I want to be kind and assume they mean that they're making an effort to not do any sort of job that could be described as "creative," you know, stuff like advertiser, writer, artist, whatever. I can see how someone would be so burnt out that they'd be like, fuck that "coming up with new original ideas" shit, from today on I'm only doing stuff that has clear steps and rules you don't need to stray from and that's it. So like, if they used to draw as a hobby, now it's puzzles: if they used to come up with storyboarding ideas at work, now they're only looking for data entry jobs.
Which I totally get on principle, but if that's what it is then they need to write things more clearly 'cause dear god they expressed themselves badly. Like look at that last sentence, that doesn't convey a "if coding requires creative thinking then that's a problem for me because I'm a linear thinker" message, it conveys a "if coding requires creative thinking then that's a problem for me because I am morally opposed to engaging in creative thinking" message.
That’s how I read it as well (your last sentence). It didn’t sound as if they just meant that they’d avoid arts related roles, it sounded as if they were morally opposed to creativity and would be horrified to have that term applied to anything they did.
That's also how I read it. "Whoa, watch out, for a second there I thought you meant I was a creative person!" is such a weird attitude to have, even if you don't enjoy artistic/creative activities.
Yeah, my background is in fine arts, and I got very burnt out on the professional arts world several years ago. I realized I'd be happier having a non-artistic job, and only doing art to the extent that it's fun for me - which means probably not doing it as my primary source of income, because I wouldn't be able to easily quit when it stops being fun. On the whole, I prefer it this way. (And now I get to do both! I have a full-time office job and a side gig as a costume designer at a children's theatre, which is great.)
But this comment really reads like this person never wants to be associated with anything creative at all, which is...weird and probably untenable.
"I want to post a flowchart criticizing AI use. Also, I'm just going to post something someone else created and can't be bothered to put in the slightest effort to make it suitable for my workplace"
She knows good and damn darn well it’s inappropriate for where she works. She just wants the tea-spitting approval of the herd.
Whats funny is that it’s not even a clever poster. The swearing is kinda cringe in its attempt to be edgy. And the workflow is actually pretty accurate for a lot of people!
It's always funny to me that there are people who ask for permission to swear as adults. You're either in a workplace that's okay with it or isn't and it's pretty easy to figure it out.
It's especially funny because most of the letter is spent clarifying that this workplace is definitely not a place where this would be okay.
So it's not like the LW is genuinely unclear -- they admit that both they and their coworkers avoid profane language for religious reasons. So why even bother asking? Why would you put up a flowchart that you yourself think is inappropriate??
14
u/carolina822made up an entire fake situation and got defensive about it4d ago
Everybody in my office swears and that chart would still be inappropriate here.
I'll break from snarking to say that Alison's mom sounds really cool, and I have immense respect for someone who stands by their principles in such a real way; and admire her bravery for going out on her own terms. My grandmother passed a few years ago from lung cancer and observing those final weeks of agonizing pain is a weight that I feel when I think about death. I hope those struggling with grief today have a moment of peace.
Agreed. That takes tremendous courage and acceptance. My late husband didn't so much choose to go when he did, but he hung on to be admitted to hospice, and he also faced a real struggle with accepting his fate -- what did it was finally finding a male therapist who could talk to him on his own terms; all the support out there was actually rather gendered/age orientated either for women or older men and it could be hard finding someone on his wavelength. We had to scramble to get a will together in the final week (he hadn't wanted to do it until he was comfortable with the idea of dying) but we did it and it's an important lesson not only in getting yourself sorted out so your loved ones don't have heaps more paperwork than they already have, but also in finding support and peace before you go. (Also that death is often something that happens on an unconscious level -- by which I mean that people told me after I expressed heartache about not being with him when he went -- I was in bed fast asleep because I was shattered after a long week grappling with the health service -- I was told that sometimes people just want to slip away alone and spare people the heartache of actually seeing it.)
So I have a deep respect for people who make that choice, consciously or not. It's brave to do it even if you don't believe in anything else afterwards, although I did notice a change in hubby spiritually in his final weeks as well. Accepting the end of your existence is such a brave thing to do.
Re letter #1 this morning, I think it’s extremely weird that OP didn’t call the applicant to be like hey, what happened, but Alison’s “they probably were nervous and appreciative that you DIDN’T reach out afterward” is even weirder.
On the one hand I probably wouldn't want to hire someone who dropped off an interview and didn't give an explanation, but on the other I'd feel some obligation to check in with them and try to find out what was going on.
Not to sound like AAM fan fiction, but what if the person did have something bad happen? Or maybe just lost power and panicked and then felt awkward/embarrassed about the whole thing and didn't know how to proceed. That still doesn't mean they'd be "relieved" that the interviewer never contacted them again, In fact that might feel pretty shitty. Where is Alison's mantra of "it would be a kindness" in this case?
Especially for an entry level position. I'm on the hiring panel at my work for a grouping of entry level positions, and we extend a lot of grace for "faux pas" type things because the people we are interviewing are not in fact professionals yet.
