In 2007, Uruguay had a massive problem with no obvious fix. The economy of this country of 3.5 million people was growing, but there wasn't enough energy to power all that growth.
Ramón Méndez Galain was, at the time, a particle physicist, but he wanted to apply his scientific mind to this issue. He started researching different energy sources and eventually wrote up a plan for how Uruguay's power grid could transition to renewable energy. It would be better for the climate, and, he thought, in the long run it would be the most economical choice Uruguay could make.
Méndez Galain shared his plan online and in a series of informal lectures. Then, one day he received a phone call from the office of the president of Uruguay, inviting him to put his plan into action.
Countries all over the world have announced lofty goals to reduce the emissions that cause climate change. But Uruguay actually did it. In a typical year, 98% of Uruguay's grid is powered by green energy. How did it get there? It involved a scientist, an innovative approach to infrastructure funding, and a whole lot of wind.
Today's show was hosted by Erika Beras and Amanda Aroncyzk. It was produced by Willa Rubin with help from Emma Peaslee. It was engineered by Maggie Luthar, fact-checked by Sierra Juarez and edited by Keith Romer. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer.
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
A reader writes:
I work in a medical/social services field, in which most employers are nonprofit organizations (think along the lines of a blood bank). My first company, a nonprofit in a mid-sized city where I worked from 2009-2012, required all employees to sign a non-compete agreement that prohibited us from working for the same type of company or any of our partner organizations (say, a medical research company we collaborated with, the lab that performed our serological testing, etc.) anywhere else in the state or within X miles of the state’s border for two years after separation. (This contract seemed, and still seems, bonkers to me. Most employees made under $40k/year doing community-oriented work for this nonprofit. We didn’t have access to top secret info or cutting edge tech. We were regular I-want-to-make-a-difference nonprofit idealists.)
I was in my 20s and wanted to move to a major city within the same state and continue my career. I consulted with an attorney about the non-compete and she agreed it was probably unenforceable due to how restrictive it was, but she couldn’t guarantee I wouldn’t be sued. So I went to the executive director and lied. I said my mom, who lived in the major city, was terminally ill (she was not; in fact, she remains healthy as a horse and I hope she continues to), and I wanted to move closer to my parents. I explained that I would like to continue my career and asked for his blessing to do so without fear of a lawsuit. He agreed not to pursue legal action against me as long as I did not work for the same exact type of organization. I moved, got a new job with a different type of organization in the same broad field (think human breast milk banking), didn’t get sued, and had a nice few years in the city.
Recently I moved back to the original mid-size city. A director-level job opening just came up with the original organization. I now have a master’s degree and nearly a decade of managerial experience. I’m a perfect fit. The pay is great, especially for the area, the work sounds interesting, and I’m still passionate about the industry. I really liked working for this organization, aside from the bonkers non-compete agreement. I applied and was granted an interview, which is coming up next week.
So here’s my question: am I about to commit a huge mistake by interviewing with a company I totally lied to? If asked directly, how will I — or should I even– explain that my mom is not in fact dead (as she should be 11 years after receiving a “terminal diagnosis?”). I should never admit I lied, right? In my defense, I only did so because I needed to keep working, and I’m now 14 years into my career and I still earn under $60k/year, so it’s not like I’ve been laughing all the way to the bank since I told The Lie. If it helps, I never disclosed anything about the organization to any other entity (not that I had any information to disclose).
First, for the record, I’m not happy about the lie. (I am also way too superstitious to ever make up that sort of story, as I am convinced karma would promptly make a loved one sick, but if you aren’t burdened with that kind of superstitious thinking, more power to you.)
But your non-compete was ridiculous and overreaching, and it was unethical for the organization to try to bind you to those terms — more unethical, I’d argue, than your lie, given that they were trying to restrict your ability to earn an income and work in your chosen profession without any legitimate cause.
When employers — who are acting from a position of greater power than their employees — overreach, they’re asking for people to be dishonest with them, because that’s often the only power workers have to level the playing field. (See also: saying you have no plans to leave when your boss asks if you’re job searching, even if you’re actively interviewing.)
So while I don’t love the lie, I understand why you resorted to it: your employer was wrongly trying to constrain your ability to work. In fact, because most non-competes overreach and harm workers, the federal government has proposed outlawing them altogether and some states have already banned or heavily restricted them.
