We had just recently written about the American Psychological Association’s very thorough and detailed report going through much of the research about the impact of social media on the mental health of kids. That report was careful, and nuanced, and basically said that there is little evidence that social media is inherently bad for kids. It noted that studies suggested social media actually seems to be beneficial for many kids, and in the cases where it’s harmful, there are often other, extenuating circumstances. It had many recommendations, focused mainly on better educating children about how to use social media appropriately, rather than any sort of moral panic about it (of course, as we noted, the media still misrepresented the study and claimed it “warned of social media’s potential harm to kids.”)
A few months ago, we also wrote about the giant Pew study on teens and social media, which further found that most teens get real value out of social media, and only a really small percentage of them struggled with social media.
It was nice to see these reports and their thorough, detailed findings, as they pushed back on the growing moral panic that is enveloping much of the media and the political world regarding social media and kids.
So I was curious earlier this week when Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, released his Social Media and Youth Mental Health report. Nearly all the reporting I saw on it suggested that it was like the opposite of the APA release, and that it talked up how social media was absolutely putting kids at risk and something needed to be done.
But… that’s not exactly what the report says.
Indeed, somewhat bizarrely, it reads kinda like the off-brand version of the APA report, with fewer details, less nuance, and a less clear plan. It cites some of the same studies.
Like the APA report, it also says the evidence of a causal impact is lacking, and (like the APA report) it says that it appears social media is good for some and not good for others. Like the APA report, it clearly lays out the benefits of social media for kids:
Social media can provide benefits for some youth by providing positive community and connection with others who share identities, abilities, and interests. It can provide access to important information and create a space for self-expression. The ability to form and maintain friendships online and develop social connections are among the positive effects of social media use for youth. , These relationships can afford opportunities to have positive interactions with more diverse peer groups than are available to them offline and can provide important social support to youth. The buffering effects against stress that online social support from peers may provide can be especially important for youth who are often marginalized, including racial, ethnic, and sexual and gender minorities. , For example, studies have shown that social media may support the mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, transgender, queer, intersex and other youths by enabling peer connection, identity development and management, and social support. Seven out of ten adolescent girls of color report encountering positive or identity-affirming content related to race across social media platforms. A majority of adolescents report that social media helps them feel more accepted (58%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), like they have a place to show their creative side (71%), and more connected to what’s going on in their friends’ lives (80%). In addition, research suggests that social media-based and other digitally-based mental health interventions may also be helpful for some children and adolescents by promoting help-seeking behaviors and serving as a gateway to initiating mental health care.
Then it also notes that for some, it might be negative. The same thing Pew and the APA report said. But even there, the report notes that there isn’t necessarily any evidence of a causal link, just “reasons for concern about the potential negative impact.”
And, even there, it looks like Murthy is doing some cherry-picking in how the data is presented. It quotes the Pew study (which again, focused on how only a small percentage of teens had negative experiences with social media, and a larger percentage found it helpful), but just to say that more than a third of those aged 13 to 17 use social media “almost constantly.” This “almost constantly” is trotted out frequently (including in school district lawsuits) without putting it into context. First, social media covers lots of tools. Kids use Discord to communicate with each other (and to track predator teachers), which is way different than just staring at images and videos all day. And again, there are lots of things that kids do “almost constantly” — such as attending school — that we don’t consider to be problematic.
The question is whether this usage is a problem or not, and all of these reports are saying that for most kids, the answer is no. For a very small percentage, however, there are real risks. And efforts should be focused on those individuals, rather than taking away all of the benefits that these reports describe social media as providing kids.
And the report then notes that there are many areas where we just don’t have enough information to say one way or another what’s a good approach and what’s bad. That’s also useful, as hopefully it will lead to even more research on this stuff.
Unfortunately, though, after this opening, the report basically says “well, even though we don’t really have enough evidence that social media is bad for kids, and a bunch of evidence of how it’s good, we should stop kids from using it just in case it turns out to be bad.” Which is… a really weird takeaway, unless, you are writing to a foregone conclusion that the details of your report don’t actually support:
Our children and adolescents don’t have the luxury of waiting years until we know the full extent of social media’s impact. Their childhoods and development are happening now. While social media use can have positive impacts for some children, the evidence noted throughout this Surgeon General’s Advisory necessitates significant concern with the way it is currently designed, deployed, and utilized. Child and adolescent use of platforms designed for adults places them at high risk of “unsupervised, developmentally inappropriate, and potentially harmful” use according to the National Scientific Council on Adolescence. At a moment when we are experiencing a national youth mental health crisis, now is the time to act swiftly and decisively to protect children and adolescents from risk of harm.
