This week on Lost Terminal: The Sisters help Nia, Linda gives advice, Meg checks in, and Maddie makes a discovery.
Lost Terminal will return next week!

📓 Free transcript: https://www.patreon.com/posts/142039495
🎵 Today's SIGNAL is: https://namtao.bandcamp.com/track/mother-of-dragons
🦣 Mastodon https://namtao.com/@lostterminal
📝 Tumblr https://lostterminalpod.tumblr.com
🎙️ Recorded using a RODE NT-1 v5 USB in 32-bit float, edited with REAPER on Linux

🙏 CREDITS

• Credits narrated by Lucy Stringer
  ❤️ Thank you so much to everyone who supports me, but especially my Patreon Producers:
• Ada Phillips
• Kit
• Mike McCaffrey
• Jade Felicity Bilkey
• Stephen McCandless
• Mike Schneider
• Catoxis

A reader writes:

I’ve just had the strangest interview experience. After the hiring manager and I introduced ourselves, she opened by asking, “Have you read our action plan?”

I had not. I pivoted and replied that I’d read a couple other documents which are prominently linked on the company’s website, especially the one titled “’24-’27 Plan.” She indicated that was an outdated document, and that she was glad to know I hadn’t read it, as it would inform our interview moving forward. Okay.

She mentioned the action plan later in the interview, and I indicated I was looking forward to reading it and was sorry to have missed it.

Towards the end, she asked if I had any questions for her. I did. I asked. She said, “Well, that would have been answered in the action plan.”

Me: “I can’t wait to read this plan — I’m going to find it as soon as we’re done with our conversation here!”

Her: “It was linked in the job description on our careers page that you applied on.”

Me: “Oh gosh — I for sure would have clicked on a live link in a job description. I can’t imagine how I missed that. I’ll go there as soon as we’re done and review it so I can be up to date with your organization.”

Her: “I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with it.”

We end the interview.

I search the website.

There is no document. Not where she said it would be, and not anywhere else on their website. I sent the page to some friends so I could have fresh eyes, and we googled. References to the doc exist, but the doc itself? Nothing.

I emailed her asking for a PDF or a link and have heard nothing.

I assume I’m not getting the job, but what just happened to me?

You encountered an incompetent. A rude incompetent.

If they wanted you to read their action plan before they interviewed you, they should have told you that and sent it to you. That’s true even if it was linked in the job description, which it wasn’t. When you’re interviewing people and you want them to have read something specific beforehand, you tell them that in advance so that your time together can be spent as usefully as possible.

Moreover, what’s up with this organization prominently linking a “’24-’27 Plan” if it’s outdated? That’s what reflects badly on someone in this equation, and that someone is not you.

Assume you got useful data about the hiring manager and the org and so, in that respect, the interview actually did serve your purposes well!

The post interviewer was irate that I hadn’t read their (unavailable) action plan appeared first on Ask a Manager.

Following an industry trend, fast-food chain Shake Shack recently updated its terms of use agreement to include a binding arbitration agreement and class-action waiver denying customers their legal right to take the company to court.

---

Fast-food chain Shake Shack recently updated its terms of use agreement to include a binding arbitration agreement and class-action waiver denying customers their legal right to take companies to court. These provisions are showing up across the fast-food industry, extending restrictive contracts to consumers through the rapid expansion of online services such as websites, mobile apps, and automated self-service kiosks.

Arbitration courts are a pay-for-play private justice system in which cases are overseen by judges hired by the company being sued, and the chances of consumers ever winning a lawsuit are extremely low — upwards of 90 percent of cases rule in favor of companies. These contracts have spread across the economy, from health care to live entertainment. But until recently, fast-food chains were generally only able to wield them over their workers in employment contracts.

The digitization of ordering is driven by several factors that enable restaurants to rake in more profits. You may have noticed that every fast-food chain from Wendy’s to McDonald’s now wants you to order through their own company app, even if you’re picking up in person. That’s because once the company gets into your phone, it can collect data, surveil your spending habits, and serve you personalized pricing to extract as much money as possible. Inside the store, automated kiosks are helping restaurants downsize their workforce and slash labor costs.

The new digital ordering interface can force consumers to sign a terms-of-service agreement the same way major tech companies like Apple, Uber, and Lyft do. In those agreements, companies can then slip in arbitration clauses to strip you of your rights to sue them for all kinds of harms; think the E. coli outbreaks at Chipotle or McDonald’s and the many class-action lawsuits over the health effects of chemicals or additives in fast food.

