kitten talk led to an HR lecture, are sleeveless blouses OK for work, and more

by Alison Green on May 2, 2024

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

1. A conversation about kittens led to a lecture from HR

Yesterday I was called into a meeting with HR where I was reprimanded for an inappropriate sexual comment that I made. I did make the comment, it was absolutely inappropriate, and I am mortified! I apologised to Joan, the coworker who raised it with HR, and I will make sure nothing like that ever comes out of my mouth again.

There was some context for the comment that Joan didn’t share with HR, and neither did I because I was too ashamed to say much. Another coworker, Beth, saw the whole interaction and thinks I should provide the context to HR now, and she has offered to verify what happened. I don’t think I should because it doesn’t unmake the comment, I don’t want to come across as blaming Joan, and I got the impression that HR considers the matter closed.

Here’s the context: it is well-known in the office that my partner and I foster kittens until they’re old enough to be spayed/neutered and adopted. Coworkers sometimes ask about the cats as break room small talk. Yesterday, Beth and I were sitting at the table having lunch and chatting, when Joan walked in to make coffee.

Beth: How many kittens do you have at the moment?
Me: Four little bottle-fed ones
Beth: Oh, so tiny! What have you named them?
Joan: I hate cats.
Me: Oh … we can talk about something else?
Joan: Cats are a menace and kittens should be drowned, not bottle fed.
Beth and me: …
Joan: Cats are disgusting, they walk over every surface to make sure everything is covered in their urine and feces germs. If you live with a cat, you’re basically walking around covered in urine and feces.
Beth and me: …
Joan: And they come and rub their face all over you after they’ve spent the whole day licking their own anuses.
Me: I mean, humans lick other people’s anuses, at least cats mostly lick their own.

Joan walked out of the kitchen and the next thing I know, HR is telling me I can’t make jokes about anal sex in the break room. What Joan said wasn’t okay either, but I wish I’d just continued to sit there in stunned silence. I think I should just mentally file her comments away under Joan being rude, as they’re not HR-worthy. But do you think I should give this context to HR so maybe they don’t think I brought it up out of nowhere? Or just let it go, learn from it, and try to move on?

Well … if we had a time machine, I’d want you to explain it in the initial conversation with HR — not as “so therefore my comment was OK,” but to explain that you didn’t just pop out with a analingus comment out of nowhere (in fact, Joan introduced the concept) and that Joan herself had opened with an alarming non sequitur advocating animal abuse, and if we’re reminding people of what is and isn’t okay to say in an office, perhaps there’s one more topic here that should be addressed.

But now, after the fact … well, I don’t think you have to go back and correct the record. They’ve probably moved on and don’t think it’s a huge deal. But it would also be fine if you wanted to go back and say, “I was too mortified in the moment to share this, but I did want to give you further context so you understand that I didn’t just make a sexual reference out of the blue, which I would not do.”

2. How to politely not compliment weight loss

I saw your answer to “Coworkers want to ask about my weight loss” and wondered from the other side — is it impolite of me to not mention a coworker’s weight change?

I am uncomfortable discussing weight and body size with most people (not just a work thing!) and would rather skip the topic if I notice weight change. But if everyone else is complimentary about it, does it look impolite for me to not mention it?

No, it’s not impolite not to mention someone’s weight loss. There are people who are excited about losing weight and hope people will notice it — but there are also a lot of people who don’t want to talk about it, especially at work, and/or who aren’t happy about the weight change (particularly if it’s from illness or other not-pleasant circumstances), and their right not to feel their bodies are being assessed at work trumps the first group’s pleasure in hearing compliments. Sometimes you might know that a particular person falls in the first group (because you’re close enough to them to know, or they’ve clearly indicated it) and that would change the calculation — although even then, if you prefer not to talk about other people’s bodies, it’s not impolite to opt out!

In general, when in doubt, err on the side of not making people feel like their bodies are being scrutinized at work.

3. Are sleeveless blouses “tank tops”?

Our company recently sent an email “reiterating” our dress code (business casual), scare quotes on account of they slipped in some language that definitely was not there before: specifically, a ban on tank tops. In the “allowed” column, for shirts, it only mentions “short and long sleeved shirts/blouses.” I’m wondering if, as communicated, you would consider sleeveless blouses to be in compliance, or if I would be better off steering clear of anything that shows my shoulders.

I’ve attached an example of what I mean by sleeveless blouse. I have enough shirts like this in my rotation that I honestly am wondering if I’m what triggered this email, though in my opinion this cut is perfectly professional!?

Nah, those are sleeveless blouses. Tank tops have straps.

If you want to be sure, you can always ask them to clarify that; send a photo like the one you sent me. But sleeveless blouses are a common businesswear item, and they’re typically considered much more professional than tank tops, which read more casual. (Whether or not this makes sense is a different question, but lots of fashion rules have evolved in ways that don’t make sense. See also: skirts vs. shorts.)

4. Does my employer need to raise my salary if I’m not using their health insurance?

I work for a super small nonprofit that only started offering health insurance as a benefit a few years ago, where my employer covers half my health insurance as a benefit and the other half is taken out of my salary pre-tax. My husband is getting a new job with great benefits that will allow me to also be covered for way less than I’m currently paying, so we plan to switch as soon as he’s eligible.

My husband believes that, once we switch, my employer should automatically increase my salary to include the half of the health insurance they were paying, since that won’t be an expense for them anymore. While I think that would be nice, I don’t believe they have any legal obligation to do so, and am worried I would risk some political capital there if I brought it up. Are they under a legal obligation to increase my salary the amount they were paying for my health insurance?

No, they have no legal obligation to do that. Some employers have a policy of offering it anyway, but a lot don’t. You can ask though!

5. Handling multiple company name changes on a resume

I’ve been working at the same company since getting my degree six years ago, and I’m thinking it’s time to move on. However, the company has undergone two name changes since I was hired, and I’m not sure how to handle that on my resume. For example, when I was hired, the company was called Llama Shearing Systems. Then a few years ago we were bought by a larger company, Big Wool, and became Big Wool Llama Division. Now our parent company is rebranding and changing its name to Wool International, making where I’m working Wool International Llamas.

Do I list each name individually with the dates I worked during those particular name changes? Or do I write something like “Wool International Llamas (formerly Big Wool Llama Division, formerly Llama Shearing Systems)”?

Also, since this was my first job out of college, all of my references will likely be managers from various times during my employment at this company. Do I need to specify what name my company had at the time my reference was managing me?

You don’t need to list each name individually with the dates you worked under that name. Just use one name heading for the company and make it this:

Wool International Llamas (formerly Big Wool Llama Division and Llama Shearing Systems)

You also don’t need to specify which name the company had at the time your references were managing you, although you can. If a manager only managed you under Big Wool Llama Division, then list their affiliation as Big Wool Llama Division. But if they managed you through numerous name changes, just list the most recent name.

You may also like:
{ 606 comments }

{ 606 comments… read them below }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    I’m removing comments below talking casually about animal cruelty. However, given the number of comments on this post, I also want to provide a warning here that some may be below that I’ve missed (or may remain until I see them).

  2. nodramalama*

    That dress code does not sound business casual to me AT ALL. I would call my work business casual and I often wear with work pants: sleeveless blouses; uniqlo style tank tops with thick straps; and nice t-shirts.

    1. Happy meal with extra happy*

      Dress code labels are wild! Historically, business casual just meant, essentially, no suit jacket and no tie, and khakis and polos would firmly be in the “casual” category. Nowadays, business casual can mean such a wide spectrum, I think examples and specific lists are the best way to go (and seeking clarification when needed).

      1. Lady Danbury*

        When I was in college in the early 00s, we had a presentation on business etiquette that defined business casual as suiting separates (as opposed to a fully matched suit). Idk if it was because we were business students (so skewed towards conservative industries) or the teacher was an out of touch academic*, but that definition is wildly out of step now for most organizations/industries.

        *Obviously not saying all academics are out of touch with business norms!

        1. honeygrim*

          Oh yeah, it has changed a lot. Back in the early 90s, my dad moved from the large tech company he’d been working at for about 20 years to a different large tech company. He was thrilled that the dress code was more casual at the new place. The difference? The new place allowed its customer service reps to wear suiting separates, while the old place insisted on three-piece suits.

          The crazies thing was that, in both companies, his “customer service rep” role was to go to various business and fix the machines they bought from his company (typewriters, copiers, printers, computers, etc.). I never understood why the dress code didn’t take into account his job.

          1. psammead*

            I remember when my dad’s office started doing casual Friday. It was suits the other days of the week, and he was the manager, so he was afraid people wouldn’t feel free to be casual enough. So he would go in every Friday in short sleeved sweatshirts and old jeans. (Ah the 80s) I’ve always wondered what everyone thought.

        2. urguncle*

          When I was in college in the late 00s, we had a mandatory “business norms” lunch that was supposed to be business casual, which they also described as “suiting separates” so one guy came in a suit jacket with a white button-up shirt and very short cut off shorts. Leather oxfords.

        3. Lizzianna*

          When I was in law school in the late 00s, that was the definition of business casual I heard as well. I probably wouldn’t wear a sleeveless blouse or dress in a law-firm business casual setting without a jacket or cardigan. I’d be comfortable taking the jacket or sweater off when in my office or meeting with peers, but I would have one on hand depending on who walked in the door.

          “Casual” in that setting is nice, dark jeans or a less-structured dress or skirt, but still nicer than, say, what I’d wear to a weekend BBQ.

      2. MCMonkeyBean*

        Yes, I think people often underestimate how formal “business casual” originally was. When I worked at a bank, the offical dress code was “business casual” and that basically meant that I was allowed to wear business dress suits instead of a pantsuit and that men could take their jackets off.

        I think it’s the kind of thing that as people started to misuse it, its meaning has changed over time so at this point I think there are probably a lot of offices that call themselves “business casual” with heavy emphasis on the “business” and others that call themselves “business casual” with more emphasis on the “casual.”

        I disagree with Alison on the above though–this place sounds like it leans more to the “business” side and if the email specifically lists “short and long-sleeved blouses” as allowed then I think it’s highly likely they are intentionally excluding “sleeveless blouses” from that list, whether they are considered “tank tops” or not.

        1. PotatoRock*

          Yeah, I agree with you on this – sleeveless blouses are still a “know your office” call, and if they are specifying “short and long sleeves” blouses, they probably don’t want sleeveless. (or at least not without a jacket, cardigan). I’d definitely ask for clarification, and not assume they’re ok because “not tanktops”

          1. Buffy will save us*

            Agreed. I skate my “no sleeveless tops” “business casual” rules by wearing ones with cap sleeves or a very loose sheer over-shirt. But I know I can get away with that.

        2. Rusty Shackelford*

          I agree with you. The top pictured is not a tank top, but it is also not a “short and long-sleeved blouse” which says it’s specifically excluded from this dress code.

      3. OMG, Bees!*

        Heh, I am in California, so an inoffensive t-shirt and jeans without too many holes works for most offices I have worked in.

    2. Allonge*

      Business casual does not have a single definition; the point is that it’s neither completely business, nor ‘anything goes’ casual. A company can draw the line at tank tops and still be business casual.

        1. Allonge*

          Sure, but ‘business casual’ is not a qualified version of ‘casual’ in this context – they are two separate categories.

        2. Emmy Noether*

          I think the point is that “busines casual” is anything that is more casual than “business”, without specifying how far casual it goes. Since “business” traditionally means suits, there’s a lot of room between that and fully casual.

          Anything that doesn’t require a jacket (and a tie for men) is technically business casual. It has generally been drifting to more and more casual so I’d probably expect sleeveless woven blouses to be fine at most places – but the specific dresscode definition at any one place could be more strict.

          1. Spring*

            My old company used “business appropriate” because they didn’t want people getting too casual. I think it was effective for most people (myself included), who erred on the site of business, rather than casual.

        3. Irish Teacher.*

          I wouldn’t have read business casual as meaning casual. I would read it as “business wear, but not suit-and-tie level formal businesswear,” if that makes sense. Like I’d take it as men aren’t expected to wear a suit and tie, but would wear something like a sweater, shirt and nice pants and women wouldn’t be expected to wear heels and make-up, but formalish shoes, a pencil skirt or nice pants and so on would.

          But I know there are multiple interpretations.

          1. londonedit*

            Yeah, the interpretation of ‘business casual’ in my industry tends to be along the lines of smart jeans/shirt/jumper (sweater) for men (no tie or suit etc, if not wearing a jumper then the shirt sleeves will usually be neatly rolled up to the elbows) and smart jeans/nice top or smartish midi dress with trainers or smart/casual trousers (like the linen wide-leg trousers that are everywhere at the moment) with a t-shirt and trainers. In theory (and many younger people in junior roles do wear them) strappy tops are also fine, and people do wear more casual jeans and t-shirts too. I’ve never worked anywhere with a specific rule against strappy tops or sleeveless tops.

            1. UKDancer*

              Mine is similar although jeans are a lot less common under smart casual as that is more a thing for dress down Fridays.

              I’ve never worked anywhere with a rule against strappy or sleeveless tops (except for a brief period in a factory where people had to wear specific overalls) but i’d be surprised to see people wearing them in an office setting and most people in my offices tend to wear things with sleeves. But that’s as much about the weather as anything. I mean I wouldn’t because I tend to run cold and like my arms covered to keep me warm while commuting and in our not very well heated office.

              1. Cyborg Llama Horde*

                I started wearing sleeveless tops (with a semi-buttoned blouse over, like a cardigan) when I had to spend a few weeks in Florida in the middle of summer. The air conditioning was so strong that I was cold in less than a blouse, but I NEEDED to be able to ditch layers the instant I walked out the door.

                Nowadays I’m completely WFH and half of my summer dresses are sleeveless, though I’ll still throw a blouse overtop if I’m doing something that feels like it requires an unusual level of formality (even though a lot of the time people can’t even see my shoulders).

              2. JustaTech*

                The one confusion I have is that a lot of “smart” women’s business wear (specifically marketed as “smart business wear” for a relatively formal office) is a sleeveless sheath dress.
                Maybe the assumption is that you always put on a blazer or cardigan before leaving your office/going to a meeting?
                Like, these dresses fully cover the shoulder, and are usually quite high-necked, but they’re still sleeveless.

            2. bamcheeks*

              I realised I was Old when I was about 30 and one of my younger colleagues wore a strappy sundress in our business-casual office, and I just had an instinctive moment of, I would NEVER.

              1. Emmy Noether*

                I had a similar experience at 28 when a colleague (who wasn’t even much younger than me, and had been longer in the workforce) wore a spaghetti strap sundress. They’d only just lifted the tie requirement for men at this place! I still would never. It was a lovely dress – for a stroll and an Aperol spritz on a terrace.

            3. Spero*

              I’ve worked a few places with bans on tank tops – it has ALWAYS been disregarded or revolted against because of heat (American Southeast). Usually it was amended to ‘if sleeveless, at least 2″ wide strap’ type language that allowed sleeveless but banned spaghetti straps, off the shoulder, and strapless/bandeau entirely; Still followed inconsistently. One boss’s die hard stance was that there should be no chance of bra straps showing and banning tanks was the only way to avoid straps. When we pointed out you could see straps in a wide boat neck or a halter style with a regular bra she threatened to go back to no sleeveless at all.

          2. Momma Bear*

            It’s so variable. One job I could not wear jeans. Today I am in jeans and a polo, and most people here do not wear suits of any kind. In fact, if I didn’t know who he was already, our CEO would be indistinguishable from other staff. If you can’t tell where the line is based on looking at staff who have been there longer than you, then it’s worth asking. I would expect a sleeveless blouse to be OK. It’s common to have some kind of a shell under a suit jacket or sweater in a business setting, and can be more comfortable in varying weather (like now). I think the point of “business casual” is to be nicer than average and look put together vs “I rolled out of bed into this.”

        4. Decima Dewey*

          If the dress code says long-sleeved or short-sleeved blouses are okay, I wouldn’t be surprised if TPTB think that sleeveless blouses are not okay.

        5. Ace in the Hole*

          I disagree. Plenty of places are not okay with sleeveless tops but totally fine with casual clothing. My current workplace is cool with t-shirts and ripped jeans, which are pretty far to the casual end of the spectrum, but sleeveless shirt of any kind would be a big no.

    3. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      “Business casual” can be anywhere in the spectrum between “business” and “casual” so the exact position is totally workplace-dependent.
      It’s not unreasonable to ban sleeveless tops anymore than it is surprising to allow them.

      Also, it may be driven by a C-suite person sharing AAM’s armpit-phobia :)

    4. Lady Danbury*

      On the flip side, everywhere I’ve worked has had a business casual dress code and tank tops would not be acceptable at any of them. Imo, a sleeveless blouse/shell can be business casual, but tank tops are just casual.

      1. WillowSunstar*

        In the 00’s when we still had to dress up at work and jeans were only worn on Fridays or when they were doing United Way campaigns, I would not have worn a sleeveless blouse, certainly not without a cardigan at least on top. But these things may depend on your geographic region.

        Now, hilariously, business casual for us means sweatpants at home with your fluffy slippers, and a solid or print tee with no words on it for online video meetings. The pendulum has swung far.

      3. Spring*

        It surprises me that sleeveless blouses are even in questions. My wardrobe is mainly sleeveless blouses with a few short-sleeved ones, and I wear a cardigans over the blouses. I’m post-meno, but I now run hot all the time, so I need to be able to regulate my body temp by taking off/putting on the cardigan. No one has complained in 24 years of office jobs at three different companies, so I think I’m OK – at least in my industry (big pharma first, then biotech).

    5. Also-ADHD*

      Business casual is such a weird phrase. I’ve found that in financial companies, it means a different thing than healthcare; in healthcare, a different thing than tech startup; a different thing regionally from Dallas to San Diego to Seattle to Boulder to New York City; a different thing seasonally in some places (Austin and Houston go Dallas level in winter at my company, but California style in summer). That’s a mess.

      1. Sandi*

        My experience with business casual in IT is that jeans should be recently laundered.

        1. Momma Bear*

          Ha. True. And not full of holes. I also generally wear darker wash. But honestly, if I’m going to be dragging equipment around, why should I wear a nice dress?

        2. Hosta*

          I think my tech company’s dress code is that pants/shorts/bottoms are required and you have to wear shoes in the kitchen. There’s probably now some words in there about no offensive words on t-shirts.

          It happened more before the pandemic but we’ve 100% had people show up in onesies, costumes everyday in October, ball gowns, etc.

        3. MigraineMonth*

          Where “recently” is defined as sometime in the last three weeks or after spilling BBQ sauce all over them, whichever is more recent.

    6. Student Affairs*

      Right? My current workplace has a business casual label, but we’re Student Affairs at a medical school. 99% of the time we’re in either dress shirts/blouses or polos and jeans, or tunic-style shirts with leggings, or if we’re doing a lot of set-up-and-break-down T-shirts or hoodies. If there’s an event that requires smart business casual like Graduation events, then we do Real Business Casual, but most of our events are university polo and jeans or khakis.

    7. Off Hand Commentor*

      That is what I would call casual! T-shirts and tank tops are not typically business casual.

  3. Happy meal with extra happy*

    That the rules specify “short and long sleeved” blouses, and not just blouses, would make me think that sleeveless blouses aren’t allowed, whether or not they would fall under the tank top category.

    1. Spencer Hastings*

      I agree. Sleeveless blouses aren’t “tank tops” as I understand the term either, but I think the LW already has her answer based on that email.

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        I think it wouldn’t hurt to ask, just because sleeveless blouses and silk shells are such a staple to wear with a skirt and be considered pretty dressy. Even though sleeveless blouses, silk shells, and tank tops cover and uncover the same areas of the body.

        1. Slow Gin Lizz*

          Definitely wouldn’t hurt to ask. I started a job with a dress code that was more on the business side of business casual and after I’d been there for awhile they sent this exact email, that tank tops are not allowed. I’d purchased a few sleeveless blouses exactly for this job (that I love!) and immediately emailed to ask if they were allowed and they were. As AAM said, tank top just means the ones with straps. But I’d say, when in doubt, just ask!

    2. allathian*

      Yes, I agree. Sure, sleeveless blouses would be perfectly fine in many offices, and they certainly would be in mine, but that doesn’t mean they’d be fine everywhere.

      Tank tops read as very casual to me, mainly because bra straps are impossible to hide. Sure, strapless bras exist, but more often than not, people who wear tank tops also show their bra straps, at least in my area they do.

      1. nodramalama*

        Not really, many tank tops have thick straps. I have a lot of worky tank tops that do not show your bra straps unless you are wearing a weird bra.

        1. TechWorker*

          My sisters school dress code used to be that tank tops had to have straps that were at least 3 fingers wide. Is it totally arbitrary – yes – does it allow sleeveless tops but not tank tops with skinny straps where bra straps are definitely visible – yes.

          1. Nynaeve*

            We had this exact rule at a call center I used to work at. The handbook said “3 inches” but in practice, the trainers would point it out as either wider than 3 fingers or the short side of our badges, which made it easy to measure and point out in the moment if someone was dressed inappropriately. It was specifically meant to draw the line between a spaghetti strap top and a blouse like the one in LW’s photo.

            I never minded because if I was wearing a dress or top with no sleeves, I always had a cardigan on any way because it was always freezing in there. But, some of the fresh out of HS agents we hired needed multiple reminders that they couldn’t dress like they were in HS any more.

          2. Bored Fed*

            I’ve always wondered about prohibitions on spaghetti straps — do they mean linguine? capalini? Lasagna?

            1. Merf*

              ? Those are kinds of pasta, not kinds of spaghetti – which is itself a specific kind of pasta.

            2. SarahKay*

              Lasagna is not spaghetti, though….
              Both are pasta but (at least in Italy and the UK) the names describe very specific types and shapes of pasta.

              1. Ari Flynn*

                It actually has a name, when the edge of a light stretch fabric is ruffled like that at the edge of a granny – it’s called “lettuce edge” or “lettuce hem”. Now you can search for it properly!

              2. Princess Sparklepony*

                And it would likely work with the 3″ strap rule!

                Lasagna straps for everyone!!

      2. ThatOtherClare*

        They’re not impossible to hide, people in your area simply don’t care. When people care they use safety pins, or they buy a better quality tank top with bra strap keepers, or do as I used to and add their own with a ribbon and some snaps.

        Current fashion trends are moving towards bras being a decorative item designed to be shown off. We have lovely decorative stockings nowadays and nobody considers it scandalous any more – in decades gone by the very idea of a woman’s leg was unmentionable, let alone the clothing in direct contact with it! I predict that in the not too distant future we’ll feel the same way about bra straps.

