone gets one ticket.

          Reply ↓
        3. umami*

          This is our general practice. Asking people to commit to an event and not have a +1 is thoughtless. Tickets should be offered as pairs, and the person who gets them can decide who the +1 is. In this letter, there were 4 tickets and 6 owners/employees, so if they were to be used only on employees, two people get left out. If the tickets are for the client’s box, then they probably expected the owners to be the ones to use them. If they are just general seating, then I would have offered them to the employees.

          Reply ↓
    3. Lacey*

      Yeah, this really depends on the industry/company

      My current company gets given tickets for stuff all the time. Who knows, maybe execs get first dibs, but a lot of times an email just goes out and it’s first come first serve.

      At the company I started with, it would not be at all weird for people to give the boss tickets and expect him to bring his wife to the event. He was well known and a big player in the community, so people wanted to shmooze him. OTOH, if they wanted to thank the company – they’d give enough tickets so that we could all go.

      Reply ↓
    4. Safely Retired*

      I follow F1. It is a three day event, starting with two days of practice and qualifying. The race itself on the final day, a Sunday. The answer must take into account the type of tickets. There is a vast range of tickets, going from not cheap to astronomical*. And a range of attendees, from race fans to party people. At the low end there are no reserved seats, and the company providing the tickets may not even be aware of who is there, or particularly care. At the high end, such as if they have a suite and have given tickets to other companies too, it may well be seen by them as a top-level hob nob opportunity. If their executives bring their spouses, then it would be in line for the invitees to do that too.
      *(Las Vegas Grand Prix, tickets to a suite where the food is prepared by a VERY fancy chef we have all heard of, $24k per person. General admission, on the other hand, has teaser prices starting at $50 a day, but guaranteed to be higher for the day of the race.

      Reply ↓
      1. Phony Genius*

        Perhaps the bosses could have compromised. Maybe let the employees have the tickets on practice or qualifying day and bring their wives on race day.

        Reply ↓
  7. Daria grace*

    1. I’m not currently on dating apps so don’t know the finer details of the culture but unless there’s important missing context here I feel like there’s an overreaction. I would see swiping right as just flagging that they’re open to interaction and thus things not starting to get into potentially problematic territory until messages are sent.

    Reply ↓
    1. Glen*

      to me the important detail is that they had been told to leave their colleague alone /before/ The Swiping Incident. It doesn’t require any kind of action perhaps but I totally understand looping HR in because it does look like some soft boundary testing (even if it is in fact entirely innocent)

      Reply ↓
      1. Audrey Puffins*

        The timeline I got from the letter was:

        Two years ago: Friend asks out Co-worker, is turned down
        This year: Friend swipes right on Co-worker, then is invited to meet with HR and is told in this meeting to leave Co-worker alone

        The swiping incident appears to be the instigator of being told in no uncertain terms to leave Co-worker alone. There has to be something else happened in the interim; if someone asked me out two years ago and there was nothing else since that indicated they might still be interested in me, then swiped on me in an app, I can’t imagine summoning up the energy to do anything other than rolling my eyes and swiping ‘no thank you’ on them

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          Yeah OP is not the swiper here and I bet their friend didn’t tell them any other things they might have done to make this coworker uncomfortable in the interim.

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

          My thought too. Especially being that this was dating app, the OP’s friend was most likely just showing they are still interested.

          Reply ↓
          1. Rainy*

            *gagging noises*

            Seriously, don’t “show you are still interested” to someone who already turned you down. They haven’t forgotten. If they change their mind, they’ll reach out. “Showing you’re still interested” often ends up looking like something completely different to the victim.

            Reply ↓
          2. Andromeda Carr*

            ” showing they are still interested.”

            From a coworker who had already hit on me once, that would be a minor workplace nightmare hinting at potential for a much larger one. Beth is absolutely right in her explanation that this was inappropriate and worse.

            Reply ↓
        4. a trans person*

          Ok, so you don’t fear the situation you’re making up in your head. I would go to HR even if “nothing” (provable) happened in between, because I do fear that situation. Meeting with HR is the restrained and reasonable approach.

          Reply ↓
      2. AngryOctopus*

        This exactly. Colleague probably feels like this is a “hmmm, wonder if they’ve changed their minds, let’s see what happens” testing, and that’s not OK. Colleague has no way of knowing that the swiper was just randomly doing whatever. They just see “person who I turned down seemingly showing interest again, and that’s NOT ok with me”.

        Reply ↓
    2. Glen*

      apparently I can’t read. I do think speaking to the friend to tell them to leave coworker alone is overkill unless there’s something we don’t know!

      Reply ↓
    3. Your Local Password Resetter*

      On it’s own I would agree, but it could also be part of a larger pattern that would justify going to HR.
      And since OP is getting this second-hand from their friend, we don’t really have the information to judge if the response was unreasonable or not.

      Reply ↓
      1. Rogue Slime Mold*

        There’s a genre of letter where in the last paragraph, or in a response to the columnist’s answer, the OP lets drop a detail that changes readers’ reaction to the first part. Both in the direction “This seems like you’re normal and the other person is odd–oh, nope, with this detail I suddenly get where they’re coming from” and in the reverse direction.

        And this is third-hand about OP’s friend, where complaining to your friends about how unfairly you have been treated is rife with opportunities to leave out awkward details.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          This is like “my friend was always a great employee, there was no reason he got fired and he was totally blindsided.” It may feel that way to you, as a biased outsider, but it’s often not at all the case.

          Reply ↓
      2. Sneaky Squirrel*

        Exactly this. On its own, it seems like an overreaction. LW’s friend is using the app how its intended to be used which asks for a mutual consent to start a conversation. They didn’t go out of their way to find the coworker.

        But if it’s one data point in a larger pattern of behaviors, that would explain the HR involvement.

        Reply ↓
        1. HQetc*

          Agreed. Plus, HR *chose* to act on it. They, apparently, did not think it was an overreaction for them to be involved. I suppose it’s possible that the asked-out coworker is so strident and annoying they decided to have a meeting just to placate them, or that HR is also prone to overreaction, but those seem less likely to me than a much more common tale of someone having magical thinking about their romantic pursuits and underplaying their bad behavior when chatting to friends (see “all my exes are crazy” for further information). And even if it was all a wild overreaction, HR telling to stop bugging a coworker is a really mild outcome.

          Reply ↓
    4. metadata minion*

      I think what brings it into problematic territory is the fact that the swiping person had already asked out this coworker and been rejected. It’s the sort of thing someone could easily do absentmindedly, as it’s described in the post, but from the coworker’s perspective, they’re being contacted *again* by someone they’ve already turned down, in a way that could be anything from completely accidental to a pattern of creepy behavior.

      I think going to HR is a bit of an overreaction on its face, but we’re missing a heck of a lot of context, including how the friend reacted to the initial rejection and whether there’s been any contact in between these two episodes.

      Reply ↓
    5. Nancy*

      That’s pretty much what it means. Most apps don’t allow conversation until the other person also swipes right. And some people swipe right on everyone in the hopes that someone will match, or just space out and stop paying attention after a few minutes. Plus, many people look very different from their photos.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bast*

        This is a fair point, and both men and women use mediums that make it difficult to disguise who the actual person is aka a group picture, a picture of a fish they caught/car/cartoon character/pet, etc., something that is so heavily filtered that it completely distorts what a person looks like, picture from 20 years or 20 pounds ago,, etc. I’m not saying that is necessarily what happened here either, because we don’t know, but it certainly isn’t outside of the realm of possibility, particularly if someone is indiscriminate with their swiping.

        Reply ↓
        2. HQetc*

          That could all be true, but HR chose to act on this. They had the option to say “thanks for your report, we’ll make a note, let us know if anything else happens.” But they decided to intervene, which makes me think it’s more likely that there’s context we, and probably the OP, aren’t aware of.

          Reply ↓
          1. HQetc*

            Also, the OP doesn’t say “my friend didn’t even know it was co-worker when they swiped!” They said it was “absent-minded,” which implies that if they had been paying attention they would have noticed.

            Reply ↓
    6. Irish Teacher.*

      My guess is that one of two things happened here. Either the LW’s friend isn’t telling the full story (or maybe isn’t even aware of how they are coming across) and while it may be true that they only asked the person out once two years ago and swiped on their profile now, it was obvious that they fancied the other person and they showed it in ways that made the person who made the complaint uncomfortable – coming up with excuses to consult with them, staring at them, making flirty comments, that sort of thing. They may not even have realised that it was so obvious or they just not have told the LW.

      Or else the person who made the complaint misinterpreted the situation and they told it to HR in a way that, again possibly unintentionally, misrepresented the situation. Like they said “I turned him/her down and then they contacted me on a dating app,” which could make it sound like they were deliberately ignoring the “no.”

      In the latter case, it could probably be cleared up by an explanation. “I’m sorry if I made you uncomfortable. It was an accident.”

      Reply ↓
      1. a trans person*

        If it was the latter case, that probably happened during the meeting with HR. Which is why that meeting was a good thing and reporting it was correct.

        Reply ↓
    7. Beth*

      There really isn’t a way to keep “flagging interest” to someone who’s already rejected you without risking coming off as weird, creepy, pressure-y, or unable to hear “no”. You’ve shot your shot and gotten your answer. It’s inherently problematic to keep feeling them out for a different answer–they’ll tell you if something changed, if they’re not telling you then you need to assume it’s still the same answer.

      Reply ↓
  8. Bazzathedog11*

    #1. How many times does your friend need to be told NO. They (he) needs to monitor their own behaviour, the onus should not be on their colleague to do this. I’m sure they’ve kept with up what this person looks like, and I’m sure your friend doesn’t swipe right on everyone. What will be a wake-up call for them.?

    Reply ↓
    2. Daria grace*

      That seems a bit much in the circumstances. If it was someone they’d dated and who had set serious boundaries them then it would absolutely be that serious but that’s not what happened here. Flicking through tinder it would be easy to not even register this was a person you’d had brief interaction with years ago

      Reply ↓
      1. Bazzathedog11*

        Maybe, maybe not. Oops he swiped right, forgot that colleague took it to HR. Sometimes people are really generous on this site bending over backwards in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I hope they pretend it didn’t happen and don’t feel the need to apologise.

        Reply ↓
        1. Glen*

          the coworker took it to HR after the swipe by my reading. I misread it that way at first, too, but it looks like HR only got involved after The Swiping Incident, so it does sound like overkill unless there’s more that we don’t know about. Given that the usual way it works is that you can’t actually see who swiped right on you unless you also swipe right on them, it’s not super egregious. Basically a swipe means “I am open to speaking with this person in this context if they are also open to speaking to me”, which is pretty innocuous.

          Reply ↓
          1. allathian*

            Yes, but the person who complained had paid for a premium account on the dating app to see who had swiped right on their profile before they had swiped anywhere.

            Reply ↓
            1. Orange Line Appreciator*

              We don’t know that, though. Some apps (Hinge, for example) show you everyone who swipes right without needing both parties to mutually express interest.

              And even if the person did pay for the premium version of the app, so what? That doesn’t mean they forfeited the right to feel uncomfortable being approached by someone they’ve already turned down.

              Reply ↓
              1. Insert Clever Name Here*

                From the letter:

                And then the interaction has to be mutual anyway — both people need to “initiate” conversation here, without knowing if the other person has done so. (Apparently in this case their coworker was paying for premium rights to see who was swiping on them, and spoke with HR without initiating.)

                Reply ↓
                1. Observer*

                  It sounds like the LW doesn’t actually *know* that, though. It’s just what they think happened based on their knowledge of dating apps, but not all apps are the same in this respect.

                  Which goes back to the real reason it’s hard to say definitively whether CW and / HR over-reacted or not. We simply don’t know enough, because the LW clearly does not know enough.

            2. L*

              I think it would be important context to know a) how well-known this premium feature is among the users of the app, and b) how common usage of this feature is. If it’s a well-known and popular feature, then the swiper loses the plausible deniability of “I didn’t know thry could see my swipe unless they swiped me back.” On the other hand, if it’s a feature few users even know about, the swiper might not even be aware it was a possibility, or if there’s low uptake on it, the thought that this specific person might be using it might not have even occurred to them. Basically, is this an Ought-Reasonably-to-Know (or at least ought-reasonably-to-assume-the-possibility) that the other person might see your swipe regardless of mutual interest.

              (Disclaimer: I genuinely don’t know these answers. I don’t use these apps so have no idea of the ubiquity of the premium features)

              Reply ↓
              1. PokemonGoToThePolls*

                My experience with dating apps is a few years old, but they tended to REALLY push the premium features, including seeing who liked you. It would be hard not to know that that was an available option

                Reply ↓
                1. Catherine*

                  Most of the apps I’ve tried attempt to get me to subscribe to a premium tier and show me the list of features at least once a day, if not on every use. It’s pretty hard to avoid knowledge of the subscription plans.

              2. Not In Charge*

                I don’t think any of this matters, because “seeing swipes” or not does not change how the app fundamentally works. Hinge, Bumble, Tinder, etc all operate on the same principle: you only get matched with people who showed mutual interest in you. This does not change regardless of how much money you pay. It doesn’t even change if both participants are fully aware that their swipes are public. Because of that, I don’t really think it’s fair to criticize someone for swiping on someone else within the app. No one who uses this kind of app sees swipes as meaningful in any way (except for the coworker, I guess). Matches are the only thing that matter in the context of the app, because it’s the only thing that actually opens up communication.

