![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jo posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
tv_talk![[syndicated profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/feed.png){kind=small}
metafilter_feedaskamanager_feedRemember the letter-writer who needed to tell a new employee he’s not cut out for the job? The first update was here, and here’s the latest.
After far too long, I was able to terminate Tom.
As the “fun” project wore on, he started telling me he was overwhelmed, and I started stepping in to do increasingly more of his work. Don’t ask me why I found his requests for help so compelling, I’m still mad at myself about falling for them.
After delivering the “needs improvement” conversation, his work improved for a few months. But then something snapped, and he completely fell below the minimum threshold. Multiple important meetings no-showed. Entire afternoons where I was unable to locate him on campus. IMs I would send at 4pm that wouldn’t be answered until 10am the next day. I always called him out, and he always had an excuse of varying believability. It’s difficult to motivate someone who doesn’t care about the impact of his actions on others, especially when he knows all of your threats are idle.
I tried for about five months to get HR to pull his badge data (or support a PIP in general), but they “left me on read” for a half dozen email/Teams attempts, then my main contact went on maternity leave, then the interim said it was protected information(?). Also, all this time I was without a manager to escalate to, as she was fired with no backup plan. Finally, I was able to get the ear of a new HR generalist, and she pulled the data herself. Over the previous six months, Tom had averaged a shocking 25 hours on campus (for a job that cannot be done from home). I bet it was overwhelming for him to get his work done while working half-time!
I was hopping mad. We work on government contracts, so time theft is incredibly serious — he could go to jail! I thought we would be firing him that day, but instead HR made me give him a formal written warning. As part of that, we established set hours he had to be on campus. Within two weeks, he was doing the “bare minimum” again — arriving at 8:10ish, taking long lunches, and leaving at 4:20ish (which, as he argued, his peers do too … but they actually get their work done). Still couldn’t fire him. Then the new year came around, and he called in sick every Monday and Friday until he was out of sick time. Still couldn’t fire him. Then, he was 20 minutes late to a major customer meeting and told me, ‘Well, that part is just boring introductions anyway.” That retort happened in front of an executive, so then I got to fire him.
Of course, I have no backfill, so now I’m stuck doing 40 hours of his work each week instead of the usual 15, but that’s another letter.
Overall, he was a good reminder that you never have enough experience to eliminate your blind spots. I wanted Tom to succeed more than he did. I take that as a sign that I’ve been very lucky to have had almost entirely conscientious and well intentioned employees over the last decade.
I appreciate the comments warning me that I was allowing Tom to fail up, and they weren’t off-base. I think it’s clear to everyone, including me, that giving Tom a fun project was a mistake. But there is always more to a story than can be summarized in a quick update. First, the project was siloed independent work and required strict rule interpretation (Tom’s favorite), while Tom’s original job required constant teamwork and an appreciation for human nature. The entire team got along much better after the reassignment. They even started including Tom in informal team lunches and happy hours again.
Second, the special project assignment was not stolen from anyone more deserving. I advertised it broadly to my team, and no one else was interested. I had rearranged the team assignments when I took over, so everyone was settling into their new spots and didn’t have a desire to shake things up again so soon. I think if Tom wasn’t in the picture, I could have cajoled a high achiever into taking it on, and it would have benefited their career some. But I also respected the desire to keep their role limited until they gained more experience. I wish I’d been that wise early in my career, rather than frantically taking on increasing “visibility” until I was drowning.
Despite the team loathing Tom as a direct coworker, he was inexplicably popular as “the project guy.” I swear, Tom should start a career as a con artist. My team was pretty angry when I fired him (he had texted them the news before I even made it back to my office, so that was fun). I spent many 1:1s reassuring people that they weren’t about to be fired out of the blue, and we have a process that ensures no one is ever surprised by a performance-based termination. I somehow got through all this without making any sarcastic comments about how HR ensures it is virtually impossible to fire someone. It’s been a rough month, but I am excited about a few internal candidates who will likely apply to backfill Tom. Full circle moment — one of them is a mentee from another department who is doing “okay” there, but would be a great skills fit here.