It is difficult to see how you get to this paragraph and think it makes any sense given all of the other statements. It’s like saying: “Cars are beneficial to people because they help people traverse long distances which has many benefits. Cars are also dangerous because they can crash and kill people. So, while there are benefits and negatives, we have to ban all cars to stop the negatives.”
Life is about tradeoffs. This report highlights all the tradeoffs… and then throws them in the garbage to say “but we can’t worry about the benefits, we just need to focus on stopping the negatives.”
The actual recommendations in the report are a little better, but it includes very dangerous suggestions like age verification (which is a privacy nightmare). It does (like the APA report) talk about how parents have to take on responsibility for educating their kids on the proper use of social media, and how more tools should be provided to them. Those are perfectly good suggestions.
But, of course, with the framing of “we must protect the children” the media had a fucking field say with the report, highlighting only the claims of the harms to children, and totally ignoring how much of the report actually talks about the benefits.
So, uh, yeah. The report says that there are clear benefits, that there may be some risks, but that the research isn’t really there to prove it, and then has a little moral panic saying we need to overprotect before we know what’s happening for sure, and every news org runs with the scare tactic headline.
If it bleeds, it leads, I guess.
Of course, as a separate NY Times article highlights, these Surgeon General advisories have happened a bunch of times over the past few decades, some for good causes, and some have marked real turning points, such as around smoking and drunk driving. However, it also details some pretty embarrassing ones that were total jokes, such as the attempts by Surgeon Generals to insist that TV and video games were damaging to children, both of which were later debunked as moral panics.
What’s almost hilarious is that the 1972 report on the negative effects of TV has many similarities to this new report. It kicks off saying this:
But then immediately says “nevertheless” and immediately just starts listing out studies that claim that watching TV leads to aggression.
So, just like this latest study, there are nods towards the more nuanced position, but then that just gets bowled over by the “but moral panic and fear” part.
Maybe the next Surgeon General can issue an advisory on the impact of moral panics.
WASHINGTON—Recommending that U.S. citizens exercise extreme caution if they plan to make the trip, the State Department issued a travel warning Wednesday for every American visiting Chili’s. “The travel advisory for the family restaurant specializing in American and Tex-Mex-inspired cuisine has been raised to level 3…
Security features such as increased lighting, surveillance cameras and call boxes also are coming to the part of the trail in the Third Ward area, according to Houston City Council member Carolyn Evans-Shabazz.
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
For all the anxieties that land in my inbox, anxiety over quitting is probably the biggest. Even when they’re glad to be leaving, a lot of people get really stressed out about the mechanics of actually quitting: How do you tell your boss? What do you write in your resignation letter? And for that matter, why are we still having this important conversation by letter in the year 2023?
KYIV, UKRAINE—Gazing wistfully at an old framed photo of the 53-year-old American, Ukrainian officials admitted Tuesday that the country had been in shambles ever since Hunter Biden left. “We don’t want your Abrams tanks or your Javelin missiles or your billions of dollars in aid—we just want Hunter back,” said…
BRYAN, TX—As soon as she reported Tuesday to the federal prison camp where she is to be incarcerated, former biotech entrepreneur Elizabeth Holmes is said to have immediately defrauded the biggest, toughest inmate she could find in an effort to gain the respect of her fellow prisoners. “You’re getting in on the ground…
As LGBTQ+ rights continue to be eroded across the country, many transgender students have found themselves forbidden from attending their own high school proms. The Onion asked parents to explain why they support banning trans kids from school dances, and this is what they said.
The founder of the far-right Oath Keepers group has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in a seditious conspiracy to disrupt the electoral count, the stiffest punishment to date to stem from the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. What do you think?
TORONTO – Canada’s largest city released an updated affordable housing plan this morning, the highlight of which was a policy to make new condo developers staple two or three burlap hammocks to the sides of their luxury buildings. The plan, which came in the form of a glossy 48-page document entitled “Riding the Breeze: Making […]
Remember 20 years ago I started a comic about butts and stuff and now I got a book listed alongside Kip Thorne's? Truly, we're in a weird branch of the multiverse.
Last month, I drove to Houston for the Glasstire Gala and had the opportunity to see a few exhibits, including the Pipilotti Rist installation at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (MFAH) and Evita Tezeno at Houston Museum of African American Culture.
I’ve followed Rist’s work for 26 years, since I first saw Ever Is Over All in 1997. The iconic video features a young woman who always reminds me of a badass version of Dorothy from Oz. She walks down the street swinging a large flower/club, breaking car windows, and a female police officer walks by and gives her a nod. Although Rist’s work has continued to evolve with more complicated visuals, this early piece shows the artist’s signature style, including hypnotic, trippy music, surreal imagery, and flower motifs combined with a strong female character.