                The Coworker still always had control over the app interaction with the Swiper. Because Coworker swiped “No”, Swiper cannot directly contact Coworker through the app. Swiper knows this and Coworker should also know this… so to me, it sounds like there’s another reason (outside of the app) why Coworker is uncomfortable with Swiper.

                Reply ↓
                1. a trans person*

                  > Swiper cannot directly contact Coworker through the app

                  Swiper **DID** directly contact Coworker through the app. The swipe notification **IS CONTACT** and *inherently communicates a message*. Maybe the message was sent *accidentally*, but by itself that’s plenty to take to HR after a previous rejection.

          2. Rogue Slime Mold*

            Genuinely head-scratching to me because “you can’t see who swiped right on you” and “you can’t see who swiped right on you unless you click this button and pay a fee” are not the same.

            While there are social rules about pretending you haven’t noticed things that were taking place in plain sight, this seems to be assigning that to an app in a way that just is not true. People can see you! It’s very easy to do so!

            Reply ↓
            1. Hiring Mgr*

              I’m not sure what you are getting at – in this case does it matter what version of the app the colleague was using?

              Reply ↓
              1. Rogue Slime Mold*

                I feel like the argument is “This would make sense in a world where tigers are green, which OP’s friend reasonably assumed was the case.” But tigers are not green. (I would assume “What you get with Premium!” is rather prominently promoted on the app.)

                It’s sort of like ruling out any other behavior that would move something from innocuous to creepy (like staring moodily at the other person, or haunting their social media accounts, or the street with their apartment) because the person doing that thought they were invisible, and yet they were not.

                Reply ↓
              2. doreen*

                It doesn’t matter, but apparently the OP thinks it matters whether their friend knows that the coworker could see who swiped right. ( Maybe the friend wouldn’t have done it if they knew co-worker could see) And if there is a premium service that gives co-worker that info, the friend should have just assumed they had that service if it mattered.

                Reply ↓
        2. Come on, man*

          “Sometimes people are really generous on this site bending over backwards in giving people the benefit of the doubt.”

          … do we read the same comments section?

          Reply ↓
          2. Wellie*

            Are YOU reading the same comments section? I haven’t made it all the through yet, but I’m sure someone has already diagnosed the swiper with something.

            Reply ↓
          3. Santalum*

            Every time there’s a story of someone behaving inappropriately, there’ll be an odd amount of people jumping in with their own theories about how it was actually appropriate and fine. Randomly diagnosing every creepy guy as autistic and completely ignoring how misogynistic and ableist that is being a common one.

            Also any time the concept of someone being on a sex offenders registery is mentioned there’s always people jumping in to talk about how they don’t even know it’s that bad, that those kinds of things ruin lives and that it’s definitely more likely that they were just urinating in an alley while drunk on a night out or something (almost always about a demographic that’s not very likely to be treated like that too)

            At the end of the day, the comments here have a range of people and some of them are concerning lenient about inappropriate behaviour

            Reply ↓
            1. Andromeda Carr*

              At the end of the day, the comments here have a range of people and some of them are concerning lenient about inappropriate behaviour

              Very true and well said.

              Reply ↓
      1. Andromeda Carr*

        I so, so wish we were making up the concept of sexual harassment.

        There’s a difference between storytelling and filling in obvious holes in a pattern we’ve seen many times before.

        Reply ↓
      1. HQetc*

        Well, for a first interaction, sure. But from the coworkers point of view, they already tried the real-life version of “block and move on” by rejecting a date, and apparently it didn’t stick. So to the coworker, they don’t have any reason to believe the digital version will stick any better.
        Also, HR chose to act. They, for some reason, decided not to say “thanks for your report, we’ve made a note, now block and move on.” To me, that suggests there’s more context we’re not getting, and maybe the OP isn’t getting from their friend either. (Sure, maybe HR is really overzealous, but that seems less likely to me than a romantically interested person engaging in some magical thinking about their own actions and how they are coming across.)

        Reply ↓
      2. Irish Teacher.*

        Doesn’t really help if they are working with the person because the issue would presumably be that they are afraid the person would harrass them in the workplace.

        That would be a reasonable reaction if the person doesn’t know who you are and has no way of finding your home or workplace, but when they already work with you, it’s not like blocking them on the app would prevent sexual assault or aggression or stalking.

        Since they looped in HR, I am guessing their concern was about the LW’s friend behaving inappropriately in the workplace and blocking them on the app wouldn’t prevent that. Now, perhaps they were overreacting. It’s possible they had a previous situation where they turned somebody down and that person became violent or started harrassing them and they are just afraid of it happening again even though the friend did not do anything to suggest they would but it’s equally possible that either these are not the only two ways the LW’s friend approached them; they are only the ones the LW knows of and that the behaviour in the workplace was inappropriate or that the LW’s friend has a history of becoming angry or not accepting no for an answer, even with work related issues and therefore the person is worried they will have a similar reaction here.

        But in any case, I don’t think blocking them on the app is going to help with a potential problem in the workplace.

        Reply ↓
  9. JM60*

    #3 I’m not from Ukraine, but if a manager brought up that they’re from Russia, others are from Ukraine, and they don’t say anything against the war, I’d take that as a sign that they aren’t against the war.

    My manager being okay with a completely unnecessary war that is jeopardising the safety of my family and friends would be a big deal.

    Reply ↓
    1. Come on, man*

      Whoa, hold on. Does that mean anyone from any group needs to denounce everything just to be clear they’re against The Thing?

      If haven’t heard a Muslim coworker speak out against ISIS am I supposed to assume that he’s not against them?

      Reply ↓
      1. Roeslein*

        I really don’t think this is comparable. I live in a city with many people from both countries, including many Russians who support their government, and my assumption would definitely be the same as JM60.

        Reply ↓
          1. Stipes*

            If Trump starts a war on your country, and then meet an American during said war who you will then interact with a lot going forward, it’s reasonable to expect them to say something to you distancing themselves from their government.

            Reply ↓
        2. amoeba*

          Yeah – I actually know loads of Russian expats here, and they are all *very vocally and openly* against Putin/pro-Ukraine. And they also get along absolutely fine with the Ukrainians here.
          None of them would ever make a comment like that! Like, what is “I wonder how that will go” supposed to mean other than, well, “we have very different opinions on this war and this might become a problem”? Honestly, that is so much worse than just not saying anything! If they had said nothing, I’d agree and give them the benefit of the doubt, for sure. But that comment was at the very least very, very awkward and unwise.

          Reply ↓
          1. Banana Pyjamas*

            Agreed. I think “I wonder how that will go.” gives all the subtext we need. Saying nothing would have been fine in a professional context. Saying something without decrying Russia, problematic.

            Reply ↓
      2. JM60*

        Does that mean anyone from any group needs to denounce everything just to be clear they’re against The Thing?

        No! It means that if:

        1 I’m from a group that is murdering your friends and/or family.

        and

        2 I explicitly bring up #1 without denouncing the murder.

        Then I’ll consider up your lack of denunciation of #1 as you being okay with it.

        Merely existing as being from a certain group doesn’t mean that you have an affirmative obligation to denounce every wrongdoing by members of that group.

        Reply ↓
        2. JM60*

          Eh. I got 1st and 3rd person mixed up because I’m tired right now. I meant to write:

          1 You’re from a group that is murdering my friends and/or family.

          and

          2 You explicitly bring up #1 without denouncing the murder.

          Then I’ll consider up your lack of denunciation of #1 as you being okay with the the murdering.

          Reply ↓
          1. Numbersmouse*

            But they’re not from a group that is murdering OP’s friends and family… They just happen to be of the same nationality (unless all 140+ million Russians are one group to you, in which case let’s call humans a group too). That’s flat-out making assumptions about people based on their nationality.

            Reply ↓
              1. amoeba*

                Yes, this. If they were pro-Ukraine, there would be no need for the statement because they would share the same opinion!

                Reply ↓
            2. just tired*

              Exactly. Like Alison said people are not their countries. It doesn’t matter where everyone is from, what matters is can they work together without drama, which it sounds like they can. This reminds me of when the pandemic started and everyone was being rude and aggressive to Asian people because well…everyone of those people is from China and responsible for the virus here riggggggggghhhhhhhhht? What utter nonsense.

              Reply ↓
            3. JM60*

              A nationality is a group, as is a species (human).

              Although a nationality is a very large group, the manager was referencing nationalities in such a way that specifically called attention to the war (specifically, that they had connections to opposing sides in the war). That’s quite relevant!

              Reply ↓
            4. Mary*

              Yeah, the last Russian guy I met was wearing a Ukranian flag pin & was unhappy with his country.

              Without knowing more about the guy, his behavior, or even his level of English, it’s impossible for me to comment.

              f.e. if he’s ESL, did he mean that sentence how it’s being taken?

              Reply ↓
        3. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

          So if you’re from the US, and traveling abroad, do you need to then denounce each governmental policy you disagree with, lest you be considered complicit?

          Reply ↓
          1. JM60*

            If I call attention to it, and the particular “it” in question is my county bombing their country for 3 years, then yes.

            Otherwise, probably not.

            Reply ↓
            1. Dust Bunny*

              Seconding (I’m American).

              I wouldn’t [spit] on the current “administration” if they were on fire, but if I were traveling/working abroad I wouldn’t bring up the whole disaster in the first place.

              Reply ↓
          2. Caller 2*

            I’m a Canadian living abroad (not in the US). If an American makes a 51st state comment to me or around me without condemning the whole notion, I’m assuming they are for it. If an American doesn’t bring it up, that’s cool, most Americans abroad are sick of the orange man and tired of talking about him and I don’t blame them.

            Reply ↓
          3. I Have RBF*

            If I was traveling and they asked me about the Trump stuff, I would tell people that a) I didn’t vote for him, and b) even people who voted for him are getting screwed.

            Reply ↓
          1. JM60*

            Just whenever an American mentions something about Iran in a random conversation with family or friends who isn’t connected to Iran (as far as they know)? No.

            If the American knows they’re talking to someone with family in Iran, when the US is actively bombing Iran, and they call attention to the bombing in Iran? Then yes.

            Those are two very different situations.

            Reply ↓
      3. AvonLady Barksdale*

        So much this. People should not be expected nor obligated to make certain statements/swear oaths to prove they’re “one of the good ones.” Individuals are not responsible for a government’s actions.

        The manager made an awkward acknowledgement of what may be an awkward situation. Having been in similar situations, I get it, where people assume that just because this person belongs to this group and I belong to that group that we will automatically not get along, and it’s never even close to the truth.

        Reply ↓
      4. desdemona*

        Personally, reading all the comments in this thread – I don’t think the issue is actually that the new manager named that they’re Russian.

        I think the issue is that they said “I’m Russian, you’re Ukrainian, *I wonder how that will go*”.

        That turns it from an observation into a more loaded remark – what does that mean? That they’re inherently in conflict? That manager expects opposition from the Ukrainian team members?

        I think the reaction may be different if it had just been “Oh, I see a lot of you are Ukrainian. I’m Russian!” and moved on.

        Reply ↓
        1. Crystal Lettuce*

          Yes, most likely the manager was expecting the opposition from Ukrainian team members. There are many Ukrainians who dislike all Russians regardless of their stance on war and government, and it can become a problem in a workplace. Still, making this remark was very unprofessional, he should give his team members benefit of doubt unless they start acting hostile. But this remark does not mean the manager supports war/Putin.

          Reply ↓
      5. different name for this*

        Not any group, but in this particular case, yes. I am Russian (living in the US largely because my parents didn’t like how things were going and worked for almost two decades to be able to emigrate) and I would absolutely expect another Russian who is against the war to say so. ESPECIALLY in this situation where there are Ukrainians on the team. The war is immensely popular in Russia so those of us who don’t support it need to say so.

        Reply ↓
        1. Observer*

          The war is immensely popular in Russia

          And I’m sure that you are aware that a lot of the people who are against the war are not actually speaking up, so it’s not clear just how popular it actually is. Also, and I know this for a fact, there are a lot of Russians who absolutely won’t speak up because they are afraid, either for themselves or for family left in Russia. (Yes, I’ve heard this from people I know.)

          Then there are the Russians who live in Ukraine or have family there, etc.

          I am *obviously* not talking for all Russians. But I know enough to understand that not speaking out explicitly does not necessarily mean being all in on it.

          Reply ↓
          1. different name for this*

            I could say a lot about this, but I guess it’s not really at all on topic. Your point is valid. I maintain though that there are better ways of handling it than being like “awkward lol.”

            Reply ↓
    2. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

      You need a lot more evidence than this before you start assuming major serious things about people based on their nationality.