If you choose not to sign Shake Shack’s new terms-of-use agreement, you’ll lose access to all of the restaurant’s ordering options other than over-the-counter ordering, a service that restaurants are moving away from.

---

This article was first published by the Lever, an award-winning independent investigative newsroom.

It's time for most of America to move clocks back on Sunday. Daylight saving time ends in the U.S. at 2 a.m. local time, which means setting your clock back an hour.

Donald Trump just cut off all trade negotiations with Canada because an Ontario ad campaign quoted Ronald Reagan accurately. The quotes are real. The context is accurate. But Trump called them “fake” and “fraudulent,” and the Reagan Foundation—the institution literally tasked with preserving Reagan’s legacy—backed him up by lying about what their own guy said and even threatening frivolous litigation in support of Trump’s temper tantrum.

Now, thanks to Trump’s meltdown, millions more people are watching Reagan’s actual words. And learning that Trump’s entire tariff philosophy directly contradicts what Reagan believed and said.

The ad that triggered all this is pretty straightforward. A few weeks ago, Ontario Premier Doug Ford launched a $75 million campaign using clips from a 1987 Ronald Reagan radio address about the evils of tariffs and the benefits of free trade. You can see it here:

Ford’s politics are often Trumpian, but he’s not backing down from a stupid trade war. So he pulled Reagan’s own words and ran them as a 60-second spot.

The ad campaign is definitely targeting Republicans and business execs. It first ran on the very MAGA Newsmax and the very business-focused Bloomberg, but has been expanding to Fox News (of course), CNBC, CBS, ABC, ESPN and others.

Apparently, somewhere this week, Donald Trump saw it, and it made him sad. And when Donald Trump gets sad, he lashes out like a six-year-old. He claimed that the ad was “fake” and because of that he was cutting off all trade negotiations with Canada.

If you can’t see that image, it’s Trump spewing on social media:

The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs. The ad was for $75,000. They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts. TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT

So, first off, it’s a bit weird to cut off all negotiations with Canada based on an ad from one province, Ontario, which is run by a politician from a different party than the Prime Minister. But, okay.

But the bigger issue is the claim that the Reagan quotes are “fake” or “fraudulent.” They’re not. The Reagan Foundation put out this statement, and the only “misrepresentation” is in the Foundation’s own statement:

That one says:

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute learned that the Government of Ontario, Canada, created an ad campaign using selective audio and video of President Ronald Reagan delivering his “Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade,” dated April 25, 1987. The ad misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address, and the Government of Ontario did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is reviewing its legal options in this matter. We encourage you to watch President Reagan’s unedited video on our YouTube channel.

So, first off, note the difference between what the Foundation said and what Trump said. The Foundation claims that the ad is “using selective audio” in a way that “misrepresents” Reagan. Trump took that claim (which was already bullshit) and said it means the ad is “fake” and “fraudulent.” It is neither.

The Foundation also suggests it might sue, which is laughable. They have no claim here and any attempt to go to court would fail, and fail in an embarrassing manner.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation has gone fully Trumpy—their website is packed with MAGA interviews—and now they’re lying about what Reagan actually said and believed. The institution designed to preserve his legacy is rewriting it to please Donald Trump.

It’s pathetic.

But, of course, the Streisand Effect kicks in, and now everyone can watch what Ronald Reagan actually said in that address:

It’s only five minutes long. Every quote in the Ontario ad is in there, accurate both in text and in context. The speech was framed around Reagan’s decision to impose tariffs on certain Japanese products in response to Japan dumping below-market semiconductors, which Reagan argued violated an earlier agreement.

However, he was quite clear throughout that he was a strong believer in free trade and against tariffs, and he was only doing this, regretfully, in response to Japan violating an earlier trade agreement.

Reagan explicitly contradicted Trump’s claim that tariffs are “very important to the national security and economy of the US.” Reagan said the opposite.

Incredibly, Trump freaking out and lying about this ad is making many more people watch it and learn what Reagan actually said about tariffs and free trade. Even CNN, which pretty typically just repeats whatever Trump says, is pointing out that Trump’s claims here are nonsense and Reagan very clearly spoke out against tariffs.