As for what to do now … at this point it’s likely to hurt you to come clean. “I deliberately lied to garner your sympathy so I could get out of a legal agreement” carries a very high risk of torpedoing your candidacy. All you can really do if you’re asked about your mom is to say, “She’s doing great — she’s had a much better outcome than we’d feared.” That’s a thing that happens (hell, it’s happening to my family right now, although my mom still has a terminal diagnosis) and it’s very unlikely that the company will go poking around in the details. And really, 11 years later, they may not even remember much about it. You will almost certainly be fine.
Don’t lie about family members being ill again though! This was your freebie.
EVERYWHERE—As the influence of the nation’s transgender individuals continues to encroach on the freedoms of the U.S. populace, sources confirmed Tuesday that increasingly powerful trans person Tori Randall is now capable of using every single bathroom in the country at once. “Tori has become so trans that she can…
PORTLAND, OR—Charmed by how remarkably cruel everyone was, visiting friend Kaitlyn Hickman told reporters Tuesday that she was pleasantly surprised by Portland’s open hostility toward homeless people. “I was really concerned before coming here that people were going to try to extend aid to those without shelter, but…
COLUMBUS, OH—Claiming they had already made up their minds, area man Karl Wooley told reporters Tuesday that he felt like the bystanders who were urging him to put his gun down were arguing in bad faith. “If I’m being honest, it sort of feels like these onlookers are only thinking of themselves when they tell me to…
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. A bonus check from my boss’s girlfriend bounced
I used to work for an attorney, Laszlo, who is well-known for being a quirky old hippy uniquely talented at representing society’s underdogs. Laszlo was never stingy when it came to giving money to others, and regularly surprised me with little cash bonuses throughout the year, in addition to a generous year-end bonus.
For a year or two, Laszlo was dating another attorney, Nadja, who specialized in large lawsuits. She lived a few counties over, but on rare occasions I would be happy to help out with a small task relating to one of her cases. In addition to Nadja not having her own staff, these tasks were infrequent and minor enough to not cause a disruption for me, and she was always gracious and appreciative.
One day, about a week after settling a particularly large case (seven figures), Nadja surprised me with a check for $1,000 as a “thank you” for my sporadic assistance. Although I was shocked by the generosity of such a gift, Nadja insisted that I had earned it and that she wanted me to have it.
That check bounced! Not only did I not get $1,000, but it cost me $25 when my bank charged me for the returned check. I had literally no idea how to proceed. Eventually I figured that Nadja would surely be alerted by her bank or notice when reconciling her accounts, and so I waited patiently for her to reach out. She never did. A few months later, Nadja and Laszlo amicably parted ways and I never heard from her again.
While the experience left a sour taste in my mouth, I ultimately shrugged it off, as the $1,000 was a windfall I was neither expecting nor relying upon. Even the $25 fee from my bank was more than compensated for by Laszlo’s steady generosity throughout my long tenure at his office (I never mentioned anything about this to him). But every once in a while I think back to that moment, chuckle in incredulity, and wonder: WWAD? What Would Alison Do?
One option was to mention it to Laszlo — something along the lines of, “This is awkward, but the check Nadja gave me bounced. Do you think she’d want one of us to mention it to her, or should I let it go?”
It’s true that you weren’t expecting or relying on the money, but Laszlo shouldn’t want the person he asks his employee to help to give them a bounced check. Ideally once you told him, he would have mentioned it to Nadja, since it’s not cool for her to borrow his staff, promise them a bonus, and then stiff them on it — although admittedly he sounds like the kind of person who might have simply paid that amount to you directly and not raised it with her.
It also would have been fine to mention it to Nadja directly! Even though the money wasn’t something you were expecting, it still would have been okay to say, “Just a heads-up that the check you gave me was returned when I tried to deposit it.” And then it would have been up to her to decide what, if anything, to do from there.
2. One employee doesn’t like team-building but the rest of my staff loves it
My company encourages team-building, which is typically a couple of days of workshopping around a team issue with a half-day activity for team-building. These are held off-site and somewhere quite nice. Last year I took the team to another area of the country (we’re in Europe) to a fancy hotel, we did 1.5 days workshopping and 0.5 day of activities (something slightly sporty — think electric bike visit of the town) followed by an artistic activity.
One of my team members is unhappy and wants to change jobs but is struggling to find an internal transfer. She has made it clear she will no longer participate in this kind of activity as she doesn’t like me or the rest of the team. (There are other performance-based issues with this colleague, which I am dealing with, but very slowly due to legal framework where we are based.) The rest of my team really appreciate these events, and the workshop aspect usually deals with a strategic topic of interest and value for the whole team and for which I’d like everyone’s input and to develop team buy-in. I’d appreciate your advice on how to balance not excluding my colleague, while not penalizing the rest of my team. We do have smaller workshops on-site, at which she generally doesn’t contribute anything, even if asked for her opinion.