      Reply ↓
    3. Glen*

      I appreciate that it’s a fraught subject but this is really not ok. I can’t imagine people saying this about an American working with Iraqi or Afghani colleagues. Those were both far longer wars, were both started on pretexts about as flimsy as Putin’s, and Iraq almost certainly caused more death and destruction, while Afghanistan was on about the same scale. We all tend to think of our own side as the “good guys” so it’s not surprising that we consider the russo-ukrainian war to be very different, it’s something I struggle with myself. But it’s still the case that there’s no real factual basis to consider Putin’s actions in Ukraine as any better than Bush’s in Iraq. And the American people actually elected bush!* Putin, on the other hand, may enjoy popular support from Russians, but he’s not their choice, so the average Russian has less culpability for Ukraine than you or I do for Iraq and Afghanistan (and Korea, and Vietnam, and…)

      * yes I know, but he did at least get a huge chunk of the vote, enough for the case to go his way.

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        If I (an American) work with colleagues from Iraqi or Afghanistan, I wouldn’t call attention to that. If for some reason I felt the need to call attention to it, then I’d at least make it clear that I’m against wrongdoing that affected them and/or their friends and/or family.

        The lack of disavowing wrongdoing would be very different if the subject never came up.

        Reply ↓
        1. Come on, man*

          But if you worked openly with said colleagues – say in the height of 9/11 – and they *didn’t* renounce Islamic terrorism of their own volition…?

          Reply ↓
        2. Numbersmouse*

          I’m from an autocratic country and if my government started bombing civilians, it wouldn’t even cross my mind to clarify I’m against it, even if I drew attention to it… After all, I didn’t vote for the bastards.

          I feel like people from democratic countries identify with their government’s actions more than we do, even if they’ve voted against the government. And that’s fine (even if it weirds me out to hear my left-wing American friends say “when we invaded Iraq”)! But there’s no reason to assume this one Russian guy does, and therefore build a whole set of assumptions about his stance on Putin and the war on that basis.

          Reply ↓
          1. RussianInTexas*

            I left the country 22 years before the started. It would no occur to me to apologize for something I had absolutely no control over, not even lived in the country when it happened.
            I also have Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Jewish background, even though I grew up in Russian and identify as a Russian, and these things are complicated.

            Reply ↓
            1. JM60*

              I’m not saying that someone originally from Russia has to apologize for what Russia does. I’m saying that in this particular scenario, where the manager drew attention to the war with his remark, drawing attention to the war without saying anything against it would make it feel like you’re okay with it.

              Reply ↓
              1. Observer*

                drawing attention to the war without saying anything against it would make it feel like you’re okay with it.

                You get to feel how you feel. But what we’re trying to tell you is that you are not factually correct. It’s just a lot more complicated than that.

                Reply ↓
          2. JM60*

            if my government started bombing civilians, it wouldn’t even cross my mind to clarify I’m against it, even if I drew attention to it.

            Would that be the case even if you knew that the people you were talking to when you drew attention to the war were from that country?

            I feel like people from democratic countries identify with their government’s actions more than we do

            All else being equal, I think that you bear more responsibility for what your government does in a democratic country because you have more power over your government. “With great power comes great responsibility.” (Although even in democratic countries, individual citizens tend to not have that much power.)

            Reply ↓
        3. Numbersmouse*

          And last thing: if you were an American working with, say, Iraqis at the height of the Iraq war, I’d consider it far weirder if you didn’t comment on that fact at all. So you thinking it’s weird to make an allusion and then not follow up on it is just a matter of subjective social sensitivities, not a hard-and-fast rule that you must either be silent on the topic of your government’s crimes or publicly and entirely disavow them.

          Reply ↓
        4. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

          I suspect that what you’re viewing as “calling attention to it” many of us view as “acknowledging the elephant in the room” – that in this case it would be weirder not to say anything. Clearly opinions differ here, but that may be a big part of the disconnect.

          Reply ↓
          1. amoeba*

            I don’t know – the Russians I know hereabouts are pretty much all anti-Putin, so it’s really assumed in most cases. At least I certainly assume it, although that might just be my leftist academia bubble. If somebody made a statement like that, it would make me question that assumption though! Because honestly, in my circles, there just isn’t that much potential for conflict between Russians and Ukrainians, they get along really well for the most part. Unless, of course, somebody would be pro-war.

            Reply ↓
    4. Nodramalama*

      I really do not think that is a safe assumption at all. I don’t interrogate every person who has family in China how they think about the Communist party. I don’t assume that everyone who says they’re from the U.S must be a Trump supporter.

      Reply ↓
    5. The Prettiest Curse*

      I have both Ukrainian and Russian heritage, which is not obvious from my name. (Let’s just say that I’m not rooting for Russia, because otherwise it will get sweary.) I have 2 Russian colleagues in my office – one is very anti-Putin/anti-war and the other doesn’t really discuss it, so I’m not sure. It took quite a while for my colleague who is anti-Putin to discuss it with me. People usually aren’t comfortable discussing geopolitics on their first encounter, so in this case I’d just attribute the colleague’s remark to initial meeting awkwardness.

      Also, it would be a bit weird to have to denounce everything potentially bad associated with your heritage, religion etc. when you are first introduced to someone! I’m from the UK and also have Irish heritage, plus a bit of Serbian and Swedish too. So denouncing everything bad that has ever been done by all of those countries would take me a really, really long time.

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        Also, it would be a bit weird to have to denounce everything potentially bad associated with your heritage, religion etc. when you are first introduced to someone!

        Most people simply don’t draw attention to it! It’s the act of drawing attention to it that makes their silence in the face of ongoing murder speak volumes to me.

        Reply ↓
        1. Crystal Lettuce*

          I assume you have never worked in a foreign country? Because if you have a foreign name and accent, someone will draw attention to your nationality, regardless if you want it or not.

          Reply ↓
          1. JM60*

            If someone said what country they were from because someone else asked, then said nothing of the war, I still wouldn’t see that as equivalent to this situation.

            By mentioning that he’s from Russian, plus others are from Ukraine, and remarking, “I wonder how that will go”, he’s very much drawing attention to the war. Doing that without saying anything against it would make it feel like they’re okay with the war.

            Reply ↓
          2. Caller 2*

            It’s not drawing attention to the nationality that’s the issue. It’s drawing attention to the conflict.

            Reply ↓
          1. Spencer Hastings*

            I’m also thinking that these people may all be operating in their third or fourth language, so things might come out weird due to that.

            Reply ↓
            1. Silver Robin*

              This happens so much; I totally understand why the statement landed awkwardly and why LW feels some type of way about it, especially considering their family is in danger. All of that makes total sense.

              And, I also would bet the Russian was thinking “oh God are they all going to hate me about this awful war…maybe if I say something about the awkward it will break the tension and they will know I am not an ass?” And then it does not translate at all because the context is different, the folks do not know him as well, the language does not work quite the same way…and here we are.

              Reply ↓
            2. I Have RBF*

              I used to regularly have to mediate between a Russian and an Indian, because although they both spoke English, neither was great at it, they both had heavy accents, and they could not understand each other. I would literally listen to one, then echo it with cleaned up grammar and my American accent to the other, who could then understand it. Doing this for long enough helped both of them adjust to each other’s accents and made communication work better.

              Reply ↓
        3. Tea Monk*

          Yea I would just consider him a weird dude if he mentioned it, but if he said he agreed we’d have a problem. Just mentioning , ok, not very socially graceful, but agreeing? Not proper in the workplace.

          Reply ↓
        4. RussianInTexas*

          I am sorry to tell you, but even after 25 years I’m the US people can tell where I am from by both my access and my name. And when people ask, I am not going to lie.

          Reply ↓
          1. JM60*

            People knowing what country you’re from a country that is attacking their friends and family isn’t the same thing as you drawing attention to that war.

            By mentioning that he’s from Russian, plus others are from Ukraine, and remarking, “I wonder how that will go”, he’s very much drawing attention to the war.

            Reply ↓
      2. Elizabeth West*

        I was wondering if the Russian person was in Europe not just to work but because he noped out of Russia. I recall seeing that quite a few people bailed at the beginning of it.

        Anyway, I guess we won’t know unless we get an update that says he was more forthcoming.

        Reply ↓
        2. JM60*

          Someone can flee their country when due to it starting a war while still be morally okay with the war. For instance, they might flee because they’re morally okay with the war, but they don’t want to be drafted to fight in it.

          If you don’t know much about someone, it can be hard to know if someone fled the country because they’re morally against the war or because they’re okay with the war and fled entirely for reasons of person interest.

          Reply ↓
    6. Drag0nfly*

      That’s an overly emotional and unfair way of looking at the situation. The manager is not obligated to comment on the war, or to match your feelings about the war. The manager IS obligated to make sure the workplace is peaceful. You deserve to work peacefully, the Russian deserves to work peacefully, and your colleagues who are none of the above have the right to work peacefully, without being dragged into the conflict.

      Purity tests have no place in this situation; no one should be forced to speak your shibboleths in order to be treated decently. And if you’re a manager and were demanding people speak your shibboleths, you open the door for lawsuits. “The employee wasn’t performative to my satisfaction in voicing what I want him to voice, so I decided he must be the bad guy?”

      It’s honestly bigotry to assume “the Russian must be bad because he’s Russian,” and “she must be corrupt because she’s Ukrainian.” All that is required of the manager and the coworkers is to behave like professional adults. You — the hypothetical you in your scenario — don’t know if the Russian manager was escaping conscription, has relatives who were conscripted, has personally suffered in some other way, or what. And it’s none of your business either way. They don’t have to prove that to you, they just have to treat you decently and reasonably, the same way they need to treat the other coworkers.

      In your case, if your hypothetical self would have such hostility, you may want to observe the rule about not discussing politics. This way you don’t jump the gun and assume a person keeping quiet must be engaging in bad think, rather than prudently seeking to maintain the peace.

      Reply ↓
      1. Garlic Knot*

        When my family is under rockets for three years, there should be no expectation of “being fair”.

        Reply ↓
      2. JM60*

        The manager is not obligated to comment on the war

        Merely being from a country that is killing someone’s else’s friend and family in another country doesn’t itself obligate you to affirmatively denounce that murdering. However, it’s different it you draw attention to the murdering. Then, the act of drawing attention to it makes your silence in the face of ongoing murder look like you’re okay with it.

        It’s honestly bigotry to assume “the Russian must be bad because he’s Russian,”

        I never made that assumption.

        or to match your feelings about the war.

        If you’re of the opinion that Russia’s war on Ukraine is okay, then you’re either extremely confused (perhaps brainwashed), or you’re a bad person. Even if it’s the former, I think someone from Ukraine has the right to feel uncomfortable working for you.

        Reply ↓
        1. learnedthehardway*

          Agreed – it would have been one thing if the manager had simply not brought up the issue, and had said something like “I’m looking forward to working with each of you”.

          But to say, “Well, I’m Russian, some of you are Ukranian, and we’ll have to see how it goes!” – to me, that’s a VERY odd statement to make. It might mean he’s a bit worried about how things will go (if so, why not be reassuring about it). OR it might mean “I’m not that keen on Ukranians, so don’t cross me”. Or perhaps “I’m anticipating trouble from you and am letting you know that I won’t put up with it.”

          Personally, I would document this and sit on it. I wouldn’t necessarily go to HR right now, but I would send an email to myself so I had a time/date stamp on it.

          Reply ↓
    7. Vique*

      What a strange thing to say.
      Clearly both the LW and their manager are leaving abroad so why would you assume the manager is supporting the war?

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        They drew attention to it without denouncing Russia’s war. That’s very different from just passively not denouncing wrongdoing by your country if the subject never came up.

        There are plenty of Russians living outside Russia who support the Russian government.

        Reply ↓
        1. Crystal Lettuce*

          I am a Russian manager, and I always say that I am from Russia when I introduce myself to new coworkers. Something along the line of “I studied in X university in Moscow, Russia, started my career at Y company doing A, moved to the UK in 2015 and have worked in B and C companies doing D.” Just because when people meet someone with foreign name and foreign accent, it is natural for them to wonder where I am from. I’d rather address it right away than answer awkward questions later. I did the same well before full-scale Ukraine invasion started.

          Reply ↓
          1. Myrin*

            JM60 is talking about the manager’s specifically pointing out that there are multiple employees from Ukraine and als “wondering how that will go”, thereby making a direct reference to the current political situation and the war in particular. That’s different from someone just factually stating where they’re from.

            Reply ↓
            1. Caller 2*

              People are really missing JM60s point again and again and I’m not sure why. It makes a lot of sense to me that drawing attention to the conflict without condemning it, as these Russian manager has done, is completely different to just being from the aggressor country. And I will add, especially when the Russian person talking about the war but not condemning it is in a position of power over the Ukrainians.

              Reply ↓
              1. Silver Robin*

                all of this, even though I have some sympathy for the guy potentially just putting his foot way up in his mouth, JM60’s position is crystal clear to me too

                Reply ↓
              2. Lenora Rose*

                “I wonder how that will go?” — seems like a stretch to describe that as actively drawing attention to the conflict. So much depends on tone, and on things that might be lost in translation due to this being a second (or more) language.

                It could be that by trying to nod at the elephant in the room, he thought he WAS making clear either that he saw the Ukrainians as fellow people worthy of acknowledgement, or tacitly indicating he wasn’t entirely happy with the actions of his country. In any case, I would give him more than a single awkward statement at one meeting before I assumed he supported the war.