      3. Prof*

        Sleeveless blouses can definitely show bra straps too. I also definitely have sleeveless blouses that are exactly the shape and strap size/shape of less dressy tank tops. I read the question and thought it was an obvious yes, they are tank tops (to me, sleeveless = tank top, unless it’s a super thin strap which is a spaghetti strap top). I’d clarify this policy and not make any assumptions.

    3. Itsy Bitsy Spider*

      Exactly. “Short or long sleeve shirts/blouses” is pretty clear. “Sleeveless” doesn’t fit that definition no matter how hard you try. I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer, should the OP question it, was “what didn’t you understand?”

      1. Seashell*

        I think the answer to that would be “I didn’t understand where something that is in neither of those two categories would fit.”

        1. Slow Gin Lizz*

          Yes, this^. Sleeveless blouses are not tank tops so there needs to be a ruling on them specifically. Or the company needs to define what they mean by tank tops.

          1. fhqwhgads*

            But it reads like the LW is the one using the phrase “tank tops” not the company? The company said “short and long sleeves” are allowed, which seems to mean sleeveless of any variety is not. It may still be worth asking in case what they said is not actually what they meant to say, but I don’t think it’s ambiguous right now.

    4. Clearance Issues*

      even though “sleeveless blouses” are technically ok at my company (they’re a nice blouse/khakis or slacks/occasional blazer kind of business casual) if there is a chance your undergarments show, that immediately makes sleeveless blouses not ok.
      Some of my coworkers can wear them, but for me they usually gap uncomfortably wide so there is an unfortunate view inside the blouse. I personally hate sleeves but because a lot is in view, I don’t wear sleeveless at work.

      1. Filosofickle*

        I usually don’t wear sleeveless professionally because of this. Even when tops fit well and you have strap keepers and proper armhole sizes, moving around creates potential moments of bra peekage — it’s only like an inch away! Times are changing, bras are being normalized, and I’m happy for that, but I’m old enough to have been firmly instructed that any bit showing was never okay so I just avoid it.

    5. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      Same Sleeveless blouses are to blouses as tank tops are to T-shirts. The code doesn’t seem to mention sleeveless blouses specifically, so I’d ask.

    6. Polaris*

      As the AC in my office does not function at all, if this type of dress code were instituted here, I’d probably reply with a “I’ll wear something with sleeves when my office drops below 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Til then? Nope.”

      (Does not function = there’s no ductwork connecting the diffuser in my office to the main. So I have no airflow. And an office that’s > 80 in the summer and < 60 in the winter. Mine is not the only one, and its an argument between company and landlord. Landlord says it falls under tenant improvements. That's not the definition of TI, but go on.)

      1. MCMonkeyBean*

        My office for a while apparently had very uneven heating so the other side of our floor claimed it was very cold over there and made them turn up the heat–which resulted in them *heating* my cubical to 82 degrees every day one winter. I went out and specifically bought more sleeveless blouses because I didn’t have enough to get through the week lol.

        I think they might technically not have been allowed by my dress code but my team often erred on the side of slightly more casual and no one ever said anything to me. Though if I had received this email then I guess I would have had to talk to my boss about it! I did genuinely consider quitting I was so uncomfortable every day but thankfully we eventually moved to a new building with a much better heating/AC system.

      2. Lucy P*

        We’re unseasonably warm right now and I’ve already worn 2 sleeveless blouses this week. Our side of the office keeps the thermostat set at 78-79 for the AC, so it’s often uncomfortable without going sleeveless.

      3. Reluctant Mezzo*

        I wore muumuus and sandals during most of the summer unless the A/C actually decided to work, though we normally had no warning about that part (in some parts of the building, it was longjohns under business wear in summer).

    7. ferrina*

      I seem to be in the minority here, but I think of “tank top” as “any shirt without sleeves.” That might also be my upbringing- ‘sleeveless blouse’ was not a word or a thing in my household, so the only exposure I had to sleeveless shirts was tank tops. Therefor anything without sleeves is a tank top. And tank tops had wide variation- spaghetti straps, thick straps (think ribbed tank tops), low cut through turtle neck.

      1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

        Yeah, I’m struggling a bit with the defining characteristic of a tank top being straps. I’ve certainly got a few sleeveless shirts with no straps that I consider tank tops, but they’re mostly jersey, so it might be a fabric thing for me? Alternatively, it may be that “blouse” just isn’t a frequent word for me?

      2. Person from the Resume*

        I agree with Hastily Blessed Fritos that “Sleeveless blouses are to blouses as tank tops are to T-shirts.” Even though a ribbed tank top’s material is different than what I think of the cotton t-shirt material. “Tank top” for me is definitely a shape that include straps over the shoulders whereas a sleeveless blouse has the sleeves left off but is not a strap.

        Tank tops are casual. Blouses, even sleeveless ones, are not casual.

        OTOH ferrina has a point about people having different backgrounds and understanding of these definitions. Worth it to ask, but I think it’s telling that sleeveless blouses were not mentioned as allowed when the other two types of lengths were.

      3. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Where would you classify a button down oxford shirt without sleeves?

    9. Sloanicota*

      That was my exact take. The top pictured would not fit under the dress code, which is therefore pretty danged formal IMO.

    10. Person from the Resume*

      I agree.

      That sleeveless blouse pictured is most definitely NOT a tank top.

      However it is fairly telling that the allowed dress code did not say “sleeveless, short and long sleeved blouses” or blouses in general. Someone deliberately left out “sleeveless” in listing what is allowed so it is not allowed.

    11. Spring*

      That the rules specify “short and long sleeved” blouses, and not just blouses, would make me think that sleeveless blouses aren’t allowed, whether or not they would fall under the tank top category.

      Or it could be careless wording in the policy.

    12. kiki*

      I could see that read, but I also think whoever was writing the policy might just not have wanted to say sleeveless blouses are allowed and then have somebody take that to mean they could wear what is basically a gussied-up blouse-like tank top with thin straps.

      I think at a workplace with adults, people don’t to treat employees like teens and call out things like, “strap width must exceed 4 inches to be considered acceptable.” But honestly, that’s probably what differentiates acceptable from unacceptable in this scenario, if people drilled down to it.

      1. Ettalynn*

        Also, my general rule of thumb with regards to workplace dress codes is that if you have to ask, you probably shouldn’t wear it. Don’t make your manager have that conversation with you, especially since it may be an asinine/arbitrary rule that he/she thinks is stupid.
        Just throw a blazer or cardigan on over top.

  4. Gretta Swathmore*

    I think advocating drowning kittens is like 100x worse than what you said. Can you go back to HR and report *her*?

    1. Dittany*

      Yeah, it’s REALLY concerning behavior to go out of your way to tell your coworker that they should kill an animal they’re caring for.

      1. Spring*

        Right, and she DID go out of her way to butt into a conversation that she was not part of in order to spew vile and inhumane comments. And when it must have been clear that her comments were shocking and horrible, she just kept on going. What an awful person.

        1. Roo*

          I was coming on to say this. If I had been a break-room bystander, Joan’s comment would have been the one that appalled me the most. I agree with the advice given; context was everything here. Joan’s unsolicited remarks were egregious enough to also warrant a quiet word from HR.

          I wonder if Joan is a colleague who is challenging in other ways…? Someone who volunteers objectionable views – which they must know will distress their listeners, given the nature of the conversation into which they’ve inserted themself – and then goes to HR with the response from the person they’ve upset is unlikely to be an outlier in terms of difficult interactions.

          1. ferrina*

            +100

            LW tried to de-escalate by offering to change the subject. Jane responded with “you know what I like? Animal abuse.” LW lashed out.

            I don’t know if it’s worth it to add context right now. It might come across as self-serving. The friend who witnessed everything might be able to say something if they feel comfortable. But I’d avoid Jane, and if she ever promotes animal abuse again, talk to HR and document.

            1. Garblesnark*

              Yeah – LW, would your friend be willing to go on her own to HR and tell them what she witnessed?

            2. jasmine*

              Yeah the friend going to HR would be ideal. If she goes to HR to flag Jane’s concerning comments, then the context of the prior convo will get filled in at the same time

          2. Miette*

            THIS. I would be concerned that Joan has it in for OP or something–she’s clearly a sh*t stirrer and couldn’t pass this opportunity up. All the more reason to go back to HR to clarify the circumstances here. You don’t want this to be some kind of “first strike” OP.

          3. Nomic*

            Strong agree here. this seems like a setup: “You care for animals, I am going to advocate animal abuse until you say something I can report.”

            OP, is there a reason Joan would be trying to set you up? Or is she like this in general (I see no indication in your letter that either is probable, but it seems likely one or the other is true).

          4. MigraineMonth*

            Lots of Edgelord energy from someone who is presumably not a 12-year-old teenage boy.

            “Let’s see how much I can piss off my coworkers today!”

      2. Rosemary*

        Joan obviously does not see it as concerning, as she went and reported LW’s comment to HR…which had she had the awareness that her own comments were horrifying, she probably would not have opened up the HR can of worms. I think LW definitely should go back and provide the context – to both help clear her name AND put Joan on HR’s radar, in case comments like this continue.

    2. nodramalama*

      I agree. I admit I have worked in fairly casual workplaces where boundaries between friends and colleagues is often blurry. But I would probably max raise my eyebrows at OP’s comment, and be HORRIFIED by Jane’s.

      1. TheBunny*

        Like I said in my comment below, I was expecting the comment to go in a totally different direction. That said, while not nice, it seemed pretty in line with the rest of the conversation. And, pretty mild when considering what Jane said and the other things she could have said in response.

        1. Zona the Great*

          If I had heard the full context and not just what you said, I wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow.

      2. The other sage*

        This. Jane is a typical case if being able to dish it but not to take it. What a lunatic!

        1. Irish Teacher.*

          Perhaps I’m getting into the realm of fanfiction here, but it seems to me almost like goading. Like she was pushing the LW and her colleague in the hopes they would react in a way she could complain about.

          Maybe I’m just used to dealing with teens where this is a common tactic of teen bullies, annoy somebody as much as possible in the hopes they will hit you or curse at you and then they’ll get in trouble with the teacher and that will be hilarious. I’m not sure an adult would do exactly that but her comments are so extreme and…out-of-context that it seems like she was pushing for some kind of reaction and perhaps undermine the LW or make her look like she was overreacting.

          1. DJ Abbott*

            I Think that’s a strong possibility. If it wasn’t deliberate, Joan is exceptionally horrible and clueless.

          2. Jzilbeck*

            I had the same thought!! Def got the vibe she intentionally pushed the envelope for reactions and then took advantage to report OP when she pushed back with a slightly risque comment. If this were me I’d go back to HR with the context.

          3. Office Lobster DJ*

            Good point! Why else would Joan be so provocative, especially knowing this topic is clearly very close to LW’s heart? I think this adds to the case for getting the full interaction on record with HR. Frame it as “At the time, I was both embarrassed and wanted to make it clear that I accept responsibility for what I said, and I still do. However, the context has been bothering me…”

            And keep an eye on Joan!

          4. Garblesnark*

            While I obviously don’t know Jean, I can confidently say that the age needed to obtain a job in a professional workplace does not always correlate with the maturity needed.

          5. Boof*

            It does seem like a bully move – take my gross comments or else i will report you. I totally get why lw just wants to move on and my guess is that HR may have already forgotten about the whole thing but i do kind of want lw or their good coworker to set the record straight. For the kittens. (Also, vaguely hoping jane gets the belated message that that was utterly inappropriate behavior on jane’s part, not lws)

          6. Observer*

            Perhaps I’m getting into the realm of fanfiction here, but it seems to me almost like goading. Like she was pushing the LW and her colleague in the hopes they would react in a way she could complain about.

            While I believe that it’s possible – her behavior is juvenile enough! I do think that it’s a bit of fan-fic. But also, not necessary. And not something I would bring to HR. Because it doesn’t really matter why Joan acted this way. She was wildly out of line regardless of the reason for it. Even if there was a potentially sympathetic reason* for her behavior it would still be wildly out of line, and something that HR needs to know about.

            * eg There are some people who have a ridiculous number of cats that they also cannot care for properly. When that happens, the house reeks (among other issues) – sometimes so much that you can smell it whenever the person opens their windows or door. These people also tend to be rather unreasonable about a number of things and get into a surprising number of altercations with people. (I had a neighbor down the block like that when I was a kid.)

          7. Rainy*

            Joan sounds a lot like my FIL, whose opinion on cats is so disturbing that he and my MIL are no longer allowed to spend the night in my home for fear that he will harm one of my pets, and my FIL has definitely tried to goad me into saying something he could complain to my husband about. But he also genuinely hates cats and thinks pets are pointless and people who have pets are stupid.

            1. Rainy*

              …to be fair they’re also no longer allowed to spend the night in my home because I hate them both and having them in my space is extremely stressful, but I really worry about our cats and small dog around my in-laws.

              1. DJ Abbott*

                They sound like terribly hateful people. You’re allowed to not want them around you. I would never let them near my home or anyone I love. Do they hate children too?

                1. Rainy*

                  Time will tell–by the end of the year we will have two niblings (their grandchildren) and I’m expecting things to get interesting. It’s possible that they’ll be fine, I guess? I think MIL is going to run every play in the awful MIL playbook, but I could be wrong. She certainly likes both my BILs’ wives way more than she likes me (partly because I wasn’t a nubile baby-hungry Catholic girl who would convince Mr Rainy to have kids he doesn’t want).

                  FIL will dote on them until they’re old enough to express their own opinions, like he did with his kids. He’s also at this point such a fall risk that no one with any sense would let him hold a child unless he’s sitting down and closely supervised, so I think that will limit the risk.

              2. Resentful Oreos*

                They sound like real charmers. Good for you for not allowing them to spend the night in your house. I hope your husband doesn’t love them or love them too much, because I’d want to see these revolting sociopaths as little as possible.

                If you two are the ones charged with picking out the nursing home later, you might want to pick one with lots of therapy pets on the premises, as long as the pets are too well supervised for your evil FIL to hurt. Make him squirm a bit. Ha ha ha.

                1. Rainy*

                  It took time to get on the same page but at this point I spend as little time as I can manage around them; I haven’t seen them in two years, which suits me down to the ground.

                  My husband was MIL’s retirement plan (and maybe still is, if she’s an idiot), but when she first started becoming a problem I told him that she’d absolutely never live in any house of mine so if he was thinking that someday she’d move in and I’d be her carer, he and his brothers needed to figure something else out asap.

            1. Princess Sparklepony*

              So so much seconding the need for a LIKE button.

              Although if you give us a LIKE button, then we will want a LOVE button and an ANGRY button so we get into the If You Give a Mouse a Cookie problem.

            1. Cyborg Llama Horde*

              I don’t think it’s especially funny, but it’s wordplay on pussy being both a term for a cat and slang for female genitalia -> a term used to degrade women (similar to b*tch).

              1. Hobbling Up A Hill*

                There’s a treble wordplay going on because pussy can also mean coward. Which is in reference to the comment about her dishing it out but not being able to take it.

                1. RVA Cat*

                  This, but Jane’s vile behavior warrants that other word that doesn’t insult cats. It’s also the Hound’s favorite word.

                2. jasmine*

                  Doesn’t the “coward” meaning also come from the word being used to degrade women? I might be wrong, but I always assumed it was a more crude version of “you get scared like a girl”

                3. Emily Byrd Starr*

                  I always that the “coward” meaning of the p-word was misogynist, because it was implying that females are cowards. However, once I adopted a cat,I realized it’s because cats can be cowards.

                4. Silver Robin*

                  [nerd hat time]

                  By my understanding, the coward version of the meaning actually originally comes from “pusillanimous” which means “timid”.

                  The misogynistic slang came around later and the degradation aspect merged quite nicely with the already established meaning.

                  (too far nested to reply directly)

              2. Ace in the Hole*

                I interpreted the wordplay as pussy being a word for both cat and (somewhat archaic) slang for a cowardly/timid person.

                And, since it’s likely to come up… “pussy” is also crude slang for female genitals, but as far as I can tell the meaning of coward did not evolve from the reference to genitals. It came from the 19th century use of pussy/pussycat as a term of endearment for cute sweet people and especially for little girls, which was used to insult people similar to how “princess” or “cupcake” can be used as an insult these days.

          4. Princess Sparklepony*

            Although I’d argue that she has neither the depth nor the warmth for one meaning of the word.

            And for the cat meaning of the word, she’s not cuddly and not something you’d want to pet or have around the house.

            But it’s kind of a perfect insult for her since she hates cats

      3. Also-ADHD*

        From the comment, it took me a moment to even work out LW was talking about anal sex (I agree it’s inappropriate, but it’s subtle enough), but that was because I was so riled up from the other comments, which were violent and inappropriate. I think going back to HR to get the other side of the interaction in the record, just matter of factly, and not too intense, might be a good idea.

      4. Guava*

        My work culture is crude and often gross, I have far more information on the sexual and bathroom habits of my coworkers than I’d ever like to know. There are almost no lines that haven’t been crossed. OP’s reply would probably earn an impressed chuckle.

        You know what line has never EVER been crossed? Animal abuse. Joan’s behavior is beyond shocking.

        1. Ms. Elaneous*

          Not only report Joan to HR, but tell your colleagues. Your embarrassment? Slough it off: Guava is right..it is a drop in the bucket compared to Joan’s abusive – and gross- tirade.

          OP, your slightly-off-colour remark wasn’t shocking, but Joan’s remarks
          are not only in the inappropriate for work area, they are inappropriate even to think in the first place.

        2. NotRealAnonForThis*

          Same here. There wouldn’t have been anything said, except maybe a chuckle, over OPs retort.

          Joan’s commentary would’ve earned a “WTAF is wrong with you?”

      5. Marshmallows*

        I work in manufacturing… OP’s comment wouldn’t even register for me… but Jane’s comments are horrible!

    3. Double A*

      This is especially egregious to bring this up in a conversation when someone is talking about animals they care for.

      I actually would report it to HR. Discussing violence against pets is pretty upsetting workplace behavior that I think you should have on record. You can go back and say, “I was too mortified to explain this at the time, but here is the context. Upon further reflection, I want you to be aware of Joan’s violent statements.”

      2. Tiny Soprano*

        It’s so bananapants it’s a whole banana tailsuit with a banana top hat and banana spats.

        I have a snake. People commonly (and reasonably) dislike snakes, and people manage to nevertheless restrain themselves from suggesting he be murdered. But kittens??? One of the cutest and most beloved creatures in existence? What in the actual banana is Joan thinking??

        1. FormerProducer*

          Weirdly, I have heard these comments about cats before! As soon as people know I like cats, they say some absolutely wild shit, like “cats are disgusting” “they only pretend to like you for food, they’re not capable of love”, “cats are evil and should not be allowed in homes” etc. Lots of people who consider themselves animal lovers do not include cats in that category.

          1. Golden*

            Same here! I’m not sure if it’s applicable to every person, but I read somewhere that when people (this was specifically a commentary on men) don’t like cats it’s because they have issues with control, and cats are not obedient. I forget where I read it, but it said to take specific hatred of cats as a red flag absent something like phobia, scary childhood interaction, or growing up with someone who hoarded or didn’t clean up properly after cats.

            Maybe it stuck in my mind because I have an ex who randomly hated cats and was very controlling, but judging by all the similar experiences in the comments of whatever I read I think it’s a thing.

            1. Jessica*

              I can’t find it now, but there was a study I read way back about how hatred of cats in men was associated with higher levels of misogyny.

              Basically, cats are, culturally in the west, coded kind of feminine and a lot of the hatred for them is because they are seen as feminine but not submissive/servile.

              1. Golden*

                Maybe it was this! Or likely a summary of it on some social media post because I distinctly remember the comments. Thank you!

            2. The other sage*

              Now that you say this, my abusive ex praised dogs above everithing because he believed they would be loyal no matter what, even if you physically mistreat them. I found it strange back then, now I know he was telling me who he is.

          2. Testing*

            I do not really care about animals. I mean I loved my own dog when I had one, but since she died (a natural death, I feel I should add) I haven’t cared about other animals. Yet I have somehow managed to not suggest anyone else should kill their pet.

          3. Anonym*

            It is so disturbing. Those beliefs are so out of touch with reality and so disproportionate and vehement, and I think they lead to real harm.

            Any time I’ve encountered it, I ask if they’ve ever gotten to know a cat, and the answer is always no. They’ve never had one, lived with one, anything like that. They just… think something terrible based on nothing. Just deranged.

            1. yeep*

              Both my SILs hate cats. One hates them because they’re ‘sneaky.’ They know cats are my favorite and actually enjoy telling me how much they hate cats. Cat haters are so entirely loud about hating cats and it’s just fine. But if you were to say out loud you were a dog hater, an angry mob would gather.

              I’ve determined that people don’t like cats because they (the cat) is smarter than them (the person) and they feel threatened.

              1. How We Laughed*

                There is definitely a subset of people who dislike cats because cats have boundaries and will enforce them.

                1. Emily Byrd Starr*

                  Or because they were mice in their past lives (sorry, couldn’t resist)

              2. Andromeda*

                My mum’s a cat hater. I think she’s just put off by the way they move, and has said the “they only love you bc you feed them” thing a few times. But she would *never* advocate for killing them, and certainly wouldn’t be loud and aggressive about her dislike in front of people who clearly love and cherish the cats they care for.

                I say this because I think the cat thing is a red herring. Joan most likely would have found something else to provoke LW about, and disliking cats doesn’t justify anything close to this level of vitriol against a coworker in any normal person’s book. Let’s not strawman the perfectly normal people who just happen to not be cat fans. (For context: I have no horse in this race. I adore both cats and dogs)

                1. Reebee*

                  OMG this. Good call, Andromeda.

                  I’ve worked with a couple of people in the recent past who would take any opportunity to shock no matter the topic, timing, or audience. I won’t repeat the things they’ve said, but suffice it to say that both seemed to thrive on the negative attention the ‘shock’ got them. Can’t stand a-holes like that.

                2. Irish Teacher.*

                  Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with not liking cats (and I say this as somebody who is very fond of them). Jane’s behaviour is bizarre and unacceptable because she interrupted the LW’s conversation to criticise her for something she cared about and because of her comment about drowning cats. If she’d made the same comment about a dog or a horse or a snake, it would be equally horrible.

              3. Commenter 505*

                Yes! I love my two cats but don’t care for dogs at all. It’s the jumping and the dog-face-in-my-crotch for me. How is anyone cool with that behavior? It’s not that I hate dogs, it’s that I need my personal space and I’d just rather not be around them.

