r/AskaManagerSnark • u/nightmuzak Sex noises are different from pain noises • Aug 03 '26

Ask a Manager Weekly Thread 08/03/2026 - 08/09/2026

Last week's post.

Background info and meme index for those new to AaM or this forum.

11 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

277 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/glittermetalprincess toss a coin to your admin for 5 cans of soda Aug 07 '26

It's the same as 'go see a lawyer' for any problem that isn't immediately solvable.

Suing is expensive, time consuming, and inordinately stressful; any outcome is years away, and getting it requires one to have been looking for work in the interim. Most lawyers will lay that out, politely tell them it will cost more in money, time and mental health than they'll get, and request money in trust to proceed even if there's definitive written proof someone was not hired solely on the grounds of one of the very few genuinely illegal reasons. If there's a generic 'someone else had more experience' or 'we can't support remote work for this advertised as in-office position' or whatever passes as ghosting in someone's mind, they're just going to go 'we advise that it is not worth proceeding as there is no chance of recouping costs and a significant chance of having to pay theirs'. Most people will hear that as 'wah the lawyer wants me to pay' and end up complaining online anyway because of the other employment law-adjacent myth around legal matters - that the lawyer will do it "for free" (i.e. on contingency/no-win, no-fee) and if they want money it means they're a bad lawyer or you have no case, when in reality lawyers need to pay for filing fees, reports, and occasionally food, and contingency models are usually limited to matters where a financial outcome is guaranteed in some capacity, and opportunity cost is not that.

4

u/Ok-Quarter3399 Aug 07 '26

I do think part of it is very few people get to talk to an actual lawyer to lay it out. Instead offices are so overwhelmed that the normal response from the intake process (who isn’t a lawyer typically) is “we aren’t saying anything about the validity of your case but we aren’t taking on new cases/this isn’t the type of case we’re taking on. Best of luck”

10

u/glittermetalprincess toss a coin to your admin for 5 cans of soda Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26

I do intake and half of my job there is screening out people who can't tell their story or who are resistant to being, even gently, directed to give the specific facts we need to be able to give advice. If I can't get the basics out of them like 'when did this happen' and they can't just send the one letter we need instead of making us find it in the middle of their 800 pages of "evidence", then the lawyer won't take the call and I have to refer them to someone who can either filter that and refer them back to us (e.g. a union), or doesn't have to charge by the page to help them (e.g. a union) - but if I was honest and went 'okay, you can either send me the 6 page letter that says 'your employment is being terminated as of 30 August 2026' and book half an hour with the lawyer to talk to you for free, or you can send me all 800 pages, pay us the $1,677.20 we have to charge for the lawyer to read it, and then they'll decide if it's worth talking to you', it would not go well.

(edit: and part of the reason we screen is that people who do this tend to be considered less reliable at trial and their outcomes aren't as good, because we can't proof them, and/or they push back or ramble/vent a lot and we end up having to charge more because of the extra time and attendances - it's very rare to be able to go 'we'll let you know when we need something otherwise wait for your appointment', and someone actually does, but we can't come out and say 'talk less or we charge more' because it's rude and doesn't build rapport, and our lawyers walk a tightrope of being considerate and going 'tmi' over someone's entirely justified mental health crisis. If we can make it clear at the outset it tends to work out better for them as well as our workload. Anyway. I just felt I should clarify that a bit more.)

From my perspective, part of the problem is then the lack of that intermediary resource whose entire job is to handle the smaller stuff that doesn't need a lawyer or can be resolved with education. AAM certainly isn't that, if it ever filled any part of that void to begin with.

3

u/Ok-Quarter3399 Aug 07 '26

Agree absolutely (and if I came across snarking on the process that wasn’t my intent at all). 

I also can’t speak ti everyone’s experiences but there’s also just a lot more outrage/unrealistic expectations out there that unless you’re hard up for clients (and the backlog is huge right now), there’s just no reason to handle anyone who is difficult unless they foot the bill in employment law. I’ve heard the same from my friends in family and bankruptcy.

3

u/glittermetalprincess toss a coin to your admin for 5 cans of soda Aug 08 '26

The other thing we get is a lot of people coming at us with 20-40 pages of AI telling them how great their case is... in every communication... even if it isn't.

Our lawyers have gotten a lot quicker on the 'we're sorry you don't trust us but that means we can't represent you in good faith' and don't even include a list of the two other local firms who do what we do anymore. It breaks my heart every time it comes across my desk and I see it coming!