                More than once, even in writing, I have thought I said something in plain language, then when the other person reacted as if I hadn’t, I looked back, and realised I’d left it implicit, not explicit, and had to clarify. Now, thankfully, I haven’t been in this situation, exactly – though as a white settler colonial who works with First Nations peoples and newcomer (immigrant/refugee) groups both, I could be seen as doing so every day.

                Reply ↓
                1. JM60*

                  The thing is that the particular “elephant in the room” in this case is that the country he’s from is attacking and murdering people in the country that others in the room have family/friends in. So I don’t think that giving a nod to that elephant in the room does not make it clear that you see Ukrainians as fellow people unless you say something sympathetic to them.

                  If you don’t feel like you can say something sympathetic to Ukrainians in that scenario because you fear the Russian government will punish you or your family members, that situation is a pickle. However, it would be best to say nothing.

        2. Kotow*

          I mean, it’s likely already clear from the name and accent where the person is from so I see it as addressing what others already noticed- whether they would have cared prior to the comment is a different thing entirely but it’s not inherently unreasonable to bring that out into the open. The comment itself is awkward. Given the context of a foreign country, I can see a scenario where it’s a language issue. I have a fairly large circle of people from Poland, Ukraine, and Russia, and it’s very common to hear awkward comments like that. There are many reasons somebody wouldn’t want to get into a discussion of the war at work even if they felt it necessary to confirm where they’re from, so unless there is additional evidence otherwise, I don’t believe any intentions can be assumed.

          Reply ↓
          1. learnedthehardway*

            There is that. I guess a Russian might be (rightly) worried that a negative comment about the war could have negative effects on themselves or family back in Russia.

            It really is hard to determine what the intention is from the comment.

            Reply ↓
            1. amoeba*

              Huh? I know loads of Russians in Europe and while Putin certainly also has eyes and ears here, I haven’t met any Expats yet who were afraid of speaking out against him. (Even publicly/on social media, etc. – just in a conversation, the hypothetical risk would be much lower, right?)

              Reply ↓
            1. Spencer Hastings*

              The way I interpreted it, they are in a third country in Europe with people of other nationalities, and they were all speaking English or German or whatever.

              Reply ↓
    8. Myrin*

      I get what you’re saying but I can honestly imagine that that’s reading too much intent into the whole situation.

      When I first read the letter, my immediate reaction was a dismayed “Oh no, why would you proactively bring this up, and in such a weird way???”. I’m actually with you in that it’s supremely awkward and possibly even suspicious to call attention to these facts and then just randomly leave them dangling like that (“I wonder how that will go.”? Like, come on. Could you have worded that any more uncomfortably?) but if there’s no other reason to believe the manager is a fan of Putin’s, treating the Ukrainian employees differently, or something along those lines, I’d honestly chalk it up to thoughtless awkwardness and/or social gracelessness (also not something I’m a fan of in a manager but better than a supporter of an active war).

      Reply ↓
      1. Emmy Noether*

        I agree with this. It’s been my experience that many people from countries with autocratic/repressive regimes are very reticent to make a statement against that regime to people they do not know well, even if they are indeed against it.

        It’s possible he had the impulse to say something about the elephant in the room and ended up saying something very awkward because he didn’t want to declare himself in front of a room of essentially strangers. Was that a mistake? I think so. But I’d give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Especially if he’s been out of Russia for a while – he’d know that being pro-Russia won’t go over very well, so I feel like he’d be less likely to bring it up?

        Reply ↓
        1. JM60*

          People in countries with autocratic/repressive regimes, who are against those regimes, tend to be very reticent to make a statement against that regime. However, in my experience, people from those countries typically feel free to criticize those regimes in their everyday life after moving to another country.

          Reply ↓
          1. bamcheeks*

            I broadly agree with you about not bringing it up at all unless you’re prepared to offer support to colleagues who are almost certainly impacted on the war, but whether you feel safe to criticise your country of origin does depend on the country. LW just says they’re in Europe, and there are parts of Europe where it’s very safe for a Russian to criticise the Russian government, and parts where it’s not. And even in safe countries, I know several Russians who are anti-war but still very conflicted about vocally criticising a war and a government which, say, their propaganda-consuming family is still supporting.

            So I don’t think I’d necessarily assume the Russian colleague was pro-war, but I’d certainly have a degree of caution around them.

            (And not bringing it up is definitely the top option.)

            Reply ↓
          2. Numbersmouse*

            It seriously depends on the regime, how they operate, if the person in question still has family living back home (and who therefore might be retaliated against), who they know/think is listening, etc.

            Reply ↓
            2. RussianInTexas*

              Thank you! Honestly I am terrified of losing my US citizenship nowadays because (waves hands around).

              Reply ↓
          3. Emmy Noether*

            I disagree. People may have to go back at some point, or have close family still in those countries. Not everyone who is currently in another country has emigrated permanently. And even then, one may eventually need a passport/paperwork and mysteriously find it blocked, or want to go back for a visit, or one’s host country might decide to throw one out.

            It’s not strange to be careful, and for some countries, it’s understandable to be downright paranoid.

            Reply ↓
          4. Lenora Rose*

            Your experience is not universal; I have rarely, in fact, seen people from those countries (not second generation or more descendants, but the actual new immigrants or the equivalent of green card / work visa holders) let go the habit of years/decades and suddenly unleash their views on their birth country’s politics on the world. Mostly, they talk around it instead, letting it be understood, as it were.

            And this is worse for people whose home countries are infamous for having extensive spy networks following the actions of their expatriates and acting if they get too far out of line. (This is most famous with China, but China isn’t the only one.)

            Reply ↓
      2. Dust Bunny*

        This. I don’t know why so many comments are overlooking the second part. If he had just said he was Russian, for all I know he GTFO for reasons that I would find pretty obvious. But the “I wonder how that will go” is weird.

        I’m American and voted against [you know who] at every opportunity. I do not want to talk about it. No way in H*ll would I bring it up spontaneously.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lenora Rose*

          Weird, but we sometimes say weird things when feeling awkward and don’t phrase things as pithily as if we were carrying an Ask a Manager or Captain Awkward Script in our pockets, and I think reading support for Russia into it is a step too far.

          Reply ↓
    9. Ellis Bell*

      It could easily be that the manager simply thinks that it should have nothing to do with the work, but if that’s the case it was awkward to bring it up without stating why. I think OP would have felt more reassured if they’d taken a stance.

      Reply ↓
    10. Nia*

      I don’t know why you’re getting so much pushback from this. You’re completely correct, that the manager brought it up and then didn’t say anything further is a red flag.

      Reply ↓
      2. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

        The pushback is because yes that MIGHT be what happened but it’s too soon to say, and given that the stakes are high in many ways for the LW, it is better to listen, wait, get to know him better before coming to this conclusion.

        Reply ↓
        1. JM60*

          it is better to listen, wait, get to know him better before coming to this conclusion.

          I think someone in the OP’s position doesn’t need to reach a 100% conclusive conclusion in order to justifiably feel uncomfortable working with the OP.

          If you weren’t sure whether or not someone you know is okay with the killing of your family, wouldn’t that make you at least uncomfortable or uneasy around them?

          Reply ↓
    11. Your Local Password Resetter*

      Manager definitely fumbled this one, but since LW still has to work under them I’d treat it as an awkward acknowledgment of the situation without getting into extremely volatile and personal topics at work.

      Definitely do keep an eye out on how the manager treats people though. And would it be worth adressing it directly, since this caused friction that a good manager would presumably want to clear up?

      Reply ↓
    12. Roland*

      I feel like not saying “I’m against the war” can also quite reasonably mean “I don’t want to put my family in danger by talking about my politics with people I don’t know at all”

      Reply ↓
    13. Zarniwoop*

      I’d consider the possibility that they’re concerned about possible repercussions should word get home that they said anything against Putin or the war.

      Reply ↓
    14. RIP Pillowfort*

      I think what they said was incredibly tone deaf and concerning. Saying “I wonder how that will go” is awkward, concerning, kind of smug to me and just not reading the room. You have multiple Ukrainian employees!

      And it’s the manager. The person in a position of power over these employees. I don’t know if they’re for or against the war but the first impression they made absolutely sucks. I get why OP is worried but it’s honestly just not enough information to go over their head about.

      Reply ↓
    15. RussianInTexas*

      Wait what? You can see by my name I am from Russia. I’ve moved to the US 25 years ago, and I am a US citizen, although I still have some family in Russia.
      I am absolutely against the war, and I have not once said so at work. I also do not speak about Palestine, trans rights, or anything else of the sort, because my work is not a place to speak about such things, even with co-workers I know think similar to myself.
      I call my representatives instead of taking about this at work.

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        The difference is that the manager called attention to the war (by referencing the fact that they have close ties to the opposing countries, then saying “I wonder how that will go”). That’s very different from never mentioning it.

        Reply ↓
    16. Crooked Bird*

      I have to say I would feel the same way. There’s very little purpose to the manager’s having brought up these facts EXCEPT to create an opportunity to level with the employees in some way and make things more comfortable for everyone by saying (or implying–there are ways!) that they didn’t endorse the war. And yet they brought it up and didn’t do that. I’d feel uncomfortable too.

      Now hopefully we’re wrong and next week LW hears a quiet comment from them that sets her at ease on the matter–but if so, the initial comment was a fumble, socially and emotionally speaking.

      Reply ↓
      1. xylocopa*

        Yeah. I mean, I do think it’s quite possible the person is just…really awkward like that, wanted to acknowledge that there could be tension but didn’t know how to do that in a useful way. But wow did they swing and miss. If I were in that room I’d be very uncomfortable.

        Reply ↓
    17. Helvetica*

      I agree with this. I am from a country that Russia occupied and while we are not under kinetic attack now, if my new manager used this phrase to introduce themselves, I would be quite wary. It’s not that all Russians support Putin but to say “I wonder how this will go” is a weird comment to make. While it seems that most people on this thread are not so intimately linked to this particular geopolitical situation, speaking as someone who is – this is suspect.

      Reply ↓
      1. Neon Rain*

        Yeah, I feel like most Americans (and most Europeans, for that matter) with a certain distance from the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine are missing a lot of context when they react to incidents like this. It’s particularly obvious with tone-deaf analogies between OP#3’s situation and an American expecting a Muslim to denounce ISIS or terrorism. The power dynamics are the opposite here.

        A more approppriate comparison, for what it’s worth, would be if a new Israeli manager showed up, and announced that he’s from Israel, so it will interesting to see how it works out with all these Palestinians on the team. It’s a really odd and unsettling comment to casually drop and leave hanging in the air with no follow-up to explain what they find so interesting about it.

        No one is claiming that the new manager is automatically terrible or an obvious Putinist, but they spontaneously alluded to the conflict, thereby inviting speculation. Accusing OP of bigotry for being concerned and chiding them for being too emotional about their home and family being actively bombed for the third consecutive year is outrageously offensive.

        Reply ↓
        1. cat mom x2*

          100% correct. most americans have very little understanding of the nuances of the ukraine/russia relationship, and how ukrainians feel dealing with russians in their day to day lives, but they sure do love lecturing me, a ukrainian, about why i’m the bad person for being wary

          Reply ↓
        2. Helvetica*

          Yes, exactly. The analogies presented above are not analogying. It’s maybe more if an American would use this phrasing in a workplace consisting of Vietnamese or Iraqi, and even then, the comparison is not exactly the same.

          Reply ↓
    18. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      I’m with you here. Or at least follow it up with I expect everyone to behave professionaly, and I will too.

      The whoo boy this is awkward thing without anything more made it very suspect.

      Reply ↓
    19. Whoopsie*

      I agree with you. Why would someone, out of the blue, very specifically mention the fact that several of his employees are Ukranian and he’s Russian and then only say “guess we’ll see how it goes?” It’s weird to bring it up without prompting, and then having such a flippant response does not look good. It’s testing the waters.

      Reply ↓
    20. HannahS*

      That is a really bizarre take. I’m Canadian and I know most people who read this site are American, and I certainly don’t expect every American I meet to comment on whether or not they approve with their government’s actions, and I don’t assume that an American saying that they’re American is a tacit approval of Trump’s action.

      It’s not reasonable to expect people to perform being a good person for you. Real life isn’t X or Tumblr.

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        I certainly don’t expect every American I meet to comment on whether or not they approve with their government’s actions

        But what if the American in question brought up the “Canada as the 51st state” thing around you? That is more closely analogous to what the manager did.

        The manager didn’t merely exist as a person from Russia. The brought attention to the fact that they have connections to the country that is attacking the country that the OP has family in.

        Reply ↓
    21. Observer*

      but if a manager brought up that they’re from Russia, others are from Ukraine, and they don’t say anything against the war, I’d take that as a sign that they aren’t against the war.

      Yeah, well that’s not a good sign at all. There are at least two potential issues at play. One is a real tendency on the part of many Russians to be very careful about what they say in public about stuff like this,e specially if they have family still in Russia (or Ukraine).

      The other is that for a lot of people this whole mess is quite complex. Not expressing an opinion is absolutely not an indication that he’s just fine with the situation. It’s more likely to be a sign that his feelings are a bit more complicated than could easily, professionally and usefully be explained in a meeting of this sort.