On top of all this, Canada is now cutting trade deals with China and other countries in Asia. This is effectively pushing our closest ally into the waiting arms of our biggest economic rival.

This is stunningly bad policy: a foreseeable disaster stemming from a stupid approach to trade, kicked into overdrive by a presidential temper tantrum over accurate quotes from a politician many in the MAGA world pretend to idolize. Trump lied. The Reagan Foundation lied to back him up. And now Canada is cutting deals with China while the world learns that Reagan explicitly opposed everything Trump claims tariffs accomplish.

Congratulations to everyone involved. You’ve Streisanded the world into a history lesson, and handed China a trade partner in the process.

#Ryo #RoninWarriors

#Kento #Mia #Ully #Rowen #RoninWarriors

Whoa-ho-ho! #CowboyWho

Hey! Just a second! We're ... #CowboyWho

A reader writes:

I have an older male coworker who frequently asks me about my office hours and makes comments about my presence in the office. To provide some context, my department has a flexible attendance policy, while his department requires that he be in the office five days a week. I suspect his comments are passive-aggressive, especially since he has previously complained resentfully to me about other team members’ attendance and about his own in-office requirements.

Some examples of comments he’s made to me:

“What is your in-office schedule? Because I never know when you’re here.”
“Are you in the office today, because I came to your desk earlier, but you weren’t there.”
“Long time, no see.”
“Hi there, stranger.”
“I thought I saw you in the office this morning? Are you no longer in the office?”
“Where were you yesterday?”

As I mentioned, my department allows me to work a hybrid schedule. My department head works remotely from a different city and my manager rarely comes into the office.

Sometimes he had made these comments to me when I was working in the office, but had to step away from my desk to attend a meeting.

I suspect that his remarks are passive-aggressive, because in the past, he has approached me at my desk, pointed to my colleagues’ desks, and whispered under his breath, “They never come in, do they?” And then complained to me about how he is required to be in the office five days a week.

I typically respond to his comments about my attendance by saying, “I’m always available via Teams or email if I am not in the office,” as I rarely work with him on tasks and am not obligated to share detailed information about my schedule. Despite this, his comments continue.

It’s getting on my nerves, and I find it a little creepy (I’m a much younger woman). I would like to address this professionally and set clear boundaries. Could you offer advice on how to effectively and politely put an end to these questions and remarks?

You have two basic paths here: be aggressive about Not Caring, or address it head-on.

The first path would mean being pointedly cheerful or pointedly unconcerned about what his subtext might be. So:

Him: “What is your in-office schedule? Because I never know when you’re here.”
You: “Oh, it’s hybrid!” (It would be enjoyable to use a borderline-bubbly tone here.)

Him: “Are you in the office today, because I came to your desk earlier, but you weren’t there.”
You: “Nope, I’m out of the office today. What did you need?”

Him: “Long time, no see.”
You: “It’s been about a week.” (You could pair this with a “you’re being weird” look.)

Him: “Hi there, stranger.”
You: “Hello.”

Him: “I thought I saw you in the office this morning? Are you no longer in the office?”
You: “Not sure what you mean, but there hasn’t been a change to my schedule. Did you need something from me?”

Him: “Where were you yesterday?”
You: “Working, why?”

The second option is to just call it out:

Him: (any of the comments above)
You: “You seem worried about my schedule. Is it causing some kind of issue for you?”

He’ll presumably say no, at which point you can say, “It’s getting weird that you comment on it so much. I’d appreciate it if you’d stop. Thank you!” Say the “thank you” part cheerfully, like of course there will be no issue here now that you’ve called this to his attention.

If “it’s getting weird that you comment on it so much” feels like too much for your office (or for the relationship), you could say, “You comment on my schedule a lot, but unless it’s causing an issue for you, I’d be grateful if you’d stop remarking on it every time I see you. I think you know my team is hybrid. Thank you!”

From there, if he continues to comment anyway, you should feel free to just respond with an extremely weary look, as demonstrated here by Jennifer Lawrence:

The post my coworker makes passive-aggressive comments about my hybrid schedule appeared first on Ask a Manager.

Workplace “wellness” initiatives — like free yoga classes, mindfulness tips, step challenges, diet advice, and other pushes for well-being now common at work — are supposed to be a win-win situation: employees get healthier and happier while employers reap the benefits of lower health care costs. But in practice, these programs frequently miss the mark, and many employees perceive them as intrusive and out of touch.