                Not long ago, my in-laws’ large dog chased my pre-teen around the yard while trying to hump him. My kid tried to run away, but apparently you’re not supposed to do that with a humping, running dog because they think it’s a game. I guess it makes sense, but in the moment, I’d run, too. It was implied that we should’ve known better, although they did replace my son’s clothing because the dog ripped up his shirt and pants when it caught up to him. I still won’t cop to not liking dog. I understand what it means to love a pet and that that lots and lots of people love dogs and consider them family members. So Joan. Where I come from, we don’t drown our pets. Or family members.

                OMG. Joan is from South Dakota, isn’t she? Or is it the North Dakotans that hate cats?

          4. NotAnotherManager!*

            The number of batshit crazy things people said about our cats when our kids were small were wild. Apparently, our cats were going to, in no particular order, steal their milk, steal their souls, murder them in their sleep, attack them if they came into the same room, scratch them and give them a deadly infection, get cat waste all over their crib and toys, and smother them to death at naptime. One older relative “joked” about calling CPS if we were not going to get rid of the cats before the baby arrived.

            What actually happened was that one liked to hang out in the same room (sometimes the same lap) with the babies, developed an unholy love of baby cereal (the one that tastes like library paste), napped in the stroller basket, and would come running for an adult any time they cried. The other was horrified to share his home with such loud, uncouth things and refused to be in the room with them, and would glare and huff out of the room indignantly, until they got to the age where they could use those opposable thumbs to open the treat container and scratch his belly.

            1. Putting the Dys in Dysfunction*

              People used to say don’t keep a cat in the nursery because it would come into the crib to suck out the baby’s soul.

            2. Kyrielle*

              Yup. When my kids were babies, one cat would cheerfully let them grab and pull on fur (yes we redirected the baby asap!) and use him as a pillow (ditto!) just because hey, it’s attention and anyway this is clearly a kitten.

              The other one stayed up out of reach (and her reaction the first time one of them stood up was hilarious, after that she just stayed *higher* out of reach) until they were old enough to have learned proper cat manners and pet her without any other hijinks.

              1. Tiny Soprano*

                My friend’s cat is so lazy she would just lie on the floor and cry as the baby grabbed her by the primordial pouch. She wouldn’t get up and leave, nor swat the baby, just cry and wait for help.

              2. Lenora Rose*

                We have a picture of me as a baby with my hands clutched deep into the cat’s fur. Apparently, the cat in question (who had a name but was literally just called Big Cat most days because he was), would complain so an adult could intervene, but let me do whatever I did, complete with drag cat across the slippery linoleum by the tail, right up until, in my toddler time, around the same time Mom was starting to teach me “no”. Big Cat seemed to figure out I might now recognize a boundary, because one day he just turned around and smacked me with just enough claw to hurt. According to Mom, I got it and stopped overnight.

                1. SimonTheGreyWarden*

                  The cat we had growing up was basically like this with my sister. If he went over to her, he would let her do *whatever* (pull tail, grab fur, etc – this was when she was very small, not walking yet). As soon as she could go after him, he would swat her (no claws though) and hiss.

                2. Princess Sparklepony*

                  Long long ago, my sisters ran a little home preschool in the summers for a few years. We had cats and the kids would dress up the cats in baby clothes that we had for some of the larger dolls. One cat was cool with it all and would just hang out and get dressed up. The other cat was ok but only to a point and then you would see a cat in a baby dress streaking across the lawn to get to the safety of the bushes.

          5. Lenora Rose*

            This is… the only people I have personally known who do not like cats at all are allergic. And still did not ever seriously advocate the murder of cats for no reason.

          6. Not on board*

            It’s completely crazy to make these kinds of comments. I am not personally a fan of cats – plus I’m VERY allergic. But to spew hateful stuff just doesn’t make sense. Also, I let my dog lick my face and sleep with her in the bed (I’m also allergic to dogs, but much less so) so to comment on the hygiene of cats would be pretty hypocritical. Not to mention, violence towards animals usually indicates some psychopathy on the part of the person expressing the violence. Joan sounds completely awful and is probably a difficult coworker in other ways. This does seem a bit of a set-up – goading the OP to get them to say something reportable – or she’s just a $hitty person.

          7. Sarah*

            Louisa May Alcott once said “People who do not like cats always seem to think there is some peculiar virtue in disliking them.” It is so true and so weird. I mean, I like cats best… it doesn’t mean I hate dogs!

            1. Putting the Dys in Dysfunction*

              You could say the same thing about incels, xenophobes, homophobes, racists, deniers who think there’s a “climate cult”, etc.

              They all feel righteous in their hate.

              1. Go get ‘em, angels!*

                Yeah, disliking cats is right up there with joining the Proud Boys.

          8. aebhel*

            I mean, I am not particularly an animal lover but even I can restrain myself from making vile comments about people’s pets. That’s just such shockingly rude and nasty behavior, either Jane is completely oblivious to appropriate social behavior or she was deliberately trying to wind LW up.

          9. Seeking Second Childhood*

            And those reported statements from self-professed cat haters still do not include Joan’s next step of drowning kittens.

            I have to agree this conversation is worth reporting: violence, explicit description of animal feces, and first reference to an anus.

            It’s hard to believe we are discussing an adult.

        2. Beth*

          Yeah — I work in an office that’s all dog people (except for me — I’m phobic), and yet on absolutely zero occasions has any of them advocated brutality to cats.

          1. MigraineMonth*

            I’m betting you’ve never suggested they should murder their dogs, either, even though you have a phobia. People don’t normally go so far out of their way to provoke coworkers like Joan did.

        3. tangerineRose*

          I don’t like snakes, but I don’t advocate killing them either. I just avoid them.

      3. JM60*

        I think OP should tell HR that not only because those comments about violence were inappropriate at work, but to help assure HR that the sexual comment was very much a one time thing brought on by an unusual circumstance. If I was the OP, I’d explicitly tell HR that that is my motive for telling them the full context.

        1. OMG, Bees!*

          I agree. Joan probably made the complaint saying or implying the sex comment came out of nowhere, when in fact it was Joan’s unprovoked animal abuse comment that came out of nowhere (and being far worse).

          Having once been on the receiving end of a write up due to a complaint that was later dismissed when full context was learned, LW1 should go back to HR.

      4. Avi!*

        Even if the OP isn’t comfortable with bringing this situation back to HR herself, Beth was a party to the conversation prior to Joan butting in with her sociopathic rant. Couldn’t she take it to HR based entirely on her own concerns, both about the violent comments themselves and how Joan purposefully misconstrued the conversation in order to get the OP in trouble?

        1. Hekko*

          My thoughts exactly. Beth has a standing to report Jane’s comments about drowning kittens either way; she was there, she heard them. That’s regardless of OP’s comment and the fact that OP was reprimanded for it.

        3. jane's nemesis*

          I was wondering the same thing! Beth could go and explain the context now without OP needing to revisit their mortifying HR moment.

        4. Dasein9 (he/him)*

          If I were in Beth’s position, I absolutely would go to HR. I hope she does in this case.

        5. Olive*

          I think this would be the best idea if Beth is willing to do it. I fear that if OP does it, she’ll look like she’s trying to make up excuses or retaliate against Joan for reporting her.

      5. Artemesia*

        This. You should have reported her to HR. I’d go back and say ‘I was so upset about the conversation and embarrassed about what she reported that I couldn’t bring myself to talk about the whole situation, but I feel you need to understand that she was suggesting I drown the pets I was caring for. (then fill in the context)

        2. Exit Persued by a Bear*

          Yes, I definitely think there’s room yo to go back and say something along the lines of ‘I fully understand that my comment crossed a line, but having thought about it, I wanted to let you know the context. I was quite in shock about her comments, and responded in a way I never would under normal circumstances.’

          And for what it’s worth, LW, I think her comments were much more horrifying than yours, and frankly, she is the one who brought up the subject. I do think it’s reasonable to let HR know why you said what you said.

          1. MigraineMonth*

            Yeah, my response to “you should drown your kittens” would have been, ah, much more sexually explicit about what Joan should do with her opinions.

      6. The Rafters*

        It’s well-known that violence against pets often goes hand-in-hand with violence against humans. I would definitely report her. The other coworker could do the same.

        1. jasmine*

          This is a leap. Jane’s comments are unacceptable but there is a jump from saying kittens should be killed to actually harming kittens to harming human beings.

          1. The Rafters*

            Jane forced her way into the conversation. Every effort by OP to change topics etc. was met with Jane escalating. I did not say that Jane was absolutely going to physically attack someone at work. Jane’s threats of violence should be reported so that HR has the full picture of what happened.

          2. Princess Sparklepony*

            At least you hope there is… No one knows what Joan gets up to in her private life.

      7. MsM*

        I might even frame it as “I’m still kind of stunned and not really sure how to deal with a coworker threatening animal cruelty.”

        1. Jzilbeck*

          I would actually include this wording with Artemesia’s recommended wording. I feel this is worthy of bringing back to HR.

        2. SunriseRuby*

          As vicious and ugly as Joan’s comments were, she could probably defend herself by saying she wasn’t *threatening* cruelty to any specific animals and then claim she would never, ever follow through on such a thing. That Joan was *advocating* for destroying an animal is probably more accurate, and horrible enough, in my opinion, given the context of the conversation and Joan’s unrelenting nastiness. I wouldn’t want the LW’s potential complaint to HR be taken less seriously because of a word choice that might suggest she was accusing Joan of something Joan could reasonably say she wouldn’t do.

          1. jasmine*

            How she defends herself doesn’t really matter. Her words aren’t okay in the workplace regardless of what she technically meant

      8. Jennifer Strange*

        This is especially egregious to bring this up in a conversation when someone is talking about animals they care for.

        This. Joan is allowed to feel how she feels about cats (or any animal for that matter) but it’s cruel to make comments to someone who you know cares for those animals. I don’t like spiders, but if I know someone owns a tarantula as a pet I’m not going to go out of my way to talk about killing spiders.

        Also, Joan sounds like a psychopath. I don’t own cats and don’t plan to (bad experiences in the past make me skitterish around them) but I still recognize them as living creatures deserving of love and care.

      9. Margaret Cavendish*

        Nth-ing this. What you said was mildly out of line, sure. But the context is important, and if Joan is going to report you to HR for it, then HR absolutely should know what Joan said as well.

      10. Resentful Oreos*

        I’d also report, asap and leaving nothing out. Don’t try to make Joan look good in this. She sounds like she’s a cruel, dangerous person. Someone who thinks animal abuse is tee-hee funny *and says so right in front of coworkers* is at the *very* least lacking in any kind of judgment.

    4. Jill Swinburne*

      I, too, would be extremely offended and disturbed by Joan’s comment, and would probably be hauled to HR for much more than a minor butt quip.

      1. EvilQueenRegina*

        Frankly, OP was more polite than I would have been to Joan in the moment.

        1. Clearance Issues*

          I wish I could come up with a quip on the spot, I would have just gotten high pitched and horrified and “What is WRONG with you?” Potentially with tears.
          I’d go back and explain context in that “I am absolutely aware that it was inappropriate for work as well as mortified I said it, I was shocked by the comments advocating for violence against animals from Joan” way.

          2. tangerineRose*

            “I would have just gotten high pitched and horrified and “What is WRONG with you?” Potentially with tears.” Honestly, I think this might be one of the better ways to handle this kind of thing.

        2. House On The Rock*

          Same here. I don’t think something sexual would have been my go to, but un-varnished rage probably would have been. And, weirdly, a lot of workplaces might be more ok with a comment like “you don’t want to know what I think should happen to animal abusers”. Of course if that was reported to HR, it would be easier to explain the context of a theoretically threatening remark. OP I’m really sorry you were subjected to her horrible rant!

          1. MigraineMonth*

            Would telling Joan to go F herself be considered sexual? Because I probably would have gone there very quickly once it was clear we’d left all polite work boundaries behind.

        4. Sandi*

          OP wasn’t polite so much as stunned, which is completely understandable in that situation given how completely inappropriate Joan’s comments were.

        5. Grapes are my Jam*

          We all like to think so, but in reality, shocking comments are usually met with shock, because we aren’t prepared for them.

    5. Goody*

      Agreed. Partly to clear up the circumstances around your own statement that was reported, and also because this is a big flag here. Definitely open with something along the lines of “I was too stunned in the moment but here’s what led to that incident”.

    6. Dhaskoi*

      Was going to say this. Butting into a conversation to advocate violence against animals is absolutely reportable.

    7. Sherm*

      I would definitely go back to HR, and mention that I was too stunned to give the full picture at first. Especially if Joan characterized it as a joke. It wasn’t really a joke so much as a pointed comment. Not like OP sprung a dirty joke on unsuspecting coworkers.

    8. ThatOtherClare*

      I agree. “I lost my senses and something stupid fell out of my mouth as I tried to process Jane’s firm advocacy of kitten drowning” is a very different context to “I shoved a pornographic quip into an otherwise bland lunchtime conversation, unprovoked”.

      I’m amazed the letter writer was able to say anything at all, rude or otherwise. I think if I’d been in that situation and opened my mouth only the dial-up modem sound would have come out.

    9. Six Feldspar*

      Yes, exactly. Pushing into a conversation to actively recommend animal harm and cruelty >>> OP responding in the moment by referencing a hypothetical sexual act in matter of fact language.

    10. WantonSeedStitch*

      I would absolutely provide the full context to HR, and maybe even add, “I think the only reason I came out with something I KNOW to be inappropriate, which I would never say normally, is because Jane’s comment advocating violence towards the animals I care for upset me so deeply.”

    12. NerdyKris*

      They’re both out of line. The weird tirade into murdering kittens was concerning, but it’s also not acceptable that LW went straight to a gross sexual reference when telling her to stop. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      1. Dust Bunny*

        The LW didn’t really, though–Joan went on for quite awhile before the LW resorted to a response that, frankly, is a lot less offensive than talking about drowning kittens. Also, Joan mentioned an*s-licking first, even though it was about the cat.

      2. Observer*

        They’re both out of line.

        True. But there is still a HUGE difference between the two.

        but it’s also not acceptable that LW went straight to a gross sexual reference

        Except that this is not exactly what happened. At first they didn’t respond at all. Then they went to that reference in *direct response* to a rather gross comment that Jane had made.

        1. Longtime Reader*

          Agreed. I’d go so far as to argue that LW’s comment wasn’t even “sexual” per se, beyond the fact that analingus between humans is a sex act. Jane was the one who brought up licking anuses. It’s not as if LW was being lewd. LW did not comment on *Jane’s* anus. I can see that I would *absolutely* be fired from LW’s workplace lol.

      3. Houe On The Rock*

        The LW clearly knows their comment was not exactly suitable for work, but this isn’t a case of “two wrongs”. It’s a case of one wrong leading to a flustered and stunned response. The LW could have said much worse than a “gross sexual reference”. It shouldn’t always be up to the wronged party to take the high ground.

    13. Anonallama*

      I’d highly suggest reporting Joan. People who hurt animals, advocate for their abuse, or bring up their abuse so casually are often hiding something much more sinister. It’s one thing to not like cats but suggesting they be drowned is horrific. You know who else often likes to hurt small animals? Serial killers.

      1. So they all cheap ass-rolled over and one fell out*

        Yes, I honestly think there is a small but non-zero chance that Joan is actually a danger to the workplace based on the volent severity of her comments.

        1. ThatOtherClare*

          Yes, not because talking about animal euthanasia is necessarily a red flag, but because repeatedly and uninvitedly forcing the topic into a conversion where it is clearly distressing the other person, being graphically explicit about the technique, and explaining in great detail why the entire species somehow deserves it IS a massive red flag.

          She wasn’t casually bringing up the topic of aerial deer culling during a lull in conversation without thinking it through. I wouldn’t be alarmed by that. This was targeted, graphic, unrelenting, and personal – and that’s a bit scary, if I’m honest.

          1. Resentful Oreos*

            I agree with you both. If Joan had merely said “I had to have my elderly collie put to sleep this weekend” it would be sad, but within the realm of normal conversation.

            “Whee animal torture is fun fun fun! I love to rub my cruelty and vicious nature into the faces of those who actually have hearts and souls” is not. I think Joan is a menace, and deserves to be a social outcast, and to be reported to HR and hopefully written up and never get a good reference from that job ever again. I want all kinds of bad things to happen to her.

    14. JSPA*

      Yes, I suspect even people who don’t like pets in general or cats in specific would understand that Joan made a vicious verbal attack; brought up butt-licking; and destabilized all social norms to the point where she set the LW up for a blurted / bizarre response.

      However, if Beth is willing, it would be a kindness for Beth to bring the situation to HR’s attention. She can say that the LW has some trepidation about doing so in case Joan has an accommodation for cat phobia, but that the viciousness of Joan’s expressed hatred and expressed desire to kill a coworker’s pets makes her very uncomfortable, as does the fact that Joan takes no blame for bringing up the topic of ass-licking, but instead has tried to get a cat-associated coworker in serious trouble.

    15. Emily Byrd Starr*

      Maybe not “report her” report her, (that is, report her for the sole purpose of getting her in trouble) but definitely to tell HR the whole conversation, so that they will understand the context. Joan definitely brought it on herself, and this is one of the few instances where it’s entirely appropriate to say “she was asking for it.”

    16. Florp*

      Yup. If OP wanted to stay out of it, Beth could talk to HR about Joan’s pro-animal abuse tirade. She doesn’t even have to mention OP.

    18. Jessica*

      Seriously.

      A lot of people view their pets as family, and grief over pet loss can be as intense as that over the loss of a human family member (and generally does not receive the same level of societal acknowledgement/support).

      I’m not sure how someone saying “people’s family members should be murdered” isn’t harassment.

    19. iglwif*

      Came here to say this! Whether Joan said those things because she genuinely meant them or because she has some kind of beef with OP and said them to p*** OP off, the things she said are much, much more office-inappropriate than OP’s one comment. And Joan started it. By butting into a convo she was not part of.

    20. Dek*

      I would bring Beth as well. It’s not an issue of trying to excuse OP’s statement, but an issue of wanting HR to be aware, and maybe give a warning that comments like that also won’t be tolerated.

      …tho I wouldn’t be surprised if they overcorrected to “no pet discussions.”

  5. Snoozing not schmoozing*

    I have seen sleeveless, collarless blouses (like a silky shell) described in catalogs as a tank top with fuller coverage, so apparently it is a thing. And I wonder if it’s an armpit issue rather than a partially bare shoulder one. And since men in most office settings can’t wear sleeveless tops, it could also be an across-the-board “no shoulders or armpits” rule.

      1. LaurCha*

        I don’t know, those shirts with little cap sleeves are technically sleeves but they show armpit. I don’t think cap sleeves are de mode currently but they’ll be back sooner or later.

        I realize we’re splitting hairs here.

        1. Zarniwoop*

          “I realize we’re splitting hairs here.”
          That’s a whole other discussion.

        2. ferrina*

          I was thinking this- add little cap sleeves and it’s no longer a tank top.

      2. melissa*

        “Armpit issue” made me chuckle. I’m glad I don’t work in management.

        1. SarcasticFringehead*

          I worked at a fairly casual law firm in the early-mid 2010s (like, jeans were ok as long as they weren’t ripped or embellished and you wore them with a nice shirt), and if you were working at the reception desk, you had to cover your shoulders.

    2. Business Casual*

      As someone who used to live in sleeveless tops (including business appropriate ones, when I had jobs that required me to look smart) it was also a comfort thing. I realised after having a breast reduction that probably why I hated tops with sleeves so much is that invariably they didn’t fit properly (or rather – if they fitted on the shoulders they were tight across the bust), and that meant the fabric was constantly jammed into your armpit which makes you sweat. (I thought I was just a particularly sweaty person but no definitely the boobs were making a difference). I get business dress codes don’t and won’t care about that but sleeveless blouses were a lot more practical if you want me to look put together. (The cap sleeve, armpit visible tops someone else mentioned also worked).

    3. Audrey Puffins*

      My theory is that a lot of gender double-standards in clothing are subconsciously influenced by body hair. A sleeveless shirt or a skirt is acceptable on a woman where a sleeveless shirt or shorts would not be acceptable on a man because of the societal expectations that a woman is going to dehair her armpits and legs. I am obviously not saying that is WHY the rules end up being the way they are, I don’t think most people have ever consciously thought about it, but there’s juuust enough correlation that I wouldn’t be surprised if Alison one day received a letter saying “my co-workers are allowed to wear sleeveless blouses but I’m not, I asked my manager why but she didn’t specify, the only difference between me and my co-workers is that I don’t shave my armpits, is this allowed?”

    4. Iselle*

      Yeah, now we just need to persuade the folks designing business fashion for women to start making short sleeve tops again! I’m also officially Old, and prefer not to wear sleeveless tops to work, but I have a hard time finding dressy tops with sleeves.

      1. Cyborg Llama Horde*

        Also to make the short sleeves BIG ENOUGH. I’m sorry, but I have large shoulders and my biceps are not 4″ around.

        1. Helen Waite*

          Yes to all of that! I lift weights and the resulting change in body shape means a lot of shirts designed for women don’t fit me.

        2. ThatOtherClare*

          I hate the way they just make the armholes bigger and bigger and BIGGER like that’s going to solve the problem. My arm can get out the standard hole just fine, as evidenced by the fact that I can wear a sleeveless top with armhole to spare. But the sleeve cap is always way too narrow and starts too far out to fit my bicep without cutting my arm in half or lifting the top into the air. I’m not some underfed mythical princess in a tower who does nothing all day but lift her feather pen to write wistfully in her diary. I’m a real person with 3D arms.

          Seriously, why are all the designers cutting my dressy tops like they’re a men’s suit jacket‽ Push the sleeve holes further back on the shoulder and make the sleeve caps less steep and narrow and this wouldn’t be a problem! If it’s good enough for figure skaters it’s good enough for my nice work tops! Gah.

          Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

      2. Bee*

        Yeah, I don’t particularly like wearing sleeveless tops, but it is VERY DIFFICULT to find summery work tops that aren’t. Unfortunately they are so much cheaper and easier to produce than anything with sleeves that they’re everywhere; I highly doubt OP is the only one wearing tops like this to work. And that’s also why I think it’s worth clarifying whether they consider this kind of top acceptable!

  6. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP4 (health insurance) – I’m more surprised that it’s a “thing” that any employer does! What’s the reason they do do this? To me it seems like it would give the wrong incentive: I’ll just opt out of health insurance (and hope I don’t get sick…) and take it as salary instead. Can you just swap any other benefit for salary then? What happens if your husband leaves that job (or whatever) and you need to go back on the employer health insurance – do they cut your salary? can you refuse to agree to a salary cut? If the employer pays tuition but you already have a degree, can you request that as salary instead (No) – etc. This seems like a minefield but I feel like I’ve missed something if a fair number of employers do it.