In the early 2000s, Rist expanded into immersive installations. I remember seeing her 2008 piece Pour Your Body Out (7354 Cubic Meters) at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, for which she transformed the 110-foot-high walls of the atrium. Visitors were encouraged to lounge on large circular couches and talk. The work changed the museum environment from a white, sterile cube where nothing can be touched, to a place of comfort and intimacy.
Installation view of “Pipilotti Rist: Pixel Forest and Worry Will Vanish,” the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. Photo: Colette Copeland
The MFAH installation includes two works — Pixel Forest (2016) and Worry Will Vanish (2014). Pixel Forest contains 3,000 LED lights encased in cast resin organic spheres, which are suspended by wires from the ceiling. Visitors are encouraged to walk amongst the light forest, experiencing the rhythmic shifts in colors. The light orbs transform the architecture of the space, creating a magical and celestial world.
Worry Will Vanish is a two-channel video projected onto two walls. The colors of the lights sync in time to the colors in the video, thus coalescing the two works into one. The video takes us on a journey through myriad landscapes, including the flora and fauna of the natural/unnatural world, the interiors and exteriors of the human body, and the cosmos. I was especially captivated by the point of view of the camera as it moved through these spaces. As viewers, we become immersed inside Rist’s mind. Our perception shifts as the distinction between the real and virtual worlds blur — Rist’s work often ruminates upon the role of the human within the natural and technological. This work additionally speaks to the interconnectedness of all things natural and human.
Video and other time-based art can be tricky for both artists and curators, since visitors tend to walk by art with brief pauses. However, Rist is a master at creating comfortable and mesmerizing environments where visitors want to linger and watch the work in its entirety. The day I was there, all of the cushions were occupied and folks were lounging, often through more than one 10-minute video cycle.
Across the street, in the museum’s Kinder Building, are two other light-based installations, including a James Turrell and a Yayoi Kusama. I found it interesting to compare my experience of time in all three works. Turrell’s work, Caper, Salmon to White: Wedgework (2000) encourages contemplative meditation and patience. Visitors sit in a dark room and wait (sometimes ten minutes or more) for their eyes to adjust. Time slows and a proper viewing requires silence. In fact, I find that some of Turrell’s works — including this one — conjure a sacred space.
James Turrell, “Caper, Salmon to White: Wedgework”, 2000
Like Turrell and Rist, Kusama uses light to transform her environments. I have visited many of her infinity rooms in different cities, and there is usually a one-minute time limit. I initially thought this was museums’ decision to accommodate large lines of people, but I learned it is part of Kusama’s mandate. The viewing platform inside Kusama’s work Aftermath of Obliteration of Eternity (2009) is short and narrow, with room to turn around. When inside one of her infinity rooms, I always feel that I am in a race with time to take it all in before my one-minute limit expires. It is impossible to both take photos and experience the work within the short time-frame. Perhaps this is part of the artist’s MO — to keep viewers wanting to come back. Despite the many times I have seen Kusama’s works, they have never lost their magic.
Evita Tezeno, “Cherish the Moment,” 2022, collage painting, 48 x 30 inches. Collection of Sheryl Adkins-Green and Geoff Green, Dallas, TX
I recently met Dallas-based artist Evita Tezeno at the Dallas Art Fair, where her work was prominently on display in the booth of L.A. gallery Luis De Jesus. Like her work, the artist is warm, welcoming, full of life. I am happy to note that her work is finally getting the attention it deserves, and she has a solo show at the Houston Museum of African American Culture.
Installation view of “Evita Tezeno: Out of Many,” on view at the Houston Museum of African American Culture
Her collage paintings depict scenes of American Black life, inspired by friends, families, childhood memories, and dreams. Her use of pattern, design and the flattening of pictorial space in the composition, combined with powerful, memorable characters, produces magical worlds full of joy and wonder. Tezeno uses intricately patterned, hand-painted paper to fold additional layered references and meaning into the work.
It was difficult to narrow down which works to write about, since they are all so compelling. I found myself returning again and again to the paintings featuring a single female character. In Cherish the Moment (2022), a seated figure looks directly at the viewer. Her body language is comfortable, yet her face is stern. She seems more resigned to the moment, rather than enjoying it. Behind her is a window with birds perched on branches curiously leaning into the figure, as if they are about to tell her a secret or sing into her ear. This is an interesting choice of framing, since the figure is ignoring the natural scene behind her. The flattened pictorial frame dissolves the boundary between the interior and exterior spaces. I am also drawn to the vase of flowers behind the chair, whose scale matches that of the birds and branches. The pattern in the woman’s dress mimics that of the flowers. The lilac chair also features a detailed flower pattern. The pattern in the lower part of the painting, presumably the floor of the domestic space, resembles rock. The conflation of both interior/exterior space and the multiple references to nature within the domestic space speak to a balance between humanity and nature.