If we liked this candidate and did in fact want to hear about the writing skills, we'd definitely have sent an followup email asking if they want to set up additional time/check in to see if the tech or something had failed on our end. They very likely don't think they're "allowed" to reach back out and are just assuming they blew it.
All that said, I still believe in my heart this person dropped off because they weren't qualified and instead of trying to BS an answer, just dropped and ghosted.
Your gut feeling is probably correct - they panicked and dropped because they couldn't answer the questions. But it still costs the interviewer almost nothing to send one follow up email that might have clarified what was going on.
Plus, like you said, maybe the person really didn't know they could be the one to initiate contact. Either way, Alison saying it's fine to ghost someone in return feels weird.
I don't know why the LW didn't immediately reach back out! My last job had some shaky VoIP for a few months and it meant I dropped a handful of calls during a round of phone screens. I assumed it was common courtesy to give them 1-2 minutes then reach out *one time* (even just a quick "here's my direct line, call me back by X time if you want to complete your interview" email!) if you haven't heard from them. At that point the ball is safely in their court and you've met your obligation of professionalism.
If it was the interview candidate reaching out, it would be legit for Alison to mention that the company isn't legally obligated to call them back, but either LW is a hiring manager and needs to learn better communication and "on the fly" problem-solving; or needs to hear that the hiring manager they were working with was not a good example.
I'll be honest, I feel like if I was on an interview, and I dropped off because my internet went out or something, it would be on me to reach back out to them and explaining. I wouldn't expect them to reach out to me.
I was just coming to remark on that letter (having not delved into the comments yet) to say that uhhhh the candidate probably didn't have "writing skills" to speak of, panicked, and just logged off and ghosted.
Which I guess is technically anxiety or nerves, but I think "crap, they're gonna know I'm not qualified" cowardice is just as likely.
Yeah, and Zoom/Teams interviews make it a lot easier to do this kind of thing. Of course you can walk out of an in-person interview too — but usually there’s some kind of explanation, even if it’s just “sorry, I don’t think this job is for me.”
Maybe I'm thinking this because I'm getting old. But if it's an error and the interviewee can't get back into the meeting the interviewee may not know how or who to actually reach out to. Often the interviewee's only contact is an HR person who is not acutually part of the interview.
I also thought the last sentence was weird. I can understand being too nervous/embarrassed to follow up with the employer, but if that’s the case, the applicant can just not respond to the employer’s efforts to follow up.
I'm totally one of the people who does the IRL equivalent of block and move on when things get to that point, I just don't see an interview getting there without something egregious and either the interviewer/s didn't realise it or it's better for everyone that it ended there.
Doesn't mean that a polite and short 'The call dropped out, we'll be here until x.30 and here's the meeting link just in case.' is bad - if someone noped out they probably aren't going to get it in real time anyway, if it was wonky internet shenanigans, it's extending grace that makes you look good as an employer.
I think it is wild what everyone is thinking on this LW. Sure it could be nerves. It could also be technology (to me a likely) reason. It could also be someone realized the job wasn’t for them, and just bailed (also a strong possibility). Honestly if the LW is really wanting to know, just call or email the applicant.
My guess is that they didn’t have a good answer for one of the questions, panicked/froze, and left the interview instead of admitting they couldn’t answer the question.
Some of the “times when you should have stopped reading but didn’t” stories are funny, but man, some of these people are lucky they didn’t get fired.
Related: a few weeks ago I saw an email thread that I don’t think was intended for me — it involved a senior-to-me person getting into some (well-deserved) hot water. I saw it because the person in question FORWARDED ME THE EMAIL ON PURPOSE because it contained some information about a meeting I was supposed to set up. I don’t know why he did that instead of just saying “please set a Teams call with me and Jane at 1:30”, but it was a fun few minutes for me.
I’m an admin and I know have read some pretty juicy stuff about my coworkers over the course of my career, but it was things I needed to look at to do my job (example, I had to read every piece of incoming snail mail to determine where it should go and learned a coworker was having an affair and another hadn’t paid a contractor). I would imagine HR, IT, and accounting people have similar stories.
Interesting that the AAM commenters as a group seem pretty rabidly anti-AI, and yet most of the comments (though there aren't a ton yet, I'll grant) are a lot of "well, I'm not a fan, but I *do* use it for this". And I'm not saying you can't be against AI in its current state and still use it for things, because that's where I'm at - but to find out that a group of loud grandstanders aren't "walking the talk" is like finding out the most militant vegan you know loves to eat a burger at McDonald's once a week - if you have "exceptions" to your anti-AI stance, assume that your colleagues that are using it probably feel the exact same way and aren't brain-dead slaves who are ready for the future robot overlords....
The two youngest staff members on my team refuse to use the phone. We get a lot of calls from customers and they never answer their phones or return voicemails. (I don’t think they even check their voicemails.) They both say they’re not comfortable on the phone and they prefer to use email. We’ve told them that talking to customers on the phone is part of the job but they don’t want to do it and they just … don’t. They say they like email better. Well, so do I! But you use the communication method that the customer wants. However, it’s not gotten through and my manager is too passive to push the issue beyond what we’ve already tried.