My department in general is very keen on these events, with many of the other teams actually going abroad to hold them. I think that’s excessive to be honest, but I know some of my team members are disappointed they’re not getting that kind of “treat.” Not doing them at all would be very disappointing to my team.
It sounds like the workshop portion is legitimately work-related since you’re talking through work topics and gathering input on work issues. It’s reasonable to require her to attend those (and ideally participate, too; it’s not off-base to tell her ahead of time that she needs to come prepared with thoughts on XYZ). But there’s no reason not to make the activity portion voluntary; she can skip those if she wants to. (And she shouldn’t be penalized, even subtly, for that! Lots of people wouldn’t enjoy electric bikes, for example — or it might be more physically challenging for them than they should be required to disclose. Anyone should be allowed to opt out of the non-work portion without penalty.)
3. Can I ask my interviewer how many women are on the team?
I’m a data engineer in the tech world (mainly at 100-200-person start-ups), which happens to be a very male-dominated field. I’m currently interviewing for new roles, and I’m wondering what the etiquette might be for asking if there would be other women on the team?
More often than not, I find myself interviewing with all-male interview panels, making it hard to figure out what the gender break-down is like on the full team. I’ve tried to use LinkedIn before to suss this out, but it’s not always up-to-date and I can’t always tell who’s on what team.
While the gender aspect is not the only thing I consider when accepting a job, it is a factor. Before becoming a data engineer, I was in other data roles and was often on teams that were 50+% women and non-binary people. As a queer woman, I found these environments made it easier to be myself and trust that my coworkers recognized and valued my skills and contributions. Since transitioning to data engineering, my teams of 15-20 people have had at most 1-2 other women on them. I’ve felt less comfortable and tend to hide parts of myself, which feels sad in fully remote work environments that can already be a bit isolating. While I don’t expect to find even close to 50/50, even just 25/75 would be a win.
However, I’m hesitant to ask about gender breakdowns in interviews because I don’t want them to think that I’m a) criticizing them, b) trying to make them feel bad if they hire a man instead of me, or c) likely to complain about them being misogynistic if they don’t hire me. Is there ever a good way to ask about this?
This is a really normal thing to ask about, and lots of people do it — particularly in male-dominated fields where it’s likely to be an issue. One straightforward way to say it: “As a woman in a male-dominated field, I’m always interested in knowing how many other women are on the team.”
4. Should I send an email about a job rejection when I haven’t been officially rejected yet?
I had an interview last Friday for an internal position within my company, but in a different department. I had my interview and I thought it went well. They told me they would get back to me this week to let me know their decision. No one got back to me, but I was able to see that I was not selected for the position by looking in our hiring system. I haven’t received a rejection email yet, but normally I would reply to thank them for considering me and possibly ask for feedback.
Since I haven’t received a rejection email should I take the initiative and let them know I saw I didn’t get the position and thank them, or should I just let it be and if they send an email do it then and if not just leave it alone? The department is expanding and there is a possibility that more positions could open up, so I would like to leave a good impression.
Don’t preemptively email them to say you saw you didn’t get the job before they’ve contacted you, at least not this early. You’re jumping the gun; give them a chance to contact you first. If several weeks go by with no word, you can check in — but you’d just be checking in, not saying “I saw I didn’t get it.” (In part that’s because you really don’t know so it would be premature; for all we know, their first choice could turn them down and they could come back to you, or they could be preparing to offer you a different role.)
If you’re right that they’ve rejected you and just haven’t told you yet, there’s no urgency around the email you want to send, and you’ll look better if you leave them time to announce the decision themselves.
The earliest to say anything resembling “I saw you hired someone else” is if the new person is announced or starts in the job and you still haven’t heard anything (at which point that’s reasonable to do).
5. Job-searching when you have a clawback agreement with your current employer
Last year, my boss left and for several months I was running our team without officially being promoted to her position, having my title changed to manager, or getting any support from my grandboss. Long story short, I ended up getting an offer for a job I wasn’t sure I wanted two weeks after we hired a new boss who I really really liked. I told her about the offer and she went to bat to keep me, which led to me getting a promotion, a small raise, and a large retention bonus. I had to sign a clawback that I wouldn’t leave for 18 months, which I wasn’t concerned about because the reasons I wanted to leave had all changed.