The post update: telling a new employee he’s not cut out for the job appeared first on Ask a Manager.
ask_metafilter_feedaskamanager_feedDomestic violence can intersect with work in all sorts of ways. We’ve seen it in letters here, from the many people worried their coworkers may be experiencing abuse at home to the person whose colleague wanted to fire someone for being a victim of abuse. And some years back, we had an excellent letter from a survivor full of things her workplace could have done to help her, but didn’t.
I recently spoke with Bella Book and Nina Kanakarajavelu of Futures Without Violence about their work to help employers to support workers experiencing sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and here’s our conversation.
Tell us a bit about the work you do in this area.
Nina: I lead our work through the Workplaces Respond National Resource Center, which is an initiative of Futures Without Violence. Our central mission is to equip employers and advocates with the knowledge and tools they need to effectively support workers experiencing sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Many people think of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking purely as personal crises. There is a misconception that these forms of violence happen at home and stay there. But we know from the research and our experience that survivors of violence are in the workforce and that the harms caused by abuse disrupt many aspects of their personal and professional lives. For survivors of intimate partner violence, being employed and having an independent steady source of income is a critical factor in being able to leave an abusive relationship, so protecting that connection to work can be genuinely life changing.
Bella: In a recent survey we did with the National Domestic Violence Hotline (the Hotline), 2,000 survivors shared how the violence they experienced impacted their employment. Many reported negative consequences like losing out on a promotion or being given fewer hours or responsibilities once they disclosed the domestic violence to their employer. Survivors also reported more extreme retaliation from employers, including harassment, discrimination, or being fired because of threats from an abuser or because they took time off to attend legal proceedings or heal from injuries.
Some states and territories have passed laws that make it illegal to fire a survivor who discloses what is happening to them, or that require employers to provide paid time off to employees while they address the violence they are experiencing.
Part of our work is making sure people know about employment laws that explicitly protect survivors. In our survey, 71% of respondents didn’t. Our Advancing Safety Through Employment Rights project is changing that.
People who are being abused / have been abused at home often deeply worry about divulging that to their employers, fearing that it will be held against them and they’ll be stigmatized or even fired. Can you talk a little bit about those concerns?
Bella: Unfortunately, it’s a legitimate concern. In most states and territories, it’s not illegal to fire someone for being a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. It’s also not illegal to treat someone worse because they are experiencing domestic violence. It is wrong, but not illegal. And, even in states where firing someone for being a survivor is illegal, it can be hard for most workers to enforce their rights or hold their employers accountable.
Nina: Concerns about disclosing abuse at work are completely valid and result from shameful gaps in current state and federal law. Disclosing abuse is an intensely personal decision; it means letting people in your professional life see a part of your private life that you may feel embarrassed about, even though you have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed of. People have internalized harmful myths about what causes domestic violence and who can experience it. We try to help employers understand that a survivor of abuse disclosing that abuse is an act of real courage and trust. Every employer should strive to build workplaces where people feel safe enough to ask for help without fearing it will cost them their jobs.
Bella: When someone chooses to trust you with their experience of violence, the first thing you can say is, “Thank you for trusting me with this. How can I help?” And then, listen to what the survivor actually needs to stay safe. Even well-meaning coworkers and supervisors sometimes respond in ways that cause harm when they make assumptions about what the survivor needs to be safe. By trusting the person experiencing harm, you are giving them back some of the power and personal autonomy that the abuse has taken away.
What legal protections do exist for people in that situation?
Bella: So, there are no survivor-specific employment federal laws, but there’s a lot at the state and local levels people should know about. There are four major types of employment protections for people experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Our 2026 report, Work Without Fear, identifies the state and territory laws that currently exist. These protections correspond with the four big employment-related needs that survivors, and the people who support them, have identified as crucial to staying economically secure while navigating violence.