    1. Skippy*

      I know people who have negotiated a slightly higher salary in a small business because they weren’t using the insurance… but the company isn’t going to claw back your salary if your husband loses his job! (yet another reason why health care should not be combined with employment or family status…)

      1. Captain Swan*

        I worked at a company that had this type of incentive (very large US employer). I seem to recall the way it worked was the stipend was part of your benefits not your salary. You provided a declaration/documentation about where your health insurance was coming from (Tricare or spouse were the usual answers) before the stipend was granted. If you later enrolled in the company health insurance plan then they stopped the stipend. Eventually the company decided to stop this perk all together.

        1. Cyborg Llama Horde*

          This is how it worked when I was at a (smaller) US employer that did this. I knew a husband and wife who both worked there — he got family insurance and she was covered as his spouse, AND got the stipend. Kind of ridiculous, but utterly within the rules and no one ever said a word about it. (In fact, it’s possible that HR suggested it to them — it was that kind of casual place.)

      2. Boof*

        Yes, if someone switches their health insurance back to the company, they’re not going to want to give up the higher salary, and boom, pay inequity compared with folks who had the health insurance the whole time.
        1) it’s annoying that our current system ties health care so closely with employment 2) maybe if we had full salary transparency INCLUDING a breakdown of benefits this would be easier to actually do but alas, it’s not the world we live in. OP is still saving by not getting the employee part deducted tho.

        1. So they all cheap ass-rolled over and one fell out*

          When I did this the extra from forgoing the insurance was a separate line item. Very easy to reverse if and when I went back onto my employer’s insurance.

        2. Rosemary*

          At my company if you opt out of the company health insurance you get a credit of ~$500/month – which is what the company subsidy is for those who are on the plan. Honestly it would not occur to me to see this as a higher salary – they are just subsidizing the cost of my health insurance.

    2. Fikly*

      Well, the idea is that the employer is covering part of the cost of the insurance premium, so if you aren’t getting insurance through that employer, they aren’t paying that cost, so they could pass that saving onto the employee in the form of a higher salary.

      It doesn’t necessarily incentivize going without health insurance for two main reasons. First, it’s quite common if you have a spouse or partner who has insurance through a different employer to be on their insurance as a dependent. Second, you can get marketplace insurance regardless of whether or not insurance is offered through your employer, and plenty of people will do that for a variety of reasons.

      However, the argument against it is that there are lots of benefits that have a direct cost to an employer that not all employees use, and those savings are not passed back to the employees.

      1. Emmy Noether*

        I do think it incentivizes going without health insurance. You’re assuming people are reasonable and try to get health insurance some way (through their work, their family, or on the marketplace). Plenty of people are stupid and healthy (for now) and think that more money in their account right now is better than health insurance for maybe later.

        This is why a lot of countries make health insurance mandatory. Because otherwise some people will choose to not have it, even if it is available to them.

        1. Irish Teacher.*

          Yeah, Ireland had enough of an issue with people not getting health insurance until they got older that they made a policy that insurance companies could charge more for anybody who took out insurance for the first time over the age of…I think it was 35. For each year over that, the insurance gets more expensive (only if you take it out for the first time; if you take it out for the first time at 25, you continue to pay the amount you would at 25).

          Now, of course, our health system is…completely confusing to the point that it is very hard to tell what you need health insurance for and what is available on the public system, so I suspect people not taking it out is more of an issue than in countries where things are clearer, but at one point, it was close to one third of the country had health insurance, one third of the country fell into the income levels (or other groups; people with certain long term health conditions, the elderly, etc) who were entitled to free healthcare (some things are available to everybody, some things only to those groups…yeah, it’s completely confusing) and one third who had neither so had to pay out of pocket for anything not available free to everybody.

          1. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

            I can see it’s confusing, but it still sounds better than the mess we have in the US, lol. I wouldn’t wish our “system” on anyone!

        2. Also-ADHD*

          Sometimes you have to show documentation of coverage elsewhere to get the bonus (which I’ve seen in the form of a stipend for other benefits, such as increased STD/LTD, retirement funding, pet insurance, legal insurance, continuing education funding, or cash). I’ve worked in jobs with union contracts where you did get a benefit from being covered outside the employer plan, though it was a stipend used for various things or money in a FSA, rather than salary. You had to show coverage, usually through a spouse or parent (when they made it 26, and some new hires were 22-25).

          1. Rosemary*

            I am pretty sure my company requires documentation to get the paycheck credit.

        3. Boof*

          I suppose a company could require proof of alternative insurance coverage in order to drop it; feels a little “big brother”y but not entirely unreasonable for them to want to be sure all their employees have healthcare coverage one way or another

          1. DannyG*

            One past employer I had did this reward for not using their insurance, but evidence of insurance was required. My current employer does not, so although I qualify for Medicare I don’t take part B/D at this time because the employer provided plan is half of the cost. If they gave me even half of their savings the equation would shift to medicare, even w a supplemental 2nd plan.

      2. So they all cheap ass-rolled over and one fell out*

        It’s also not necessarily true that one employee opting out of the insurance that costs $x per employee saves the company $x. Especially if it’s the first/only employee opting out. I have heard that insurers charge higher rates when participation is less than 100%.

        At least, I have personally been “forced” (requested to enroll) back onto my employer dental plan. I opted out because I was covered by my spouse and the company gave me a whopping $2.50 per pay period. But it turned out it was actually costing the employer more to have me out than in, a lot more than $2.50.

    3. Leenie*

      I’m on the board of my church. I know that one of our employees wanted to keep the insurance that she has from our state’s insurance exchange. So we give her a stipend that is equal to what we’d be paying for her insurance. If, for whatever reason, she decided she wanted to get on the insurance that we offer, we’d just shift that stipend over to her insurance. It’s pretty straightforward. I think we do require periodic proof of coverage.

      1. Boof*

        I’m glad you’re doing that! It makes sense but I feel like so many companies are not yet at the level of salary / benefit transparency that they’re able to do this.

    4. Hypatia*

      My friend received extra vacation days when she chose not to enroll in her employer’s health insurance. (She is on her partner’s plan instead). So some work places do offer compensation for not using that benefit.

      1. Rosemary*

        LOL as someone who has to be on my employer’s plan because I don’t have a spouse/partner’s plan to go on, I would be more jealous of the extra vacation days that I would of more money. My company gives ~$500/month if you get insurance elsewhere, which is the same amount they cover for people who are on the plan (plan costs ~$1100/month, I pay $600 employer covers $500)

    5. Emmy Noether*

      Since this is a relatively new benefit at this employer (and I’m guessing they didn’t take it out of employee’s salaries when introduced), they probably won’t want to convert it into a raise. Also just out of fairness to employees who maybe didn’t elect to get the benefit from the start and thus don’t get this raise.

    6. MK*

      I would assume that the employee can’t automatically on the employer’s insurance if she loses her husband’s, not without some discussion with the employer first.

      1. Snow Globe*

        Usually you can get on your employer’s plan if there is a “qualifying life event” which includes a change to a spouse’s employment.

    7. Knope Knope Knope*

      I’m confused. If 50% is deducted pre-tax, wouldn’t the employer just stop deducting and take home pay increases, not salary?

      1. Emmy Noether*

        I don’t blame you, it is kind of confusing. It’s that 50% are paid by the employer directly, and the other 50% are deducted from the salary pre-tax. So, say, LW has a salary of 4000$ per month. Healthcare insurance costs 500$ total. The employers gives 250$ to insurance directly, and deducts 250$ pre-tax from the salary to also give to insurance. So right now there’s 3750$ take-home (that taxes still have to be paid on). The question is if LW should ask to be paid 4250$ instead of 4000$ when they go off this insurance, since this is what they cost the employer right now anyway.

        1. Knope Knope Knope*

          Ooooo thank you for explaining. I would not even consider that for a variety of reasons. But I guess it can’t hurt to ask.

        2. Sarah*

          In Canada, at least, there are also employer deductions on salary. So if the employee took home 4250 instead of 3750, the employer would end up paying additional payroll deductions on the whole $500. If the deductions are 25-30% of the gross paycheque, that could be around $150. The employer isn’t likely to give the employee all $500 back when it will end up costing them $4650.

    8. Artemesia*

      The rules for changing health insurance in the US allow you to join out of season if there is a change in your coverage. So if your husband lost his insurance through retirement, leaving the job or getting fired, then you would be entitled to re-enroll where you are without penalty.

      1. AnonToday*

        Or by randomly quitting his job that provided the family’s health insurance without any heads-up to you. Multiple times. It’s part of why he’s now an ex. My then-HR person was so kind to me when I came in unsure of what my family’s options were.

    9. doreen*

      I don’t think it incentivizes going without health insurance because at every employer I’ve known that does it, you have to prove you have other coverage through a spouse, a parent, Medicare or another job. And it’s never the entire premium – the employer share of family premiums at my last job ran about $25K last time I checked . The incentive for opting out is $3K.

    10. Sloanicota*

      One reason they might consider it is that you are probably paying a good chunk of money as a second person on your husband’s insurance. In general, though it’s like “I moved further away, can I get more money because of my commute?” or “I got a dog, can I have a bigger stipend for travelling since it costs me more?” – these are your choices, not necessarily the company’s. (And as a single person I’d love not to also take a salary hit for needing insurance. Then again I do think family coverage should be more affordable – some of the plans I’ve seen offered by work are just awful).

    11. Alright Alright Alright*

      My employer did this. I was on my spouse’s insurance when I started, so the company gave me an extra $2,000 per year for declining their health insurance. It wasn’t the actual cost of what insuring me would be, but I asked for some consideration, and that’s what I was offered. I did end up going on the company insurance later, but by then I had gotten a raise and the idea of lowering my salary by $2K never came up.

    12. this-is-fine.jpeg*

      This is not that unusual to me!
      My company offers a stipend — $500 a month which is intended to cover the majority of your insurance plan. If you choose a more expensive insurance plan, you pay the additional costs. If you have a partner or dependents, you get a slightly higher stipend (ranges from $750 – $1k) but will also likely pay additional costs.
      If you choose not to use the insurance, you get a lower stipend of $250 instead.

    13. DeeDee*

      In the government places I and my partner have worked there has been an option to take a buyout waiver instead of the health insurance. It isn’t salary, but a lump sum of (I think) about $4,000.

    14. Not The Earliest Bird*

      I am currently living the opposite. Spouse’s plan has a penalty fee if he covers me, and I work for a company where I can get my own insurance. So spouse has insurance and carries the kids, and I have my own policy through my workspace. We did the math, it is cheaper for two separate plans, even before the penalty fee, than if spouse carried the family insurance offered by the company.

      1. Acronyms Are Life (AAL)*

        I was wondering if anyone was going to mention this. There are some employers that because they have to cover the 50% or whatever of the full cost, they will leverage an additional cost on the employee because their spouse can get coverage elsewhere, thus decreasing the cost that the one employer has to pay to cover employee + spouse, and not just employee. My old company had that.

    15. Alf*

      Another thing to be aware of is that the spouse’s employer may have a say. When we were looking into whether I should keep my own insurance or go on my spouse’s, it turned out that his employer would not cover anyone who had received any kind of compensation for declining other coverage.

  7. TheBunny*

    So, first I am going to admit that the sexual comments/conversation with HR in relation to cats did NOT go the way I was expecting it to, can’t lie.

    That said, wow that escalated quickly.

    Were it me, I would absolutely go back to HR and tell them the full context of the conversation and all that was said, heck leave out the defense of yourself, as I would go back to them not to get myself out of trouble, per se, but because the comment out of nowhere that cats are a menace and should be drowned is disturbing in and of itself.

    It’s especially concerning given that you were discussing bottle feeding them and that they were babies (and kittens are usually seen as cute) not, I don’t know, complaining about something annoying or rotten they had done the night before, like, maybe, torn a giant hole in the side of the brand new box of cat litter the humans were too lazy to transfer to the plastic jug…wait, that’s MY small furry housemate that did that, I digress.

    It just feels…troubling to me that she went straight to animal cruelty without missing a beat. If nothing else, HR should be aware, IMO. That said, I am absolutely an animal person, so this would trigger me (maybe) more than most.

    1. Yours sincerely, Raymond Holt*

      I agree, I’m not even much of an animal person but I found those comments upsetting and strange.

      1. Allonge*

        Yes, me too.

        It’s perfectly possible to not want to have cats or any other animals around but keep it to yourself and certainly not to declare cruelty to animaly is the solution!

        That said, OP, it’s not a bad idea to have a standard ‘huh, really? What a weird thing to say’ response in your pocket for situatons like this – mostly so you can cut the monologuing off before you are provoked into random suboptimal responses.

        1. Miss V*

          I mean, I’m a big fan of the ‘What an odd thing to say’ response, or even a concerned ‘Are you ok?’ And have deployed both many times in my life.

          But in the face of someone telling me my beloved pets should be murdered? I think my go to responses might very well abandon me. I was upset just reading the conversation, I can’t imagine how shocked and unsettled I’d be hearing it.

          I definitely think the LW should go back to HR, not just to defend herself, but to make it clear that Joan can casually advocate violence against things she doesn’t like.

          I would also never have a non-work conversation with or even within earshot of Joan ever again. I might even go so far as telling other coworkers about the interaction, so they’re aware of Joan’s character too.

          Now I need to go give my three kitties a million kisses.

          1. The answer is (probably) 42*

            Yeah, I’d even argue that something as mild as “What an odd thing to say” might be almost too much of an underreaction. There are ways to express severe disapproval/offense that are still quite professional.

            My first one would just be an incredulous “Excuse me??”, but even better would be “I’m sorry, I must have misheard you. Could you repeat that?” with a horrified tone and expression. That would put Joan into a position of (1) backtracking and apologizing for speaking so violently, or (2) doubling down and then losing plausible deniability of it being a joke.

            Either reaction from Joan would be ok- the first one would be better, ideally when people are called out they reevaluate their behavior and correct it. But if she’s not gonna do that, better to have a really concrete situation to bring to HR that can’t be hand-waved away.

          2. Houe On The Rock*

            After reading that I sought out my two beloved kitties and gave them an absurd amount of attention. They seemed slightly confused about why their mid-morning Napping In The Sun time was being interrupted, but I felt like we needed some good cat vibes in the universe!

            To your other point, I’d probably tell every single person in the office that Joan was unhinged and casually advocated murdering baby animals and I would have zero regrets about doing so.

            1. TheBunny*

              Right? It’s just so awful and frankly troubling.

              Hopefully your kitties were able to go back to the am naps after extra attention. Somehow I suspect they managed. :)

            2. Jaydee*

              When I read it while eating breakfast, I looked over at my cat standing on the kitchen table (we keep his food bowl up there away from the dog) watching me eat and thought “Yeah, you’re kinda gross. But the dog is probably grosser.” and then went back to eating my eggs so he wouldn’t try to steal them.

        2. OMG, Bees!*

          In this case, a response of “What a weird thing to say” is not strong enough. “What an inappropriate thing to say” is a touch better, but even lightly threatening my cats? Well, she would have a different HR complaint and I agree with others that the coworkers should know Joan thinks this way so to not discuss animals around here

      2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        Agreed. Not the smartest thing OP could have said, but totally understandable in the context of the conversation. Joan was unhinged with her comments so its not surprising she got something inappropriate back.

    2. allathian*

      I agree with this. I mean, there’s no room for talk about sexual practices in most offices, but that doesn’t mean that advocating cruelty to animals would be okay under any circumstances.

      1. TheBunny*

        I’d be way more upset about the animal cruelty comment than I would about anything else OP mentioned.

      2. Fikly*

        In many places, what the coworker is arguing for is an actual crime, whereas what the OP said is in no way illegal between consenting adults.

        Both topics should not be conversations in the workplace, but there is a vast difference between them.

        1. Observer*

          Both topics should not be conversations in the workplace, but there is a vast difference between them.

          Snort. And true.

          It’s just wild that we’re having a perfectly reasonable conversation about how it’s not so bad to have made a comment that normally *would* require HR intervention. It’s not really something I could have imagined. People are VERY strange!

    3. Goldie*

      Also HR should be aware that the person is honestly manipulating the HR system for the company. They will do it again.

      1. The other sage*

        They made a cruel comment. It’s very probable she will be cruel to her coworkers too. Better start buildind proof for who she is.

        1. Anne Elliot*

          AND she’s the kind of person who runs to HR instead of using her words. I would give her a very wide berth going forward, so many reasons.

    4. Nodramalama*

      I agree. I would find an implication that my cat should be killed much more harassing than a comment about humans engaging in anal sex

    5. Six Feldspar*

      And even if it was a matter of euthanising animals due to health issues/population control/etc, that should be done by a professional in a quick and humane way and doesn’t need to come up in a conversation about bottle feeding kittens!

      There’s just a certain subset of people who think that if they don’t like a type of animal (cats, snakes, bugs, etc) it doesn’t deserve any kind of decent treatment…

      1. Skylight*

        I agree, there’s a difference in saying “cats should be neutered and spayed until there’s no more cats in the future” and drowning kittens. Someone coldly advocating a tortuous death for an animal is not right in the head.

      2. Abundant Shrimp*

        I wasn’t a cat person for most of my life (until my son and his then-gf showed up at my house in the middle of the night with two orange kittens asking me if they could stay with me for a while… been a cat person ever since, those two orange goofballs converted me), but I never wished any harm on a cat because wtf?!?!

    6. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      I have cats, I love cats. Anyone making an animal cruelty statement in my office would probably get my anger subroutine engaged long before the professional one had a chance to be set to higher priority.

      Look, I’m not always mentally stable but even I have never gone to animal cruelty. It sickens me at the same level as someone tossing around r*pe jokes.

      I guess in this situation I’d approach HR as a separate complaint to point out how this person is hurling round graphic descriptions of animal abuse and how bloody offensive that is.

    7. Abundant Shrimp*

      I had a coworker who bred cats as a side job, so my mind went to a very specific conversation with her, that I’ll post in a reply to this (because it was cute in a weird way, haha). Did not expect the actual conversation at all!

      OP, I would take Beth up on her offer, for all the reasons listed by commenters on this thread. Nothing Joan said or did was okay. Somehow what irks me the most was that she butted into someone else’s conversation to hijack it and take it to really troubling places. Right now, HR knows none of that and has a completely different picture in their heads than what really happened. A picture that they will use to come to Joan’s defense when she inevitably pulls this again.

      My bitey old cat is sending virtual bites to Joan, and cuddles and purrs to OP and Beth.

    8. Clorinda*

      Absolutely. Plenty of people don’t like cats, but they manage not to go around recommending kitten murder. Jane crossed all kinds of lines here, especially since she was not part of the conversation nor was she asked for her opinion.

    9. Zap R.*

      Yeah, Joan sucks. Like, I can understand being afraid of cats or preferring not to have a cat but saying that all cats should be drowned TO SOMEONE WHO JUST TOLD YOU THEY HAVE CATS is unhinged.

      The fact that she came away from the situation thinking she was an innocent victim of sexual harassment is a big ol’ red flag.

    10. Luanne Platter*

      I think the bystander/witness should make a report about the animal abuse comments. Coming from OP at this point would make them less impactful.

  8. Haus of Cats*

    To OP #1, that was amazing. Not all heroes wear capes. *unironic slow clap*

    1. TheBunny*

      OP was quite quick on their feet. I would have been too busy being totally stunned.

    2. Anon (and on and on)*

      My thoughts exactly! That was an absolutely hilarious thing to say. Definitely not appropriate at work, but hilarious!

  9. Yours sincerely, Raymond Holt*

    I really understand how you found myself making that comment to Joan! Her comments are so unnecessary, rude, and frankly unsettling.

    Is Joan generally difficult? I can imagine HR may have had dealings with her before. Or, is she just directing this behaviour at you?

    I definitely think it’s worth clarifying the context to HR, if only because she may well do something similar with others and it’s useful for them to have that information if she does.

    1. John Done*

      “Is Joan generally difficult?” I’d say she just sounds like my mother, in which case unequivocally yes.

    2. Poison I.V. drip*

      I love cats but in my opinion, Joan’s greatest social offense was butting into a conversation that wasn’t about her and just steamrolling over it. Who does that? “Oh I hear you talking about a thing I don’t like, let me tell you all about how much I hate that thing.” People like her should be set adrift on an ice floe until they learn manners.

      1. OMG, Bees!*

        “Oh I hear you talking about a thing I don’t like, let me tell you all about how much I hate *and destroy/harm* that thing.”

        even worse

  10. Seal*

    #1 – Honestly, I laughed out loud at the OP’s snarky response to Joan! What kind of a person inserts themselves into a conversation about kittens to advocate for animal abuse?!

    I’m also side eyeing HR on this. Did they just take Joan’s word for it? The OP needs to go back to HR and provide context for their comment, if not file a complaint about Joan. Because something is SERIOUSLY off with Joan.

    1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      Yeah I suspect Joan’s side of the story (to HR) goes like this: OP and colleague were talking about kittens. I said I think it’s a bit gross that cats walk all over surfaces and lick your face with who knows what on their mouth, paws, etc. OP made it weird and said about sex acts humans do and that made me uncomfortable.

      I think there are 3 possibilities here (and OP may be able to figure out which it is):
      – Joan was genuinely offended
      – Joan wanted to use HR against OP for some reason and found an opportunity
      – Joan realised she had overstepped (at least) by talking about what she thought should be done to kittens, so went to HR to pre-empt OP going to them.

      1. EchoGirl*

        Or Jane didn’t even mention the kitten part and just said that OP had made a comment about sex acts.

        1. Anne Elliot*

          :out of the blue, as people chew their sandwiches: “How about that analingus, hey??”

          1. Miette*

            ..as one does in mixed company…at work…in the break room

            Joan is a menace and has shown OP her true face. OP needs to take care around her.

          2. RVA Cat*

            This, plus the OP mentioning “partner” makes me wonder if Joan hates gay people just as much as cats. It’s like she’s looking for some way to lash out with her homophobia with plausible deniability.

            1. Fíriel*

              This seems like an important factor to consider here – and homophobic assumptions about gay peoples’ attitudes towards sex/lack of sexual morals/boundaries (whether or not OP is gay and/or out, but considering the sex act involved) may be playing a role in HR not questioning Jane’s version of the story at all.

      2. Irish Teacher.*

        My immediate thought was a variety of your suggestion about Joan wanting to use HR against OP. To me, her comments seem deliberately provocative, not just the animal abuse, though that is by far the worst, but then she goes on to reference urine and feces, germs and almost to imply a degree of sexual talk with the reference to licking their anuses (no, cats are not doing anything sexual when doing that, but it the image could be seen to have connotations) so I was wondering if she was trying to provoke the LW/get some reaction out of her, possibly in an attempt to use it against her. And well, the LW saying something directly sexual gave her her opportunity.