A week later, my company announced that it was being acquired and started layoffs. Fast forward a year, and I’m miserable. I still love my new boss! But the acquisition-related changes have led to a drastic shift in culture and this is no longer the place I enjoyed working. I’ve been planning to move on as soon as my clawback period is up, and I decided to start looking recently because I assumed it would take a long time to find something. I’m in a high enough position/niche specialty where there aren’t that many jobs to begin with. I thought if I started looking now, maybe I’d find something by the end of the year and could negotiate to start after the holidays (and thus after my clawback period ended).
Except I got a first round interview somewhere that seems like a great fit for me, and they’ve been extremely aggressive with their timeline. I’ve had three interviews in the last two weeks, and the recruiter just reached out to schedule what she said would be the final round for this week. What do I do? If I get an offer, will it totally burn the bridge to tell them at that point about my retention contract and ask to start in January? is it unreasonable to ask for a starting bonus to cover the clawback? Or should I just acknowledge the timing didn’t work out and bow out now?
It’s not at all uncommon in senior-level positions to ask to start a few months out, so definitely don’t assume that’s off the table. If you get an offer, explain you expected their process to take longer, you have a retention bonus of $X that you’ll need to pay back if you leave before (date), and ask what would make the most sense on their side — could you start in January? Or would they be open to including in their offer the bonus you stand to lose so that you’re not out money by coming to work for them? These are really normal things to raise and even if it turns out you can’t reach an agreement that works for everyone, you won’t look out of line for asking.
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
I’m off today, so here’s an older post from the archives. This was originally published in 2017.
A reader writes:
This past summer, the section I supervise had some interns working here. All of them were offered jobs here once the internships were over. However one of them has created a situation where she lied to the police, but my boss and HR have still decided to offer her a job.
A staff member really liked the intern’s jacket and would often comment saying so. When the jacket went missing, the intern went to security and the footage from the lobby and parking area showed the staff member taking the jacket to her car when most other people were in a meeting. The intern got the police involved and told them her wallet with all of her ID and credit/debit cards were in her pocket. It was found that dozens of Amazon orders were placed with the intern’s credit card in the name of the staff member, to be shipped to a pickup point near our office. Our office is opened without assigned seating so although IT could say which computer was used to place the orders there is no way of knowing who did the ordering.
The police believe it was the staff member and she has been charged for stealing and using the credit card. She admits to taking the jacket but says she doesn’t know anything about the card. She says the intern placed the orders in her name once she realized the jacket was missing as a form of revenge. The staff member is credible, she has no history of trouble working here, has no criminal record and is a good person who volunteers and is active with her church and her family. He husband has told me that her lawyer advised her to take plea to get less time in jail because a trial would not be good for her.
I am concerned about the intern having lied to the police and her now being offered a full-time job. I am not sure how to frame this when I speak to my boss. I want to discuss it with him because some of my other team members have concerns about this intern also.
I don’t know how your office could possibly sort through this better than the police and prosecutors can. You’re presumably not criminal investigators, and it sounds like there’s no obvious way to tell who placed those orders.
But I’d be very wary of assuming that the person who stole the jacket is telling you the truth about the rest of the incident. You say that she has no criminal record and is a good person who volunteers, but you also know that she stole a jacket from an intern. I think you need to consider that there’s more going on with her than you knew about.
The one fact you know for sure here is that she did indeed steal from a coworker (it’s on videotape and she admits that). Given that, you can’t give her the benefit of the doubt about the pieces of this that aren’t on video.
And note that you’re taking her word as fact. In the opening to your letter, you wrote the intern “lied to the police.” But you really don’t know that. Your only evidence for that is the word of someone who stole from a coworker and now has strong motivation to downplay any other pieces of that crime.
If you have other concerns about the intern, which it sounds like you do, you can absolutely share those with your boss. But you don’t have grounds for alleging that she placed those Amazon orders herself, and it would be wrong of you to assert that as fact. You can certainly pass along to your boss that your other coworker is claiming that’s what happened, but you should be careful to note that you’re only passing on information and that you have no way of judging the veracity of any of this. (And if nothing else, your boss should be aware that you and others in the office are looking at the intern with such suspicion. That has the potential to create a really bad situation, so your boss should know.)
All that said … it would be awfully poor judgment to use your own name when ordering on someone else’s stolen credit card! It’s like robbing a house and leaving a signed note behind. If anything here makes me wonder about the intern’s version of events, it’s this. But lots of people commit incredibly stupid crimes so that in itself isn’t evidence of anything … and again, these are all questions for the police, the prosecutor, and your coworker’s lawyer to work out. Your office can’t solve this.