First, survivors need access to time off work. Most of the services that survivors need access to — like obtaining a protection order, accessing counseling and medical care, relocating — are only available during business hours. No survivor should have to choose between work and safety. Most survivors live in a state or territory with at least one type of leave law available.
Ideally, this time off is paid and job protected. “Job protected” is legal jargon, but it just means “it is illegal for my boss to fire me for doing this.” 20 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require most employers to provide Earned Sick and Safe Time. These laws explicitly say that when an employee needs time off for specific safety-related activities, their employer must give them a set minimum amount of paid time off. Most provide around 40 hours of paid time off per year as that minimum.
13 states have state-run paid leave programs that a survivor who needs extended time off (usually more than seven days total) can apply to. If the application is approved, they will receive regular payments from the state while on leave. These programs are a form of social insurance, where every employer and employee pays in a little bit. Workers then draw out payments as needed. Some state programs only provide these payments for health-related reasons, but others extend coverage for safety reasons. And other states have unpaid time off laws for survivors or specifically for crime victims that can be used to attend and prepare for legal proceedings.
Second, survivors need access to income if they must leave their job. For many survivors, job loss is unavoidable. It may be because the person you are fleeing is showing up at your job and threatening you. It may be because you need to relocate to be closer to family or other support systems.
43 (and soon 44) states and territories have explicit language in their unemployment insurance laws that say survivors who must leave their jobs to be safe may be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Accessing these benefits gives survivors steady income while they look for new jobs, which is a huge support.
Third, survivors need flexibility in how they work, which can help them address the employment sabotage that happens in abusive relationships. Employment sabotage can be an abuser calling or texting incessantly during work hours, showing up at a survivor’s workplace, destroying workplace equipment, or finding other ways to sabotage their partner’s job.
In 11 states, there are survivor-specific “reasonable accommodation” laws that require covered employers to engage with their employees about specific things they need to stay safe. This is patterned after the reasonable accommodations process under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but it is distinct. Survivor-specific accommodations can be things like security personnel walking the survivor to a car or changing a survivor’s shift or desk assignment to separate the survivor from the person causing them harm, or even scheduling flexibility.
Fourth, survivors need to be able to ask their employers for what they need and share what is happening to them without fear of being punished or discriminated against. Only nine states explicitly prohibit employment discrimination based on someone’s status as a survivor. This type of protection is crucial because if someone does not feel safe disclosing to an employer what they are experiencing, their ability to access the other employment protections available to them is severely limited.
Regardless of what state they’re in, what can employers do to help employees who have experienced domestic violence?
Nina: It is important to remember that laws establish the floor, but not the ceiling of what employers can do. The most important thing any employer can do is create a workplace culture where people can come forward without being punished or judged.
The first step to creating this type of culture is developing clear, written workplace policies that explicitly state the company’s commitment to supporting survivors, maintaining confidentiality, and protecting workers from discrimination and retaliation. When employees know that these policies are in place and are consistently enforced, it changes their calculus around disclosure.
Employers should also offer training on the dynamics of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This training can combat misinformation about abuse. Employers can train staff, especially managers, on how violence harms workers and the workplace, so that when someone does come forward, the first response is compassionate and helpful rather than awkward or inadvertently harmful.
Workplaces Responds offers sample policies and training materials for employers who want to make sure their workplace support survivors.
Bella: State laws can provide great models that any employer can adapt to their own workplace. Even in states without survivor-specific employment laws, employers can proactively offer paid leave so survivors can address needs arising from abuse. Employers can provide survivor-specific reasonable accommodation and information about unemployment insurance when someone must leave their job. Most importantly, employers can commit to not discriminating against someone based on their survivor-status and clearly communicate that commitment to their employees.
Another important thing employers can do is build relationships with local victim service agencies so that when a survivor discloses abuse, staff know how to provide a referral to a trusted organization.