        It’s probably not the explanation as it’s a bit too much the actions of a 12 year old bully rather than an adult, but it did feel a bit like she was just saying as many provocative things as possible to see how the LW responded.

      3. ferrina*

        Yeah, I’m going with a combo of all 3.
        Joan was probably offended by the existence of cats, but knows that she can’t complain to HR about it. Then OP (the Cat Rescuer and Obvious Supervillain) says something that could be offensive. Joan jumps on that opportunity to complain to HR to punish that Horrible Cat Lover.
        Joan knows what she said was inappropriate, so she conveniently doesn’t mention it or glosses over it with HR.
        Joan’s probably a hero in her own mind, but then again, most true villains are.

      4. kristinyc*

        Something I thought of when reading this (and I may be reading too much into it, and obviously don’t know much about any of the people involved…):

        OP says they and their partner foster kittens. If this is a same-sex couple, paired with the particular sex act mentioned… It’s possible Joan was complaining about something else that offends her, and was just looking for an opportunity that should could actually complain about.

        Clearly she’s wrong, and her comments were way more jarring in a workplace setting.

        1. Observer*

          If this is a same-sex couple, paired with the particular sex act mentioned… It’s possible Joan was complaining about something else that offends her, and was just looking for an opportunity that should could actually complain about.

          I can’t say that this is impossible. But it *is* a wild leap, with absolutely nothing to support it. The use of partner is just as likely to be used to indicate someone other than a spouse (especially since a lot of people hate the terms boyfriend / girlfriend) that they are in a committed relationship with.

          And it’s also pretty convoluted that Joan would have engaged in this kind of goading and objectively problematic behavior just to get something that she could complain about.

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, Joan probably did NOT mention that she had advocated drowning kittens directly before the OP’s remark.
      The OP definitely needs to protect themself, both to add proper context to anything HR recorded in their file and in case Joan complains again.

      The OP should also complain about Joan’s cruel remarks, which are far more offensive.

      1. DJ Abbott*

        I agree, especially with your last paragraph. Joan went out of her way to be verbally abusive in the sense of deliberately horrifying OP and Beth, and advocating abuse towards helpless kittens.
        I also wonder if Joan was trying to pick a fight. OP Needs to protect theirself by making sure HR has all the details. And keep a record for yourself, and clarify with your boss also.
        I’m so upset and offended myself, I can barely articulate this. I used to have cats and they were wonderful. I think OP and their partner are amazing that they can foster kittens. <3

      2. Observer*

        Yes, Joan probably did NOT mention that she had advocated drowning kittens directly before the OP’s remark

        And I’m also betting that even if she did mention the existence of the conversation, she did not mention the personal insults she slung at the LW.

      3. OMG, Bees!*

        *When Joan complains again. Someone who butts into a conversation like this and then complains to HR as a result almost certain will complain again. And Joan gets an information diet on animals

    3. Helen Taylor*

      Maybe it’s because I am British and we have a more ‘robust’ culture about these things, but I don’t think the anus-licking comment merits a telling-off from HR even without the context. Joan sounds horrible and if she barges into other people’s conversations with nasty comments, she must expect people to respond in a similar manner. OP’s remark was not inaccurate or, in my opinion, morally wrong in any way.

      (Also, just because I’m a cat-loving pedant – cats don’t actually licks their anuses. What you see them licking is a scent gland at the base of their tails, and then spreading the pheromone-laden oils up the back of their tails. When cats turn away from you and lift their tails to waft this at you, they are politely introducing themselves; its not their fault that humans can’t ‘read’ their signature scent.)

      1. doreen*

        Well , yes, but those glands are called anal glands because they are in the anal canal.

      2. Miette*

        I’m with you – I don’t think I’d have even blinked at OP’s comment, particularly given the context.

      3. Dust Bunny*

        From an former veterinary assistant who has had to hand-evacuate those glands on many occasions: The glands are in the anal canal. A cat (or dog) can’t lick the glands without licking the anus. It doesn’t matter what the purpose is of the licking, it’s still the anus.

        Also, if an animal is trying to lick your face I don’t think you much care whether it’s been licking its anus or technically the glands.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          (I’m a dyed in the wool cat lady, for the record. I’d have gone to HR about the drowning comment because WTF Joan. I probably would not have deployed the anus-licking comment simply because I don’t tend to think of things that way, but I might have landed something that set Joan off in some other way.)

        2. ThatOtherClare*

          So firstly, I fully agree with everything you just said about cats.

          I would like to add an additional point about people. There’s a very common misconception that cats are poopy all the time because they spend a lot of time licking their butts and that is how they ‘wipe’. But as you say, most of the time they’re not trying to remove never ending quantities of poop, they’re moving their scent around. Odd as it might seem to cat people, some non-cat people really do have the impression that cats are somehow constantly oozing vast quantities of poop, or that a cat who suddenly licks its butt must have not wiped properly earlier and therefore almost certainly left a few decent sized flecks of old poop on the chair they just vacated, like a budgie might do. They think the analogy is someone who only half wipes and goes back to the toilet all afternoon doing half a swipe at a time, not realising that it’s actually more analogous to someone wiping their fingers under their armpit. Still gross of course, and there’s always the occasional hand-reared cat who didn’t learn how to wipe properly, but it’s just not quite the pervasive poo-chunk situation that many non-cat people are imagining.

          Additionally, the acids in cats spit are pretty good at killing of most of the harmful types of bacteria. A human bite is more likely to get infected than a cat bite. (PSA: if you ever get bitten by a human have it seen to by a professional. Human mouths are nasty. Animal bites too, just, don’t be lulled into a false sense of security if it’s a human.)

      4. Moose*

        Nah dude, my cat licks her anus to clean it. I have gotten very clear views of it because she likes to sit on my lap while she does it. She also licks the scent gland but she does clean her butthole.

      5. DJ Abbott*

        People who barge into conversations with nasty comments should expect a bad response- but IME they usually don’t. And they get VERY upset when this is pointed out. Proceed with caution around this.

    4. Manic Pixie HR Girl*

      Yeah, something like this should warrant a confidential investigation, which would include speaking with witnesses about what occurred (Beth). It doesn’t need to take more than a couple days for something of this nature, but seems like they don’t have the best protocols here.

  11. Looper*

    LW4- Before you opt out of your employer’s coverage, ensure you are still eligible for coverage under your spouse’s plan now that you have access to your own coverage. Employers can deny spousal coverage if the non-employee spouse has access to health insurance through their own employer or charge a higher premium.

    2. Antilles*

      +1
      I was going to come say the same thing. There’s a lot of employers whose Summary of Benefits lists the cost for covering spouses, but then there’s some fine print stating that spousal coverage is only available if the spouse’s employer doesn’t provide insurance.

      1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        This, by the way, is shitty. What if Spouse has crappy insurance that doesn’t cover their doctors? What about kids, are they forced onto Spouse’s plan too? (I’d be fine with a higher premium for better insurance, but people should have the option!) Of course tying insurance to employment is the real problem, but that’s not going away anytime soon.

        2. Claire*

          Is it shitty though? As an unmarried person (who wants to stay unmarried), I’d prefer my employer’s budget go towards salary raises or other benefits for employees rather than offering benefits for employee’s spouses.

          1. Jackalope*

            Yes it is. An important part of offering health insurance is that you can cover your immediate family with it. My employer charges more for that (some plans have a self or a self plus family, while others have a self, self plus 1, or a self plus family in case you have just one dependent), but it is crucial to many families to make sure they can keep everyone covered. I know it was a huge benefit to me when my husband had a job at a small business that offered no health care and I was able to cover him so he could go to the doctor rather than going to the ER and paying out the nose for simple medical issues.

            (And I’m fully supportive of other benefits that I’m not eligible for. I think it makes an employer much better to offer things like paid parental leave, or support for elder care, even though I haven’t used either of those things. Not all benefit have to be for everyone.)

            1. Hlao-roo*

              I know it was a huge benefit to me when my husband had a job at a small business that offered no health care

              I worked at a company that had a surcharge for spouses who were offered health insurance by their companies. That seemed pretty fair to me (as an unmarried person). If you had worked for that company, you and your husband would have been charged the standard “employee + spouse” premium, because your husband didn’t have health insurance at his job. Same for employees with stay-at-home spouses.

              If an employee’s spouse had the option to enroll in their company’s health insurance but chose to enroll at our company’s health plan instead (perhaps for better coverage, or so they could go to the same doctors), the premium would be “employee + spouse” rate and the surcharge (I think it was between $100-$200 per month, so it could make sense for significantly better coverage for some people).

              1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

                A surcharge would be understandable. Not even having the option? I see a specialist for a rare genetic condition (totally no symptoms other than superficial ones, and I didn’t even know about it until a couple years ago, but it needs to be monitored). He’s the only one for hundreds of miles. My wife’s insurance covers the hospital system he works at. What if my workplace only offered plans that didn’t?

              2. Kyrielle*

                Yes, this would be the case for me being on my husband’s plan – if they added a surcharge like that I’d be fine with it. My company’s health plan *exists*, and that’s about the most positive thing about it. It’s truly horrible at this point.

          2. AngryOctopus*

            That’s pretty shortsighted. Offering spousal (and family) benefits IS a benefit to employees. I myself am never going to use spousal or family benefits. But my company should offer them. People should have the opportunity to choose which insurance meets their needs best if both spouses have the option of insurance at their work. Just because something doesn’t benefit you personally doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be an option for others (and that goes for parental leave, FMLA, extra life insurance coverage, basically anything I’m not likely to use BUT should be available for everyone).

          3. Double A*

            More competitive benefits means your employer can attract better (and more diverse) candidates which should make your job better.

        3. Helewise*

          My husband’s employer switched to this system very suddenly last year and announced it after most people’s open enrollment periods had ended. The biggest issue with it is that we now have separate deductibles, which means that we need to pay for more expensive lower-deductible plans to ensure that we don’t end up in a bad situation if we have high expenses on two different plans.

        4. Shutterdoula*

          It is shitty. I don’t think that either my company’s insurance or my husband’s company insurance has ever asked about eligibility.
          My sister’s husband works for a company with this shitty “penalty” on top of the premiums, but her company only offers membership in a Christian “health share” plan (owner is an evangelical conspiracy theory dude) and she *definitely* doesn’t want to do that, she wants real insurance. But because her company offers something she’s eligible for, they have to pay a penalty that families with SAH parents don’t.
          Extra premiums for spouses & kids, fine. Penalties on top of that? Shitty.
          And I don’t care what single people think about the “fairness” or not of that.

      2. Daisy-dog*

        I see more frequently that there is a penalty of around $25-$50/paycheck. It doesn’t make it impossible for them to join, but incentivizes them to take their employer’s unless the employers is still more expensive.

        1. Sloanicota*

          I always think this is odd because, when I was at a small nonprofit, they constantly told us they couldn’t get group insurance because we were too small. You need enough people to spread out the risk pool. Yet now that I work at a larger nonprofit they are pretty tough about keeping spouses off the insurance, which you’d think would increase the pool and thus diffuse the risk more.

  12. Yours sincerely, Raymond Holt*

    I have worked in places where some people are funny about sleeveless blouses. There wasn’t an official dress code policy which stated this, so I had no idea, not being a mindreader. But I found out several years in that some people frowned on it.

    I like a sleeveless blouse with a cardigan or blazer, which I struggle to see as unprofessional as it isn’t showing arms/armpits (which is perhaps the issue).

    I think you could send a polite clarifying email to HR (or whoever set the policy) about sleeveless blouses. If you’re not sure, others might be wondering. And then if it ever comes up you can say breezily that you checked. (Surely sleeveless blouses are OK, but it sometimes gives peace of mind if you’re sure, especially if any colleagues might feel that in fact sleeveless blouses are a problem).

    1. Allonge*

      Wearing something on top should change the whole equation – I really don’t think that tank tops are banned as an underlayer, it’s that you cannot wear only a tank top on the top half of your body.

      Same thing should apply to sleeveless blouses – if there is no intention to take the blazer off for longer periods, the blouse arm length should not matter.

    2. Myrin*

      Surely sleeveless blouses are OK

      It’s always interesting to me how different people interpret the exact same written information differently – to me, the fact that they spell it out as “short and long sleeved shirts/blouses” in the “allowed” catergory 100% reads like sleeveless blouses are specifically not allowed.

      1. Nodramalama*

        I think its because on my reading they’ve explicitly banned tank tops rather than all sleeveless tops. If they just meant “you should wear sleeves” I’d have thought they’d say that?

        1. ecnaseener*

          But they did say that, where they said “short and long sleeved” shirts [only] were allowed.

      2. Thegreatprevaricator*

        It kinda reads to me like the people making the dress code are not aware of the detail of women’s fashion … I bet you could wear a sleeveless top and it would go unremarked . But surely the easiest is to just check with line manager?

        1. Artemesia*

          This is a don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness situation. Most people don’t read sleeveless blouses as ‘tank tops’. Just wear what you want unless informed otherwise.

          1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

            Why not just ask, rather than potentially irritating your management.
            They might tell you immediately, or save it up to your next review when your raise is discussed, or be conflict-avoident and never mention it but keep a lower opinion of you.

          2. unpleased*

            Not when there’s literally a dress code and adults are capable of asking for clarification?

      3. Falling Diphthong*

        Women’s business casual is confusing. Men have a much narrower range of options, but also fewer ways to go wrong. (Khakis, short-sleeved button up shirt in a solid color, there’s your wardrobe. In some places this would also fly for a woman, and in some be too casual.) Women have more options for outfits but also a lot more ways for that to land as “Too business-y… no, you veered too far, now you’re too casual.”

      4. Irish Teacher.*

        Yeah, I would interpret that as “blouses and shirts are allowed, so long as they have sleeves,” but yeah, I can see how it is open to interpretation.

      5. kiki*

        I read it that way too, but the way they specifically called out tank tops and not sleeveless blouses or shirts made me think that there was a chance that the writer just forgot to call out sleeveless blouses as allowed. Or doesn’t know that there’s a distinction between tanks and sleeveless blouses. Or maybe thinks sleeveless blouses could be interpreted as tube top blouses and didn’t want to imply those are okay. There are just a lot of maybes– enough that I’d want to ask.

        Sleeveless blouses and shells like LW shared are so common and acceptable everywhere I’ve worked nowadays, it would surprise me to find that at top like LW shared would be grouped in the same category as tank tops without an explicit mention.

      6. Daisy-dog*

        So I would say the only interpretation that matters is LW’s manager. “Hey Boss, I own a lot of sleeveless blouses and we are getting into summer. Do I need to wear a cardigan over it or is it okay on it’s own?” Some managers are sticklers, but other managers will be fine if LW looks put together.

    3. Yet Another Traffic Engineer*

      As a young graduate back in the year of our lord 2012, my work put me on a compulsory “workplace etiquette” course that consisted of a lot of outdated things, including the trainer saying that we shouldn’t bear our shoulders. Fine, I had some shoulderless blouses but I was young and learning professional norms and dutifully stopped wearing them.

      A year later we had a work uniform catalogue delivered (basically for tax reasons you can buy shirts/etc with our logo embroidered on it, it works out very cheap), it included a sleeveless slip dress proudly displaying our department’s logo.

      I bought that dress (still have it!) and wear sleeveless blouses with reckless abandon, now.

    4. Emmy Noether*

      Wait, if the sleeveless blouse is always under a cardigan or blazer, no one can tell that it doesn’t have sleeves, so it really should be fine. Kind of like a dickey, or a detacheable collar, or one of those sweaters with a “shirt” collar sewn in to look like there’s a shit underneath (do all of those even still exist?). Dress codes really should only regulate what things look like as an ensemble, not what’s hidden underneath.

      1. tg33*

        I’ve seen a lot of thsoe sweaters / jumpers with shirt collars and shirt tails around recently, oddly enough.

      2. ThatOtherClare*

        Goodness me yes! I have worn some hideously unprofessional tatty old thermal layers under gorgeous stylish cardigans in my time.

        I’ve also worn spaghetti strap singlets underneath a fully open button up shirt at a place that was ‘office-casual’ but definitely not ‘anything goes’.

        So long as you know your workplace well enough to know you won’t have to remove your final ‘nice’ layer, or you’re willing to wilt all day if you get it wrong, the hidden layers are irrelevant. Build your look however you want – it’s the final look and performance of the outfit that matters, not the building blocks.

        Shout out to wool and linen as the best base layers for being both breathable and washable (polyester is nigh on impossible to completely remove smells from, even the high-tech active stuff).

  13. Roland*

    Just like the work from not-home question… Can’t hurt to ask. Surprised at the people in both places saying “obviously their words were crafted with 100% meticulous care and you should interpret them like a lawyer”. Highly unlikely you’ll be judged for clarifying about something that is totally fine in many similar companies.

    1. Anonariffic*

      That reminds me of the letter about the office with the “pet-friendly” policy that was so poorly worded, it read like all dogs except legally-required service animals were banned, even though that wasn’t the intent.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Although in that case, it turned out that was the intent, and OP had to stop bringing her dog! Weirdly sometimes all-office policies are extremely passive-aggressive in the strangest way (if there was ever a time to be direct …!).

  14. Broggle*

    On one hand, I work with invasive species and casual conversation of culling animals, be it domestic, feral, or wild populations, is quite common where I work. Obviously, this is a particular type of environment that a lot of the readership here (and, you know, the general population) would probably find shocking and more importantly, definitely not the type of environment that LW1 finds themselves in!

    I would add that if you don’t want to re-open this with HR, it might be good to at least keep a small record of this event so that if Joan brings up the topic again in the same language, there’s a little more backing to go to HR as it is a repeat offense.

    1. metadata minion*

      And humanely culling animals is miles away from aggressively advocating for drowning kittens.

      1. Onyx*

        Yeah, that’s like the difference between a coworker saying, e.g., “I went deer hunting” about what they did over the weekend and a coworker advocating for drowning all fawns to get rid of the “disgusting” deer because they overheard someone talk about watching Bambi.

        1. Nuke*

          You’d potentially be surprised at how people react to mild mentions of hunting. A coworker of mine mentioned her dad “went hunting over the weekend” once, and another coworker loudly declared herself to be vegetarian and ask that we “not talk about violently murdering animals”! For the record I know plenty of vegetarians who are extremely normal people who don’t do this (most of them!!), and this sounds like a made up anti-vegetarian story, but it’s true :(

          Granted she never reported anyone to HR, but I feel like when that DOES happen and you’re accused of saying something awful when you didn’t, you’ve got to speak up and make sure you advocate for yourself. It’s hard to toe the line between “actually, this is what really happened, here’s context”, and sounding overly defensive sometimes, though!

          2. Onyx*

            I’m aware some people would be upset to hear about hunting, just as some people would be upset to hear about Broggle’s involvement in culling invasive species. That’s part of why I used that example. They’re topics that would be upsetting to some people and would be inappropriate push on a coworker who asked not to hear about them or who you otherwise knew would find it upsetting (don’t respond to someone saying they watched Bambi by describing your deer hunt unsolicited; don’t respond to someone talking about cute kitties by telling them how many feral cats you culled recently or how it’s done), but they’re not inherently inappropriate to mention in a conversation at work. Ranting about how disgusting a species of animal and humans who like them are and advocating for animal abuse *are* inherently inappropriate.

      2. ferrina*

        Yeah, especially in the context of OP caring for the kittens. Jumping in with “I think the animals that you’ve lovingly tended and raised from birth should all be killed in a harsh and cruel way”…..there is nothing that makes that okay.

    2. HSE Compliance*

      I used to work with invasive species, still work on a decent amount of farm-related stuff (though it’s not my full time job).

      I am a strong advocate of humane euthanasia where appropriate. Culling invasive critters, appropriate hunting practices, euthanizing animals for quality of life, are all very different topics than drowning kittens. I do not bat an eye about discussing putting down a horse when it will unable to do anything but be in pain and unable to eat properly, including both pink juice and bullet. I will raise absolute hell if someone came to me and told me – especially relatively out of nowhere – that all horses are nasty aggressive dirty animals and should be shot.

      OP needs to make HR aware of that portion of the conversation.

  15. ThatOtherClare*

    #3:
    Skirts – ok
    Shorts – often not ok
    Giant shorts masquerading as skirts (aka culottes) – ok if they’re wide and flamboyant enough. Can’t be too thin and subtle, that’s shorts!

    Fashion – weird

    1. Emmy Noether*

      I think this came about historically. A lot of our attitudes are still based on, essentially, 100+ years ago. So short’s are boy’s attire, skirts are women’s attire, and while women have gained the right to have shorter skirts, and pants that look like skirts, and wear men’s attire, shorts still say children, and sports, and leisure.

      It’s not logic, it’s evolution. It’s about as logical as the appendix, or the vestigial tail.

    2. ecnaseener*

      I’ve actually never seen a business casual dress code that said culottes were okay, that would surprise me!

      1. Cat Tree*

        Culottes aren’t in style right now, but when they’re in style they would be fine at every business casual place I’ve worked even if not explicitly stated in the dress code.

        There’s also the topic of capri pants, which haven’t been in style for quite some time but presumably will cover around again. They’re sort of shorts but if they fall below the knee they’re usually fine, even though men’s shorts often fall below the knee and aren’t fine. Part of it comes down to fabric and a more tailored fit. They have to be fitted (but of course not too tight). But then sometimes women’s dress shorts are in fashion and if they reach near the knee and are made of suit fabric they’re often acceptable.

        The whole deal of women’s fashion is a minefield.

      2. doreen*

        I’ve never seen one that specifically said culottes/gauchos/cropped pants/clam diggers ( or whatever they are calling below the knee pants this year) are OK – but I’ve also never heard anyone describe any of those pants as “shorts” , so if the dress code prohibited shorts I wouldn’t think that all pants that end below the knee are prohibited.

        1. ecnaseener*

          Replying to both you and Cat Tree — yeah I think capris & below-the-knee culottes are Not Shorts, they’re cropped pants. I was thinking of Bermuda-length culottes.

      3. Sloanicota*

        As the commenter said, a lot of them are going to visually pass for a skirt, so it’d be really weird if your employer hustled over to furiously ask, in a scandalized tone, if some part of your skirt might be attached – and if so you better go home and change right now missy!! :P

        It is funny that it could be considered borderline when it’s actually *more modest* (in that it can’t fly up when you’re coming out of the subway / walking up a floating staircase / sitting in a chair with no board in front of it, all real-life scenarios in my past dress code job).

        1. ThatOtherClare*

          Hahaha this! You understood my meaning exactly. I was imagining a workplace where knee-length skirts are considered acceptable but knee-length shorts aren’t.