CHICAGO—In a move that remained controversial among residents of the surrounding neighborhood, Chicago city officials approved a building permit Monday that would allow the conversion of a publicly funded affordable housing tower into a single-family home. “This 25-story single-family residence will address a dire…
PORTER, IN—In a surprising pivot that sent shock waves through the environmental movement, climate justice activist Greta Thunberg told reporters Monday that she was embracing big oil after visiting a really nice highway truck stop in Indiana. “If I had known you could buy a phone case, new sunglasses, an energy…
On September 30, 2023, the Art Institutes (AI) system of private for-profit art schools, including campuses in Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, permanently closed.
Though the Art Institute of Pittsburgh was founded in 1921, the AI system of schools as it is known today really developed when the Education Management Corporation (EDMC) acquired the Pittsburgh school in 1970. At the time, EDMC expanded the school’s offerings and began opening locations across the country. AI eventually grew to have 50 campuses in 2012, including locations in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Seattle, Kansas City, and Raleigh-Durham, among many other cities.
Since 2012, enrollment numbers at AI schools have been declining, and in 2015, EDMC paid $95.5 million to settle allegations around its recruiting practices, both in relation to paying admissions personnel based on the number of students they enrolled, and using deceptive practices when recruiting students. In 2017, AI was acquired by Dream Center Education Holdings (DCEH). The following year, DCEH was sued for misleading students about the school’s accreditation. That summer, DCEH announced that nearly 20 campuses would close.
On Friday, September 22, students and faculty members at the remaining eight campuses received word that the schools would be closing permanently by the end of the month. The eight affected campuses include Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Miami, San Antonio, Tampa, and Virginia Beach. Since the announcement, the AI website has been completely wiped and is now only a singular page announcing the closures and providing information for students seeking to transfer to new schools to complete their education.
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. My employee doesn’t look at his email when he arrives at work
I’m struggling to determine whether it’s my expectations that are unreasonable or my employee’s communication habits that are not meeting reasonable expectations. He and I work slightly different hours. I come in at 8:30 and he comes in (ostensibly) at 10. We are not collocated and while I can check in on his arrival time occasionally, I can’t be outside his door checking the clock regularly.
It’s not uncommon for me to send an email that requires a response in the morning. He routinely answers well after his start time. For example, an email sent at 9 with a direct request for information is typically answered after noon. I can’t tell if I’m being unrealistic in expecting an answer within an hour of arrival (say, by 11), nor can I tell if this is because of his work habits or if he is arriving later than expected. For what it’s worth, our organization uses Slack as well as email for communication, but he refuses to use Slack. Since it’s not required, I can’t enforce its use even though it’s my preferred way of interacting for quick questions. Including a request for a response by a certain time isn’t effective since he doesn’t seem to review email in the morning.
Should I relax my expectation that emails be reviewed and answered if necessary upon arrival in the morning? What’s the best way to approach this? For what it’s worth, every managerial decision I make is met with a challenge about why I’m making the request and feet dragging to the very edge of acceptability if he disagrees with the request.
You’re the manager; you can simply tell him you need him to check his email immediately upon arriving in the morning and respond to anything time-sensitive right away. You’re getting focused on whether this means he’s coming in late, but that’s a separate issue; the main issue is that you need him looking at his emails first thing, he’s not, and you have standing to tell him that he has to. If he demands to know why, the reason is, “Because you’re missing time-sensitive requests, and this is the only way a 10 am arrival time will work for our team.” (By the way, you also have standing to tell him he needs to use Slack. The fact that your organization doesn’t require it org-wide doesn’t mean you can’t require your team to use it. You can require your team to use whatever tools you determine best serve the work.)
But I think you’ve got bigger problems with this guy and need to start managing him a lot more assertively. He needs to meet the requirements of his job, as laid out by you, his manager, and not drag his feet when he disagrees with a request. By all means, hear him out with an open mind when he has a different perspective on something, but your job is to make the final determination … and you can and should require him to do his job once you make those calls.
2. Will I get in trouble for yelling at our company cameras?
Is it possible to get fired for yelling at the cameras about what corporate is doing wrong at the cameras? Will they actually take any advice or will they just fire you to get you out of the way?