      Reply ↓
      2. Stipes*

        But if he didn’t want to say anything about the Russia/Ukraine situation, he could have just not said anything about it. Instead, he specifically mentioned it. He went out of his way to create an opportunity to express an opinion and then not do so. That’s going to feel pointed!

        Reply ↓
      3. JM60*

        Not expressing an opinion is absolutely not an indication that he’s just fine with the situation.

        It’s not merely the fact that the manager didn’t say anything against the war. It’s that they called attention to the war (by referencing the fact that people present have connections to the countries in war war, then saying, “I wonder how that will go”).

        It’s more likely to be a sign that his feelings are a bit more complicated than could easily, professionally and usefully be explained in a meeting of this sort.

        If by complicated feelings you mean that they’re morally opposed to their country’s attack on Ukraine, but they don’t feel free to say what they actually think because they or their family in Russia could be punished by the Russian government, that situation is a pickle.

        If by complicated feelings you mean they’re not sure if they’re morally opposed to the war, then to the extent that they think the war might be okay they’re at best very confused, and at worst, it says something about their moral values. Even the former is a valid reason for someont from Ukraine to feel uncomfortable working with them.

        Reply ↓
    22. FunkyMunky*

      I’m from Ukraine and my extended family is still in Ukraine. I don’t expect all Russians living in Canada to openly denounce what Russia is doing in Ukraine, including all of those I meet. I think the announcement was awkward and could be done without one, but I don’t necessarily think there’s anything else to it

      Reply ↓
    23. It seems I need a name to comment here...*

      Not sure why people are bending over backwards to defend the Russian in your hypothetical. A Conservative Christian colleague could also reasonably be expected to have certain opinions supporting the current administration unless they specifically go out of their way to say otherwise. If commenters in this thread aren’t already used to reading between the lines given the last, say, decade of American happenings, I wonder if they will ever….

      Reply ↓
  10. Raida*

    4. How to say “this was your idea” to my manager

    As a reporting and data person I’d handle it like this:
    Write down, in bullet points, the parameters, confirming the measures and methodologies are suited to the end goals at the time the task is given to you. Refuse to progress until this step has been taken, offer to put ten minutes in the calendar to nail it all down.
    Put all that in email. Include a statement of the deadline and the current estimated date of completion.
    When providing the end result, the email goes something like:

    Morning Jo,

    Please find attached the requested data.
    As per your parameters this includes
    – Date Range
    – Weekdays only
    – Excluding Public and School Holidays
    – Customer Type
    – Cumulative Monthly Total Sales
    – Site Load Profile
    – defined as Daily Maximum Load
    – excluding all Unknown and Clown models

    Essentially: I treat it like it is *important*, so I will put in the effort necessary to provide something that is both wanted and useful and understood – so they will provide the information required to do so.
    As a student, this would be called “conscientious” but as an adult it is called “pedantic” and fckmedead, but pedantic is good for people who give wishy washy requests or change their mind or don’t think things through or complain.

    Reply ↓
    1. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

      “Refuse to progress until this step has been taken” is probably not practical, especially with a skip level boss.

      But love your sample email for sending over the information.

      Reply ↓
      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        The phrasing isn’t practical, but “before I move on I want to make sure we’re aligned so I’m going to put ten minutes on your calendar” is an appropriate level of assertive and functionally serves the same purpose.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lacey*

          Yup. I do this with coworkers all the time.
          I work with people who often make requests without fully thinking through the project so this is just a really practical way to make sure I don’t waste a ton of time doing something no one actually needs me to do.

          Reply ↓
    2. learnedthehardway*

      If I was dealing with a manager who routinely changed their directions or expected things they had not requested, I would start sending that email out BEFORE I started the work, along the lines of “To recap our meeting, here is what I will be doing for you. Please advise if you have any changes to make.”

      Reply ↓
  11. Glen*

    re LW1:

    Reading the letter, it was first escalated to HR when they originally asked the coworker out! HR had already told this person not to bother their coworker. I suspect we’re not getting the full story here but, regardless, don’t swipe right on a coworker that you have already been told to stop bothering! Even if it has been two years! Given the whole mutual-swipes thing I’m not convinced it was a major violation, but it’s still an obviously bad idea under those circumstances. Not shocked that it wound up back in front of HR, even if it was entirely innocent it certainly *looks* like boundary testing.

    Reply ↓
    1. Glen*

      whoops, no. It’s not even all that ambiguous I just apparently can’t read. HR asked the friend to leave their colleague alone after The Big Swipe. Yeah, overkill, unless there’s something we weren’t told, and there’s genuinely no way to call it.

      Reply ↓
  12. Just me*

    The whole scenario on swiping someone’s dating profile being a problem just doesn’t make sense to me. Now granted I haven’t had any experience with such as I’m from the sign up and let the computer match you days, which were crazy with what was suggested as possible matches! Still just swiping on a profile in my opinion would be simply checking to see if this is the person I think it is or not. So why would that be problematic?

    Reply ↓
    1. Glen*

      swiping right on someone afaik is actually indicating an interest in them, you swipe after viewing their profile.

      still sounds like overkill unless there’s more going on than we’ve been told.

      Reply ↓
      1. amoeba*

        Eh, in social settings, that differs. Back when I was on Tinder, if you met somebody you knew, the unspoken rule would always be to swipe right and have a laugh about it – it was implied that you weren’t actually interested (because well, if you were, you’d have probably brought this up before?) but swiping left was actually a bit of a social slight for us.

        However, the fact that he’d asked her out before does change the dynamic a bit. I’d still give him the benefit of the doubt though – you do usually assume people can only see you liked them if they liked you back, so he would have assumed there was no way she’d feel harassed because if she wasn’t either interested after all or also found it funny, she’d just never know.
        (Honestly, I feel like that “premium” stuff is really destroying the concept of Tinder…)

        Reply ↓
    2. Hroethvitnir*

      Eh. I’m old and taken enough to have never had to deal with dating sites, and I wouldn’t go to HR based on what we know, but if someone who’d asked me out in the past and I continue to interact with at work swiped right, I would be keeping an *incredibly* suspicious eye on them for creepy behaviour.

      If I’d asked someone out and they said no, I cannot describe how fast I’d swipe left if I saw them on a dating site. If it was an *actual* accident and I got called to HR, I’m not saying I wouldn’t have any degree of internal defensiveness, but the overwhelming feeling is feeling awful I made someone feel anxious enough to go to HR.

      The letter has rules lawyer vibes, which does not predispose me to being generous in my interpretation, frankly.

      Reply ↓
      1. MsM*

        Yeah, unless HR did a lot more than “okay, pal, she’s not going to change her mind here; don’t go deciding third time’s the charm, or we’re going to have a serious problem” based on one offhand drinks invite and now this, the fact the guy’s been complaining about this enough that OP felt compelled to write in on his behalf doesn’t make me particularly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

        Reply ↓
        1. Silver Robin*

          or the guy brought it up to complain about only when he got called into HR because “can you believe???”. And LW submitted this on the offhand chance it gets answered because the story they got seemed absurd

          Reply ↓
      2. sparkle emoji*

        Yeah, the rules lawyering struck me as icky too. The preemptive explanations of why it was okay actually, and how being on a dating app means they opened themselves up to this. Would it be HR worthy, as written, to me? No. But there’s so much in the letter that feels like the LW is going out of their way to show how much the reporter is overreacting that it’s pinging some discomfort for me. If there was more contact besides what’s in the letter(that a friend wouldn’t be privy too) I can see that pushing this into HR territory.

        Reply ↓
      3. CM*

        Yes, agreed on the rules-lawyering. The friend “absent-mindedly” swiped right? And they shouldn’t have to make a “researched decision” before swiping right? You don’t have to do research before swiping right, but noticing that this is your coworker, who has also previously rejected you, does not require research. And the question implies that it was overkill on the part of the coworker who called in HR, even though the actual question asked is “is it ok to swipe right on coworkers?”

        Overkill or not, I would hope the friend apologized and assured the coworker that they would not continue to express romantic interest in them in the future.

        And for the more general question, is it ok to swipe right on a coworker… if you already know them in a work context, you should be aware that it might be weird. HR violation weird? Probably not, but it depends on your other interactions with them.

        Reply ↓
      4. Tau*

        Rules-lawyer vibes is an excellent way to put it and drives home what is bugging me about this whole situation.

        I am possibly biased by being a queer woman in a male-dominated field who would strongly prefer it if my male colleagues considered me to be the sexual and romantic equivalent of furniture. But the way I see it, asking people out at work is a fraught business with a pretty significant failure state: if your approach is unwanted and target ill-chosen, you can permanently sour a working relationship or leave someone feeling intruded upon and uncomfortable in the place that they spend a significant chunk of their waking hours and also rely on to survive. That is Bad. If, despite that, you choose to use work as your dating pool, then you had damn well better know what you’re doing and be willing to shoulder the risk of the bad outcome so the damage mainly falls on you. (And this goes *triply* for any romantic actions after someone has already rejected you once.)

        The fact that OOP’s friend ended up in a conversation with HR about leaving their coworker alone indicates they’re failing at the former. The fact that they seem to be grousing about the coworker overreacting instead of “oh shit, I didn’t mean to make her this uncomfortable” indicates they’re failing at the latter. Whether there was more in between the two events we don’t know about is almost irrelevant – I think OP’s friend should stop looking for dates at work no matter what. They don’t seem to have finely tuned enough social skills to handle it.

        Reply ↓
    3. Nodramalama*

      Unless this is some other app, you generally don’t get a notification is someone just looks at your profile. Swiping is literally signalling to that person an interest.

      Reply ↓
    4. Emily Byrd Starr*

      “which were crazy with what was suggested as possible matches”

      It reminds of the Friends episode where Chandler tried online dating and was matched with his ex-girlfriend, and then they started dating again!

      Reply ↓
    5. Beth*

      On swiping apps, you look at their profile and then swipe one way to say you’re interested and try to connect, or the other way to say you’re not interested and reject connecting. If you’re swiping on a stranger’s profile, you don’t know anything about them other than their profile, so it doesn’t mean much. But when you’re swiping to say “I’m interested, I want to connect” on someone who’s already rejected you, that comes off as ignoring the rejection you already got.

      Reply ↓
  13. Nolongerthere*

    I once worked for a company that supplied wineries with supplies – think corks, bottles, barrels, etc. One of our suppliers brought their supplies in from Europe, but then sent the supplies via freight train from the East Coast to our office on the West Coast. There was a train strike I believe in Canada, so one of our shipments was seriously delayed in a particular winery was having fits. I called a bunch of people and was able after several days of legwork to get the shipment released off the plane and for someone to fly it to our supplier.

    In gratitude, the winery sent me a case of wine and you should’ve heard my boss complaining from here to Timbuktu! “Why did you get a case of wine? I’m the owner I should get the case of wine.” I simply replied” Tim wanted to thank me for getting him those capsules so quickly. Train strike remember?” He was still PO’d but didn’t try to take any of the wine.

    Reply ↓
  14. Glen*

    also, re #4 – Alison’s final piece of advice is perfect and is a good habit to have anyway. I would frame it as “just to make sure we’re on the same page, you need a spreadsheet With A, B, C, and X, with X defined as . I will proceed on that basis unless there’s something I have misunderstood”. Can be tricky/obnoxious if the task is actually very simple so exercise discretion, but it’s something I always made use of as a designer. Laying out your understanding in text is good for solidifying your ideas around it, can help you spot potential issues, gives you and other parties an agreed-upon interpretation of your task, and is a good checklist to work from.

    Reply ↓
  15. Nodramalama*

    Yes, LW1, you haven’t doubtlessly got the story as the truth from your friends perspective. But I highly suspect the coworker will have a different perspective.

    Reply ↓
  16. Numbat*

    I know a guy, Mr Business Owner, who was offered one ticket to a high profile sporting event that takes place in another state.

    He asked to pass the phone to Mrs Business Owner, so the vendor could explain to her that she would be missing out on going, while Mr Business Owner went and left her home alone.

    The vendor quickly came up with another ticket.

    Reply ↓
        1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

          Ew. Pushy with a side of sexism, like “don’t subject me to the wailing of this banshee if she can’t go.” Maybe reading too much into it due to knowing too many men who talk about being “in trouble” with their wives, or call their wives “the boss” or “management” while wearing a big old smirk.

          Reply ↓
  17. Palmer*

    #1 could be a case of unreliable narrator.

    It’s possible LW’s friend asked her out more than once, or that he’s had other discomforting behavior. I expect that could explain going to HR over a swipe.

    #3 I expect some conveyance from LW that they value peace and family and that everyone gets to be safe could convey that they are not their country, that their values are not different from people on the other side of the war. It is pretty obvious most people don’t support the wild expansionist behavior of Russia and would love for the conflict to stop. I wouldn’t go diving into politics, but it should be pretty easy for LW to humanize themself.

    #4 When dealing with flipfloppers and ‘forgetful’ bosses, I tend to write up all the things they listed as action items, so I can itemize to specifically what they want accomplished, as well as dates. This serves as receipts. Preemptively mentioning you did what they asked is re-hydrating them on context (in the event they’re competent just juggling things and forgetting why they prioritized certain things.