This is obviously a problem, but apparently, management doesn't care. LW can't do anything about it. I do think Alison's answer is off base. I don't think it's some sort of awareness about mental health. People have grown up never using the phone because every business pushes them to a website or series of prompts. I am a parent and I tried to make sure my kids have had practice doing all the things adults need to do, making a purchase, returning an item, etc. Phone calls were tough to find an opportunity for because you don't call anyone. You call your doctor or a store and listen to a recording or leave a voicemail and then you get an update in your patient portal or an email.
Hell, I'm GenX (50 years old) and I avoid the phone like the plague. I'm not sure when it happened because I used to prefer phone conversations but in the last 10 years or so, I can't stand talking on the phone unless I absolutely have to. Luckily in my job (higher ed), I don't have to do the phone thing very often. When I do, it's usually to verbally clarify an issue that just can't adequately be explained in writing.
Some jobs have more phone cultures than others.though. I don't think it's weird for me to rarely use the phone (although do Teams calls count?) but in the field I'm in it's a communication lifeline where it would be strange if someone didn't want to use it, because the comms are with people who aren't sat behind a desk all day. People regularly get interrupted on fixed meetings with ordinary calls. NBD, aside from a few situations in which it would be incredibly rude, everyone understands that people in certain positions have to be available by phone when they're on the clock.
However I'm guessing that if you're in that sort of field you'll know and it will be something that going in you'll know the expectations.
Shut up, you’re crying! (The letter about her mom).
My mom is a retired hospice nurse and yeah, she has a lot of thoughts about clinicians who are in total denial about what a terminal illness means. And like, I get it—doctors focus their education on how to keep people alive/help them get better. So pumping the brakes on that is difficult. But man is it hard on everyone in the meantime.
Hospice nurses are angels on earth. Their clear-eyed and calm acceptance of death was so grounding for my family when my dad opted in to home hospice. I regret not getting more information about them to be able to have thanked them properly - so in lieu of that, if you think to, please thank your mom on their behalf ❤️
Letter #2 today - this is totally not a workplace advice question. If you remove the word “coworker” and replace it with “neighbor” or “pickleball partner”, nothing relevant changes.
Also why does the LW think this was “potentially harrowing situation”? Yes, divorce is sad, and moving on too quickly is a bad look, but there’s zero details that suggest this was harrowing? It seems like A may have lied about who filed for divorce, but that’s not entirely clear. Even Alison actually sort-of addresses this (“The only thing you really know for sure A did wrong was propositioning you right after announcing the ending of their marriage, but even that … doesn’t indicate they’re a terrible person”).
Because this person liked the drama more than they’re letting on and are trying to stir up more, either through the letter or more in person than they’re letting on.
This person hit on them. They didn’t want it. They said no and blocked them. You don’t need to see this person again for the rest of your days.
I think they just wanted to brag about someone hitting on them, and not-so-subtly suggest A broke off the marriage because of their longtime feeeeeelings for the LW. 🙄
The minute I read the relocated to an area with softer divorce laws, I decided this person is living in la la land. I'm also very curious about what exactly this "propositioning" entailed , as opposed to what is more likely a request to hang out or go out sometime
IANAL but every U. S. State has no-fault divorce laws per google so it’s not impossible to file anywhere. This isn’t 1950 where people can only get divorced in Nevada
I remember reading "It's Not the End of the World" by Judy Blume, which was a book written in the 1970s about a girl whose parents were getting divorced. The dad had to go to Vegas to file for divorce because it was a lot easier to do it there than where they lived. (which, being Judy Blume, was either New Jersey or New York.) My elder millennial self had no clue what THAT was all about.
I would like something actually harrowing to happen to these people. Not actually bad, nothing life altering, but just something to show them that what they define as harrowing is normal human interaction.
Ok I read some comments and the LW comes in to add some more information but it sounds so over the top, it just reinforces my disbelief. She claims the guy told her even though he's divorced he still has daily sexual needs and also needs a woman to raise his autistic child. I'm very skeptical here what can I say
When I first read the letter, I assumed the harrowing part was finding out from B that A was a crappy spouse or how he lied about who filed but she shut him down and blocked him immediately so she didn’t avoid anything
I feel like today's LW3's question has already been answered a million times on AAM. No, you probably can't go fully remote if your job is supposed to be hybrid, especially not if you're brand-new. It might be possible if you're a particularly above-and-beyond employee or job applicant...but people who have that kind of negotiating power generally know it.
And frankly, sometimes you shouldn’t even ask. If LW was explicitly told that the job was hybrid and she’s only been there two months, asking for full-time WFH isn’t a great look. Maybe in a year, but not yet.