There’s a pretty good chance no one is even going to see it/listen to it unless they have some specific reason to check the cameras at that time. (And even if they do, are you sure there’s sound?) But if they do see it … well, it depends on what you said. I doubt you’d be fired over it unless you yelled something really egregious, but it’s not a particularly good move for your career and how you’re perceived! (Companies aren’t usually, like, promoting the person filmed losing their shit at a camera.) They’re unlikely to take any advice from it seriously, in any case.
Save the yelling for off-camera and outside of work.
3. My manager reacted badly when I called in sick
I have a mother with terminal cancer. I’ve had to call off a couple days when she had to go to the hospital recently. And just today, I think stress has gotten to me and I had to call off sick for myself. My supervisor wasn’t happy when I did, she exclaimed “oh my god” and said I needed to “watch my call-offs.” I have the appropriate time saved but now I’m worried that I can’t call off again basically until something happens to my mom. (I get two weeks off per year, vacation and sick time combined, and I am within that allocated time.)
I don’t want to tarnish my reputation with work, but I also worry about working while sick and bringing in germs. What is the appropriate action to take here? Do I only call off for an absolute emergency? Do I come in with a mask if I’m sick? My work doesn’t have an official handbook but does mention calling off three consecutive days in a row constitutes a doctor’s note.
Your manager was way out of line. It sounds like she feels you’ve been out a lot recently, but you have a terminally ill mother. And frankly, two weeks for both vacation and sick leave is an incredibly small amount of PTO to offer, and the fact that you’re still within that meager allotment despite your family’s situation makes her comment even more outrageous.
I recommend saying this to her: “I was concerned by your response when I was sick last week. My mom is terminally ill and was hospitalized recently, and then I got sick myself, but I am within my allotted PTO for the year. It’s not clear to me how I could have done anything differently, but your response made me worry there’s a concern about my PTO that we should talk about.”
You might also consider talking to HR, especially if this conversation doesn’t go well. Your PTO, stingy as it is, is part of your compensation package, and your company shouldn’t want managers giving people a hard time about using it for sickness and seriously ill family members.
4. When you get injured during an extremely athletic work retreat
A relative of mine has a job at a firm that works within the athletic adventure industry (but the company is not an adventure company or organization — strictly office work, no retail). Several times a year, they hold wildly active retreats where activities could include ziplining, caving, rock climbing, white water rafting, extreme stuff.
On a recent trip, during an activity billed as quite extreme, my relative badly hurt their foot and then was forced to continue walking on it for an additional four hours on a challenging route. Everyone was quite blasé, but my relative did go to the emergency room (in a country that is not their home country) and it was a very bad injury. Their doctor at home has said they cannot walk on the foot for weeks and it will not heal for up to a year. My relative has young children and this is deeply impacting their quality of life. Is there any legal recourse here or any accommodations they should ask for? I believe their medical costs are being covered but this is so beyond just a medical issue, it’s a quality of life issue to me. I am angrier than my relative is, perhaps. Any advice?
Whether there’s any legal recourse will be really, really fact-specific. For example, did participants sign a safety waiver? Was the activity voluntary? Did the employer benefit from their participation in some way? In fact, it’s not even necessarily the case that workers’ comp would cover it (depending partly on what state they’re in).
That means that if it’s something your relative wants to pursue, they should talk to an employment lawyer. A lawyer could look at all the facts of the case and let them know if there’s anything there. But it also sounds like your relative might not be interested in doing that, which is their call to make.
But even if the law doesn’t offer any recourse, they should still ask for their medical bills to be paid, as well as for any accommodations that they need to do their job comfortably and safely while they’re healing.
5. Explaining why I’m leaving a job after three months
I took an executive-level job earlier this year. I knew going in that the operations were in dire need of an overhaul, as the core product and how it is sold do not comply with industry standards and even violate certain regulations entirely.
My bosses are not industry experts by any means. This is essentially a vanity project for them, and some of the decisions they’ve made (including to be deliberately non-compliant around some really basic stuff) are super questionable to anyone who does know the field well. I’ve been an expert in the industry for a couple of decades and I took this job because I saw a lot of potential in their operation and thought I could help it thrive.
I have not been at this job for a super long time, but I am extremely frustrated. The changes I am trying to make keep getting walked back because the owners simply don’t understand this industry. There’s one specific change I made to comply with government guidelines that I get pushback for almost weekly, and today I was told that we are going to stop complying. I’ve been completely overruled and am frankly tired of having an argument that I have never had before in my career because this guideline is an industry standard everywhere else.
At this point, I feel like the practices here will reflect badly on me professionally if I stay, so I want to start job-hunting again. But what on earth do I say when a recruiter asks me why I’m leaving this job after three months?