    You can throw in a little bit of a “I followed your instructions on A & B and think it improved this significantly’. This type of flattery is good for the micromanagey types who are self conscious or want to feel like they were involved and risk mangling things with constant adjustments. Some bosses will regularly do small unnecessary tweaks.

    Reply ↓
    2. Crooked Bird*

      I think you misread #3. LW is the Ukrainian employee, not the Russian manager, so the problem isn’t so simple.

      Reply ↓
  18. I'm the Phoebe in Any Group*

    For the swiping on the co-worker, maybe the swiper was already low level inappropriate with the coworker who rejected her: flirting, looks, stuff like that. If that happened, then the swipe, going to HR makes sense.

    Reply ↓
  19. Garlic Knot*

    #4 I am a Ukrainian living abroad, and I expect this will turn into an issue (for me). My first language is Russian, and some companies see it as an asset, whereas I’ve been avoiding exactly that since about 2012. You didn’t hire me for my Russian, I’m not providing any work in Russian. But I am job hunting and can see a boss happily trying to make me work with Russian clients, which is just nope. I don’t care what their war stance is and don’t care to find out. Unfortunately, here where I live “acting like you are entitled to pick and choose your work tasks” is gross insubordination. But really, do spare us your accusations of “bigotry” (?!) and “not all Russians”. It is not personal for you.

    Reply ↓
  20. Queen Avocado Delilah*

    #1: How…. how does the coworker know they were swiped right on?? Every single dating app I know will only let the other person know they were swiped on if the swipe was mutual and they match, in which case, it’s two coworkers who are interested in each other.

    Some apps will allow you to tell the other person preemptively that you have swiped on them before they swipe on you so you can demonstrate your interest in them, but it’s pretty hard to do that absentmindedly (tends to be a paid feature).

    Fun fact: Tinder has trademarked the word ‘swipe’ in the context of dating apps (source: I’ve done freelance projects for a dating app company for 3+ years)

    Reply ↓
  21. Ginger Cat Lady*

    LW#1, I see two possibilities here:
    First, “friend” (is it ever really a friend?) might be one of those annoying guys who swipe on EVERYONE without looking or reading about them. These are the dudes who think that swiping on more people increases their chances of scoring, but really they just waste the time of lots of women. That needs to stop.
    Second, “friend” knew exactly what he was doing swiping on a woman he had hit on and been told to stay away from years before. He only claimed it was “absent-minded” when he got caught doing it again.
    It’s one thing to swipe on someone you don’t know works for the same large company. It’s a VERY different thing to swipe on someone you’ve explicitly been told to stay away from because of past interactions. Yes, even on a dating site. Being on a dating site does NOT mean you are open to former harassers reaching out to you again.
    If you cannot understand that, then I don’t know if anyone can help you.
    Neither of those is good for your “friend” and your friend needs to do better.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellis Bell*

      It’s speculative, I know, but I was thinking along the lines of your “he hits on everyone” theory myself. I think this guy is definitely playing the numbers game somewhat, because he doesn’t remember the person rejecting him, which implies he’s okay with a lot of rejection because he cold calls everyone. (I know you disbelieve that he doesn’t remember her because he had “been told to stay away years before”, but my read is that didn’t happen until recently and after the swipe; the original rejection was just a no from the person he asked). Personally, I don’t have any problems with someone taking a wide net approach to dating, but I think they need to keep that particular approach firewalled from professional connections.

      Reply ↓
  22. bee*

    On its own, I don’t think simply swiping “yes” on a coworker on a dating app 2 years after having been turned down for a date is egregious. Especially if it’s on a dating app where the standard experience means the other person would only know how somebody swiped if they also expressed interest. I can see how somebody could see that as “I’m not pursuing, just keeping the door open in case this person has changed their mind.”

    That all being said, since LW said they’re asking for a friend, I’d be a bit cautious about implicitly trusting their friend’s perspective on whether or not their coworker was right to feel creeped out. I’ve witnessed people say to friends “I don’t know why they think I’m creepy— I’ve only asked them out once!” but then they’ve spent the better part of a year gazing forlornly at their coworker from across the room. There may be all sorts of dynamics and context that might make the coworker feel like LW’s friend’s like was more loaded or creepy than was conveyed to LW.

    But on the general etiquette for coworkers and dating apps, I would say it’s okay to swipe yes, but proceed with caution. Don’t engage with coworkers if your profile is overtly sexual or would otherwise be considered inappropriate for a coworker. Don’t make a habit of swiping yes on, like, every person you work with— people talk and you might get an odd reputation. Be mindful of power dynamics (e.g. if you’re the CEO, don’t swipe yes on the intern). Be more cautious if you work directly with somebody. And finally, make sure that if you’re swiping yes on coworkers, be sure that you can be chill about it at work and that you handle rejection gracefully.

    Reply ↓
    1. Still*

      This. Swiping right on a coworker might be ill-advised but, as you said, the standard behaviour is that it won’t be seen unless it’s mutual. Consent is a built-in part of the process.

      Going to HR over it means that either:
      a) the coworker is wildly overreacting, or
      b) your friend has made the coworker feel uncomfortable in more subtle ways that have been difficult to point a finger to, and the coworker is grasping at the right swipe as something tangible that they can bring up.

      Whatever the case, I think the takeaway is to be scrupulously professional towards the coworker from now on; towards all coworkers, really.

      Reply ↓
      1. Still*

        Also, it’s worth noticing that the friend has already outed themselves as an unreliable narrator. One does not simply forget a rejection or “absent-mindedly” swipe on somebody who’s rejected them. I don’t think it’s a huge deal to say “who knows, maybe they’ll be open to it now, no harm in trying” and swipe right. But I don’t believe for a second that it was “absent-minded”.

        Reply ↓
        1. Rew123*

          This is obviously a generalisation. I’ve witnessed quite a few male friends swipe without even looing at their screen. Once they match with someone then they look at the profile. Where as my female friends read and zoom before they swipe. It is very likely that they purposefully swiped right, but honestly it is a possiblity they just swipeswipeswipe.

          Reply ↓
          1. lanfy*

            Wait, what? They’re swiping to indicate interest without even looking at the picture of the person they’re supposedly interested in?

            …honestly, ewww.

            Reply ↓
          2. Still*

            You know what, you’re right, I definitely extrapolated from the way me and my female friends use apps like that. If the friend was swiping without looking, I could see them not noticing.

            Reply ↓
            1. Lily Rowan*

              You can look without really looking, too — you vaguely think, “that person looks good,” swipe, and then you realize you know them…

              Reply ↓
          3. Rogue Slime Mold*

            It’s my understanding (hypothetical; I married when the internet was in its infancy) that if you just swipe right on everyone, then the algorithm demotes your profile because such matches aren’t exciting for the people on the other end. And you may well be a bot.

            Reply ↓
        2. Not In Charge*

          Concurring with the person below me…. men don’t use dating apps like that.

          It’s a very weird and pretty toxic culture, but dating apps are very much seen as a numbers game for men. They intentionally swipe as much as possible just to collect matches. Tinder and other similar apps are MARKETED and DESIGNED to match people with mutual attraction, so for most people there’s no downside to “swipe right” on anyone. They are DESIGNED to stimulate a lot of your brain parts (novelty, “game” aspect, looking at nice looking people of your preferred gender, the endorphin rush of getting a match and “winning”) and for a lot of people, that’s basically what dating apps have become – a game. People swipe in airports on layovers for fun. Few people are taking it seriously anymore.

          As a woman I think it is a pretty gross way to approach dating interactions. But I have a hard time faulting someone for using an app the way that it’s designed according to the culture that’s built up around it, especially when there are a lot of otherwise normal men who use it the same way. I think Coworker is overreacting to the swipe itself, but their reaction might be very reasonable depending on Swiper’s behavior off the phone.

          Reply ↓
    2. Nodramalama*

      100%. Most people don’t think they’re being inappropriate or creepy. We have no idea what any of their other interactions are

      Reply ↓
    3. Working under my down comforter*

      I agree. We don’t know the side of the co-worker who went to HR. Maybe this friend made this person uncomfortable while on the job and it could be uneasy to work around someone who you had to romantically reject. And I would think that the friend would recognize this person from their dating profile easily.

      Reply ↓
    4. SimonTheGreyWarden*

      Yeah, if the friend has been sulking/staring forlornly/inserting themselves in conversation with the person they swiped on for the last 2 years, I can see why the swipee might escalate this.

      Reply ↓
    5. Emily Byrd Starr*

      “then they’ve spent the better part of a year gazing forlornly at their coworker from across the room”

      And they don’t realize that their gazing/leering was more obvious than they believed it was.

      Reply ↓
  23. Trauma bonded*

    LW #2 I don’t think it’s unusual for a perk to come with a plus one, so I don’t think it’s outrageous that execs are inviting guests not affiliated with the workplace. However, sharing perks is a strong retention strategy and clearly they are more interested in retaining their spouses than the employees. Please keep that in mind when considering your future career growth and opportunities at other employers.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dido*

      …EVERY married person should be more interested in retaining their spouse than their employees. you shouldn’t be making career decisions because your boss likes their spouse more than you.

      Reply ↓
  24. Cinn*

    LW4 when you’re originally asked for the report do you have any standing to be like “yep, I can get you that, but can you tell me what you’re hoping to get out of it?”. Then potentially recommend different/additional data sets?

    As someone who puts together lots of different reports together for people, I’ve found it much easier to get them the right information when I know what trends/data/whatever they’re actually looking to get out of it, rather than what they think will get them there.

    Reply ↓
    1. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

      I’d suggest phrasing like “I’d like to understand this report better, so can you give me more context for why we need to add those columns?” I.e. frame it as a learning/coaching moment for yourself/enlisting your boss’s help. Then when they ask later, you’ve got their own explanation to point back to.

      Honestly while your boss sounds like they have other issues, I empathize with the whole “Forgetting very specific discussions about report columns” thing as a manager who reviews a lot of reports. Something might make total sense to me in the middle of a discussion, but four days later when I’m looking at it I don’t necessarily remember the discussion.

      Reply ↓
  25. A*

    2: I could be reading this wrong. I see it as 6 total people at the organization (3 bosses and 3 employees) and 4 tickets (2 bosses and spouses).

    There is not a good way to divide 4 things between 6 people. I am guessing instead of picking among the employees the boss who didn’t care about the perk let the other two take it.

    I don’t think there is a way to divide this that would make the employees happy. I know some people are going to say the employees and one boss would be the best way to do it but that is not realistic.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      I think it’s okay (not great) this time, but if the company gets future tickets, I reeaaally hope the boss prioritizes the staff rather than continuing to go themselves every time.

      Reply ↓
      1. A*

        What I find interesting about this discussion today is that generally people in this space do not like after hours work obligations. There is a lot of “please no mandatory fun” or “all work parties should take place within work hours.”

        Today it feels that is flipped and people want the tickets that mean they spend after hours time with co-workers.

        This isn’t directed towards you specifically, just a general mood.

        Reply ↓
        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          I think you need to recognize the nuance here. It’s a gift from a client in appreciation of work done, not work setting an expectation that you are in a place to build culture or celebrate in a way they designate. The contingent you’re talking about isn’t saying “never set eyes on a coworker outside 9-5”, they’re saying they don’t want their company to designate how they spend their personal time. That’s not what this is.

          Reply ↓
            1. Eldritch Office Worker*

              I think they were a gift from a client that was completely optional to take and use, and the business took that opportunity away from them. That’s completely different than anything else you’re describing.

              Reply ↓
        2. Sloanicota*

          Ha, I want the staff to be *offered* the tickets, I don’t want it to be mandatory! If none of the staff wants to go and the managers do, then I have no problem with the managers going a second time. I assume the letter writer wanted to go to the event.

          Reply ↓
          1. A*

            I assume the LW wanted to go to the event, too. I sympathize with watching other people go to an event that you want to go to. This is an unpleasant feeling.

            I also think the way they divided it was valid even though the LW is smarting from it. Leadership gets access to perks is a dog bites man story.

            Reply ↓
        3. bamcheeks*

          I think you’re really overlooking the “mandatory” part of “mandatory fun”! If someone offered me F1 tickets as a perk, my response would be dear heavens, absolutely not, under no circumstances, please take your wife or your dog or offer them to a random person on the street. If they offered me theatre tickets, I’d be a lot more interested.

          I don’t quite understand how you can not see a clear distinction between, “here is a usually-expensive event as a treat, would you like to go?” and “here is a usually-expensive event, you must go”!

          Reply ↓
          1. A*

            I don’t quite understand how people today can’t see that they are flip flopping all over the place about spending personal time with co-workers so I think we are even.

            Reply ↓
            1. Silver Robin*

              who says you are spending it with coworkers? is it a given that the seats are assigned? also, the fact that you consider “whether or not I have the ability to comfortably decline” as resulting in “flipflopping” is kind of wild. Consent is a pretty straightforward determining factor.