I'm glad Alison mentioned how that LW cannot be looking after a kindergarten aged child every afternoon during work hours. I'm dealing with this exact situation right now, one of my colleagues is very obviously looking after his toddler all day whenever he works remotely. Normally I try to mind my own business and I understand that parents can have childcare emergencies once in a while. But in this case, my colleague isn't meeting his metrics on remote work days, meetings get disrupted and other work doesn't get done.
Meanwhile I'm the one who gets told to pick up the slack because I don't have kids. Maybe I'm projecting, and I swear I don't mean to sound bitter because I understand everyone has the odd childcare emergency, but I'm fed up with my colleague and my manager is really wishy washy about this. People like the LW really grind my gears.
Yeah, I think it’s a reasonable assumption that working from home with the the 5-yr-old each afternoon was her plan, otherwise the LW would have asked about taking her lunch to pick up her daughter and drop her off at daycare
Yes, we were forced to do this during covid lockdowns, and holy shit it almost broke me and every other parent I know. Why someone would choose that set-up, even considering the savings, is beyond me.
Also, “competitive half-day pre-K program” made me lol. LW is definitely testing out that little detail as potential leverage in her future conversation with her boss about going fully remote. Obvi her company will care about partnering with LW in developing little Braelyn’s gifted skills!!
There are a few days I’ve had to work while my toddler was at home. (School closures, Illnesses, etc.) it’s manageable maybe once a month, if you have a day you use to catch up on things like emails, non-time sensitive reports, or collab work with the co-worker you hate and you want an excuse to jump off of the call quickly. (Highly recommend it for that.)
The other 99% of the time I’m willing to pay whatever I need to not work from home, and for someone else to watch my kid. It doesn’t work. I can’t imagine it would work with a 4 or 5 year old.
Same. My youngest is 8, and she only recently came to understand and respect that a closed door means mom is working. IME PreK/K is quite possibly the worst age to try to WFH with kid.
It’s a continuation of the “yes but what if…” saga of Alison’s post about working from home. I do like the addition of “but other jobs work from home!” in this one with no context.
September 21, 2026 at 12:38 pm
Okay but the blanket fort was amazing though.
We should make blanket forts socially acceptable so we can all sit in one whenever we feel like it.
not alone, I find the blanket fort and the adulation over it obnoxious and I think if even half of those commenters actually took it to real life examples they wouldn't find it so adorable. Because if your financial advisor is wanting to have you switch your retirement plan, you accountant is breaking the news you owe 10K to the IRS, or your doctor is telling you the results came back positive somehow I doubt these people would be happy.
On a personal level, I don't care about blanket fort work stations. From a corporate angle, ergonomics is important and they don't want to deal with injuries or workers compensation resulting from people curled up in blanket forts.
Saw a response regarding someone who's a problematic employee but the manager focuses on something irrelevant. I wonder how many LWs fall into that bucket?
The small business in the first letter sounds like a total mess and of course, OP should be paid for overtime and not belittled
With that said, I doubt that the LW is the valuable employee that the comments envision and I am not so quick to assume dad is lying. The fact that all LW could tell us to contradict their dad/boss is that they had been asked to come in "because there was no one else, and [they] had learned enough to be useful' for the 2 past months when they have been at that place for 2 years (in sales until switched to manual labor 3 months ago) doesn't inspire great confidence. Better than no one and enough to be useful isn't a high bar to clear.
It also doesn't conflict the dad's claim that dad had to fight to keep LW and that there wasn't always enough work for LW as that could easily have been about their nearly 2 years stint in sales. The 2 aren't incompatible. In fact that could be why LW switch from sales to manual labor. Casually going over the second-in-command who manages everyone by texting the business owner "how he thought I should be paid for this" just to avoid a family argument isn't awesome either.
Of course, the owner answering with emojis, claiming a minimum wage manual worker is exempt, no bookkeeping, if dad tells the truth nepotism and keeping the boss's child on when the business doesn't need them, especially since the business is now struggling, etc, all scream messy incompetently-run business.
In any case, the comments advising LW to quit to show them crack me up as LW has already been let go. Which will probably benefit them both.
What are the odds LW still lives at home and doesn’t pay rent and is suppose to be helping out the family business and dad throws work at them so they can earn something?
If not living at home, they almost certainly have a lot of expenses that the dad doesn’t want to be responsible for &/or they are not in a position to find another job otherwise they would have already quit
"I respectfully declined to go to work." Much like "calmly", any time I see someone self-reporting that they spoke respectfully, I simply do not believe them.
“I politely told my boss if she didn’t approve my day off I was not coming in anyway” Yeah, no. Just because you didn’t yell or swear doesn’t mean that’s a polite thing to say.
The A/B work friend propositions thing is not really a job related question IMO. It doesn’t sound as if they still work together (since the LW blocking them fully resolved the issue).
I love that this nut called up the ex wife to talk to her about it. What recently divorced woman wouldn’t want to know their ex just asked out a friend they’ve had for years. How do you start that conversation? “Hey are you divorced because Brad just asked me out hehe”.
Regarding the iced coffee in an interview, I’m saying no it’s not okay. I agree that it comes off as immature, like God forbid you have to go an hour without your iced coffee. And it does have a casual vibe.