“I took the job for the opportunity to do X, but I’ve learned they feel strongly about not following some government regulations in our field, and that’s not how I work.” That’s it! If they ask you to elaborate, you can give an example or two as long as you keep your tone plain-spoken and drama-free. (That’s a good tone whenever you’re discussing scandal of any kind, because you don’t want the conversation to spiral into discussing the ridiculousness of it all. Otherwise, because it it is ridiculous, you risk getting a recruiter who’s eager to hear all about it … but you want the focus to stay on you and what you can offer the new company.)
This is a very understandable reason to leave a job, and it’s not going to take much more explanation than that.
I'm voting yes next week to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament because the idea came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and is backed by over 80% of their community. It's important, if you aren't sure or don't know, check out https://voice.gov.au
Good morning. Temperatures have generally fallen into the upper 60s across most of the metro area this morning, and we are experiencing but a small taste of the glorious fall weather ahead this weekend. The coolest weather will arrive on Saturday and Sunday, when overnight lows dip into the 50s for pretty much the entire area, with plenty of dry air to boot. In this post I’m also going to take an early look at weather conditions for an annular eclipse that will take place across Texas on October 14, during the late morning hours.
Friday
Expect partly sunny skies and high temperatures in the mid-80s today. Winds will come from the northeast at about 10 mph, with higher gusts. With dewpoints in the 60s the air will feel moderately drier, but not exactly fall-like. But don’t worry, that’s coming later with a reinforcing front on Friday night into Saturday. Rain chances are effectively zero, and will be that way at least through next Tuesday. Lows on Friday night will drop into the upper 60s for most.
Low temperature forecast for Sunday morning. (Weather Bell)
Saturday
Saturday will be partly sunny and cooler, with highs generally in the mid-70s. Winds will be a bit gusty, perhaps reaching 20 mph at times from the north. Some clouds will remain overnight as low temperatures drop into the mid- to upper-50s for most of the region, with plenty of dry air.
Sunday
For those of us who can’t quite cotton summer weather in Houston, this will be the nicest day in at least five months. Look for sunny skies, highs in the mid-70s, dry air, and light winds. I mean, you can’t beat it. Lows on Sunday night should again drop into the upper 50s for most.
Next week
As the onshore flow resumes sometime on Sunday evening, or so, we’ll begin a gradual warming trend. Temperatures will be in the mid- to upper-80s for the most part next week, with mostly sunny skies. Some rain chances return by Wednesday, or so, likely influenced by tropical moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. This part of the forecast, and associated rain chances, are fairly vague. However I am fairly confident that another cold front will arrive later in the week, by Friday or so, to end the rain and bring cooler and drier air. Probably not quite as cool as this weekend, but still nice.
Annular eclipse
On Saturday October 14 an annular eclipse will appear over select regions of Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. (A handy map can be found here). Houston lies just north of the area that will see the full annular eclipse, but still nearly 90 percent of the Sun will be covered just before noon. It will, briefly at least, feel notably cooler. An annular eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun, but does not block its entirety, leaving a ‘ring of fire’ in the sky. It is crucial to use solar eclipse glasses when viewing the Sun during the eclipse.
Path of annular eclipse on October 14. (The Eclipse Company)
As I mentioned above, we should see a frontal passage on Friday-ish. If this does indeed occur, there is a high likelihood of clear skies for the annular eclipse in the Houston region. I would peg the likelihood at about 80 percent or greater, but we are far enough away that some uncertainty remains.
SEATTLE—Bemoaning the hubris that had led humanity to this pitiable state, researchers confirmed Thursday that overinvestment in alternative energy had plunged the earth into a sixth ice age. “We knew all along that the rapid deployment of solar, geothermal, and wind energy would reduce global temperatures to…
WASHINGTON—Spreading the word ahead of time so that Americans wouldn’t be caught off guard, President Joe Biden announced that all of the nation’s vibrators would buzz at 2 p.m. today in a test of the Emergency Stimulation Program. “This routine test of the ESP will be automatically directed to every consumer vibrator…
Taylor Swift has a notoriously rich, famous, and glamorous group of friends most commonly referred to as her “squad.” The Onion asked current and former squad members what they thought of her new romance with football player Travis Kelce, and this is what they said.
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon, alleging that the online retailer was illegally maintaining a monopoly. Much of the FTC's complaint against Amazon was redacted, but The Wall Street Journal yesterday revealed key details obscured in the complaint regarding a secret algorithm. The FTC alleged that Amazon once used the algorithm to raise prices across the most popular online shopping destinations.