              I literally had a situation where I had invited folks to a dinner party. One guest brought a plus one without asking me. One guest brought a plus one after checking with me first. I was annoyed with the former and happy to agree to the latter. Is that flipflopping? After all, they are both just bringing another friend along. If you understand my annoyance here, then simply apply the same logic to the question of spending time with coworkers outside of work.

              also… different people feel differently? I personally like my coworkers, I roll my eyes about “mandatory fun” events because management sppechifying is annoying, not because I dislike the people I will be spending the most time with. Other people feel extremely protective of their personal time and work at places with very different cultures. Unless you are tracking specific commenter’s positions on this (which would be *weird*), who exactly are you accusing of flipflopping? The amorphous “commentariat”? See above about different people being different.

              Reply ↓
              1. A*

                I think every time there is a question like “how can I reward my staff” the answers are overwhelmingly “money or time off.”

                Today people seem very hurt on the LW’s behalf that they were not given the opportunity to go to an after hours event.

                Is it okay to point out this discrepancy or does that go against commenting rules?

                Reply ↓
                1. Silver Robin*

                  1) folks are sympathetic, not hurt.

                  2) In what world does company A give employees at company B a day off or just straight cash as a thank you? That is not how company relationships work. Generally gifts are food or experiences; that is just the norm at the moment. You can take issue with that, but people are going to respond with those norms in mind. Which leads to…

                  3) When you see those other suggestions is when the rewards are entirely internal, which is a different dynamic. Applying those same standards in this situation is nonsensical.

                  4) Nobody is citing rules at you, we get to respond to unsound grousing that accuses the group in general.

            2. Eldritch Office Worker*

              It sounds like you have some personal feelings about spending time with coworkers and I hope those aren’t causing you too much personal angst. Spending time with coworkers is not the issue in mandatory fun, it’s the being told how you have to spend your time part.

              The reason you don’t want to do it may be because of coworkers, or because you’d rather be rock climbing, or personal energy, or anything else, but that’s not the reason it’s an issue.

              Reply ↓
    2. londonedit*

      I think the only possible way they could have done it would have been all the employees plus one of the bosses. You’re right that in many companies that wouldn’t be realistic, but you would sort of hope that the two bosses would have enough grace to have a conversation along the lines of ‘OK, I think we should treat Steve, Jane and Phil to these tickets – you go with them, I went to the rugby last time’. That’s kind of one of the things you have to do sometimes as a boss – put your staff first, because it’s more important that they’re happy. I think the bosses using the tickets for themselves and their spouses does just come off really badly. I know some people further up have said that it’s not unusual for things like tickets to be given specifically to the boss for their use, but I still feel like if there is an opportunity to involve the staff, then that should be taken if at all possible.

      Reply ↓
      1. A*

        This is a really interesting discussion today.

        I am far more likely to be in the employee category than leadership. I always went to work with the assumption that extra responsibility of leadership means access to perks. Of course they get the tickets, the higher salary, the corporate credit card, the first class tickets, etc etc.

        If leadership did not confer perks why would anybody do it?

        If I wanted perks like the tickets I would further my education in an effort to move into a leadership position. I wouldn’t expect perks to materialize at my current position.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          A good leader realizes most of what they achieve is because of their employees. They want to reward and encourage the employees for their work because that leads to success, which is what a good leader wants. And the leader is already rewarded with a higher salary (another reason why it’s churlish to bogart a small perk – the leader could probably pay for the tickets themselves more easily)

          Reply ↓
          1. londonedit*

            I agree. Maybe it’s because I work in a less hierarchical industry (and one where you don’t tend to get big-cheese bosses getting massive salaries and first-class tickets and free entry to all the big goings-on) but the idea that ‘perks’ are the preserve of the big bosses and if anyone else wants ‘perks’ then they need to climb the corporate ladder strikes me as something out of Mad Men. I don’t ‘expect perks to materialise’ but if I was on a small team – or in a really tiny company like this one, where there are only two bosses and three employees – and I’d done good work, and then the bosses got some tickets to something nice and decided to just use them for themselves, to me that would come off as crass. As Sloanicota says, a good boss understands that the company or the team stands or falls by its staff, and a really good way of making sure your staff are happy and aligned with the team’s mission is to sometimes treat them to a ‘perk’ that makes them feel acknowledged and appreciated. Rather than swanning off to a cool event with your spouse just because you can.

            Reply ↓
          2. A*

            I don’t think there is any evidence of leadership swanning about or otherwise rubbing it in the LW’s face.

            In my mind, if I want the perks of leadership then I have to take on the responsibility, education, and work hours leadership has. Getting mad at the boss for getting perks is just not where my mind would ever go.

            Reply ↓
            1. londonedit*

              And I don’t think there’s any evidence of anyone ‘getting mad’. I just think it would have been a nice thing if the bosses had shared the tickets with the employees, as a simple show of appreciation.

              We’re given a bit of money every Christmas to put towards drinks or a Christmas lunch for our team. Theoretically, the two senior members of staff in my department would probably be technically within their rights to think ‘Well, we’re the most senior, we’ve put in the most work, this is a perk for us that comes with our seniority in the team’. But they don’t do that, because it wouldn’t be fair. The money is intended for the whole team to go out and celebrate the end of another year working together.

              Of course I understand that sometimes bosses or company owners get ‘perks’ that relate to their seniority, and if it’s a case of ‘this is a client taking the bosses to a football match’ then that’s a different scenario. But if it’s a ‘here’s a case of champagne’ or ‘here’s four tickets to the football’ then I do believe the right and fair thing for a good boss to do would be to share that out as a token of appreciation for their team.

              Reply ↓
            2. metadata minion*

              If I’ve done most of the work on something, I’m going to be a bit annoyed to not get any of the appreciation. I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, and I understand this is how the world works, but it is really annoying that someone else gets a reward for *telling me to do something*, but actually doing the thing gets a lower salary and no random bonus gifts.

              Reply ↓
      2. Dido*

        The gifting company isn’t trying to schmooze low level employees. the gift was for the decision makers, i.e. leadership

        Reply ↓
  26. Hiring Mgr*

    1) Overreaction given what we know

    2) Not uncommon though if this happens often the bosses should give the employees the perks once in a while

    3) Hopefully your manager is rational, normal – but there’s nothing your company should have done beforehand – they wouldn’t refuse tohire him bcause there are Ukranians working there. Imagine if a company wouldn’t hire Jewish people because there were already Palestinians working there?

    4). Why is your skip level boss assigning you this work in the first place? A’s suggestions are good but maybe loop your direct manager in as well

    5) Yes you are employed currently!

    Reply ↓
    1. Andromeda Carr*

      1) Considering that the person who was told to leave his coworker alone is the *friend* of the LW, and so likely did not tell the LW the warts-and-all version of the situation, and what we know (or should) about the prevalence and virulence of sexual harassment in general, how likely is it that the version LW gave us is 100% the complete truth of the situation? It makes sense to fill in the gaps with common knowledge.

      Reply ↓
  27. bamcheeks*

    On the face of it, “I paid extra to see who is swiping right on me without me swiping right on them and I didn’t like what I saw” seems like a problem you can very easily solve yourself without involving HR. Your friend either has a very touchy HR department or there’s more going on than they’re telling you, LW1! I am not sure I would read this as a general lesson about the etiquette of seeing colleagues on dating apps.

    Reply ↓
    1. Emily Byrd Starr*

      “On the face of it, “I paid extra to see who is swiping right on me without me swiping right on them and I didn’t like what I saw” seems like a problem you can very easily solve yourself without involving HR”

      How, exactly?

      Reply ↓
      1. bamcheeks*

        I just think if someone has swiped right on the assumption that you’d only see it if you also swiped right, it’s a bit unfair to see that by paying for higher-level access and then claiming they approached you. That person hasn’t made an approach or crossed any boundaries, they’ve just not proactively rejected you. If you see that because you’ve got higher-level access than normal, I think the decent thing is to ignore it rather than make it a bigger thing.

        Reply ↓
        1. Andromeda Carr*

          except that in this case the Swiper HAD approached the Coworker previously. I think that adds a great deal of context to the story even if LW’s tale is 100% what happened.

          Reply ↓
    2. Ellis Bell*

      I have to hold my hands up and say I’ve never swiped a picture (I actually met my partner online because of us both showing interest in the other person’s picture, but this was pre-App days, involved a mouse and paying attention). However, I don’t see what (presumably a woman) would get out of seeing this extra intelligence. Honestly, if I could have prefiltered my inbox to purge a lot of shit I was never going to be interested in, I absolutely would have.

      Reply ↓
    3. a trans person*

      The best way to protect yourself from stalkers is to not know they’re there?

      Or, if you didn’t want to be harassed by mail then why are you renting a PO Box?

      Or do you mean some other mythical thing that translates to “women should suck it up”?

      Reply ↓
  28. Hiring Mgr*

    Maybe I’m being overly generous but I was picturing the Russian boss as trying to lightheartedly acknowledge the situation even if it came out awkwardly.

    People whose countries are at war work together all the time with no issues

    Reply ↓
    1. RIP Pillowfort*

      I think you’re being too generous but personally I want to think the best of others too. Working along side a co-worker where they don’t have power over your career is a bit different. This is their new line manager. They’re in a position of power over the OP’s career to affect whether they get raises or even keep this job! OP doesn’t know how they’ll react if they have off days due to the effects of the war. There’s a lot of dehumanizing rhetoric around this conflict and I think that adds to the fear. Does my manager even see me as a human worthy of respect?

      Frankly the manager should have done a better job allieviating the concerns knowing there were multiple Ukranian employees. They’re in the power position. The “I wonder how this will go” feels especially loaded given the political rhetoric around the war. Could be awkward, could be smug. It’s just not clear and honestly kind of tone deaf.

      Reply ↓
      2. Silver Robin*

        yeah the power dynamic really does make it worse. if this were just another coworker, 100% I would chalk it up to “awkward attempt at humor to diffuse obviously tense situation” and then wait to see if further comments reframe that for me.

        but with a manager…no good. Still, LW should wait and see, but this guy is now going to have to work to overcome that and it was an entirely unforced error.

        Reply ↓
    2. Kit*

      If I am being extremely generous, I can see some degree of language barrier being involved, whether that is manager’s grasp of English or their awareness that Russian and Ukrainian are not as mutually intelligible as Anglophones might assume.

      I totally understand why a Ukrainian would not feel inclined to extend that degree of generosity, though, and LW3, I really hope for your sake that this was just a case of foot-in-mouth on your new manager’s part, not a herald of things to come!

      Reply ↓
  29. CorporateGifts*

    I don’t have a lot of experience with this, but every work gift I’ve ever seen was directed to a specific department, not the company writ large (I’ve never gotten one, other than maybe a fruit basket, at a company small enough not to have real departments). For example, at a former job my department of 6-8 got 4 tickets to a MLB game from a vendor we used as a department all but one year I worked there. We had two rabid baseball fans – both female and good friends – so they used the tickets along with one employee’s boyfriend and his sister (I only know who the extras were because I was the other employee). There was no consideration of giving the tickets outside of the department, and it would have been seen as weird and caused problems with how to pick if we tried to pick two other employees to go.

    So if the gift was given to the CEO on behalf of the company and could only be used by a limited number of people, I could see them choosing to use it rather than passing it on, although if there’s a clear “this person’s work was responsible for the gift” I agree it’s bad form not to include them. However, that may not be as clear to someone like a CEO or owner as it is to that person, or that person might not have an accurate view of the larger relationship which causes them to erroneously feel they did the relevant work.

    Reply ↓
  30. Llama Llama*

    For OP4, I agree with Alison’s advice, but wanted to add one bit. She is a terrible manager so everything she does is a terrible manager type thing but what she is doing here isn’t bad.

    I don’t think it’s outrageous to ask someone to create a report that is ‘available’ in the system that takes you a whole day to put together. If it was that readily available it wouldn’t take a whole day to build. Even if it took 10 minutes, a more senior leader isn’t in the weeds to know how and sometimes doesn’t know the minutia to know how certain things are calculated.

    Again, she is terrible but the report and the questions aren’t.

    Reply ↓
  31. WellRed*

    My coworker could almost have written letter 4. Ultimately, the only way to deal with the crazy making was to transfer.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hybrid Employee (Part Human, Part Wolf) (LW4)*

      Yeah, I’m actively looking at transfers and outside opportunities. I love my job but I’m just miserable working for her. It’s a shame.

      Reply ↓
      1. Really?*

        Sorry you’re having the issue. I’ve been there as well.
        I suggest as others have sending your Spreadsheet as a reply to her request to add things in the future. And as others have also suggested, the reply cover should say, as you requested in your email of blank date, and blank date, I have provided Spreadsheet detailing the following information:
        Followed by bullets.
        And I am assuming that your Spreadsheet includes headers, footers and we required footnotes, So that it’s easy for her to understand what she’s looking at.
        While Your work situation may not be great, It may be more bearable if you able to manage expectations a bit better.
        I spent the first two years at one job looking for another because I felt my boss was so awful (And he was!). Eventually worked for him for five years, and it was much more bearable when I learned how to manage him!
        Good luck!

        Reply ↓
    2. Lemon*

      Yes, the only time I’ve seen a boss do this consistently, it was purposeful to undermine the employee and make them feel crazy/look bad (to pressure them to resign). Combat it by either leaving or being so totally thorough and professional that they have no room to be a jackass.