Evita Tezeno, “She Sits Silently and Watches the World Around Her,” 2021, mixed media collage on canvas, 48 x 36 inches, 49 x 37 x 1.5 inches framed. Collection of Jay Wingate and Luis De Jesus, Los Angeles, CA. Courtesy of the artist and Luis De Jesus, Los Angeles
The interweaving of human and nature is again explored in She Sits Silently and Watches the World Around Her (2021). A standing female figure gazes directly at the viewer with a thoughtful, resigned expression. She is outside in a barren landscape, where the ground is brown; the trees are bare. The woman is holding a large, brilliant pink rose and has three small red flowers in her hair. The blooms sharply contrast the desolate landscape in which she resides. My eyes immediately go to her bright yellow earrings, which serve as beacons of light. The woman’s dress features a recurring concentric spiral, a shape often repeated in natural forms, which symbolizes the cycle of life and a promise of rebirth and transformation. She strikes me as a silent witness to the environmental pollution and destruction that is destroying the natural world. Yet, the blooms promise hope for the future.
Evita Tezeno, “First Day at My New School,” 2021, from the series “My Life, My Story,” mixed media collage and acrylic on canvas 48 x 36 in, 49.25 x 37.25 in framed. Collection of Laurie Raskin and Rick Shuman, Encino, CA. Courtesy of the artist and Luis De Jesus, Los Angeles
The work First Day at My New School (2022) reminds me of childhood and the conflicting emotions of excitement and anxiety that a new school year brings. The young figure is a dominant force on canvas, dwarfing the little red schoolhouse. She wears a confident expression and proudly displays her math book, which is the same color as the school building. I am drawn to the beautiful layering and swirls of acrylic wash in her skin. The cut-outs of the clouds against a blue sky and the simple shape of the schoolhouse add childlike whimsy to the work. Yet, the overall tone is one of self-assuredness and strength.
Installation view of “Evita Tezeno: Out of Many,” on view at the Houston Museum of African American Culture
Tezeno’s style is described as contemporary folk-art. I typically think of folk artists as artists who haven’t been formally trained. However, according to the Museum of International Folk Art, this is not necessarily the case. And it is certainly not the case with Tezeno. A few aspects of folk art do relate to the artist’s work — a reflection of shared cultural aesthetics and social issues, as well as the inclusive spirit of art made by and for the people.
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
A reader writes:
I work for a company with multiple offices nationwide. Our team is based in City A, but we have one employee (Sally) who works remotely at our offices in City B. For the past 12 months, we have required Sally to travel to our city every other week for an overnight stay. The reason we do this is so she can meet clients, attend meetings, and generally build interpersonal relationships with the team (we work in the sort of industry where relationships are really important). We pay all her travel and expenses, and when we first suggested it last year she said it would be completely fine. We don’t live in a very big country, so logistically it isn’t that big of an undertaking (although she does still need to stay overnight because the two cities are just far enough that she can’t comfortably commute back and forth in one day).
However, since the very beginning it has been … difficult to get her to stick to the trips. There has been sickness, unforeseen circumstances, and a series of increasingly weird-sounding family emergencies. I’ve tried to be flexible, but it’s getting to the point where we’re losing money on the hotel rooms (because she’s cancelling last-minute), and we can’t make plans for certain things because we can’t rely on her actually being there.
But here’s the thing. I scheduled a 1-to-1 with her to try and understand what was going on. The excuses had gotten so outlandish that I suspected there was more to it, and I wanted to open a conversation about it. She ended up confiding in me that her spouse isn’t “comfortable” with her spending one night away, because he “gets anxious that she’s not actually working.” I’m not entirely sure what he thinks she is doing, but I suspect there’s a sizable trust issue there.
She didn’t outright say he was abusive/controlling, but she said enough that I have serious alarm bells going in my mind. I have experience of friends being in abusive relationships, and a lot of what she said by way of justifying his behavior was familiar to me. As a side note, I have noticed he calls A LOT when we’re in the office working or at client dinners. She gets very anxious if she misses the call or is unable to answer.
All that said, I don’t really know what to do about it. I don’t really want to say she doesn’t have to do the trips just because her spouse says so; I feel like it’s leaning into (and justifying) some seriously worrying behavior. But the last-minute cancellations are starting to become very difficult to manage within the team, and I don’t know how to balance explaining that to her without looking unsympathetic to her situation. I also don’t know if it would be appropriate for me to point out that this is some seriously controlling and worrying behavior, and to offer help if she needs it. I feel like it would be overstepping the mark, but I can’t quite bring myself to ignore it altogether.