People familiar with the FTC's allegations in the complaint told the Journal that it all started when Amazon developed an algorithm code-named "Project Nessie." It allegedly works by manipulating rivals' weaker pricing algorithms and locking competitors into higher prices. The controversial algorithm was allegedly used for years and helped Amazon to "improve its profits on items across shopping categories" and "led competitors to raise their prices and charge customers more," the WSJ reported.
I know many of you have heard this before, but Cory Doctorow’s “enshittification” concept is such a useful framework to think about things:
first, companies are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves.
As I’ve highlighted, much of this is driven by the ridiculous demands of Wall St. and the belief that companies have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to increase profits at the expense of everything else, but that’s not just wrong, it’s incredibly short-sighted. Because the conclusion to the enshittification concept is that once companies go down the enshittification curve, at some point they die. This is why one of the keys to avoiding enshittification is knowing how and when to tell Wall St. to piss off.
There was a time when it looked like Google understood this lesson. When the company filed to go public, Sergey and Larry started the S1 with a letter in which they basically insisted that they wouldn’t go down this path, and would always put users first — and that anyone looking to buy shares in the company needed to understand that. Among many similar statements, the letter said:
As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same. In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to “make their quarter.” In Warren Buffett’s words, “We won’t ‘smooth’ quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you.”
If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take those opportunities. We will have the fortitude to do this. We would request that our shareholders take the long term view.
There was a time when it felt like Google kept that promise, but that time seems long past. As the company grew and grew it’s clear that it started to go down the enshittification curve just like everyone else, and started to prioritize Wall St.’s quarterly demands over serving users.
I’ve noted that I don’t think the current Google antitrust case (where the trial is currently ongoing) is all that strong, though I think a more recent case that was filed earlier this year seems much stronger. That stronger case is the one involving how Google’s ad team manipulated the ads market in a way that it could extract more value out of it, while attempting to block effective competition.
The ongoing case is more about how Google sought to have its search included as the default on various browsers and phones and such.
However, it looks like some of the ad shenanigans are showing up in this case too. Megan Gray (who worked at the FTC and as General Counsel at DuckDuckGo) has been attending the trial and wrote a piece for Wired about a bit of evidence that flashed on the projector screen, suggesting that Google is secretly altering search queries to drive more ads and commerce. If accurate, this is (1) quintessential late stage enshittification and (2) obnoxiously evil:
This onscreen Google slide had to do with a “semantic matching” overhaul to its SERP algorithm. When you enter a query, you might expect a search engine to incorporate synonyms into the algorithm as well as text phrase pairings in natural language processing. But this overhaul went further, actually altering queries to generate more commercial results.
There have long been suspicions that the search giant manipulates ad prices, and now it’s clear that Google treats consumers with the same disdain. The “10 blue links,” or organic results, which Google has always claimed to be sacrosanct, are just another vector for Google greediness, camouflaged in the company’s kindergarten colors.
Google likely alters queries billions of times a day in trillions of different variations. Here’s how it works. Say you search for “children’s clothing.” Google converts it, without your knowledge, to a search for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear,” making a behind-the-scenes substitution of your actual query with a different query that just happens to generate more money for the company, and will generate results you weren’t searching for at all. It’s not possible for you to opt out of the substitution. If you don’t get the results you want, and you try to refine your query, you are wasting your time. This is a twisted shopping mall you can’t escape.
I’m guessing that Google would claim that it’s not so much “replacing” your search as doing an additional search alongside it that (it will claim) helps provide more relevant answers. But, it sure sounds like the line between “more relevant” and “better for our short-term revenue” got pretty blurry.
As Gray notes:
It’s unclear how often, or for how long, Google has been doing this, but the machination is clever and ambitious. I have spent decades looking for examples of Google putting its enormous thumb on the scale to censor or amplify certain results, and it hadn’t even occurred to me that Google just flat out deletes queries and replaces them with ones that monetize better. Most scams follow an elementary bait-and-switch technique, where the scoundrel lures you in with attractive bait and then, at the right time, switches to a different option. But Google “innovated” by reversing the scam, first switching your query, then letting you believe you were getting the best search engine results.
It’s also how you destroy trust. I’d move to Bing or DuckDuckGo, but considering both still have Techdirt mostly deleted from their index, that won’t work. Guess it’s finally time to try Kagi (which people keep telling me is great).