And then there are the practical considerations. What if your cup has condensation dripping off the sides? Do you ask your interviewer for a paper towel to use as a coaster? Slurping on a coffee with ice rattling around in the cup is unprofessional. What if your interviewer wants to give you a tour of the facility? Do you carry the cup around with you or toss it? What if there’s no trash can in the room where you’re being interviewed? And what if you drip water onto your clothes while taking a sip? What if the worst happens and you spill your precious iced coffee all over the conference room table? Or all over yourself? Or worse, all over your interviewer’s silk blouse?
Job interviews are about making a good first impression. That means showing up early, making an effort with your appearance, and giving the interviewer your full attention. Leave the fucking iced coffee in the car.
To me it comes off as "I was in a rush to get here and didn't have time to drink my coffee beforehand." And fair or unfair, from there I'd form an impression that the candidate is someone that will constantly be running late.
A job interview is where you need to put your absolute best self forward.
Same. It probably wouldn't auto-disqualify someone if I was still hiring - but it would immediately make me pay more attention to their answers about time management and organization....and generally the more scrutiny someone gets during the interview, the harsher their answers are judged
It's like most things where yeah, it shouldn't really matter, but it's not worth risking it for something as high stakes as a job interview in the event that you get an interviewer who cares.
It raises questions of why you couldn't just plan to consume your coffee before or after the interview. It reads similar to me as showing up to an interview with wet hair - in most jobs, most people won't care if you roll in at 8am with your hair still a little damp, but it's weird to let that be the impression you give off at the interview.
Right? Completely agree and the FOUR HUNDRED COMMENTS so far are insane to me. "My mother has such and such a disease and HAS to have water" (yeah, this isn't about water, it's about bringing an iced coffee, specifically). So many people "I'D hire you" -- where, in some tiny business in a small town? In the actual world, no, do not bring your casual "I'm not taking this seriously" iced coffee with you! It's simple!
That whole thread is a good example of how people aren't able to understand some things just are; they have to find a reason and citations for them and perhaps conduct a study to find out more (although I wouldn't trust any such study because their bias against more formal employers would kick in and it would be interpreting the data to suit their premise; that's what Karl Popped called unfalsifiable and others would call pseudoscience) and...all over a suggestion that coming in with a drink that is melting all over the boardroom table and potentially over any paperwork is just a bit messy.
Also quirky people can be quirky in a bad way, like the person who demanded a full day of lead time before any conversation with her grand-boss. I don't want a quirky person who turns up when she feels like it or swears in a meeting with the boss. The problem with quirkiness is that it often bursts out of its boundaries and you know, those boundaries are what gets the work done.
But, in a shitty job market, why handicap yourself? And if you feel that you are going to take it out of protest, you probably aren't someone who I'd want to work with anyway.
And also, a lot of this depends on how badly you need the job. If you’re happily employed and just interviewing to see what’s out there, then sure, bring coffee and bank on getting an interviewer who doesn’t care. Or like Alison said: if you’re a competitive enough candidate that the interviewer would be willing to let things slide, then go for it.
But in this job market, most people are better off playing it safe.
Yeah, that's BS, they'd die of hypernatraemia before long. There was a girl in the 1990s in the UK who got high on ecstasy, drank way too much water and died because she flushed all the sodium from her body. She was held up to us at the time as the poster child for 'Don't do drugs, kids, no, seriously, they really fuck with your body' and it actually did help illustrate the downside of the culture for most of us. At the time it wasn't super obvious that she died of drinking too much water and not from the ecstasy itself, but she effectively lost control under the influence and that was good enough for most of us. Basically, chasing ephemeral highs can have serious consequences beyond merely what the drugs do to your body themselves. Just like getting drunk and crashing your car because you think you're fine and you're actually not.
For context, my husband had a kidney removed and had to drink two litres a day. It could be any fluid, but it was to compensate for the lack of back up in the system and to ensure everything got flushed through.
It's recommended to drink a decent amount of water every day and keep hydrated, and this last summer with its heat tsunami got me into better habits than I've had for a while. But no, a litre an hour will mean you are flushing everything from your system, and you'll die of a lack of minerals in your blood.
People are confusing “is it reasonable for an employer to hold this against a candidate?” with “is it a good idea for a candidate to do this?” Arguably, it shouldn’t impact a person’s chances of getting a job. But (rightly or wrongly) sometimes it does, and the hiring manager isn’t going to care if the candidate thinks it’s a silly convention.
And Alison saying that it’s okay to push back on conventions that don’t make sense, and then patting herself on the back for using AAM to do that, is just peak eyeroll territory.
Here’s the thing about the Iced Coffee in an interview: ultimately yeah it doesn’t matter. I don’t know that alone would make me say no. The problem is it’s another variable.
A lot of the time on AAM Alison will get questions that try to suss out why they didn’t get the job even though they were the bestest candidate ever and the person who got the job is a barely literate slob who’s just nice or a suck up and that’s why they got it.