First things first, please read this advice to a manager whose employee was being abused by a partner. Follow all of it, especially about the policies you should have for your workplace (not just for Sally, but for others who may be in unsafe situations at home too) and the resources you can offer.
You could also say to Sally, “I’m really concerned by what you told me. That doesn’t sound like a safe situation for you, and I want you to know that we have resources to support you if you need them.” Depending on her response, you might offer referrals to organizations that can help (including an EAP if you have one and local crisis center info), protected leave if your organization offers it for people in crisis situations, a phone or other technology that her husband can’t track, and security measures if she does visit your office. As that previous post talked about, you do need to be sensitive to coming on too strong here — take your cues from Sally, but at a minimum name that what she described doesn’t sound normal or safe and try to connect her with resources if she lets you.
From there, you’ve got to deal with the practicalities around her job. What would you do if Sally were unable to travel for a different reason — if she were a single parent with little kids, or had a health issue that made travel difficult, or otherwise just couldn’t do it logistically? How much of an obstacle would it be for her success in the job? If the answer is that it’s not ideal but you’d make it work … does it make sense to mentally move Sally into that category now? (It’s possible that it would get more workable once you’re not losing money on last-minute cancellations and being unable to plan around whether she’ll be there or not.)
But if not traveling would truly prevent her from doing the job at the level you need it done at, then you’ve got to have an honest conversation with Sally and lay that out. You could say, “I hear you about travel being difficult. I want to be up-front with you that it’s really crucial to being able to do this job well. We do need you to travel because of XYZ, and the last-minute cancellations are wreaking havoc on our budget and ability to plan. Knowing that, what makes sense from here?” Be honest, too, about what it means if her answer is no.
Alternately, is there a middle-ground option, like doing fewer trips as long as she commits to the ones that she does schedule? Is it the kind of situation where she could stay in the job without traveling but it would hold her back in regard to promotions/raises/other things people care about? She might be willing to make that trade-off, so be honest about that if it’s an option too.
Ultimately, be honest and open about what you need, creative about how you both might be able to make it work, and clear you’re not judging her — because the less you judge her, the more likely she is to seek help if she needs it. (For more on that, read this.)
You might call your local equivalent of the National Domestic Violence Hotline to get their advice too (in the U.S., that number is 800-799-7233).
GREENWOOD, IN—Noting that his decision would likely set the tone for the entire meeting, local man Andy Franklin told reporters Tuesday that he never knew the right moment in a job interview to go in for a kiss. “I hate to say it, but when you meet your interviewer for the first time, that first kiss is such a…
MIRAMAR, FL—Adding another option to its budget-friendly travel offerings, Spirit Airlines began providing a new service this week that allows passengers to purchase directions to the nearest bus station for $45. “In keeping with the ultra-low costs our customers have come to expect, Spirit now makes it affordable to…
AMERICA, FORMER LAND OF THE FREE AND EX-HOME OF THE BRAVE—A hush reportedly spread across the country Tuesday as another star fell from the American flag following a well-attended drag queen brunch. “So for our special today, we have a salmon Benedict, and as always, we have our signature bottomless mimosas,” a server…
NORCROSS, GA—Stressing that it was his life’s goal to visit every U.S. location of what he referred to as “the best damn fast food dining franchise in the country,” former President Jimmy Carter told reporters Tuesday that he had embarked on a quest to eat at every Taco Bell in America. “There are over 7,000 Taco…
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. Owner won’t do anything about our terrible employee
I am late in my career and several years ago I was lucky enough to have found the best job I have ever had, at a very successful, very small niche company (8-10 employees). My boss (Jerry, the owner) and everyone I work with have been amazing. I am the office manager/HR and the only woman and only office employee. All the guys do field/shop work. It is a very rough and tumble sort of place, but the guys are great fun to work with and there is lots of mutual respect. We have a fleet of company trucks and are on-site at customer locations five days a week.
About a year ago, we hired a very problematic employee, Ron. He is mean, insulting, and disrespectful to most of his fellow workers. He has tried to work his own hours, comes and goes as he pleases, tells no one when he leaves (we have set shop-time hours). He ignores me unless absolutely necessary. He throws tools in the shop, has a big temper. When riding in company trucks, I have been informed that he gives the finger to other drivers when he feels they have disrespected them. I am also most concerned about what he will say to a customer if/when he loses his temper.
The majority of the other employees have voiced their concerns/filed complaints with me regarding Ron. My pleas to Jerry to terminate him go mostly ignored as Ron has a mechanical ability that is missing in some of the other employees.