When you say that employers should offer training on the dynamics of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, I think a lot of people’s first response to that might be to wonder if that’s overstepping for a workplace, unless it’s specific to how those things can intersect with work. Personally, just based on the letters I get about how often employers mishandle mental health topics, I would worry about employers getting it really wrong, or implementing it in a way that is harmful to people — unless it’s clearly limited to addressing the ways those issues can intersect with work, and keeping it tightly focused on what employers can/should do. So I’m curious about your thoughts on that!
This is such an important point! We never recommend employers try to develop or deliver this type of training on their own. They don’t have to. There are experts in almost every community ready to support survivors. Employers can build relationships with local domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy organizations, contact their state domestic violence or sexual assault coalitions to request a training, and work with national training providers (like us at Futures Without Violence).
An effective training should be developed in partnership with people who have specialized knowledge and expertise in supporting survivors. Our approach is to co-develop the training with the employer so that it is both comprehensive and tailored to the needs of a specific workplace. Regardless of the setting, the goal of the training should be to help employers, supervisors, and coworkers understand (1) how domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking show up at work (2) that this likely impacts people at their workplace through both employment sabotage and trauma responses and (3) there are ways to respond that support survivors (and, unfortunately, ways that would further harm them).
The first part of any training should be to dispel myths and stereotypes about why people may stay in abusive relationships and how power and control can cause harm, even if there isn’t physical violence. It can also go into what it means to be survivor-centered and how protecting a survivor’s autonomy means respecting their right to privacy while being supportive. The goal here isn’t to deputize employers to “diagnose” domestic violence but rather to dispel myths about why survivors stay, or why abuse happens.
The second part of a training should address how the experience of surviving violence can affect work performance. The goal here is to help decision-makers at work recognize that an employee who seems distracted, receives a barrage of personal calls at work, or whose performance has declined may be navigating the dynamics of abuse and need support and a connection to resources rather than a performance improvement plan.
Finally, the third part of the training should focus on how workplaces can create systems that support survivors and prevent violence from occurring. We often see employers only engage when something dangerous happens, like an abuser showing up at a worksite. When staff are learning about domestic violence and workplace safety issues for the first time in the middle of a crisis, long-term change can be harder to create. And we know violence tends to escalate over time. The warning signs are often visible long before a situation becomes a crisis. Therefore, training people to recognize warning signs early and to know how to respond compassionately and respectfully is a practical and effective approach.
Employers don’t need to be experts on domestic violence to create a safe and supportive workplace. There is a strong and vibrant community ready to support survivors, but often employers don’t tap into it. When they do, it sends a strong message to survivors in the workplace that they’re not alone.
I’ve sometimes had letters from people who were concerned a coworker was being abused at home, and it’s really hard for people to know what to do (particularly since it’s often hard for people much closer to the person to help, so a coworker really may not be well positioned to assist them). What options are available to colleagues (not necessarily employers) who want to help in that situation?
Nina: It can be really hard when you notice something might be going on with a coworker and are not sure how to help them. The data tell us that the single most dangerous time in an abusive relationship is often when the survivor is trying to leave, so encouraging someone to “just leave” without understanding their circumstances can cause real harm.
The instinct to help is a good one. The important thing to remember is that you do not have to know exactly what to do in every situation; just showing up with consistency and kindness without judgment can make an enormous difference.
Here are a few tips:
1. Recognize you can’t “fix” the situation, and trying to push too hard can backfire.
2. You do not have to name what you think is happening. A simple, private “I’ve noticed things seem hard lately. I just want you to know I’m here if you ever want to talk” can plant an important seed.
3. If the person does open up, listen without minimizing what they share and resist the urge to tell them what to do.
4. Keep what they share private and ask how you can support them.
5. Be ready with a resource or referral, like the National Domestic Violence Hotline number or for their local shelter. The National Domestic Violence Hotline number is 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).
Survivors know best how to safely navigate their situations. They need to make their own decisions about safety and disclosure. Being kind, consistent, and non-judgmental makes it easier for someone to ask for help when they are ready.
Workplaces Respond help employers, supervisors, and coworkers create more survivor-friendly workplaces. Some of their resources:
Legal Momentum has short summaries of each state’s and territory’s employment laws that can help survivors. They also operate a national hotline service dedicated to helping survivors access their employment rights. Their number is 1-800-649-0297.