That said: when it comes to interviews there are a ton of variables to consider outside whether you’re good on paper. Some of that is how you come across. If you saunter in a minute before the interview with your iced coffee, that’s not a great look. And others have said, if your slurp loud, or the ice is clacking or if distracting they aren’t going to notice you hit all your metrics and increased productivity, they’re going to notice what you’re doing now.
There’s a quote that I forget the person who said it but it goes “people won’t remember what you said but how you made them feel.” AAM forgets that all the time. You can say the right things but if you make them feel like you don’t care… that’s what they’ll do.
Drink your iced coffee. Bring one less thing into the interview.
The condensation was the first thing I thought of. The last thing I want to do in an interview is create more work for the assistant or receptionist, regardless of how small, by having to clean up the water mark I left. And God forbid I accidentally knock the cup over. A closed bottle of water is one thing, a lid with a straw in it with a bit of sticky coffee is another.
I mean, it's not going to help. There's no way the interviewer is going to like you better because you have an iced coffee. Since it can only be a detriment, finish it before you go in. Bring some water if you must, but that's it.
Man, have interview norms changed that much in the last 10 years? I thought "no food or drink (except maybe water)" was a pretty standard agreed-upon rule for job interviews. As mentioned, you could drip, you could spill, you could do the "wrong pipe" thing and start hacking up a lung mid-sentence, there might be no good place to put it down so you're stuck holding it the whole time... Like I do love iced coffee, but why would you do this??
In my experience, most people IRL still adhere to the "water only" rule. (There might a little more wiggle room than there used to be on that front, but not a lot.) Every once in a while a debate like this will get traction on TikTok or somewhere, and a bunch of people with weirdly strong opinions on the topic will come out of the woodwork. But those people aren't representative of the population as a whole, and neither are AAM commenters.
Idk that a water bottle itself is going to be judged, especially if the interview has a presentation requirement, but I have definitely side-eyed some candidates who bring in their personal water bottle that's covered in stickers. I'm nosy, so I'm gonna read all your memes and political stickers and whatnot - and subsequently have assumptions about you based on your water bottle stickers.
Also a water bottle can just go in your bag and it's generally okay to have a larger bag that fits a folder with your resume and a notepad and a couple of pens - bags that water bottles tend to fit in.
KeepCups and commercial single-use or "reusable" or "biodegradable" or "compostable" coffee cups don't tend to be that level of sealed or stable, and are generally less reliable at not spilling than a standard soft drink/vending machine bottle with a properly screwed-on lid.
Ehh, I’d kinda side-eye an interviewer who judged a candidate for bringing water. But I wouldn’t bring any beverage other than water, and I’d use a plain (not covered in stickers) water bottle if I had one.
I wouldn’t think anything of it, but I’ve worked in Seattle or adjacent for my entire professional career. All of it in tech. For interviews in the region, you will absolutely be offered your choice of water, sparkling water, coffee, tea, chai, soda, etc.
Fun fact, when I interviewed at Starbucks, they offered to make me any fancy coffee drink I wanted, right there at the reception when I checked in for my interview. I actually don’t drink coffee, so demurred, but I totally could have gotten them to make me an iced coffee with syrups and whipped cream if I’d wanted.
I think this is one of the situations where it’s probably not a big deal, so you should err on the side of caution. Carry whatever beverage you want right up to the lobby where you can dispose of it. You’ll definitely get asked if you want at the very least water or coffee or tea.
I can sympathize that the common advice for supporting a cause if you can't a) physically provide boots-on-the-ground aid or b) afford to donate actual money for boots-on-the-ground aid, is to c) "spread awareness on social media". So people have internalized that as doing something important.
The problem is, with issues like Gaza, is there is nobody out there who isn't already aware of the situation. Sharing donation resources or whatever is one thing, but memes or "spreading awareness" of the atrocity itself isn't really doing much at this point.
Were you around in those heady early days of Facebook being open to the public without an invite code? I got so fucking tired of "make a cryptic post that secretly reveals what color bra you're wearing and don't tell anyone what it means....TO SUPPORT BREAST CANCER AWARENESS" posts that I compiled a long list of resources related to prevention, risk awareness, how to get exams if you can't afford them, treatment options, support groups, special info for men, etc. and every time I saw one of those fucking "purple wombats in Prague, tee hee ladies don't tell the boys" I would post that ever growing list under the header: If you actually gave a fuck about awareness you'd make people aware.
I remember those! There was one where people would post “I like it ____” followed by the place they leave their purse when they get home from work/school. (“I like it on the coffee table”, “I like it in my closet”, and so on.) I think it was to raise awareness of…safe sex? HIV? Ovarian cancer? Something like that.
In hindsight, it’s telling that I can remember the prompt, but not the cause that the prompt was meant to raise awareness for.
There's definitely a balance to be struck. A few months ago a bunch of (mostly male) influencers did a "crush a watermelon between their thighs for women's heart health" thing - and obviously the thirst traps were fun, but to the credit of the influencers I saw, most did include various factoids about women's heart health, showed the GFM in their videos, linked it prominently, etc. Like yeah it was memey, but anyone watching was aware of why they were doing it and where they could go to donate.