  16. emmelemm*

    Joan was the one who brought up anuses! Anuses were not even in the conversation before Joan arrived.

    Something is seriously off about that person.

    1. Wolf*

      I’m quite appalled of how casually she suggests that someone kill their pets. If she had said something like “cats should be indoors because they endanger lizards and birds”, fine. Or even “I don’t like cats and think they’re unsanitary” – I wouldn’t agree with her, but I’d shrug and accept that statement and avoid cat talk around her.

      But hearing about someone’s pet and going “you should kill youe pets” is just plain inappropriate and cruel.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        OP offered to change the subject when Joan first said she didn’t like cats. It was Joan who kept the conversation going.

        OP be sure to mention to HR you offered to change the subject but Joan continued it.

      2. ThatOtherClare*

        My problem is that it’s not even the only viable solution. Most people (excluding some religions) are fine with concepts like killing nits or bedbugs because there’s no other feasible way of getting rid of the problems they cause. That’s simply not true of cat germs.

        My cats are locked out of our kitchen at all times unless a person is in there, not because I’m concerned, but some people can’t bring themselves to truly believe you if you say you always sanitise every worktop with alcohol spray right before you cook. Which is fine, my cats don’t need every room in my house to be perfectly happy and I can leave uncovered food on my benches unattended. ‘Dirty cat butt on food prep surface’ problem solved, and the cats can still live in my house.

        As far as furniture goes, they clean themselves right after they poop and they don’t lick the furniture, so I don’t see a problem.

    2. ThatOtherClare*

      Yes! It’s extremely weird that she’s advocating such treatment of kittens for the terrible crime of … being animals. Has she ever walked outside? Touched a tree? Gone swimming in the ocean? Newsflash: wild animals touch all of that stuff. Whales pee in the ocean.

      Low level bacterial exposure is good for training your immune system and for re-stocking your gut microbiome. You can’t digest all your food by yourself, gut bacteria are vital for our very existence. In addition, the mild germ exposure people get from their pets has been shown to reduce the incidence of childhood allergies, presumably by training the immune system not to overreact at the sight of every little bit of dirt: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/195228

      Now, I’m definitely not saying everyone should love cats or that everyone should have a pet. Some people don’t like animals. Some people don’t like purple, or classical music. Diversity makes life interesting! But for her to hold such vitriol towards tiny helpless creatures who pose such little threat to anyone is a deeply disquieting attitude.

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      Yeah, her whole contribution to the conversation was kind of “animal abuse, feces, urine, germs, anuses.”

    4. kiki*

      I’ve met people who are chronically aggrieved like this before. Not specifically with cat anuses, lol, but they are constantly complaining about how terrible or mean or inappropriate everyone is without any recognition that they are a common denominator in these interactions They come into the conversations in rude ways or are the one taking the conversation into inappropriate places. But as soon as somebody returns the same energy, they run to HR or the manager of whatever restaurant they’re harassing employees in.

      It’s hard to push back on because technically the chronically aggrieved person’s complaint is correct– LW shouldn’t have been talking about anuses at work. But neither should Joan!

      1. Jayne*

        Your post reminds me of the old saying:
        “If you meet one ahole, you met an ahole.
        If everyone you meet is an ahole, you are the ahole.”

  17. Molly Millions*

    LW#1, you’re being way to deferential for Joan here. You made an offhand quip, whereas what she said was sustained, unprovoked verbal abuse. Not only did she graphically advocate animal abuse, she said that she thinks you, personally, are disgusting.

    I don’t believe she went to HR in good faith. Please go back to them and tell them what Joan said, and make it clear her comments were prolonged and deliberately insulting.

    “I was having an innocuous conversation about bottlefeeding my foster kittens, and Joan inserted herself to tell me I should drown my kittens and accused me of, and-I-quote, ‘walking around covered in urine and fecal matter’ because cats lick themselves. I recognize my remark was vulgar, but it was in response to a similar comment by her, and it was a last resort after I’d tried to politely disengage and she wouldn’t stop.”

    2. Ellis Bell*

      This! Joan cannot go around insulting colleagues and making disparaging remarks about people’s homes and persons. OP’s attempt to make a joke out of it was so much more polite than what I would have said.

    3. Kara*

      Yes, I rarely disagree with Allison, but I feel like she missed the boat on this one.

      Joan inserted herself into a conversation that had nothing to do with her, loudly and emphatically advocated for animal abuse/murder, and wouldn’t STOP even though OP offered to change the topic/stopped talking. Then Joan promptly ran to HR to complain about OP’s response to her absolute over-the-top animal-murder rant.

      OP should not have been mortified and (IMO) should not have apologized to Joan. HR needs to know the entire context to this situation and if Beth is willing to corroborate it, maybe have her give them her side as well.

    4. Hyaline*

      Or even “I realize my comment was vulgar but frankly I was so shocked by her comments that I didn’t respond as I perhaps should have in a professional setting”—which acknowledges and heads off any arguments from HR about the appropriateness of the comment but reinforces that there is one person obviously at fault here and it’s Joan.

      I can understand if OP doesn’t want to reopen the issue with HR, but they should feel extremely reassured here that Joan behaved in an exceptionally awful way.

    6. I Have RBF*

      Hell, she should just take a printout of her letter that details the conversation to HR. She wrote down the documentation of Joan’s rude and violent remarks.

      But this all should go to HR, because Joan is an unhinged menace, IMO, playing DARVO or manipulation to upset the LW and get her in trouble.

      Do not ever trust Joan. She has told you who and what she is.

  18. Agent Diane*

    When I was a young girl in the UK “tank top” meant a sleeveless knitted sweater to be worn over a shirt. Often Fair Isle on the front. So that’s what I first visualised, even though the UK has long since adopted to the US definition.

    OP3 ~ if you’re wearing a jacket over the blouse who cares how long the sleeves are.

    1. Sharpie*

      Ring someone who watches a whole bunch of style channels on YouTube, I feel fairly confident in translating from British to American English; what we have traditionally called tank tops in the UK are known as sweater vests in the US. And they’re generally worn over a shirt or other top which has sleeves.

      Pretty sure they’re still called tank tops here, too, tbh, it’s just that other styles of top have that name as well now.

      1. Sharpie*

        And of course there’s a typo. The first word above should have been ‘Being’. Yay for autocorrect.

      2. Agent Diane*

        Yep, I translate a lot too thanks to a love of vintage fashion. I’ve seen a move towards our tank tops being listed as sweater vests by British brands. But I’m going to keep visualising OP3 in a nice Granville-style sweater. ;)

        1. Teapot Connoisseuse*

          I did not expect to see Granville mentioned in AAM! But now I think I’d like to see a letter to AAM from Granville…

          1. Agent Diane*

            Dear Alison.

            I’ve had the same job since I left school and I’m starting to think it’s a toxic work environment. I work for a small retail store where I’m the only employee. I’m expected to work long hours. The delivery transport I’ve been given is antiquated and unsafe. Even the till in the shop is dangerous. And the boss is often distracted, or is absent because he’s harassing a health care worker who lives across from the shop. I know I should leave, but what makes it difficult is my boss is also my uncle, and my only family. We both live in the flat above the shop. So leaving means I’d also lose my family and my home. Help!

          2. Agent Diane*

            “I’ve had the same job since I left school and I’m starting to think it’s a toxic work environment. I work for a small retail store where I’m the only employee. I’m expected to work long hours. The delivery transport I’ve been given is antiquated and unsafe. Even the till in the shop is dangerous. And the boss is often distracted, or is absent because he’s harassing a health care worker who lives across from the shop. I know I should leave, but what makes it difficult is my boss is also my uncle, and my only family. We both live in the flat above the shop. So leaving means I’d also lose my family and my home. Help!”

      3. Artemesia*

        I thought the origin of the phrase was swimming suits i.e. tank suits are those awful one peace clingy things women were required to wear at Y pools in my youth and tank tops were the tops that back in the day men wore with their swim trunks. they were like the tops of tank suits.

      4. General von Klinkerhoffen*

        I distinguish between a tank top (knit sleeveless sweater vest, worn over another shirt) and a tank (thin jersey with 1-2″ straps, worn next to the skin).

        Let’s not pretend that the English language is remotely logical in use :-D

        1. Awkwardness*

          I love to read those conversations even though afterwards I know less than before. It’s fascinating.

    2. bamcheeks*

      I still call the latter “spaghetti strap vest tops”. They were THE thing in 1995 and my mum was shocked by me wearing them with a visible bra or bikini top in a matching colour. I left my favourite H&M one on a train to Berlin because I’d packed it still wet and hung it out to dry on the back of a seat.

    3. londonedit*

      I don’t think my UK demographic has adapted to the US version! I still think ‘sleeveless jumper/sweater’ when I think of a ‘tank top’. Strappy vest tops are ‘strappy tops’ or ‘vest tops’ or ‘spaghetti strap tops’ and I wore a LOT of them in the 90s. Not sure I’ve ever heard UK people talking about ‘tank tops’ when they mean ‘strappy vest top’.

      1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

        The strappy ones aren’t called tanks. A tank is more like what someone might wear to the gym, with straps a couple of inches wide, rather than the maybe 1/4″ spaghetti straps.

        1. londonedit*

          Hmm I’d probably still call that a vest top. Tank tops are pretty much exclusively knitted, to me.

          1. Alex*

            So funny that in the US, a “vest” is something you wear over a shirt (be it a sweater vest or a vest that is more like a sleeveless jacket, with buttons).

            1. londonedit*

              We call the button-up one (the sort that goes with a three-piece suit or that snooker players wear) a waistcoat. Vests can be underwear (though I’m not sure anyone wears them nowadays) or a general name for a sleeveless top like a strappy top or a gym top).

    4. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      I was re-watching old Great British Bake off recently and was quite flummoxed when they referred to James’s Fair Isle sweater vest as a “tank top”! So apparently it hasn’t completely died off, or at least it hadn’t a decade ago.

  19. AlwhoisthatAl*

    LW2: Definitely don’t say anything if the person themselves hasn’t said anything. Someone sharing their successes using Slimming World and declaring what they’ve lost means they want input.
    I am myself due to start a strict medically supervised 800 calorie a day weight loss program for diabetes for 90 days. I take lots of pills for anxiety and depression amongst other things. The last thing I want is someone saying “oooh, you’ve lost weight, how did you do that?”

    1. TheSüperflüoüsUmlaüt*

      Agreed.
      (And best wishes for positive health outcomes with your program.)

    2. londonedit*

      Yeah, don’t say anything unless they mention it. A few years ago I had a slightly alarming but now fixed health issue that led to me losing about 20lbs in a fairly short space of time – there was a period of time before I actually realised things were going a bit wrong when I was just in a general state of ‘er…something weird seems to be happening’ and I didn’t have a clue what was going on. A few people made appreciative noises about my weight loss and said I was ‘looking amazing’ which just made me more scared because I didn’t want to lose weight and I wasn’t having a very nice time doing it! It also makes me sad because now things are fixed health-wise, I’ve put the weight back on plus another stone or so, and I can’t help but notice that no one spontaneously tells me I’m ‘looking great’ anymore. Guess that’s only reserved for 10-stone unwell me.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Ugh, I’m so sorry that happened to you! And also, this is the perfect example of why weight loss is often not a good thing and why it shouldn’t be lauded as an amazing accomplishment (unless the person who did it wants that, of course). Fwiw, londonedit, I think you look great.

        I had a musician colleague recently say to me that I looked skinny, asked if I’d lost weight, and in response to my uncertain shrug said, Is that a good thing? She herself had cancer a couple of years ago so I imagine she knows that losing weight definitely isn’t always good. (My answer was that I’m on some new meds that are probably causing me to lose weight but I haven’t been paying attention.) (Also: she is someone I like a lot so these kinds of questions from her don’t bother me the way they would from someone I didn’t know very well.) I think this was a great way for her to handle a weight conversation, instead of just assuming that I was aiming to lose weight and congratulating me on my accomplishment (that isn’t an accomplishment at all, just basic biology).

        OP 2, like you, I don’t like weight talk, but it’s mostly because I find it to be incredibly boring. And judgmental. And erroneous. Like, there’s so much wrong with how our culture judges and treats people based on their weight and I can’t stand it. (See Aubrey Gordon for more details; she’s great!) I recently had a “friend breakup” with someone in part because she’s really hung up on weight stuff and it drove me nuts; we had an argument once wherein she stated the usual BS about how fat people just have no self control and I was like, um, no, that science is completely disproven, calories-in calories-out is not an effective means of weight control.

        All this rambling to say: you are not alone if you don’t want to talk about weight! Don’t think another thing about it!

      2. EM*

        Completely agree. As someone who has recently lost quite a bit of weight, the constant comments and nosy questions are by far the worst part of it. I do not want to talk about it, especially not with coworkers or other people that I barely know. First, you do not know whether someone’s weight loss is intentional or a result of a physical or mental health issue. Second, it is so gross that people comment on weight loss when they would never in a million years comment on weight gain. It conveys the message “I think you look sooo much better than you used to. You used to be a gross overweight fatty with no self control. And I think that you must agree with me that being skinny is inherently morally superior to being fat.” So unless someone brings up the topic themselves, please for the love of god keep your thoughts about their weightless to yourself.

        1. EM*

          Ugh – last sentence should say *weight loss” not weightless. If one of your coworkers suddenly becomes weightless and starts floating around the office, I think that’s fair game to comment on.

      3. Thin not well*

        Thank goodness someone else said it. I have a chronic illness that causes gastrointestinal issues, one of which is unexpected weight loss. Its all around Not Good, but coworkers and strangers alike love to tell me how “great I look” when I’m malnourished and ill, just because I’m slender. Sometimes I’ve bluntly replied that its because I’m sick with a chronic disease, and oftentimes they’ll just reply, “oh I wish I had that!” Sometimes people dont think before they speak, I guess.

        I guess what I’m trying to say is that I wish people just didnt make comments on other peoples bodies at all, even if you think its a compliment. I know these people mean it as a compliment most of the time but it just makes me sad.

    3. LabSnep*

      I lost a ton of weight due to health issues and not being able to afford to eat issues and I used my autistic flat effect for good (I drop my human mask sometimes) to say that I used the illness and can’t buy food diet.

      That stopped that.

      Things are better now.

    4. NotRealAnonForThis*

      Cosigning.

      I did not react well when someone told me how thin I looked after an extended leave. I’d been on leave (well, everyone outside my department thought I was anyways; I was working remotely when I could, asynchronously, and my departmental coworkers knew what was up) because my child had been in the PICU of our local children’s hospital fighting a life threatening infection for a month. If I was thin it was because I was scared to death, not eating well, not sleeping well, and basically obtaining zombie approved life habits (not sleeping, wandering at night, etc.)

    5. Anon Y. Mouse*

      Yeah, 100%. If someone doesn’t mention their own body I never bring those sorts of things up.

      And if they DO mention they’ve lost weight in a way that, I dunno, FEELS like they expect a response, I usually follow up with “and are you happy about that?” and if they say yes, then “then I’m happy that you’re happy”

      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        I dunno, people who bring up their weight loss usually are happy about it, and if they’re not, they’ll say so; i.e. “I’ve been so sick that I lost several pounds, and my doctor is concerned about my weight loss.”

    6. Hedgehog O'Brien*

      Agree 100%. Weight loss isn’t always a good thing – there might be medical or stress/anxiety related reasons why someone’s weight would change, and they might really, really not want to discuss it at work. I lost about 10 lbs during the pandemic due to stress and I’m still working on gaining it back, and I always had to awkwardly change the subject whenever someone said “oh you’re so skinny!” Just like…yep, my mental health is in the toilet and I’m having a hard time keeping weight on, thanks for bringing it up though. I just don’t think there’s any reason to talk about someone’s body at work unless they bring it up first themselves and clearly want to talk about it. If at all unsure, don’t bring it up.

    7. HiddenC*

      Back in 2009 I got really sick with what was eventually diagnosed as an inflamed gallbladder (not gallstones). I had to have it taken out, but since I was working as a minimum wage grocery store cashier without health insurance, I had to wait 3 months before the surgery was scheduled. They allowed me to take unpaid leave instead of firing me because I was one of their best workers, because I was constantly nauseated and couldn’t keep food down (I ate mostly plain beans and rice during that time). I’m a very large person, both tall and fat, have been my whole life, and I lost a fair bit of weight from not being able to eat. One day I had to drop by the store to drop off the paperwork for my unpaid leave, and a coworker gushed about how thin I looked. I don’t remember exactly what I said to her, but it was something very sarcastic along the lines of “thanks, I’m literally too sick to eat and want to die”. She quickly shut up and walked away.

  20. Artemesia*

    my husband’s small law firm was paying nearly 30K per family for health insurance nearly 20 years ago; my husband switched to my very good insurance and the firm did pay him half the difference in health insurance costs and were happy to do it. He was a partner so theres that. But it is worth pursuing. ‘I might be able to switch to Joe’s health insurance and drop ours; since this would save the company X, I wonder if it would be possible to add half of that to my salary?’

    Note you are talking about somehting you ‘might’ do thus they have an incentive which if you have already done it, they don’t have. Good luck.

  21. Sarcasm before Anger*

    #1 I would now file a complaint with HR against Joan for talking about killing animals in the break room! Completely inappropriate! I would have responded similarly in the moment, as the alternative would be yelling “You are a sick and deranged person!”

  22. Yup*

    Joan is a bully who retaliated by tattling on you for a response that pushed back on her. She needed the last word and she got it. I would go back to HR and explain that you were too shocked to answer, but now want to put the situation in context. I doubt this is the first time Joan has done this kind of thing.

    1. xylocopa*

      The bullying aspect of this is a good point. I really doubt that Joan actually intends to do anything violent to any kittens–but she’s clearly someone who’s fine with pushing boundaries and making her coworkers uncomfortable with nasty hyperbole, and she’s willing to then retaliate by going to HR if they push back.

      She may or may not know that she’s being a bully, but that’s what’s going on, and it may be worth documenting it a bit.

      1. Say My Name*

        You never know what people may do and think it is OK, such as shooting dogs who misbehave.

        1. xylocopa*

          Yes but the odds are much higher that Joan is a bully who likes making humans uncomfortable than that she intends to drown kittens–and, importantly, I don’t think that coming to HR with “she said something hyperbolic and creepy and I think she’ll hurt animals” is as effective as “she said something hyperbolic and creepy that was clearly meant to be hurtful to the people she works with.”

      2. M2RB*

        I have a hard time with hyperbolic statements for this reason – even if the person wouldn’t ever do it, they still somehow think it’s okay to say they would?! Maybe it’s because I’m on the autism spectrum and am quite literal, but dang, things like this really bother me.

  23. Circe*

    Fashion evolving to allow skirts but not shorts does make a lot of sense. Skirts got gradually shorter and then the stocking disappeared. Trousers haven’t entered the stocking stage yet, and haven’t gotten gradually shorter (I think dress trousers get a bit shorter, then a bit longer every couple of years?).

    1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

      You’re just arguing from what already exists. That’s not “sense” that’s ex-post-facto justification. If a skirt and a short are the same length and cover the same amount of body, then it makes sense that they are both allowed in the same spaces/contexts – and yet they are not, for no logical reason at all.

      Also, having just been reading about petticoat breeches and stocking cannons, you’re not even right about how skirts evolved.

  24. Catwhisperer*

    LW2, chiming in to give a massive +1 to Alison’s response. I’ve had some very obvious weight fluctuations over the past couple years due to medication I’m on. It’s incredibly annoying to me that I’ve lost so much, because I was ok with where I was at before and now I have to do stuff like buy a whole new wardrobe and compete in a more competitive powerlifting weight class. It’s also made it extremely obvious how much better people (especially men) treat women who are thinner, which makes me actively angry. My value as a person was the same when I was heavier as it is now, I didn’t actually want to lose weight, and the weight loss is a result of very rough medication adjustments, so complimenting me on my weight loss would feel like a slap in the face.

  25. The Rafters*

    OP 4, my spouse has had a couple of jobs where he declined to be insured under them. I always carried my spouse with my far better insurance. One company wouldn’t pay him the difference, so he kept their crappy insurance with mine as secondary. The other company did pay him the difference. For the second company, I had to provide proof to them that he was insured under my policy.

  26. Clearance Issues*

    Lw2: I have exactly 4 people in my life that I would congratulate on weight loss, and it’s because they have all been working to lose weight for health reasons and telling me about their journeys. I also never start the conversation about weight; I let them bring it up.
    Otherwise I don’t comment at all. I’m not a doctor, I’m not THEIR doctor, I don’t have context, it could be because of a health issue.
    It is not worth the risk to me to comment.

    1. TPS Reporter*

      exactly. with the vast majority of people in your life, ask them about a neutral topic- the weather, upcoming vacations, their pets (maybe not kitten fosters though), their (sleeveless) blouse!

      I generally don’t love when people I’m not super close to comment on my appearance even if I have put some work into it. I’d rather them focus on me as a person- I’ve been publicly judged on appearance (negatively and positively) many times in life when I’m just out here living. Its given me a lot of insecurity and social anxiety.

    2. WorkplaceSurvivor*

      This. I don’t think that it’s polite to comment on people’s bodies, ever. You may think you’re being complimentary but you have NO idea where that person is at at what you’re bringing up for them. Work just isn’t the place.

      I’ve lost 50+ lbs from working out and lifestyle changes, and I felt amazing. I’ve also lost 25+ lbs from depression and anxiety before. If you’d complimented me during the first time, I’d have been pleased. During the second time? Compliments made me want to scream, as I was regularly crying over not being able to get enough calories down.

      You don’t know what you’re bringing up for people with mentioning weight changes. Bodies are intimate. Leave it be.

      1. I Have RBF*

        My wife has lost weight due to side effects of chemo. It got bad enough that she had to spend over a week in the hospital treating infections, dehydrration and nausea. She does not “look good” by any stretch.

  27. Porch Gal*

    I’ve NEVER heard of a company paying the employee if they opted out of the health insurance. If the employer’s cost of the insurance could be added to your salary, then wouldn’t your salary actually be that higher number (base salary + employer health cost = actual salary) and choosing the insurance would then mean you’re really paying 100% of the cost of the insurance, since you’re forgoing the cash?

    I’m 60 years old and have never ever heard of a company giving employees the money they would have spent for insurance if they opted out. It’s not a thing – at least not in my experience.

    1. Iselle*

      I’ve seen a small compensatory payment for employees who decline insurance coverage. I don’t know how common it is—obviously this saves the company money, but I thought it was intended more as compensation that can go toward the cost of other coverage.

    2. pally*

      Same here. Opt in or opt out of the health coverage. However, there’s nothing to be gained by opting out.