At Slate today, I wrote about how workplace “wellness” so often goes wrong (including one wellness advisor who suggested eating goulash as a cure-all). You can read it here.

The post workplace wellness initiatives do more harm than good appeared first on Ask a Manager.

Okay, so your husband’s a putz.

There’s malaise over there…

Always wear eye protection when you’re me.

mst3kgifs:

This is just like the time I got lost at Bally’s and ran onto the tennis courts and couldn’t get out.

mst3kgifs:

He had a terrible job monitoring routine data output on global climate control… and its effect on Bugs Bunny.

WASHINGTON—Acknowledging that he was impressed by the foreign leader’s ability to compromise on all kinds of fixtures, President Donald Trump announced Friday that he had participated in a productive call with Russian President Vladimir Putin about ballroom sconces. “We spoke for several hours and made great progress in negotiating whether I should go with a gold or silver finish,” Trump said while examining various wall-mounted lighting options, adding that he was committed to reaching a diplomatic solution in finalizing the design of his planned $300 million White House ballroom. “You know, Vladimir and I aren’t as far apart as critics believe. There’s a lot of overlap in terms of our love for hand-cut crystal, gilded iron, and warm-toned bulbs. This bodes well for when we get to picking chairs.” At press time, Trump had reportedly canceled a planned in-person meeting with Putin following a heated disagreement over paint swatches.

The post Trump Touts Productive Call With Putin About Ballroom Sconces appeared first on The Onion.

BOSTON—Remarking that the malevolent clown seemed not to have aged a day in the years since his last screen appearance, It: Welcome To Derry viewer Alana Meyer told reporters Sunday that she could tell Pennywise had gotten work done. “Don’t get me wrong, he looks good, but you don’t come back looking this hot without dropping some serious dough on operations in Turkey,” said Meyer, noting that immediately after the premiere began, she could see the star’s paycheck at work in his fuller red lips, veneers for his sharpened teeth, orange hair plugs, and much more prominent white forehead. “He’s really filling out those ruffled pantaloons in a way I never noticed before, so I wouldn’t rule out a butt lift either. Look, if it makes him happy, whatever. It’s obviously just part of the career expense of being a sex symbol.” Meyer, however, went on to applaud the way fellow evil presences such as Art the Clown and Violator had chosen to age gracefully.

The post ‘Welcome To Derry’ Viewer Can Tell Pennywise Got Work Done appeared first on The Onion.

QUEENS PARK – Premier Doug Ford’s government has proposed legislation to potentially end indefinite rental leases and adjust tenancy agreements, after realizing that there were still people who could afford to live in Ontario. “Folks, I heard the disturbing news and acted immediately,” Ford said, taking a moment from signing a new bill that would […]

The post Ford aims to end indefinite rental leases after discovering some Ontarians can still afford to live appeared first on The Beaverton.

Let us set the record straight: President Trump is not a king, and the White House is not a castle.

To those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, a big, beautiful ballroom might reek of the worst of eighteenth-century Versailles; however, this particular gilded, jumbo-sized event space reeks of American spirit, unrigged elections, and Brut by Fabergé. This is a privately funded ballroom for the people—the ticket-holding, well-connected, Stephen Miller–vetted people—all at no cost to the American public.

Also duty-free? The crocodile moat we’re installing around the White House grounds.

At first glance, a crocodile moat may seem archaic and unnecessarily sinister for a place that hosts annual Easter Egg rolls, but we’d argue the moat is a grave matter of national security. For centuries, American presidents have been clamoring for a crocodile moat at the White House. All the greatest lairs and strongholds throughout history and historical fiction have had moats filled with crocodiles. And a democratic country needs a presidential fortress, and a fortress needs a moat. President Trump is the first president to actually have the stones to get it done.

Plus, we had the construction equipment just lying around, waiting to be used. We knocked the East Wing down in record time. So far, installing the new moat has mainly required digging up surrounding sidewalks, roads, and two churches, but the president is willing to bulldoze anything of historical significance that may stand in his way.

Again, this is not costing taxpayers a dime. Instead, we’re using anywhere from $250 million to infinity dollars in private donations from corporations, universities, and American patriots who don’t want their names revealed.