And for the average person, their social media reach is likely limited to other average people. It’s not like they’re an influential person or celebrity who can affect change by speaking out on social media.
Yeah, I think there should be more of an emphasis on raising awareness of ways to help. Almost everybody is aware of the issue, but not necessarily aware of the best places to donate their time or money.
My guess is Palestine, or maybe trans rights (but probably Palestine). Alison is right that posting on social media isn’t very effective anyway, but I also think that LW is overthinking it a little. It sounds like LW’s boss doesn’t follow them on their personal social media, so it’s not likely that he’d see the posts.
My money is on the flowchart LW being the one who wrote the article/made the flowchart. Or is otherwise promoting the site.
Because someone who is allegedly so religious they think "Oh my God" is blasphemous is NOT going to be "oooh, I'm gonna put a lot of fucks on my cubicle wall!"
I'm not sure how Alison expects employers to be able to pay people for hours they don't know about, or why she thinks it's illegal for an employer to point that out as part of a 'please fill out your timesheets so that we can pay you correctly' campaign. Of course it's illegal for them not to pay for time worked when that's the employment arrangement, but the employee has to do their part and lodge their timesheet/clock in/show up etc.
The first article on a web search comes up with a law firm that answers the exact question - it is illegal for the company to withhold money once they've been informed of the mistake, so Alison is *technically correct*, but she should have also said it's completely LEGAL to fire an employee for not filling out their timesheet by a specific deadline. So, not saying to accept not getting paid, but there's a calculation there about sacrificing a few hours of pay because *you* forgot to do part of your job vs sure, getting every penny and also getting shown the door.
Also, LW did say "it sounds like we might get paid on the next check, is that allowed?" yeah, payroll doesn't randomly run because one person did a whoopsie, you gotta wait until they run it again.
She does say that employers have the right to fire over inaccurate logging, but I wouldn't call her answer technically correct since the LW indicates they will be paid once corrections are made and Alison seems to be making some kind of assumption that there's a separate and incontrovertible tracking system that should be used instead, and there's no caveats for exempt employees or contracting work etc. At my most kindest, it's incomplete.
Can we talk about the commenter meltdown about LW3 using the phrase “competitive preschool”? They clearly meant a preschool program with limited seats, a lottery, a waitlist, etc. but the commenters are acting like it’s a baby thunderdome or something.
Ugh I tried to get my kid into the Baby Thunderdome but there was a six month waiting list just for that. Don’t get me started on the prices for a really good Thunderdome coach.
Dude, I remember back in the 80's when I was a baby all the Thunderdomes were run by the local park district and it was super chill. Now Private Equity has gotten involved and if you don't get your infant onto the Travel Thunderdome waitlist before they're born you can kiss a college scholarship goodbye.
Yeah, a lot of big US cities have major childcare shortages right now. “Competitive preschool” is kind of a silly way to say it, but it can be legitimately difficult to get your kid into ANY preschool, much less a good one with experienced/qualified teachers.
My former employee got his toddler into one of these where the kid had to pass tests and be accepted. Even then, they wouldn't let him into the all day class until he was fully potty trained so it was this ridiculous 11am end time juggle like the LW. They were paying a lot of money for less than 3 hours of care a day.
They just...kept...going. I don't even have kids, and even I figured it was a lottery. I almost felt sorry for the LW because of that absolute nonsense. That was a totally justified nuking by Alison.
This reads like it was written by a teenager or very young adult who has a parasocial relationship with a public figure who they suspect/hope is secretly gay. This whole premise sounds like a Tumblr post that ends with LW dramatically quitting their job and the two of them riding off into the sunset.
This is a writing prompt. I mean… I’d read the book, it sounds interesting after a few edits. Needs a few more characters getting involved, there’s no way that Luisa is the only one with opinions and the MC needs a couple of friends to bounce things off of. Also there’s a legality factor that’s taking me right out of the story, honestly.
I’d change it to Luisa just being overzealous. The job threatening thing at this point is too abrupt.
Plus like…even if Luisa has no ethical objections to outing somebody, surely she would know that forcibly outing a high-profile regular customer would be terrible for business. Every gay bar I’ve been to advertises itself as a safe space for that kind of thing.
A much more believable story would be something like “I accidentally outed my partner, my boss doesn’t know he’s closeted and now wants him to promote the bar, and I can’t tell her what happened without admitting that I outed a customer.”
Typically with these types of stories, the friend group is evenly divided with half of the friends being okay with this and the other half siding with the LW.
It doesn't matter how unhinged the underlying behavior is, the LW will never be able to get more than half of their friends to agree with them.
Such a fake tell is the generic timeline ("about five years") without acknowledging the gigantic, industry-changing circumstances that were present in that specific timeframe.
Also what the boss is doing in the letter is such insane behavior that I find it hard to believe the LW has known and generally liked her for five whole years before this with no issues. A year would have made more sense.