      Reply ↓
  32. Not your typical admin*

    Full disclosure: I’ve never been on a dating app, so my understanding of how they work is limited.

    To me, simply swiping on a dating app is not worthy of someone going to HR. Especially if the person swiping may assume the other individual probably wouldn’t see it unless they matched.

    A lot of the answer to this letter depends on a lot of other context we don’t know. A lot depends on how close these two work together, and what their working relationship is like.

    Reply ↓
  33. aaljd*

    for the russia/ukraine question, just want to point out that (in US anyway) it would be illegal not to hire someone based on nation of origin, even if it’s a nation at war with other employee’s nations of origin.

    Reply ↓
    1. Silver Robin*

      good thing LW was not suggesting that was a reasonable course of action?

      pretty sure it is illegal in Europe as well, at least nominally, just as it is in the US.

      Reply ↓
      1. bamcheeks*

        Nope, nothing about nationality or visa status is covered in UK equality law, unless you could argue it was covered by race or religion. I don’t know about equality law in other European countries, though!

        Reply ↓
        1. Crystal Lettuce*

          Equality act 2020 lists “ race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin” as one of the protected characteristics. You are right that visa status is not protected.

          Reply ↓
    2. Magdalena*

      The issue wasn’t that at all though.
      The new manager, whose country’s propaganda dehumanizes Ukrainians, stated in their introduction, as per the letter:
      “I noticed that there are multiple people from Ukraine on the team. I am from Russia,I wonder how that will go.”
      The issue is the statement which was at the very least completely tone-deaf.
      They could have said:” I am from Russia. I hope we can still work together.” instead they chose to say “I am anticipating problems”.
      Not reassuring for employees who are now under this person’s authority.

      Reply ↓
  34. Haggis*

    LW2 – if there are 4 tickets and 6 employees total, then two owners plus spouses may be the minimum drama way of distributing the tickets. It looks like less of a snub if non of the non-owners are invited than if two people are excluded.

    Reply ↓
  35. A*

    1: nobody wants to hear this about their friend but the most likely explanation is that your friend is omitting details that make them look bad.

    Reply ↓
  36. PokemonGoToThePolls*

    LW 1 – aside from all the good commentary in here, it’s also possible that the coworker was merely flagging a thing to HR in case more happened later, without the intention of a conversation taking place then. Given the facts stated, your friend was told no, then approached with romantic intent again later, so the coworker might have wanted it documented earlier for believability should something occur later. Then HR did their thing.

    The company could also have a rule against dating coworkers, or the person could be in a position where it would be inappropriate and needed to be reported.

    Reply ↓
  37. Rogue Slime Mold*

    I have asked the internet, and it confirms that if you swipe right on everyone, then the dating algorithm demotes your profile. So, everyone doing this as a life hack to maximize your matches: It is doing the opposite. You’re imitating a bot.

    Reply ↓
  38. Donkey Option*

    I think what hits me about #2 is that the company was only given 4 tickets to the event. In this case, there are three owners and three employees. That means two people not going if they divvied it out amongst everyone. So if the two owners still went, that means two employees get to go but one is passed over. And unless one employee is really happy to not go, it seems like it would be inherently unfair. And even if one person is happy to not go, they may still feel like its unfair because those two other employees get one-on-one time with the bosses. So having the owners take their spouses instead seems like the safest way to avoid an appearance of unfairness.

    Reply ↓
    1. The Petson from the Resume*

      The small company makes it weird. If it was a 100 person company and the company got 4 tickets, it would likely be one or two senior people and family and no one would think anything of if.

      Reply ↓
  39. Dancing Queen*

    #2 Years ago I worked at the store where the first million dollar lottery ticket in our state was sold. The store owner got a commission of, I believe, $10K. He used the money to take his family on a vacation to Sweden. Didn’t even buy a pizza for the employees to celebrate.

    Reply ↓
  40. Iranian yogurt*

    LW3 please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think people are misinterpreting the letter as an issue with the person’s country of origin when it’s actually more about the comment they made. If they had just said where they were from and moved on, it would be one thing. It was dipping their toe into *acknowledgement of the war* that seemed to be the problem. Once you acknowledge the war, then rightly or wrongly, people will be nervous if you stop there and don’t reassure them that you support their families’ right to live in peace – especially if you have power over their employment.

    As Alison said, though, it’s an awkward comment that doesn’t reveal much. Maybe they really are flippant about the war. But they could also have been anxious about their dynamic with their new employees and were trying, in a clumsy way, to address the elephant in the room without charging full-on into political discussion on their first day.

    Reply ↓
  41. Asking For a Friend*

    #3 I assume the manager knew beforehand what their team setup looks like, and it’s quite possible this was discussed during the hiring process. If they were indeed supporting the war, chances are they wouldn’t have taken the job in the first place. I hope in further interactions, the manager will be able to clarify their position and show up as a decent person.

    Reply ↓
  42. Hiring Mgr*

    In #4, since this is your skip level boss assigning you these things, can you talk to your direct manager? Maybe they will have a better handle on how to work with the skip level on this,

    Reply ↓
    1. Hybrid Employee (Part Human, Part Wolf) (LW4)*

      I’ve talked to her, and though she’s aware and agrees it’s a problem, she doesn’t seem to have any way to intervene.

      Reply ↓
  43. Mike*

    Re # 2: by way of background, I am a huge Formula One fan. I subscribe to special TV channels, I follow a number of blogs, I get up in the middle of the night so I can watch races live when they’re being run in other time zones, I have favorite drivers and I have drivers I hate, I’m still enraged by Abu Dhabi 2021 (so you can figure out pretty easily who my fave is and who I hate)…you get the idea.

    All that being said, if the owners of my company got tix to an F1 race and took their partners, I’d be like: yep, them’s the perks of running the company. To my mind, the same things applies more broadly: Kentucky Derby, NCAA Final Four, etc.

    Reply ↓
  44. Santalum*

    Regarding #1, it seems odd to me that people are conflating the person who went to HR with the actions of HR. If a coworker who you’ve previously rejected makes some kind of advance again, then it’s far from the nuclear option to keep HR up to date with what’s going on. Also HR just quickly meeting with someone with a reminder and nothing else isn’t exactly a harsh punishment either. Nothing really happened, the coworker just thought it best to err on the side of caution, which is absolutely reasonable.

    Reply ↓
    1. Andromeda Carr*

      It doesn’t seem odd to me, just depressing. In general in my experience people tend to side with those who harass their coworkers over those who are harassed, and make every possible back-pretzeling excuse for the possible harassers, as if every discussion must be a legal trial.

      Reply ↓
  45. Just a decent human being*

    > You can also try shooting her a quick summary of your take-aways when she requests things from you. For example: “To recap, I’ll add A and B to the C spreadsheet, defining A as ___ and B as ___, and will have it back to you tomorrow.”

    I think this is good practice regardless if your boss is crappy or not. Unless it is something trivial. Its so easy to miss or forget a detail that the requestor think is essential. Or assumed without saying it out loud.

    Reply ↓
  46. panda_party*

    LW #4: A previous supervisor did the same for me. He’d ask for something (which always involved a lot of time and detail), I’d get it back to him, and he’d ask “Why would you do it this way?” Then I’d have to do it again… And again… For a long time I thought I was just dumb or something, but after a while realized it was mostly a combination of him forgetting what he asked for and also changing his mind without communicating that to me. What really helped me was after every conversation emailing a summary to him (“we talked about my doing x, y, and z today, which I will get to you by X date”). Then when he questioned why I did something I’d refer back to the email. It didn’t magically solve everything but made me feel better (because if I did misunderstand something he had a chance to correct me after seeing the email summary) and also highlighted for him how much he’d change his mind mid-project (I don’t think he cared, but he did cut back on treating me like I was dumb for not telepathically anticipating his changes). Still: aggravating! Oh, and for spreadsheets, it helps to send a data dictionary so it’s very clear what fields mean. Even when you think people should know that information already.

    Reply ↓
  47. Lucy P*

    #4 Just curious as to what the advice would be if this company didn’t use internal emails. In our org we use email, but only for outsiders, never internally. Also worked with a very small law practice recently that only faxed and didn’t use email at all.

    I realize it’s rare in this day, but what do you do when you can’t get your boss to put it in writing?

    Reply ↓
    1. Hybrid Employee (Part Human, Part Wolf) (LW4)*

      I’m LW4 and we don’t use emails internally but we use Slack, so I’ll be documenting that way.

      Reply ↓
  48. Redacted*

    Thank you for the reply, glad to know it is fairly normal practice for perks to be given to spouses over employees but that it would be good leadership to avoid this. Thank you!!

    Reply ↓
    1. TQB*

      It would be good for ownership to consider their employees; however, I’d proceed very gently on this front. In a company that small, the owners likely consider this to be one of the perks of THEIR jobs that would only be passed along to employees if they couldn’t or didn’t want to attend.

      Reply ↓
  49. Overthinking It*

    Please proceed on the assumption that all PRESENT are “decent people with empathy. . .” because it probably ls much harder to assume that all INVOLED (in the conflict between home countries) are. I think we know for a fact that at least some of the “involved” in the war are right bastards, and that some worse than that (as in any war).

    Reply ↓
  50. Yes And*

    LW2: One perk of my job is attending occasional receptions, with good food and wine and a lively cocktail party atmosphere. But I’m not there to party; I’m there to work. I help represent the company to board members, major donors, and local politicians. My wife comes along because she enjoys the receptions, but she also incidentally helps me do my job. Besides being the more socially graceful of the two of us, when a question of actual business comes up between me and the stakeholder, she engages the stakeholder’s spouse in friendly chitchat. These are not functions I would ask or expect of a member of my team.

    When a function blurs the lines between social and business, including spouses over employees can be a legitimate business decision.

    Reply ↓
  51. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

    Did the friend immediately do something to make it clear they had “inadvertently” swiped? Like a very, VERY short, factual explanation, apology, followed by block/mute/whatever the app allows?

    I can see how someone might wonder if that would make things worse so it isn’t a judgment.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellis Bell*

      My guess: Real answer = “I swipe on absolutely everyone and I’m not even looking until I get matches”. Diplomatic answer = “I thought she looked familiar but it was only after I swiped that I remembered where I knew her from”.

      Reply ↓
  52. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

    I don’t think there’s much wrong with the prize itself being a ticket/gift for coworker and family/partner.

    If you have awards/prizes that not everyone gets, then the prize is the tickets for you and your family; those aren’t tickets that another colleague would have got. It doesn’t seem like the reason other coworkers didn’t get tickets is because they all went to people’s families? Or am I reading it wrong?

    The bit that is jarring to me though is that all these senior people won all the prizes. I’m on our Senior Leadership Team, and some of us got award nominations in recently staff awards. We all opted out and said don’t put us forward to the shortlist, we shouldn’t win.

    Reply ↓
  53. Magdalena*

    Re#3.
    Saying “I noticed that there are multiple people from Ukraine on the team. I am from Russia, I wonder how that will go… ” as THE BOSS (so, someone with power over the Ukrainian employees) is either VERY tone-deaf or downright chilling.

    As a Polish person I’d be extremely wary of the new boss and depending on my own relationship with the grand boss consider putting it on their radar as a precautionary measure, just to keep an eye on it.

    Maybe they are just awkward but what a thing to say.

    Reply ↓
  54. FreakInTheExcelSheets*

    OP4 – As a business analyst/data analyst, I deal with this with my direct manager, as well as others I work with, all the time. The best way to head it off is to add a description/key to either the top of the spreadsheet, column/row headers, or in the email you send with the report attached. That solves this issue, as well as a) ensures continuity of intent if the report is shared with others and b) provides a reminder of what you did in case you have to produce the report again.

    Reply ↓
    1. Strive to Excel*

      I deeply, wildly appreciate anyone who does this in their report and have started doing it myself.

      Not that learning back-tracking *isn’t* a valuable skill, but it’s a certifiable pain in the posterior to have to spend time looking through formulas to figure out what the you of six months ago was thinking.

      Reply ↓
  55. Susannah*

    On Russia/Ukraine: I ache for the Ukrainian employees, and hope their families back home are safe. But I actually also kind of feel for the new Russian employee, who has nothing to do with Putin or her country’s invasion of Ukraine. How unfair it would be to punish the new workers for things out of their control. The opening remark was… yeah, kind of awkward. But I imagine New Employee just wanted to address it – but also did not want to say something like, BTW, I think the leader of my home country is a thug, since that would be even weirder.

    When I was a newspaper journalist, reporting in the former Yugoslavia during the war, I worked that locals would be so angry with *my* home country for the NATO bombing of Serbia that they either would not be interviewed, or might even do me harm. The complete opposite happened. People treated me as if we were all victims of leaders fighting wars (they hated Milosevic, and I sure didn’t blame them for his ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina). People invited me to their homes for meals – and even to stay!

    It’s not clear if this new employee is based in Russia now or not. But if employee has relocated, doesn’t it make sense that Putin was part of why? And if not, think of the dangers new employee is in (or would be) for criticizing Putin/Russia?

    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