And it’s not just the moat. See those large, looming, revolving turrets? They are courtesy of our pals at Palantir. Light surveillance among friends is the cornerstone of a functioning democratic society.

Those menacing pikes lining the perimeter are brought to you by an anonymous $20 million donation from a little company that rhymes with “Old Man Hacks.” And Vanderbilt University gifted us the trebuchet. It’s very nice that they’re so eager to play ball.

ABC (via settlement) donated the solid gold drawbridge and, as a gesture of goodwill, is re-rebooting Dynasty. The dungeon was hand-crafted pro bono by Eric, Don Jr., and Kid Rock’s pyrotechnic coordinator. We’re not sure who put Nancy Pelosi’s name placard above one of the cells, but it’s funny, so we’re leaving it. A healthy democracy has a sense of humor. Lighten up, peasants.

Also, a fully-funded, fully-functional Hard Rock Cafe just kind of showed up on the lawn overnight.

There are three thousand crocodiles in the moat. Many were gifted from semi-legal adventure parks in Florida, but a bunch came from Stephen Miller’s personal collection. In exchange for his selflessness, we have offered Steve lifetime immunity should the White House somehow change hands in the future. This is not a quid pro quo; it’s a quid pro croc.

Sure, anyone can look at all the hungry crocodiles in horror, particularly if they’re dangling above the moat. But it will make trade negotiations a whole lot easier. And while we’re on the subject of tax dollars, we will be using the imminent $230 million DOJ payout on an infinity pool and a connecting Jacuzzi tub—that’s unavoidable. But it’s also truly, madly, deeply American.

We realize leftist snowflakes are afraid of change, regardless of who’s paying for it. To that, we say: This isn’t the first time the White House grounds have been tweaked. Remember Barack Hussein Obama’s basketball court? Unlike that pointless vanity project—which served absolutely no purpose for people who can’t shoot hoops—the gigantic ballroom, crocodile moat, and Hard Rock Cafe: White House will strengthen our standing on the global stage as a pillar of democratic ideals.

And again, there are no kings, and this is no castle. The only monarchs here are the confused butterflies in the Rose Garden, which we recently paved over. But don’t worry about those bugs; Kristi Noem is dealing with them.

New comic!
Today's News:

Dollman is just excited to have someone to talk to.

computers

mono

it is what you see it is

https://analognowhere.com/_/lgrout

• archive
• support/store

Tap the screen to play.

Controls

Your skis are controlled by the right and left arrow keys. Try to stay between the flags.

Ski Slalom was adapted from a listing in the September 1982 issue of 80 Micro, written by Jeff Commander.