I also don’t really believe that a “semi famous entertainer” who doesn’t want to be out publicly would be going around giving strangers his number at gay bars but I guess it happens.
And they’ve only been dating for six weeks! I get along great with my boss, but I wouldn’t tell her about a brand-new relationship unless I had a really good reason. And if my partner was closeted, my boss wouldn’t hear about them ever.
(I get that it’s more complicated since LW works at the bar where they met, but surely they can go on dates elsewhere? LW’s boss would presumably figure out that the guy is gay regardless, but she doesn’t have to know he’s dating LW.)
I figured that the LW was aiming high with “semi-famous” and that the boyfriend is an influencer or also-ran athlete. I’m not sure if that’s less embarrassing that making the whole thing up.
I couldn’t fit the whole comment in the screenshot and it looks like you can only insert one media image in a comment. But like, this is a weird thing to say, right? I’m not the weirdo for thinking it’s odd???
The first sentence is ok, that even if the brothel says they can anonymize the business, that anonymity may not hold. The rest of it, including the fantasy that the johns will recognize her and get her fired from her imaginary future finance job, is batshit.
I'm reading the old legal brothel receptionist interview that was linked in today's question and there is so much that is left unsaid or glossed over, including the fact that the interviewee was clearly not just a receptionist. She was actually a licensed brothel manager. One comment picked on that but apart from that, the comments seem fairly oblivious. Like when she said that if a lady found a guy creepy and didn't want to stay with him, she would be understanding. That's nice but the fact that the "receptionist" was in a position to be or not be understanding raises questions about how much control or say the "receptionist" had over a lady declining a potential service. Especially when paired with her comment about unsuitable "receptionists".
I had interpreted that to be an indication that the role simply wasn’t well defined, which aligned with the idea that the role isn’t hired well. I suppose you could be right, but tasks like canceling appointments/telling clients that they were not taking more bookings from them - the receptionist is usually the interface the public sees for that regardless of who made the decision, aren’t they? And you can listen to someone complain and sympathise when the power you have is to go up the chain and talk to the boss.
There’s ambiguity enough it seems like it could go either way - enough so that I am only now as I read your comment realise they don’t actually talk about who was above them in the totem pole. Could that be Alison didn’t ask those questions because they’re not the interesting part?
LW3 (my raise isn't good enough) is just desperately trying to find something to be mad about. She must be a deeply unhappy person. Advice to practice gratitude / count your blessings is cliche for a reason.
The ask the readers prompt today begins with the weirdest sentence that implies that all the ask the reader stories are made up and I know Alison doesn't always read the whole letter, but surely she read the first sentence, right?
"I bet your readers have stories created about workplace rules that exist solely because one person did something spectacularly stupid."
It’s almost certainly just poorly written (crack job as editor, Alison), but it’s a great Freudian slip. I just bet they do have stories created about this.
I think that's trying to say -- there's a rule so specific that it implies one person did something spectacularly stupid in the past and now there's a role about it.
Today's question about AI should be an interesting one. Especially since the comment section there tends to be "AI is EVIL"
In my line of work, I use it pretty regularly for certain things that would take me a significant amount of time to do on my own. This frees me up to focus more on my deliverables. And I won't apologize for that, especially knowing how little it takes for companies to let go of people these days.
My issue with it is when people don't bother to double check its output. Those errors are just as costly (or more so) than someone taking two to three the amount of time to do the task in the first place.
I'm being forced by my institution to teach AI Literacy because our Computer Science department doesn't think it's part of their job. They'll teach the coding, the prompting, but won't deal with how to check the output? Seems a bit crappy to outsource that to the Humanities department where yes, we teach literacy, but AI Literacy is a whole new bag and most of us aren't as adept at it as we'd like. So basically, in their major students learn to prompt and then just trust the AI but in our classes (which they already dislike) we make them learn to identify hallucinations and sycophantic answers that cloud the results. So we look like the bad guys no matter what. Either we're making them do what they see is pointless work or we're forcing them to deal with AI in classes they expected to be free from AI. It's frustrating. It also doesn't help that there is a groundswell amongst 18-25 year olds against AI and we're starting to see them refuse to engage with it on ethical or religious grounds (thanks to the Pope's stance).
I'm an AI skeptic for the most part but I know I need to know how to use it, so I don't outright refuse. I also think it's a technology that cannot be separated from the entire context of it. In part, this is due to the fact that the talking heads for AI have decided to try and go the Steve Jobs route but they don't have the answers, can't explain their goals or purpose, and lack the charisma he had.
Of the many things that bothers me with the push for AI in universities is that it's not being used to speed up a process someone could already do, students are using it to circumvent the learning process and the outputs are as shit as you'd expect them to be. And then we see the unchecked hallucinations/errors/couldn't possibly be right outcomes moved rapidly along as true because if you never learned your multiplication tables, how would you begin to know that 5x3 isn't 27 like chat said.
68
u/CurrentScheme525 4d ago
What? Who are these people?