The post this is how employers can help employees who are being abused at home appeared first on Ask a Manager.
metafilter_feed"(CBS) transported Americans onto the rooftops of London in the Blitz and into the bleak embers of concentration camps in liberated Nazi Germany, an aural atlas to world events thousands of miles away. In more recent years, it transmitted eyewitness dispatches from world capitals to hundreds of local stations in rural and sparsely populated parts of the country. CBS News Radio was a pioneer and stalwart of the mass media century, the proving ground of star journalists like Edward R. Murrow, with a distinctive five-tone chime that became synonymous with breaking news — long before the rise of 24-hour cable and the internet."
metafilter_feedWith this verdict, New Mexico becomes the first state in the nation to prevail at trial against a major tech company for harming young people. The jury ordered Meta to pay the maximum penalty under the law of $5,000 per violation, totaling $375 million in civil penalties for violating New Mexico's consumer protection laws.
metafilter_feedmetafilter_feeddarkjediqueen posting in fan_flashworksmetafilter_feedaskamanager_feedIt’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. My coworker is charging personal purchases to our team
I work in higher ed on a small team. All of us are able to make purchases up to a certain amount with little to no oversight.
I have suspected that my coworker has bought things for herself. It seemed like a few small things here and there, a $30 hand cream, essential oils, things that didn’t seem to have a business purpose.
Recently I purchased an expensive item (with permission) for the office. She said someone asked her where it was from and asked if I could send her the link. A week later, a box arrives with this very item. I look up her purchase order, which says it’s a replacement for a broken one. The original is obviously not broken. I put the package by her desk and the item disappears from the office.
It seems obvious to me that she has purchased this for herself. While the other items were small, this is a $300 appliance. I’m not sure whether I should report it to our boss or not. If I do report it and she isn’t fired, it will be obvious that it was me and that will make my work life difficult. I’ve been here less than a year and my feeling is that getting involved won’t end well for me, but I also don’t want anything to come back to me if she finally gets caught.
You should report it because she’s stealing! A $300 appliance isn’t like taking pens home; it’s serious theft. And you risk seeming like you knew and didn’t say anything. It also risks hurting your department in other ways, like lowering the funds that are available to your team for actual work needs.
You can tell your boss that you’re concerned about blowback in your relationship with the coworker, and ask that your name not be mentioned. The should be easy to do, since it’s entirely plausible that your boss or someone else was reviewing the purchase orders and questioned this one. It doesn’t sound like she’s even trying to cover her tracks very well.
2. Our next work meeting is being held in a church
I work at a nonprofit organization, in healthcare. Up until the last year or so, my leadership generally made its business decisions with good intentions for staff and patients. Then the election happened, and suddenly all leadership talks about is our federal funding — or lack thereof, being that we serve a large migrant/undocumented and LGBTQ+ population.
My department consists of small (4-5 person) teams spread across 20 satellite sites. Together we are a big group, and no one site is big enough to gather us all in person for meetings. For that reason we usually have one in-person meeting yearly in a rented space and manage the rest of our meetings via Zoom or smaller groups. Before the budget tightening, leadership’s idea was to increase in-person meeting frequency to quarterly. After the budget tightening, the idea became have quarterly in-person meetings in a location that is free.
Which is why my next staff meeting in a few weeks is going to be in a church.
Our company has no religious affiliation, and I am extremely uncomfortable with this as I myself am agnostic. I have coworkers who identify as queer and do not feel welcome in churches, and I have coworkers of other faiths (Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Methodist, etc.) who feel conflicted being on grounds that aren’t “theirs.” We have been given the option to just take PTO instead of attending (no option to take it unpaid so anyone who doesn’t have PTO is SOL), but I’m a bit peeved I have to do this. Am I wrong to be so bothered?
Churches often offer space to outside groups for a whole range of activities that aren’t religious in nature, as part of serving the community (or, in some cases, as a way to raise money).