The Listing

``` 100 CLS 101 PRINT "*************************************" 102 print "** **" 103 PRINT "** TRS-80 Slalolm Run **" 104 PRINT "** By Jake Commander **" 105 PRINT "** Refactored by Michael Coorlim **" 106 PRINT "** **" 107 PRINT "*************************************" 120 PRINT:PRINT "Use arrow keys to control your direction." 130 DEFINT L-Z : REM DEFINES L THROUGH Z AS INTS 132 L=200 : REM COURSE LENGTH IN FLAGS 135 DIM ZC(L+7) : REM HOLDS THE COURSE FOR EACH FLAG 140 YD=RND(3)-2: IF YD = 0 then 140 : REM GIVES -1 or 1 150 DEFSTR A-F: A=CHR$(170)+CHR$(170):B=CHR$(171):C=CHR$(151) 160 PRINT @ 512,;:INPUT"Choose Difficulty (1,2, or 3 (hardest))";ZD 165 IF ZD < 1 OR ZD > 3 THEN 160 170 Y = 0: Z = 1 172 CLS 175 PRINT @22,"Plotting new course" 180 Y1 = RND(ZD*2+1) : REM DIFFICULTY IMPACTS HOW SHARP TURNS MUST BE 185 YD =-YD : REM REVERSES DIRECTION OF NEXT FLAG 190 X=RND(6/(ABS(Y1)+1))+RND(2) 192 IF X+1 = Z1 THEN 190 195 FOR Z1 = 1 TO X: Y=Y+Y1*YD: IF ABS(Y)>25 YD=-YD:Y=Y+Y1*YD 200 ZC(Z)=Y:Z=Z+1:IF Z < L+1 NEXT: GOTO 180 210 CLS: U=0:X=0 220 FOR Z=1 TO L: PRINT @985+ZC(Z),B:GOSUB 250: PRINT@996+ZC(Z),C:GOSUB 250: NEXT 230 FOR Z=Z TO Z +6:PRINT @1023,:GOSUB 250: PRINT@1023,:GOSUB 250:NEXT 240 PRINT@192,"Same course";:INPUT D: D=LEFT$(D,1):if D="E" then END 242 if D = "Y" or D = "y" then 210 ELSE 160 250 REM ## GET INPUT ## 255 IF (PEEK(14400) AND 32)=32 X=X-1 260 IF (PEEK(14400) AND 64)=64 X=X+1 270 PRINT @60,U;:PRINT @30+X,A; : REM DISPLAYS SCORE AT THE TOP 275 IF Z<8 THEN RETURN ELSE IF ABS(ZC(Z-7)-X)<5 RETURN 280 FOR ZZ = 1 TO 7: PRINT@30+X,"**";:PRINT@30+X,A;:NEXT:X=ZC(Z-7):U=U+1:RETURN ```

The lightest news site on the Web.

Added by @thomas in News › World News.

The Mother of News Aggregators

Added by @thomas in News › World News.

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

1. Will people think I named my baby after my employee?

I have a direct report who has a name that you don’t necessarily hear every day, but doesn’t strike you as a unique name either.

I am currently pregnant and love this name. It’s been on my list of potential names for a while and I have a personal connection to it as well. My hesitation is my direct report — obviously I don’t think she will believe that I named my child after her, but it feels weird to explain and I worry about feeling self-conscious telling colleagues the name we decided. It feels oddly insulting to my colleague to say, “Oh, I didn’t name my baby after X employee! It’s actually for Y personal reason.”

Will no one care in actuality and I’m making it a bigger deal than it likely will be? How could I explain the situation without it sounding like a diss to my employee, who is a very wonderful person?

It is very unlikely that people will think you named your baby after your employee! I could see that maybe being a concern if it was a unique name that few people had ever heard before — but even then, that wouldn’t mean you couldn’t use the name, and in this case it’s not a name that will strike people as unique. You will be fine! No explanations should be required.

That said, if anyone does a double take or similar, you can always say in a light tone, “No relation to Isadora! Just a nice coincidence.”

Related:
my employee gave her puppy the same unusual name as a coworker’s new baby

2. Someone I had a near-emotional-affair with years ago is about to be my sort-of boss

I’ve been at my job for 12 years. We have three main divisions in our organization: sales, communications, and education. Each are headed by VPs. I’ve been in sales this whole time, and I started working with a group of young employees where we all became friendly.

I connected well with Craig in our group happy hours, and it slowly turned to drinks with just us and texting throughout the day. Both of us were in serious relationships at the time. Maybe I’m naive, but it really at the time felt like a friendship with a guy I thought was attractive, but not that a line was getting crossed, although I have since thought of it as an emotional affair. Abruptly, Craig pulled back from our friendship. He said no to all happy hours and replied late and vague to texts. I got the hint. (Note from Alison: the letter-writer’s email subject line called this an emotional affair; hence the headline.)

Fast forward to today, and Craig and I are each married with kids to the people we were in relationships with. We have not spoken much to each other in a decade other than a polite hi when passing in the hallways. Several years ago, Craig got a senior technical role and we had never had any work overlap. But just a month ago, our big boss left suddenly. A VP was promoted to that position and Craig is now a VP with supervisory/managerial power. While he is not my direct VP, the three VPs make decisions together, and every several years they switch divisions they supervise. I’m feeling nervous about this, not that our “emotional affair” will start up again, but that Craig’s distancing of our friendship could potentially hurt me professionally. It would be more straightforward if we had actually dated to disclose that to HR or my VP. But we didn’t. Is there anything I can do other than wait to see Craig’s attitude towards me?

Wait and see what happens. It sounds like this was many years ago, and Craig may handle it just fine! When this all happened long ago, you picked up on his boundaries and respected them and didn’t make it weird, and he probably appreciates that.

So — be scrupulously professional (without being chilly! just normal professional, the way you’d be with someone you didn’t know well but had general good will toward) and see how it goes. If you do pick up on any weirdness, at that point you could talk to HR and explain that you were good friends years ago and he suddenly pulled back from the friendship, which you respected, but that you’re concerned the previous relationship could be causing ___ (fill in with specifics of whatever you’re seeing at that point).