      I work for a small employer.
      Years ago we hired someone who had worked for decades for hospitals. We offered health insurance. She declined it as she was covered under her husband’s policy through his work.

      She was absolutely shocked that she wasn’t provided the cash equivalent of the premiums our employer would have paid for her health insurance. This was how they did things in the hospitals where she worked.

      Welcome to work life under a small employer.

      1. NotRealAnonForThis*

        While working under small employers, I have personally seen the following for not being on insurance through them:
        1. Been offered an extra 10 days PTO
        2. Received a compensatory raise in approximately 3/4 the amount of what was being paid for insurance premiums.

        Mileage definitely varies.

      2. Gila Monster*

        At my (previous) small employer, a dozen years ago, I was promised a raise if, after a three month probationary period, I opted not to go on the company’s health insurance. In that time, my spouse got a new job with insurance, so I opted against. The owner/CEO was SHOCKED that I had somehow misunderstood that I would get a raise, she would NEVER have promised such a thing.

        I never took her at her word again, and made sure to get everything in writing going forward. But I needed the job, so I didn’t walk.

        Several years later, I found out that she’d done this exact bait-and-switch to others.

    3. Hlao-roo*

      I’ve heard of it! Specifically, the case I know about was someone starting a job at a (low-paying) non-profit. The non-profit paid 100% of health-care premiums for employees. This person was covered by a family member’s health insurance, so as part of salary negotiations, asked “if I opt out of health insurance coverage, can my salary be raised by the corresponding amount?” and the non-profit said yes.

    4. doreen*

      When it’s done , it usually isn’t done as an increase to salary and it’s normally not 100% . It’s done as a separate line, like a location or night differential. Because if it just gets added to salary and then the person needs to take the insurance years later, lowering the salary is likely to cause a problem. My employer paid about $25K year for family coverage – the opt-out payment was $3K.

    5. Clearance Issues*

      literally the only “bonus” money I’d get from opting out is getting back whatever I’d’ve put into my insurance premiums and HSA myself. I’ve never heard of getting paid additional amounts because you opted out. It’d be COOL, but I don’t think that’s a thing.

    6. Managing While Female*

      I can’t imagine that it’s common. They also don’t give you money back for not contributing to your 401K (therefore not getting the company match) or anything like that. Some things are just added benefits that you can either opt in on or opt out of. It’s not a “give me cash instead” type deal.

    7. HSE Compliance*

      I worked for a company once that would pay you *your* cost of the health insurance if you opted out of their health insurance. It was great, because their insurance was pretty expensive, and I got better and cheaper coverage on my spouse’s insurance (who did not have the coverage clause). The company still paid less money paying me to not have their insurance than they would have if I opted in. It was a cost-save measure.

      1. HSE Compliance*

        This was for a manufacturing facility that was not union or family-owned – was owned by a major corporation.

    8. BikeWalkBarb*

      Isn’t that essentially what a cafeteria plan was? Here’s our menu of benefits, pick which ones you want, take the total value in cash + benefits. Although doing a quick Wikipedia read tells me the ones that let you opt for the cash are less common than they may have once been.

  28. You Can't Pronounce It*

    LW 2 – as someone who has lost 100 lbs, I do appreciate when someone notices I look nice instead of noticing my weight/body. I did work hard on it, and I am proud of it! My husband and I talk about it, but when others comment on it, it makes me uncomfortable. I would rather it be ignored than harped on. Sometimes I think people can tell I’m uncomfortable and they still won’t drop the conversation. You’re not rude to not say anything.

    1. pally*

      Hey-good for you!!!

      The worst is when, after I dropped 100 lbs. and felt very good about it, someone had the gall to tell me, “Keep going; you’ll get to your target weight someday. You can do it!”
      It’s never enough for some folks.

  29. melonhead*

    I remember no end of abuse being heaped on Michelle Obama for wearing tasteful, attractivd sleeveless blouses. And for wearing shorts. On vacation. In Hawaii.

    People are weird sometimes.

    1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

      That mostly came from one guy though and is definitely fear of the black body. A female black body at that. David Brooks has always been repugnant though.

    2. Good Enough For Government Work*

      Yes, but Michelle Obama was wearing them *while Black*, which we all know renders everything unacceptable. /sarcasm

  30. Irish Teacher.*

    LW2, unless you know the coworker has been trying to lose weight, I would say it’s better not to mention it. There is an assumption in society that everybody wants to lose weight and that weight loss is always a good thing, but that really isn’t the case. It could be that the person has had a health issue that caused them to lose weight or that they are struggling with an eating disorder and being told how good they look could trigger them to continue restricting or that their weight loss was a result of stress or they might just feel they looked better before they lost weight. I know I once lost weight when I was working in a school that just had an awful lot of stairs and honestly, while I was still well within my healthy weight, I did feel I’d lost a bit more than I would have liked. I wouldn’t have been upset if somebody had mentioned it, but I did think I looked better before.

    The association of “you’ve lost weight” with “you look good/pretty” or “you’ve done great work on your health” is pretty problematic as thinner isn’t necessarily healthier and what’s good-looking is a matter of preference.

    1. N C Kiddle*

      I very deliberately don’t own a set of scales, but people keep telling me I look like I’ve lost weight. I have made a few health changes like cutting down on red meat and exercising more, but I’m not trying to lose weight and it’s always a bit awkward when people mention it. (I’m also trying to conceive, so occasionally I joke that ideally I’d be gaining some weight.) It would be so much easier if we could have a norm of not commenting on any aspect of someone’s body that they don’t explicitly invite comments on.

  31. ecnaseener*

    Re “tank tops have straps” — I never thought that was a necessary condition of tank top, and doing an image search for tank top I see mostly shirts without straps (that is, I see sleeveless shirts with the shoulders integrated with the rest of the bodice rather than a separate strap).

    Sleeveless blouses and shells are not tank tops, I agree — tank tops are usually fitted, and even if they’re loose they’re of a casual material. But I can easily see someone writing “tank tops” where they meant “sleeveless,” especially since they also made a point of writing “short-sleeved or long-sleeved” was acceptable.

    1. Hyaline*

      I think you’re reading “straps” literally to mean “separate pieces joining front and back” when the answer meant more “thin strappy bits cut in one piece with the garment but not comprising full shoulder coverage.” I agree that the close cut of the tank top is a more definite difference between it and the sleeveless blouse or shell which are not cut close to the body and are not usually made of stretchy material like a tank top.

      1. ecnaseener*

        I am indeed reading “straps” that way, as I’ve never (until today I guess?) heard it used any other way!

  32. ConnieCanadian*

    I have twice lost a large amount of weight. I had very mixed feelings about positive comments.

    For one thing, exclamations of “You look great!” always seemed to have the subtext of “You didn’t look great before.” This was confirmed as compliments inevitably ceased as I slowly gained the weight back.

    For another thing, it made me aware that other people are observing my body, thinking about it, judging it. This made me very uncomfortable.

    1. Paint N Drip*

      Same same same. That second part, for real. Intellectually I was aware of that, but to be observed AT really made me extremely uncomfortable.

      And let me just say, the ‘congratulations’/’you look so good’ comments INEVITABLY came after unwellness-induced weight loss and the purposeful weight loss (slow and steady, sustainable, healthy.. you know) was never commented on (not dramatic enough?)

    2. Emily Byrd Starr*

      “For one thing, exclamations of “You look great!” always seemed to have the subtext of “You didn’t look great before.””

      So how do you feel about someone saying “Oh, you cut/styled your hair! You look great!” Just curious, not snarking or being sarcastic. (And when I say that, I literally mean that I’m not snarking or being sarcastic, unlike some people who are snarking/being sarcastic when they say that they aren’t. I’m neurodivergent, and so I sometimes say things that come off differently than I intended, and I just wanted to reassure you that it’s not the case here.)

      1. metadata minion*

        I think it’s different in that this society (by which I’m specifically talking about the US, since that’s where I live, but it’s not like anti-fat bias is unique to here), smaller bodies are almost automatically considered more attractive. So if you compliment my looks after I lose weight, there’s an undertone — intended or not –that my previous body shape was less attractive and I have succeeded in getting closer to the Universally Recognized Ideal Body(TM). Whereas complimenting my new haircut can read more as “wow, I love this hair style too!”.

      2. Pocket Mouse*

        There are a million ways hair can be cut and styled, and probably dozens of looks that would get a complimentary response. You can go from one look that got compliments to another that gets compliments. With body size, it’s pretty much bigger vs. smaller, so complimenting one (and ONLY one) pretty clearly lays out where the perceived value lies.

        That said… with hair, I’d suggest a slight amendment to your script: “Oh, you cut/styled your hair! It looks great on you!” This makes it clear you’re commenting on their hair, not whatever else may have changed about their bodies (or commenting on the totality of their appearance in general).

      3. Dahlia*

        If you’re a person who wears makeup, have you ever worn it and had people compliment you on how awake you look or how good you look wearing makeup, and then say you look tired when you’re not wearing it?

        It’s kinda like that.

  33. FashionablyEvil*

    #1–I’d go back to HR to clarify/provide the whole context if only because Joan is CLEARLY not acting in good faith and I would hate for OP to get in more trouble the next time Joan does something like this. And then I would be scrupulously professional around her because she’s clearly a bit unhinged.

  34. MsSolo (UK)*

    Anyone else just bought a bunch of sleeveless blouses for work?
    (because it’s definitely going to stop being winter some time before autumn, right?)

    1. Lady_Lessa*

      In NE Ohio, I think that we skipped spring. It’s already in the 80’s (F).

        1. Abundant Shrimp*

          Hi neighbors! We sure did! I am actually enjoying this, compared to my first several years after moving here, when I recall it being dreary, rainy, and in the 50s all the way through May, then on Memorial day you’d wake up to 90+ degrees and ridiculous humidity and it would last all summer. Right now it actually feels like spring where I live (upper 60s, 70s, occasional 80, breezy) and I think I could get used to this.

      2. MsSolo (UK)*

        Last weekend there was frost on the cars in the morning. We’ve finally hit 65F this week, after the wettest April on record. A record I really wish hadn’t coincided with my roof developing a leak, which I wish hadn’t coincided with everyone’s roofs leaking, because I can’t get anyone out to fix it until JULY. When I will be wearing my sleeveless blouses even if it’s still raining.

        1. londonedit*

          It’s basically been the same weather since about last November, hasn’t it. Apart from that one nice day the other week. Really hoping we might get some slightly better weather over the next few days, but the sunshine and 20C that was promised is slowly turning into rain and 15 on my weather app…

    2. bamcheeks*

      No but I AM planning to do my first pedicure of the year tomorrow! It’s sandals time!

    3. Dr. Rebecca*

      In Virginia, it’s already summer. *sigh* Even a t-shirt feels oppressive.

  35. Mim*

    Echoing what other have said, that the unprompted comments about wanting to kill cats, etc, are more disturbing and arguably more inappropriate, especially given the context of the eventual statement that got the OP reported to HR.

    It reminded me of a conversation I had where I kind of ended up accusing a co-worker of cannibalism… He (I’ll call him Mike) was a prodder, and while a lot of his prodding happened while we were working (super annoying, but made it convenient to make believe we didn’t hear him), sometimes getting drawn into an annoying conversation was unavoidable. One day it was just the two of us in the break/lunch space, and he started on one of his frequent topics – vegans. We had a co-worker who was vegan. Like most vegans (or anyone I’ve known with food restrictions), vegan co-worker didn’t really talk about it. We mostly knew because it was part of the office culture to eat lunch in the office. (Which was usually a positive thing. This was the kind of job where people often had great stories to tell and/or needed to vent. It was like therapy, often.) So anyway, Mike was on about vegans again, and said that nobody could really be a vegan because animals die and decompose into the soil, so we’re basically eating and drinking animals all the time. After trying an earnest response about all the reasons someone might be vegan and why what he said was nonsense, I finally landed on reminding him that humans are animals, and that we decompose, so by his logic he’s a cannibal. He literally didn’t say anything else the entire time we were in that room together, and never mentioned vegans to me again.

    If he said anything to anyone, I never heard about it. I’m sure he didn’t. In that office, accidentally calling someone (and honestly, myself too) a cannibal was not nearly the most NSFW thing uttered. My direct supervisor would have politely listened to his complaint and then rolled her eyes when he left the room. The big boss probably would have laughed in his face and told him that he asked for it. I recognize that that isn’t the office culture anywhere, but I miss that place in so many ways. Not Mike, though.

  36. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    2: I’m one of those people who’ll be horribly affected if you compliment my weight loss so thank you for not doing it!

    Think of it as a risk assessment. There’s a percentage chance that a compliment on weight loss will be flattering and the recipient will be happy about it. There’s a percentage chance that the person is losing weight due to a serious medical problem and will not be happy about it. There’s a percentage chance the person has an eating disorder and will VERY negatively affected by it. There’s also a percentage chance the person just doesn’t care to hear compliments on their body.

    And you have no way of knowing what those percentages ARE! So look at the risks. A brief moment of happiness versus some more serious negative impacts. This is what ‘err on the side of caution’ means.

    If you person says upfront that they’re working to lose weight and they’re pleased about it then you don’t have to work on a probability basis anymore.

    (I used to do a LOT of probability mechanics and while I’m not great at human interactions it does come in handy sometimes for that)

    1. Anon for this one*

      Yeah. The thinnest I’ve ever been was the sickest I’ve ever been. (Not an eating disorder, but nasty side effects of medical stuff.) If anyone has complimented me on my weight loss, when I could count my ribs and couldn’t sit in a non-cushioned chair because I had no butt, and barely had the energy to walk to the handicapped parking spot? It would not have been good.

    2. Emily Byrd Starr*

      “There’s a percentage chance that a compliment on weight loss will be flattering and the recipient will be happy about it. There’s a percentage chance that the person is losing weight due to a serious medical problem and will not be happy about it. There’s a percentage chance the person has an eating disorder and will VERY negatively affected by it. There’s also a percentage chance the person just doesn’t care to hear compliments on their body.”

      That’s a good point! The same could be said about compliments on a person’s body in general. Some people like them, but many people consider them sexual harassment, and many others only like them when they come from family, friends, or partners. Unless you know for certain that the person likes them, stick to complimenting clothing, hairstyle, or jewelry rather than physique.

  37. K*

    4-I can see how this could be easy as a stipend—not totally unlike how companies contribute to HSAs to incentivize employees to choose a high deductible plan. But I don’t like this way of tying an employer’s obligation to provide insurance to the way I am thought of as a budget item. To me it makes the leap too easy to justify laying off people who elect family plans because they cost the company more money for using their legally entitled benefit.

    1. Dasein9 (he/him)*

      Or, as at Old Job, encouraging employees to marry, which would cut down on benefit payouts by cutting down the number of non-employees covered.

  38. Sneaky Squirrel*

    LW2 – As someone who has lost a ton of weight (intentionally, through choices that were healthier for me), I’m extremely proud of my changes but it’s still so awkward when someone else brings up that they’ve noticed the weight loss. Usually done in a “wow you look good” way that feels like a thinly veiled criticism that I didn’t look good before because I was overweight. My health choices were made for me, not others. Kudos to you for not bringing it up at all.

  39. A Simple Narwhal*

    #4 – it can’t hurt to ask! I switched to my husband’s insurance recently and was surprised to learn that my company gives you $500/year for opting out of using their insurance.

    It’s spread out over the year and after taxes it’s maybe $20/month so definitely not a huge incentive. I don’t think it would be enough to convince someone to go without health insurance, just more of a small nudge if you have a spouse’s plan to go on.

  40. WantonSeedStitch*

    I think the nicest way to politely NOT compliment weight loss is to compliment a person’s new clothes, or anything else they may have chosen to change when they lost weight (some people cut their hair into a style they didn’t feel would be flattering when they were larger). When a coworker of mine dropped a lot of weight, I gushed about a new dress I saw her in. It made her feel good, and didn’t perpetuate weight talk in the office.

  41. Managing While Female*

    “I don’t think I should because it doesn’t unmake the comment, I don’t want to come across as blaming Joan”

    First of all, to be clear, Joan goaded you to that reaction. Her comments (as others have mentioned) are far beyond the pale of workplace chatter. Joan’s behavior played a major part in your reaction to it, and (again as others have mentioned) JOAN is the one who talked about anuses to begin with.

    The goal is not to unmake the comment, it’s to be clear that you don’t go around making sexual innuendos on the fly here. It’s in your file now and some context as to WHY you said what you said as opposed to “OP has made sexualized comments before so…”

    Also, if Joan gets away with how she handled this, you better believe she’s going to push someone else around too then try to pin it on them. I have no idea what her deal is, but aggressively inserting herself into a conversation that had nothing to do with her to advocate for killing kittens, then getting upset and reporting YOU because you had a comeback is not the behavior of someone you or anyone else should trust.

    I’m honestly a bit confused as to your reasoning for not providing the context before because you essentially opted to take full-blame for this situation when your comments were so mild in comparison to Joan’s. You deserve to stand up for yourself.

    1. Sneaky Squirrel*

      Yes, this. Joan played dirty by prompting a reaction with an appalling comment of her own, insulting LW in the process, and then decided she couldn’t play by the rules of the game she made when LW pushed back. LW’s goal is not to dismiss the reprimand or argue against it, but set the record straight that their comments were in response to an environment that had already been escalating caused by Joan. Joan should be equally reprimanded by HR and equally apologizing to LW.

  42. Immortal for a limited time*

    #3. Wouldn’t it be much faster and more direct to ask the employer who created the policy? These kinds of questions baffle me.

  43. kiki*

    But if everyone else is complimentary about it, does it look impolite for me to not mention it?

    If everyone is going around in a circle complimenting somebody about their weight loss and it comes to your turn and you just silently stare ahead, that’s would be odd and awkward, but I don’t think that’s a likely scenario. But there are simple ways to just say something vague or give a compliment on another subject. If everyone’s just given compliments how much weight a coworker’s lost and you feel obligated to say something, you could say a vague, “”You look great!” or pivot to a different type of compliment “And you crushed that presentation last week! You’re on fire!”

    1. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      Oh this? I like. Compliment something involving their brain or their job or their skills or literally anything that isn’t their body if you’re not sure how it’ll be received.

      I’d rather get ‘thanks for clearing out that database import snafu so quickly’ rather than ‘have you lost weight?’

    3. londonedit*

      Love that. You also don’t have to make the compliment about weight – you could say ‘that dress looks great on you!’ or ‘the colour of that top really suits you, it’s lovely’.

    4. In My Underdark Era*

      yeah, frankly in situations like the one described, I would be mentally thanking everyone who DIDN’T participate. people who change the subject or don’t engage when a coworker is talking about my weight loss are my heroes. (and, if the person actually wants the compliments, they’re already getting them from everyone else!)

  44. MicroManagered*

    OP1 You ABSOLUTELY should go back to HR. Joan made really disturbing, violent comments about your foster kittens. Then, when you defended yourself, she reported you to HR — so she is abusing the reporting process and really making it harder for women who HAVE experienced sexual harassment to be report it and be taken seriously. This is egregious.

    I’m actually really surprised Alison missed this in her response.

  45. Fabulous*

    Related to #5…

    What if the name changes happen after you leave, but you aren’t privy to the changes until you randomly google or see an ad several years later?

    This has actually happened on more than one occasion for me! Two of my former employers changed names and I’d had no idea until 5+ years after the fact. Do I constantly need to be googling my old employers to make sure they’re still called the same thing??

    1. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

      Well several of my former employers have gone out of business, so yeah I get in the habit of checking on that kind of thing before I update my resume for a job hunt.

    2. Hlao-roo*

      I saw this breakdown in the comments section of a several-years-old post here:

      Teapot Designer at Teapots Inc. (formerly Cups and More) – if the name changed while you were employed there
      or
      Teapot Designer at Cups and More (now Teapots Inc.) – if the name changed after you left the company

      I agree with Alton Brown’s Evil Twin that it’s probably worth a quick google every time you update your resume (which may or may not be “constantly”).

  46. DC 18*

    I’m not sure if LW 1 was trying to take the high road, or just froze in the moment, but when she was questioned by HR she absolutely should have given the background!

    1. Irish Teacher.*

      I’m guessing she was embarrassed by what she said, when HR brought it up and felt that giving the context would sound a bit “but she started it.” A lot of people have been socialised to “own your mistakes” and “not make excuses” and in the moment, it can be hard to decide where the line is between context and excuses.

  47. Rebecca*

    “I’m wondering if, as communicated, you would consider sleeveless blouses to be in compliance, or if I would be better off steering clear of anything that shows my shoulders.”

    AAM is not the right place to ask this question, and the answer missed the mark. There is only one answer to any flavor of “My workplace/boss issued a directive I don’t understand. What do you think it means?” That answer is, “Ask your workplace.”

    AAM is a great place to come for validation, but really, if your defense to getting dress coded is going to be, “AAM said this wasn’t a tank top!”, just be prepared for them to say, “AAM doesn’t make the rules here.”

    1. I should really pick a name*

      If you want to be sure, you can always ask them to clarify that; send a photo like the one you sent me.

    2. Jackalope*

      This is a work question, and therefore falls within the purview of AAM. There are many, many questions answered on AAM that fall in the category of, “You should go discuss this with your boss/team lead/etc.” Sometimes people aren’t sure how to handle the question with their employer. Sometimes people don’t know how big of a deal it is – will this be a question that will cause them to unknowingly burn a great deal of political capital, or just a common and unremarkable question? What is a good script for bringing the issue up to their supervisor if they choose to do so? Things that seem easy to people outside of a specific situation often feel more tangled when you’re the one inside that same situation.

    3. Olive*

      I think the value in the question is to be able to get anti-validation if needed.
      If the answer was “whoa, your judgement is way off and that is NOT appropriate for work”, it would be very valuable to hear that before asking HR if it was appropriate.

  48. migrating coconuts*

    Definitely need to go back to HR to tell them the whole story. And possibly file your own complaint about her animal abuse talk. I would probably also spread that around to co-workers, because that’s the petty person I am. I am just appalled, disgusted and furious about her murderous comments. This is one I’d really like to see LW update us on.

  49. anonny*

    #1- I don’t understand why Joan would say *drowned* instead of peacefully euthanized (or even sterilized). It’s so specific.
    She sounds very strange and I’m now a little worried a Freudian slip was at play. Hopefully, her germaphobia and extreme feelings toward a “nuisance” are leading to hyperbolic statements.
    Def give HR context- they’re human too and her kind of comments are a deal breaker for me.

    1. Irish Teacher.*

      I suspect she was being deliberative provocative and trying to use shocking language to get a reaction.