If the objection is just “it’s a church,” period, I don’t think that’s going to get you anywhere. But if it’s “this is a space that is actively harmful to people like me and people I love” … well, it still might not get you anywhere, but you’d have a better shot at trying. And surely there are other meeting spaces in your community — and if none of them are free, then maybe this isn’t the time to increase these meetings from annual to quarterly.
3. Why would my interviewer reject me this way?
Years ago, I used to work in a communications role, in-house. My company was circling the drain and I was semi-recruited by a high-level employee of an agency in the same subspecialty that I worked in. I’d worked with this group quite a bit previously and knew most of the (small, less than 10-person) team pretty well. After an on-site interview, the owner called me and his first words were, “So, what did you think of the team?” I talked about how much I liked them and thought we would work well together, feeling that warm “I got it!” glow.
The next words out of his mouth were basically, “You didn’t get the job.”
I found this bizarre, off-putting, and cruel (not to mention embarrassing). I never did get an explanation of why he would deliver this message in such a way. Obviously, I dodged a bullet, but can you think of any reason why he would do this? Have you ever heard of anything like this happening to other people?
That’s obnoxious and it happened because he’s thoughtless, awkward, or a jerk, or possibly all three.
That’s a really awful way to reject someone — he asked a question that would get anyone’s hopes up and which there was no point in asking since he wasn’t hiring you. The most generous explanation is that he feels awkward about rejecting people and hadn’t planned out what he was going to say and started making conversation without realizing what he was setting you up for, or even that he thought it would be rude to jump straight into the message and thought this was a softer way of leading up to it (it wasn’t!). Either of those are more likely than that he’s just a sadist who enjoys toying with people — but since you knew this team pretty well, you probably have a sense of which explanation is most likely.
4. Should I avoid giving staff rewards because of favoritism?
I work at a public university and supervise four people. We have a few university-wide staff awards, some with a monetary prize, others with just positive, public recognition. As a supervisor, I have staff I think about nominating but I worry about showing favoritism. Am I overthinking? Am I right to try to recognize my staff in other ways and not nominate them through these more public ways?
It’s not favoritism to recognize people for doing excellent work; it’s appreciation based on merit and contributions, which is how it’s supposed to work. If you were only nominating people you personally liked or who you ate lunch with, that would be favoritism. But using your employer’s official appreciation systems is not favoritism. I would be more concerned that your staff will be frustrated that you’re blocking them from receiving the types of recognition your employer has specifically set up for them!
If the worry is that some people will be nominated and some people won’t, you of course want to make sure that you can justify your decisions for who is nominated for what (and who isn’t) and that you’re giving people enough regular, ongoing feedback that your recognition decisions will clearly align with that.
One more thing: make sure you’re not overlooking people who do excellent work but in areas that are inherently less flashy; good work is good work, regardless of how glamorous or not-glamorous it might be (and if anything, there might be more need to ensure the less glamorous gets recognized).
5. When can I ask about health insurance details during an interview process?
I’m currently in the second round of interviews for a new job. In my introductory call they told me a bit about the perks (health insurance provider, PTO, 401k, etc.) but I didn’t want to dig into them too much and look overeager. When would be a good time to ask more specific questions? If offered the job, is there anyway for me to ask to review their insurance options/tiers before I say yes? Is that an insane ask?
Wait until you have an offer, but at that point it’s not in any way odd to ask for details about their insurance coverage (including the drug formulary if you want to see how specific medications are covered).
That said, it’s always true that the company could end up changing its insurance in the near future, or the insurance company could change its drug formulary, or so forth. The whole system is way more of a crapshoot than it should be.
Related:
an expert on how to get what you need from your health insurance
The post coworker is charging personal purchases to our team, work meeting is being held in a church, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager.
ask_metafilter_feedask_metafilter_feedmaru_feedmetafilter_feedrachelmanija
ask_metafilter_feedask_metafilter_feedmetafilter_feedtimeasmymeasure