3. Our system for picking who gets to leave early is unfair

I work in a large casino in Las Vegas as a dealer. As the workload dies down each day, tables get closed and the dealers on those tables get rerouted elsewhere, such as to the tables of dealers that are finishing up their shift. Every day, about halfway through my shift, we have at least one instance where we have an extra dealer and nowhere to put them, and management lets a lucky employee go home early.

Multiple employees each day, including me, will request to be the one to leave early, and management’s method for distributing that perk feels unfair to me. They will give this reward to whichever employee is deeper into their work week. If you took two identical employees where the only difference between them is their schedules were offset by one day (one works Monday-Friday, the other works Tuesday-Saturday), the first one would be prioritized over the other on the four days their schedules overlap.

In the example I gave, I happen to be the Tuesday-Saturday employee and I’m always second to getting the reward over someone else. There is, on average, only one of these rewards given each day, so I rarely get it as I’m usually second up. My direct supervisor is sympathetic and has brought it up to our manager but our manager doesn’t want to change anything at this time. My supervisor is new to the company so I can understand why he might not want to rock the boat. Though I’ve worked for this casino for many years, I’m also new to this shift and don’t want to appear like the new guy coming in and saying, “This is all wrong.”

I feel there are better ways to distribute this reward that is fair for everyone but I’m kind of at a loss as to what to do about it.

The subject line of your email to me was, “Can the unfair distribution of a limited reward create a hostile work environment?” and the answer to that is no — not unless the reward is being distributed based on a protected characteristic like race, sex, religion, etc. If they want to base on it pretty much anything else (schedule, hours, who the manager likes best that day), they can.

That doesn’t mean it’s fair or good for morale, of course! I agree that you shouldn’t spend capital on it when you’re new to the shift, but after you’ve been on that shift for longer — and your supervisor isn’t as new — you could raise it again and ask if they’d consider randomizing it more, or otherwise shifting the selection system they’re using. (If you can get a group of your coworkers to request that with you, even better.)

4. We’re pressured to attend after-hours social events at our own expense

I work for a relatively small organization that receives all funding from a restricted source. The restrictions mean that professional development, raises, and basic office supplies are incredibly limited or nonexistent. In the last year, leadership has decided that the best way to build community is via events after work hours. These events range from bowling, coffee shops, happy hours, “drafts and crafts,” hikes, and axe throwing. These events are at employees’ own expense (ranging from the cost of a cup of coffee to $50+ for some of the more expensive events).

While these social events aren’t mandatory, there are pressures to be a team player. Additionally, there are benefits from building social capital with decision-makers.

A few of us have requested these at least happen during the work day and/or be free or very low-cost events, without change.

Any suggestions to offer a tired team player who would rather spend money socializing with friends than her boss?

Speak up as a group! It sounds like there are multiple people who feel this way — and I bet you’ll find more if you start asking around — and you should push back as a group. Point out that you’re already dealing with significant restraints (the ones you mentioned in your second sentence) and that expecting you to attend after-hours events at your own expense is an additional drain on top of that.

If that doesn’t get you anywhere, you and your colleagues should feel free to stop going to most of these events, particularly the pricier ones. I hear you on the benefits of building connections with higher-ups, but they’re essentially asking you to pay to do that when you’re already underpaid. Decline to do so.

5. What happens to your job if you’re deployed for the National Guard?

The news about the uptick in National Guard deployment (which, let me be clear, I do not agree with) made me curious about how those soldiers cope, job-wise. Google tells me that the majority are only in the Guard part-time, so they’re holding down jobs during the rest of their time, I’m guessing. Do their employers have to hold their position for them while they’re gone? Do they keep getting paid or receiving benefits like health insurance? Or do they lose their jobs every time they deploy?

It’s illegal for employers to discriminate against National Guard members, and they can’t fire them for being called to deploy. The law requires them to grant unpaid leave for National Guard service, regardless of how long the deployment is. When they return, they must be reinstated to the same or an equivalent position with the same pay, seniority, and benefits. Plus, after they’re back, they can’t be let go without cause for 180 days after shorter deployments and for up to one year after longer ones (to avoid employers firing or laying Guard members off after a deployment to avoid having to deal with it again).

The post will people think I named my baby after my employee, former close friend is about to be my boss, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager.