It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. My employee insists on working on vacation
I have been the director of a small library staff for a little over a year. I have a good rapport with my team, and I am grateful for them.
One of the people I supervise checks their email every day while they are on vacation. They say they spend about an hour or so going through and responding to email each day. I am trying to create a culture where folks are not getting burned out, and I encourage my team members to fully and truly take a break while they are away. I tried to set a good example by not checking my emails while I was away for a recent vacation. However, this teammate insists that they need to check their emails because otherwise they will be too anxious that something is being missed and too overwhelmed when they return. I’ve had a brief conversation about how they can set up her out-of-office emails to direct urgent inquiries to other people, but they still insist they need to check their email daily. On other issues they have been open to change and feedback, but they are more insistent on this.
They have a vacation week coming up, and I am considering pushing back a bit. I am thinking of proposing a trial compromise where they would check their email twice while they are away and then reflect on it together at our regular check-in meeting when they get back. I think it would be good for them to see that things do not fall apart if they don’t check their email for a few days and, even if something major does happen, to be able to identify gaps where cross training is necessary. While not overstepping into the position of a therapist, I also would like to learn more about why they feel so nervous about things falling apart when they are away.
Does this seem reasonable? How insistent should I be on this? I don’t want to cause further stress by trying to help them destress, but I also feel like they would benefit from a true break.
An hour a day is a really significant amount of work when someone is supposed to be disconnected! If they found one quick daily check (like five minutes) helped them be more relaxed while they were away — fine, I don’t think it’s optimal but it’s also not something a manager should micromanage. But an hour a day is a problem.
The question to start with, though, is whether it’s a problem on their end or a problem with the workload. Can you find out more about that side of it — are they right to think they’ll be overloaded when they return if they don’t do this? If so, that’s the piece to work on, whether that means finding more coverage while they’re gone, lessening what you throw their way before and after a vacation, or something else. But if that’s not the case and this is more like free-floating anxiety, then it’s reasonable to say, “Vacation days are part of your compensation and I can’t in good conscience let you work an hour a day when you’re supposed to be fully disconnected. Moreover, vacations are an opportunity for us to spot holes in our systems — and if you’re always stepping in to handle things while you’re out, you’re denying us the ability to do that.” (In fact, if this person works with money at all, you should insist on them fully disconnecting. Financial positions often require people to fully disconnect on vacation for one or two weeks a year because that’s a good way for companies to detect fraud.)
Beyond that, whether you should try the experiment you’re thinking of depends on the specifics of what you learn about what’s driving this, as well as your relationship with her (and also things like how senior her role is). But the more you can frame it as “this is about what’s healthy and sustainable in the long-term for us a team” rather than “I know better than you do what’s good for your mental health,” the stronger ground you’ll be on.
2. Can a hiring employer reject resumes for using pronouns or mentioning DEI?
I recently saw a Twitter thread from someone saying they automatically reject resumes with he/him or she/her, as well as any references to DEI. Obviously, it’s not surprising that bigots would do that. But are any of these practices actual discriminatory in a legal sense? Is the person who says they throw out resumes that mention pronouns or DEI opening themselves up to a lawsuit in a real way?
In some ways, it’s a blessing, because I wouldn’t want to work for any company that reflexively trashes resumes that mention DEI. But I’m wondering if there’s any kind of remedy for these hiring practices.
Yes, it opens them to huge legal liability. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity just like it does race, sex, religion, disability, and other protected classes. I suppose this person could argue that they are discriminating not on the basis of gender identity itself, but based on a reference to gender identity existing — but either way, if you could show it has a disparate impact on a protected class (likes trans and non-binary candidates — and you almost certainly could), it’s illegal. Also, if they’re really “throwing away” resumes, that itself is illegal since federal law requires employers to keep resumes on file for at least one year.
Plus they’re violating the law of “don’t be an asshole,” so there’s that too.
3. My coworker suggested we assign work based on senior and junior status … but we all have the same job
I work in a team with less than 10 people where everyone has the same title.. While there are some variations to our assignments, to others in the organization, we do the same work. We have one team leader and one boss, who is very much absent in our day-to-day.
I am in my early 30s, the youngest, and started two years ago. One other person is a year older than me and has also worked here for less than five years. The others are a mix between 40-60 years and several of them have worked here for 10-20 years. I recently found out that one of my coworkers with ~15 years of experience suggested to our boss that we assign areas of responsibility based on who is “senior” and “junior.” While I recognize that I have the least amount of experience, since I began working here I have been described as a rising star. I get amazing feedback on my work and get along great with both my coworkers and leadership. I have grown so much in my role, much because I am pushed (and supported) by my team leader to take on more advanced assignments. I love my job and wouldn’t like to be assigned “junior” work after everything I’ve accomplished so far.
What really are the criterias for junior and senior roles? If it’s experience, then I would be the only “candidate” for her suggestion. Wouldn’t that be a demotion? If it’s age, would it be ageist? The other 30-something is a specialist in a specific part of our work, and she would 100% leave if she got labeled junior. How do you even determine whether someone is senior (insert job title)? For clarification, there are no senior or junior roles at all in the organization today.
Typically a “senior X” type job is based on both experience and skill — both, since someone could have a lot of experience but still not a lot of skill. Sometimes it’s based just on skills, so someone really talented but inexperienced could come in at a senior level based on the strength of their work … but more often it’s a mix of both.
If your boss wanted to pursue this, it might make more sense to have “llama groomers” and “senior llama groomers” — no need for anyone to suddenly be labeled “junior” when they weren’t before. But I also wouldn’t assume your boss will go for the idea, unless the coworker who proposed it has a good argument for it and/or lot of influence. Still, though, if it’s something that would affect your assignments, there’s no reason you can’t offer your input too, particularly if it’s along the lines of “having my assignments restricted like that would make me much less satisfied with my work.”
4. Manager made a superior-sounding comment about an employee’s father
Can a supervisor who is teaching a class make a statement about a student’s father in front of other students, making her look superior over another employee in the company? Example: “I am four levels higher than your father in the company’s chain of command.”
She can, but it would be obnoxious and call her judgment into question (assuming I’m understanding correctly that she said it as a way to try to establish some sort of superiority or dominance, as opposed to a less snooty context). And it wouldn’t be surprising if someone above her heard about it and developed concerns about her professional maturity and general sense.
5. Can I hide a new job to get more severance?
I’ve been furloughed from my company for a defined period. Ideally, I will be brought back before the period ends, but if not, there is a severance agreement. If they don’t need to bring me back at the end of the period, I get the full package. They understand anyone impacted will be looking, so if I get a new job and resign before the furlough ends, I get half the severance package for my tenure.
If I get a new job, do I have to resign? I hadn’t intended to be looking for a new job, and the furlough kind of just seems like a delayed layoff, with the hope they won’t have to pay out the full package. Plus it may line up that I end up underemployed/otherwise in a situation I’d have left for my old job, but still technically would have a new position. Is it legal and/or ethical to not resign and get my full severance package, even if I’m otherwise employed at the end of the window?
Whether it’s legal will depend on the exact wording of the severance agreement (although it’s most likely not — you’re presumably going to have to sign attesting to the circumstances), but no, it’s not ethical since you’d be accepting money under false pretenses. Of course, some people might decide they don’t care about that (especially people who have been left with no paycheck while waiting for the company to decide whether to bring them back) but I think you’d be hard-pressed to come up with an argument for it being ethical.