The last straw for me was that Ron was recently given a company vehicle to drive. All our vehicles are numbered, for maintenance etc. All of these things run through me. The truck is very prominently badged with company logo, phone numbers, services, etc. I have numbers in stock when new trucks are purchased. He changed the truck number to 069 (it already had a number). He went out and purchased the new stickers. I was not asked nor notified. This truck is running all over five states and our customers see it. When I told the boss about the numbers, he did tell him to remove the numbers, but as of today he has not. New numbers were given to him by another supervisor and his response was that he already has numbers on the truck.
I do want to make clear that Jerry is one of the most outstanding people I have ever met. He is a great guy but we have had multiple conversations regarding Ron that get nowhere and this is very out of the ordinary. Until now, I have had an amazing relationship with Jerry but unfortunately this is making me consider early retirement, as I don’t want to spend my last working years dealing with this guy, but I’m still a few years away. I would love to hear your opinion on this.
For whatever reason, Jerry isn’t going to fire Ron. I don’t know why — maybe it’s really because of his mechanical ability, maybe he reminds Jerry of a loved one, maybe he’s holding his mother hostage, who knows what — but regardless, it sounds like Jerry has made it pretty clear that he’s not going to fire him. Jerry has the same info you do, and he’s not budging. (He does have the same info you do, right? If for some reason you’ve softened anything in relaying the problems, correct that … but I’m assuming for the sake of this response that he knows everything.)
Given that, all you can do is decide if you want the job under those conditions. You might be able to lay down some boundaries, like “I won’t deal with Ron on XYZ so you will have to handle that,” thereby shifting some of the pain of Ron over to Jerry … but mostly, you’ve got to decide if the job is still worth it to you if Ron is part of the package.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing ruins lots of otherwise good jobs.
2. I’m sick of being the only person who can manage our old technology
I work in a large company. I’ve only worked there for around 4.5 years, but due to a big shift in the technology they use, along with a loss of virtually all of the staff who were familiar with the old tech, I am now the only person who knows how to manage the older tech we use.
It’s not insignificant; we’re talking business critical databases, servers, and networking. It has never been part of my job description to manage these, but due to personal interest I learnt from the previous staff, who have now left. Due to the shift in technology, those positions have not been replaced.
I’ve been told by multiple managers that due to this being legacy technology, there is no point training new staff to deal with these systems. However, every project to remove them for the past year has been cancelled due to business priorities. We’re now a year past when I was told that we would no longer require them, but they’re still there and causing me a massive headache as I try to manage them on top of my fairly intensive job working with new tech.
I’m fed up with being the go-to guy for these, I get called out on holidays and out of hours to help with them. My manager is always very generous about giving me double time pay for the inconvenience, but I’m at a point where I am thinking about leaving just so I will not have to deal with old tech any more.
Can I give my department an ultimatum that I will stop supporting these old systems regardless of whether they are still in use? Can I train people secretly to deal with them if I am not available? Or should I just bear it until the business gets around to replacing them?
I love my job and the people that I work with, but I feel caught between a rock and a hard place, trying to balance my real job against the constant support of old systems that I have no formal training with and is not at all part of my job description … not to mention the expectation that I will be available when I am not on call to help out with issues.
You can try — including letting your boss know that they risk you leaving over it, at which point it sounds like they’ll really be screwed — but it’s very likely that you’re still going to get pulled into helping.
But what if you were simply unavailable outside of your normal work hours, even if it causes a crisis? That might be what it takes for them to be moved to finally act. It would be a courtesy to give your boss a heads-up about that change — something like, “My family commitments outside of work are ramping up and I’m no longer going to be available to help with OldTech outside of my normal work hours. If you want me to train others who can be, I’ll do that. But I want to make sure you know I won’t be able to respond if I get calls about it on holidays, evenings, or weekends.” What they do with that info is up to them — and if they don’t take you seriously when you say it, they’re likely to quickly realize it the first time you don’t respond when they need you.
Make sure you document in writing that you gave this warning, though, and consider whether there are others besides your boss who should receive that notification too.
3. My employee never covers other people’s shifts
What is your advice in addressing an associate who will never cover a shift when someone calls in sick? I have a very small staff of three, including myself, in a vision clinic. My other associate will always cover if she calls in, and of course I do. I think it’s very disheartening to my associate that is reliably available if needed.
If she’s otherwise a reliable employee, accept that she’s not available to cover shifts that she hasn’t been scheduled for. That’s not unreasonable of her — if she’s not scheduled, she’s presumably making other plans with that time and it’s not realistic to expect her to just jettison those plans at the last minute.
If you need someone who has regular availability for last-minute shifts, you need to hire specifically for that, making it clear that that’s part of the job so people can raise it up-front if they’re unlikely to be able to do it. But it’s not reasonable to expect that your staff member will always be able to step in at the last minute when someone is out, especially if she’s not being paid for that flexibility. If it’s truly essential, you might have more luck by paying a premium for those shifts or paying someone to be on-call.
4. I retired but keep getting requests from my boss
I recently retired from a state agency. Due to state law, I can’t work for any state retirement system employer for 12 months or I could forfeit my pension.
My former boss keeps calling me about issues in the department. Today she asked me to train her on a complicated task. I feel very uncomfortable with this. The problem is that my old job has not been filled. I gave my notice of retirement in January but the job was not posted until a month before I left.
I spent a lot of time documenting my old job and I feel like I wasted my time, as no one seems to be looking at the procedures. I don’t want to be an unpaid consultant but I don’t want to mess up my relationship with my old boss. I really like her but I feel like she is trying to take advantage of me. There was no discussion before I left of doing any in-depth training. I don’t mind the occasional question, but I don’t want to spend hours doing my old job for free. I am not sure how to address this.
In response to the latest message, wait a week and then send this: “Just saw this. Between family and other commitments, I’ve got no time these days — sorry I can’t help. But I documented everything before I left, and there should be useful info there.” Wait a week or longer before responding to any future messages too; she’ll learn to get her answers elsewhere.
Alternately, you could just explain that you’re not willing to do anything that could jeopardize your pension (“it was made really clear to me that I can’t answer work questions once I retired or I could lose my pension — sorry I can’t help!”) but if there’s any risk of her trying to say that you’re wrong about that, go with the first option.
5. Should I list two colleges when I only graduated from one of them?
I attended four years at a university but did not graduate. I have been up-front with employers about my not having a degree. After a long break, I went back to school, a different university, and officially now have a bachelor’s degree. I am in the process of updating my resume and am unsure of what to do with the other university. Do I leave it on there? In the past, I have left it just with the dates and no note about a degree. But now that I have the degree, it feels like I should remove the previous institution. Am I thinking too much about this?
Yep, remove the first school since you didn’t graduate from it and just list the one that you did graduate from. When you attended multiple schools but only graduated from one, typically you only need to list the degree-issuing institution. You can list the other if you want to, but there’s no need to. (In a different set of circumstances, you might decide to leave it on if it strengthened your resume — like if you wanted to be able to show you completed a large amount of coursework in Relevant Area X — but otherwise there’s no need to.)
EDMONTON – The polls are open as Alberta voters consider whether to elect a right-wing party devoted to low taxes and substantial governmental support for the fossil fuel industry (the NDP), or to reelect a party that can’t talk about vaccines without mentioning Hitler (the UCP). “This election is crucial to take back Alberta,” said […]
The former U.S. congresswoman (R-Wyo.) and House leader told graduates of her alma mater that America cannot remain a free nation if the truth is abandoned.
Gov. Greg Abbott over the weekend signed into law a bill prohibiting race-based hair discrimination in Texas workplaces, schools and housing policies. It goes into effect in September.
After threatening boycotts of companies and violence against retail workers, conservatives explain why they’re so triggered by products celebrating Pride Month.
NORFOLK, VA—Gathering their children for what they described as a difficult but important discussion that every family like theirs must have, local white conservative parents Brian and Marie Fortner sat their son and daughter down for a tough conversation about seeing a Black character in a movie. “One day you might…
NEW YORK—With the beloved characters joyously sharing the warmth of Yuletide cheer as snow fell gently upon Manhattan, HBO’s hit drama Succession concluded Sunday with the Roy family saving Christmas. “After years of sibling squabbles over who would take the throne at Waystar Royco, the hit series has elegantly stuck…
Was yesterday’s performance by the Texas House of Representatives intended to restore public faith in the body’s commitment to the rule of law? Separate the good cops in the GOP from the bad cops? Or prove that a legislature that spent a year cravenly ignoring the pleas of Uvalde victims’ relatives for common-sense gun safety laws before rejecting them outright while rushing through an attempt to put the Ten Commandments in every classroom isn’t really the 10th circle of hell? If so, the hearing leading up to a 121-23 vote to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton for corruption was an epic fail.
What the public saw—regardless of the lawmakers’ intentions—was the eruption of fissures that have more to do with pride and power than justice. It was a cross between the state’s largest intra-party catfight and its most public self-inflicted gunshot wound, as the bad blood between Paxton and Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, who serve as proxies for Trump and Republicans trying to distance themselves from Trump in advance of next year’s elections, finally spilled out into the open.
The lineup featured, on the one hand, GOP representatives who suddenly had a lot of worries about “due process,” “precedent,” and “evidence” that had not been evident while banning abortion and stripping transgender youth and their families of access to healthcare. Or during the next day’s vote, when the GOP ended their regular legislative session by singling out Houston, with its sizable Black population, for a different election process than the rest of the state. The thinly veiled voter suppression measure gives the secretary of state under certain conditions the power to run elections in Harris County, home to Houston and 4.8 million residents. It follows a billapproved days earlier that shifts the oversight of elections from its appointed elections administratorto the county clerk and county assessor.
House members and visitors listen to the impeachment proceedings against state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the House Chamber at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Texas, Saturday, May 27, 2023. Texas lawmakers have issued 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton, ranging from bribery to abuse of public trust as state Republicans surged toward a swift and sudden vote that could remove him from office. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) AP Photo/Eric Gay
The opposition to the allegedly process-and-fairness-obsessed wing of the GOP were those GOP colleagues who solemnly intoned about what appears to be their newly discovered “obligation to protect the citizens of Texas from elected officials who abuse their office and their powers for personal gain.” Notwithstanding their shared enthusiasm for consolidating power both by passing voter suppression laws and by riling up their base through culture war moves like banning abortion and stripping transgender youth and their families of access to healthcare and human rights.
Various media outlets, and a few of Paxton’s defenders, have made much of the lightning speed of this past week. But while it may have been mere days between the Republican-led House General Investigating Committee’s announcement of their investigation and their unanimous vote to introduce 20 articles of impeachment to the full House for Saturday’s hearing and impeachment vote, Paxton has been under felony indictment for securities fraud since he became attorney general in 2015. The FBI had been investigating Paxton on allegations that he used his office to benefit a wealthy donor, Nate Paul, since late 2020. Only in February of this year did the Department of Justice take over that probe, breathing new life into it.
Paxton’s overreach the next month, in March of this year, appears to have been the second-to-last straw. According to the committee’s own memo, released the day before the full House hearing: “But for Paxton’s own request for a taxpayer-funded settlement over his wrongful conduct, Paxton would not be facing impeachment.” Not, please note, the wrongful conduct—that is, Paxton’s firing of four whistleblowing members of his own senior staff after they accused him of using his office to help out Paul. Nor Paxton’s decision this past spring to pay $3.3 million to settle out of court. Or even the $600,000 the House spent defending Paxton. But Paxton’s request that taxpayers pay that $3.3 million—and that his fellow GOP colleagues go on record approving that request.
The final straw? Paxton, likely knowing that Phelan was going to try to gloss this most recent disgusting legislative term by ending it on a high note, called on him to resign last week over alleged drunkenness—via a tweet. Making it look super-extra-duper political when the House General Investigating Committee revealed that afternoon that it had been investigating Paxton in secret since March. The committee then heard a three-hour presentation from its investigators detailing allegations of corruption against the attorney general and voted to forward 20 articles of impeachment to the full House.
Believe me when I say that I, like many people who have been burned by the Texas GOP’s seemingly endless appetite for cruelty, ignorance, and hypocrisy, felt a certain satisfaction as I watched yesterday’s coverage of it setting itself on fire. Top moment? When the first group to appear outside the Capitol in Austin in response to Paxton’s call for supporters to turn out was around 100 people preparing for the “Trot for Trans Lives,” a 5K run held in support of transgender Americans affected by the waves of anti-trans rights legislation passed in recent years, including by Texas lawmakers.
Small pleasures aside, none of this is as satisfying as it sounds, nor do I think it will end well. Not considering all the bureaucracy that lies ahead. Governor Greg Abbott, who has remained curiously silent this past week while he sticks his finger into the political wind, has 10 days to tell the Senate to start a trial. A trial that would be presided over by Paxton buddy arch-conservative Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and that’s likely to be kicked down the road infinitely and/or end with an acquittal.
But the bottom line: While Paxton burns—or simmers or escapes entirely—and intra-party fighting and dirty laundry airing be damned, the members of the USA’s largest, richest, and most powerful wing of the GOP have screwed Texas on such a large, systemic level that they’ll still prevail. In the state, through control of both chambers and the governor’s seat, held in place by voter suppression and gerrymandering. Nationally, with courts packed with ideologues, including a Supreme Court that has already demonstrated its willingness to let Texas gut constitutional rights, overturn precedent, and play an enthusiastic role in the new national sport: playing on whatever field offers your agenda the best advantage. That means valorizing states’ rights when it’s convenient, or passing the ball to the Supreme Court if a federal ban looks more likely or appealing.
Call this, with apologies to Taylor Swift, the “Errors Tour” or, in a nod to the Ziegfeld Follies, “Hypocrisy on Parade.” Or let’s go “Paris is Burning” and give the representatives a Realness Award for their impersonation of legislators who seriously care about integrity, democracy, and the will of voters.
But whatever you do, don’t hold your breath waiting for justice.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/d19ccc4dd3227247107c0e842695f2e9/0413%20Crown%20Act%20Presser%20LS%20TT%2037.jpg)