    2. Kyrielle*

      Yes. And even before they outgrow the food and territory available, in general the males will be more aggressive when not neutered, and the females’ bodies are under a lot of strain getting pregnant and littering so often. It’s just better for them all around!

    3. Not Totally Subclinical*

      If novels in 19th century settings are to be believed, that was the common way of killing unwanted or doomed kittens before more humane methods were developed.

      But Joan is not a character in a Regency setting.

  50. watermelon fruitcake*

    #4 don’t worry about the legality of it. There are sadly few legal regulations about things like wages and benefits in the US (admittedly, I’m assuming you’re in the US based on the talk of employer-sponsored health insurance and paying half a premium as a perk). Unless the question is something like “is my employer required to pay the federal minimum wage?” the answer is so frequently going to be, “no, there is no legal protection for workers, here.”

    But that does not mean it isn’t worth asking! And plenty of employers will do what is “right” or “fair” even if they are not legally obligated – especially if it doesn’t cost them extra. Technically, the portion of the health insurance premium that your employer pays is part of your compensation package. (My shitty shitty manager is constantly reminding us of just how much the org pays out for our “fringe” as one of many reasons he is always denying raises; he frequently frames it as if our salaries are actually [salary + cost of benefits] so we should be happy! ::eyeroll::) You have standing to make the request – “since I am not participating in the health insurance plan, could I instead have [whatever amount] directed to my pay instead?”

    Of course, they can say no, and you should assess whether you have the capital or it is the right environment to ask.

    I personally think it is worth asking from my own experience. Early in my career I worked for… suffice it to say, substandard wages not aligned with the region or market, at a company that offered negligible benefits. They did offer health insurance, but we footed 100% of the premium, and the quality of insurance itself was terrible (relatively: high copay, high deductible, high premium… somehow it passed ACA muster, but just barely). I was young enough to still have the option of remaining covered under my parent’s plan; my parent worked for a government entity in a strong-public-union state so the insurance was unbeatable. I lived with them anyway, so I opted for that and asked if I could get the $500/mo premium added to my check instead. To my surprise, for all the faults this company had, they said yes! It was literally a 20% raise and made an enormous difference for my student-loan-indebted self.

    2. Sneaky Squirrel*

      Ugh, unless your fringe benefits are exceptionally higher, I hope your response to your manager is a reminder that many other companies also have fringe benefits and still offer competitive salaries with raises. People can’t eat off of fringe benefits.

      1. watermelon fruitcake*

        I’ve bitterly accepted that “your manager/employer sucks and isn’t going to change,” because any time you confront anybody higher up about how such-and-such salary excuse falls apart, they pull up another. Especially this one manager, who unfortunately is also my direct boss. In another post about overtime abuse, I commented about how there’s never any money for raises in the budget, but they always somehow have money to pay out unapproved overtime, which, of course, incentivizes certain less ethical folks to drag out their work so they can claim egregious amounts of overtime. The point is, it does not matter how rationally or logically you approach his BS excuses – he always has another one. (And I can’t bring myself to lie about overtime or make myself less efficient to cheat the system, even though people get away with it all the time.)

        I’m stuck here because it is the best health insurance I’ve had on my own, by far, and I have a chronic condition. I’ve applied for other jobs in the last two years and gotten offers, but when I review their benefits and math it out, I always end up losing money on the cost of healthcare. And when I try to negotiate on that basis… well, I haven’t had luck so far. But I’ll keep trying!

  51. Observer*

    #1 – Cat comments.

    I agree that you don’t *have* to go to HR, but I think you should. Use the language that Alison suggests, or something like it. I have two reasons for that.

    One is the obvious one that you want HR (and probably your manager) to know that while you did make an inappropriate comment, your judgement is not quite as bad as it would seem. Responding poorly to provocation is not anywhere near as bad as making a comment like that out of the blue.

    The other reason is that Jane’s behavior was also wildly out of line. She was incredibly rude, directly insulting, and advocated animal cruelty to top it off. I don’t even especially like cats, but Joan’s behavior was just over the top.

    And before anyone jumps at me, I know that what Joan did was probably not a legal issue. But smart and competent HR recognizes when behavior is problematic, even when it’s legal. I doubt that HR would do anything about it, which is fine. But I would hope that they would keep this on file, so that if she ever shows other problematic behavior they have this back story.

  52. AlwaysEditing*

    I would absolutely report Joan for advocating animal abuse, which is a jailable crime in some places. What a disgusting person to have to be around. What’s the difference between that and talking in favor of burglary or theft?

    P.S. I think LW’s comment is hilarious.

    1. I Have RBF*

      Plus it wasn’t even said in a salacious manner, but just stated as a fact. It’s the difference between someone talking graphically about their sex life and someone commenting on how the human mammals engage in analingus.

  53. Raisin Walking to the Moon*

    OP1, you didn’t make a joke. You provided realistic context about the ubiquity of feces and germs. Like, I know that I’m a pretty “earthy” person, and I know that I work in a medical school where people talk about the intimacies of the human body candidly, but for real. You didn’t say anything inappropriate.

  54. Justme, The OG*

    I was just talking to our admin about sleeveless stuff. She felt unprofessional in a sleeveless top, but it’s hot here and our air handler is out of commission for a while. She’s wearing something sleeveless but with thick straps. I assured her she was fine.

  55. Lily Potter*

    OP4 – Watermelon Fruitcake answers your question most directly – it is perfectly legal for your employer to not raise your salary once you go on your husband’s plan. Since you work for a super small company, it’s possible that the issue has never come up before, though. No harm in broaching the subject. A discussion starting with “I was wondering about…….” will yield you the information you’re after.

    I had one employer that had a true cafeteria benefit program. You were allocated X amount per month for benefits to spend however you liked. Didn’t need health insurance (and could prove you were insured elsewhere)? You could spend your money on top notch dental coverage, extra disability coverage, subsidized health club memberships, extra life insurance, et al. Need expensive health care for your family of twelve? You got the same X amount as a single employee, and you weren’t getting the subsidized extras. It was a way to standardize benefits for all employees and as a single person at the time, I really appreciated it.

  56. Glazed Donut*

    LW5 – If it helps, typically there’s plenty of room for reference information (in my experience) and would allow space for you to write Jane Smith, manager at Teapots Ltd (now Wool and Teapots) to clarify – and if the process is such where they wait for your references when they’re at the offer stage, you’ll have an opportunity to say something about the name changes/acquisitions in your interview.
    Good luck!

  57. Garblesnark*

    Re LW 1 – There’s a fairly large group in society violence fine (sometimes almost pleasant or titillating?) to discuss but sexuality (especially sexuality that is not Very Vanilla) extremely off-putting and offensive. I wonder whether this cultural phenomenon is one small part of the issue you encountered with Joan. I’ve known several of these people – folks who love James Bond movies, except, why does he always end up having a sexual encounter? Joan’s choice to use explicit terms like “drowned” early in the conversation but sprint to HR once sexuality was mentioned makes me wonder if she might be in this group.

    1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      I mean, that’s basically how movie ratings work! There can be a LOT of violence in a PG-13 movie, but anything sexual, especially with LGBTQ+ content, will get an R.

      1. Garblesnark*

        Right! Like murder is fine, but female presenting nipples are right out.

    2. Emily Byrd Starr*

      I’ve never seen a Bond movie, but I do know people who have a problem with him, as well as other fictional male heroes (Indiana Jones, Robert Langdon) always getting with a woman in each movie or book. Their criticism isn’t so much that it’s sexual, but that he’s a womanizer.

      1. Garblesnark*

        I think you and I have both pointed out something that is A Thing, and that the things we have pointed out are different things.

  58. BikeWalkBarb*

    The dress code specifying which blouses are acceptable was written by someone who’s never been through menopause or other hormonal changes that mean you need to rapidly lower the amount of fabric covering your body.

    1. BikeWalkBarb*

      Oh, for a comment editor–my inner copy editor wants me to change “lower” to “reduce”.

  59. Peanut Hamper*

    #2: My rules for complimenting coworkers on thing like this are:

    1) It has to be small-talk, often when greeting someone first thing in the day.

    2) It has to be something they have control over (a fashion or jewelry choice) not something they don’t have control over (i.e., their body’s weight or health).

    3) It’s rare, and a very short conversation.

    So yes, I’ve said something like “Good morning! Those are really pretty earrings! Are they new?” and have had a pleasant conversation with that coworker about how they had inherited them from their grandmother, or they picked them up on their recent vacation.

    But I never mention weight loss (or gain) unless the other person brings it up. And that’s perfectly fine. It’s perfectly fine to not comment on other people’s bodies even if everybody else is doing it.

    1. the cat ears*

      I think the problem with 2 is that sometimes people do have control over their weight (i.e. have intentionally lost weight) and sometimes they don’t. People who compliment it often assume it is intentional. But even when it is intentional, people don’t always want to talk about it. So in addition to “things people have control over” I would add “things that are not likely to be medically or culturally sensitive”. I personally consider my intentional weight loss to be part of my medical history and don’t want to talk about it at work any more than I want to talk about my antidepressants or my issues with my CPAP machine.

      1. Andromeda*

        I am unfortunately still locked in the “desperately wants to lose weight but struggles to stop emotional eating/fears I will never be able to look different” mire. If it were to happen, my weight loss would be very intentional — but I wouldn’t want people at work to talk about it. I already worry that I’m seen as less competent at work because of my gender, looks and size, and someone mentioning it out of the blue would make me feel uncomfortably scrutinised!

      2. Boof*

        I think adjusting 2 to “something that is clearly intentional” which does require a degree of social acuity, sure, but something like a hair style or accessories are usually safe, something about someone’s body, best not unless they bring it up first

  60. Engineer*

    OP #2 – I actually asked my therapist about how to compliment people without mentioning weightloss specifically. My go to is “wow, you’re glowing!”

    1. metadata minion*

      Unless this is someone that you’re pretty close friends with, I would avoid compliments like that at work, especially if you’re only complimenting them because they’ve lost weight. I can’t count the number of people I know who’ve been told that they’re “radiant” and “gorgeous” when they’ve in fact lost weight due to a severe health problem and by any reasonable standard look unwell.

      1. fhqwhgads*

        Yeah, someone who lost weight due to cancer and had radiation treatments…probably could come up with something snarky to “you’re glowing”.
        Plus that expression has strong history of being associated with pregnant people, which is also not something to comment on at work, so it’s not the neutral replacement phrase that therapist seems to be suggesting.
        We humans don’t need a different way to comment on people’s bodies. We need to find a way to rewire our impulse to comment on people’s bodies to not do that.

  61. CastielNeedsHisOwnShow*

    Regarding #1, I would go back to HR with the context, and also file a counter-complaint against Joan for saying “Cats are disgusting, they walk over every surface to make sure everything is covered in their urine and feces germs. If you live with a cat, you’re basically walking around covered in urine and feces”.

    Her comment could be construed as her stating that you (since you live with cats) are “covered in urine and feces”, which is a highly inappropriate, insulting and demonstrably incorrect statement about your hygiene. I would request that HR require Joan to issue a formal apology, and ask that a written warning be placed in her HR file.

    If Joan is going to go to HR with ridiculous nonsense to tattle on you like a five-year old? The best response is the EXACT same, and putting HR in the squeeze that if they are going to buy into such nonsense, then they had better be prepared to do it equally.

    The problem with doing nothing is that people like Joan will keep leveraging HR to bully people until they find out their actions have consequences. So give her those consequences. Otherwise? Expect more of the same.

  62. Jack*

    “So the standards department is telling me you can only say ‘cat anus’ twice during the show, but I’m gonna fight for you. You can say it three times. Cat anus, cat anus, cat anus!”

  63. Seven If You Count Bad John*

    It may be time for another Open Dress Code Thread. I once worked for a place where “underwear must be worn, but must not be visible”. (Obviously that was targeting bra straps, VPLs, hip-hugger styles where the panties or jockey shorts are showing above the trouser waistband, etc—but the *phrasing*!)

  64. librarianmom*

    In 2009 Michelle Obama was criticized for wearing a sleeveless shift. It was the pointed out that many First Ladies, including Jacqueline Kennedy and Hillary Clinton wore sleeveless outfits. If it’s good enough for a First Lady, it’s good enough to be considered “professional” attire.

  65. Junior Dev*

    As someone who has lost significant weight, I would prefer my coworkers not acknowledge that I have a body below my neck.

    I get that some people feel differently but if they do, it’s on them to bring it up in conversation.

  66. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

    Related to LW5’s question: What if it’s a merger? Companies A and B merged, and are now Company C. What do people who worked through the merger do to indicate which legacy company they worked for?

    1. Fluffy Fish*

      (I say this nicely) I think you’re overthinking it. It would be the exact same – Company C (formerly company A). The details that it became company C by also including company B don’t matter.

    2. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      I spent a long time working for a firm that changed names due to going bankrupt/in administration/being brought out by another and here’s how I put things on my CV:

      Position 1 – Company A
      Position 2 – Company A (in administration)
      Position 3 – Company B (formally company A)
      Position 4 – Company C (renamed from company B)

      (they rename firms a LOT in this industry)

  67. not nice, don't care*

    Joan = Kristi Noem and should be treated accordingly. I’d go back to HR and counterclaim based on Joan’s violent comments about kittens which were obviously made to upset OP.

    1. Former Employee*

      I was going to say that Joan is this officer’s version of Kristi Noem and then I saw your comment.

  68. Erica*

    It’s not the *primary* reason I switched industries to tech; but never, ever having to guess at what the hell “business casual” means again is a HUGE benefit for this fashion impaired human!

  69. stacers*

    At my previous workplace, we all would have been rushing to respond to the cat comment the way LW did, and it would have descended from there with much laughter and someone going much, much too far. And while I understand LW was embarrassed, I really wish she had given HR the whole context right then. Jane has a lot of nerve reporting LW after she both advocated drowning kittens and was the first to introduce analingus as a topic.

    But, at this point? I probably would just let it go, with a resolve to be wary of Jane.

  70. A Person*

    For LW5 I agree with all the advice and is what I do with my resume both for name changes and company acquisitions.

    The thing I struggle with is LinkedIn and companies that were purchased by another company. I clearly didn’t work for Company 2 the whole time and it feels like lying to show that, but the number of recruiters who don’t notice my notes on the acquisition is frustrating. Then it looks like I have way more short stints than I actually do.

  71. Liz the Snackbrarian*

    LW 1, no one should be subjected to talk of animal abuse at work. What Joan suggested is doing is a crime, and would be offensive to lots of pet owners and simply people who love animals. Saying there is an overpopulation of cats and that they kill birds is fine, suggesting they be harmed is not. Also I don’t know if you work with any clients or anything but imaigne if someone outside your organization overheard…! Your comment was a touch crass, but rest assured Joan’s comment was not normal or okay.

    (I have some biases as a cat owner but really…!)

  72. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

    #4 I have only worked for one company that provided any balance for people not using all the benefits and even then they did not raise salaries on request. They had a clear “cafeteria” plan where everyone got the same $/mo to use for off-setting a variety of benefits. If you didn’t use any I believe it went as corporate 401K contribution.

  73. Coco*

    I work in a business casual office and I wear sleeveless tops under cardigans. I hate armpits with the passion of a thousand dying suns, so I would never wear one solo. But I still wouldn’t put them in the same category as tank tops.

  74. SusieQQ*

    LW2 — I never make positive comments on somebody’s weight loss, because a part of me always wonders if I’m enabling an eating disorder. :-/

    1. Fluffy Fish*

      it doesnt have to be an eating disorder.people lose unwanted weight all the time due to illness, stress, grief etc.

      no one should comment on someone elses body almost ever and def not at work.

    2. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      As someone with an eating disorder – thank you. Seriously. You’re saving lives.

  75. TroyBoy*

    I gotta say I wouldn’t last 5 minutes working with Joan. What a horrendous human being. She doesn’t like cats? Fine. We get it. But saying those things to someone who fosters them? And then when she provokes a response, SHE goes to HR? OP-please go back to HR with Beth. I do think HR should hear what happened. Not to protect you but to protect anyone else who has to deal with her and t for HR to note it. I guarantee you she is trouble.

  76. Kat*

    LW #4 – I’ve never heard of this as an option before in my life, and I’ve been in the corporate world for over 30 years. I’ve been on my husband’s health insurance, used my company’s insurance, and my salary is my salary and is unchanged regardless of whether or not I’m using the company health plan.

    Is this actually a thing companies do? I’m fascinated and legitimately curious!

    1. fhqwhgads*

      It’s not usually a salary change, but it’s common-ish for some companies to offer you a stipend of some sort for not using their health insurance. I’ve seen it be whatever the company would’ve paid toward the premium. I’ve seen it be slightly less. But it’s generally very much not a salary change, because if you have a qualifying even or even just want to switch by next open enrollment, they’re generally not going to want to reduce your salary over it. It’s a one time payment thing that’s separate. Kinda like a bonus.

  77. Greg*

    #1: Am I the only one who thinks that HR should never have gotten involved in the first place? To be clear, the sentiments Jane expressed were horrible, and what the LW said was at worst slightly inappropriate. But if I had been the HR manager and Jane came to me and said someone was talking about analingus, I would say, “That’s weird. What was the context?” And unless she described something along the lines of LW recounting her weekend sexcapades in detail, I would have told her to get out of my office and get back to work. I suppose maybe I might have gone to LW, asked for her version, and said, “Next time, cool it with the sex talk in an office setting.” And if the situation was reversed, and LW reported Jane for talking about drowning kittens, I would probably have handled it the same way.

    Overall, this sounds like a huge waste of time for all involved. Nothing anyone said would in any way open the company up to lawsuits regarding a hostile work environment, certainly not if it were a one-time occurrence

    1. Lizzianna*

      Eh, I do think what LW said was inappropriate. We have pretty strict policies around responding to allegations of sexual harassment, based on a history of our agency sweeping allegations under the rug. I do think HR should have done a little more digging before talking to LW, but I would have to respond to this in some way under our policy.

    2. Chriama*

      HR is involved because Joan substantially misrepresented what happened and OP went along with it instead of setting the record straight. I actually think this needs to go back to HR, because she was acting so obviously in bad faith that this needs to be documented in case of future incidents. Butting into a conversation unprompted with negative remarks, ignoring all attempts to change the subject, making derisive comments about OP (as in, she’s covered in feces and urine because of her cats) and advocating for violence are all so far beyond the pale that there’s something wrong with Jane and I can’t believe this won’t come out in interactions with other coworkers. If OP wants to be self-effacing she should at least think about the coworkers she’s saving from Jane’s future machinations.

      1. Greg*

        I agree with you that, given the way HR has turned this into a big deal, LW should correct the record. I also agree that, based on the LW’s description of Jane, it sounds like there may be larger issues at play with her. But, looking at this one incident in isolation, it did not rise to the level of getting HR involved, and the HR manager should have shut it down immediately rather than playing into Jane’s machinations (while also making a mental note to keep an eye on Jane going forward).

  78. Ladyhouseoflove*

    I do want to add to OP#1’s letter that they can also let HR know that Joan was also implying that OP and their colleague were filthy because they handle cats. That was also an overstep on Joan’s part, although the animal harm talk was, like, ten oversteps.

    There are things that I would like to say to Joan that are not polite.

    1. Houe On The Rock*

      Yes! LW was blindsided and blurted out something inappropriate for work, but it was in response to Joan intimating that they were dirty and covered in excrement! LW actually said nothing directly to or about Joan, which is taking way higher ground than I would have.

  79. Lizzianna*

    LW1 – I would tell HR. I’m a supervisor, and that context would change my opinion of the LW from “LW said something wildly inappropriate” to “LW was provoked and said something dumb.” I’d still tell you to avoid taking the bait, but the conversation that lead up to it is a pretty significant mitigating factor. And I would want to know that another one of my employees was out there advocating animal use, provoking other employees, and then reporting it in a way that leaves out some pretty significant context.

  80. Mystic*

    hilarious timing, kinda. I was just talking to my manager about sleeveless blouses (mainly cuz I told her honestly I was hot (I was wearing a jacket) but I couldn’t take the jacket off cuz my shirt barely covered my shoulders), and so we ended up talking about sleeveless blouses, tank tops, the difference between the two, and…well. I took my jacket off to cool down!

  81. Commenter 505*

    Please take the context information to HR and ask for it to be noted. The next time she brings that psychotic energy to work, they’ll be able to establish that it’s a pattern.

  82. I still kiss my cats*

    Letter Writer #1 here. Thanks for responding, Alison (and so quickly!). I must say I’m surprised at how shocked people are by Joan’s comments. She is faaar from the first person to say things like that, and it’s pretty common for people to think that kittens should be drowned. Awful, but common.

    Anyway, emboldened by Alison’s response and the commenters, I went back to HR and used the suggested language to provide the context. HR essentially said that they weren’t thinking badly of me and I didn’t need to provide the context. Then added, “in fact, this extra information hasn’t changed my views on Joan either” (implying that they already knew what she’s like).

    So, hopefully that’s the end of it. Unless someone covered in cat germs touches Joan’s mug while she’s not looking.

    1. Ladyhouseoflove*

      I’m happy and relieved that HR is aware of Joan’s Joanisms. Unfortunately, a lot of people can say and think really cruel things about cats in my experience as well.

      “Unless someone covered in cat germs touches Joan’s mug while she’s not looking.”

      That said, I have this funny image of my head now of someone cursing Joan so that no matter where Joan goes with her mug, a cat will appear out of thin air to knock it off or knock it down. Or at least have the kitty’s eyes on Joan’s eyes as it taps the mug with one passive-agressive paw before it flounces off.

    2. Hrodvitnir*

      Good for you!

      I absolutely get that people rolling out the “drowning kittens” crap is normal, but it’s still revolting behaviour! You’re allowed to be disgusted by someone advocating violence out of hatred, even if you’re sadly inured to the edgelord-ness of it all.

      People who hate any species of animal need to take a long look at themselves (yes, this includes pests or animals you’re afraid of. Hate is absolutely not required).

      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Um, a lot of people have phobias of certain animals (rats, snakes, etc.) and phobias are categorized as anxiety disorders. They are also illogical, as is the case with many mental health issues. So it’s victim-blaming and ableist to put them in the same category as animal haters and to say that they need to take a long look at themselves.

        I know you probably didn’t mean it to be offensive, but now that you know, please refrain from making such statements in the future.

    3. Andromeda*

      What the hell? You have clearly worked with lots of awful people! (I assume that Joan’s trolling/goading you, and would have chosen something else if it wasn’t the cats, but JFC who says that about any animal? That is just so awful.)

      Strength and good vibes to you and the cats you foster, who are all perfect angels. I would love to foster animals someday!

    4. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      I have never heard anyone advocating kittens or pups should be drowned, not in my 40 years of work nor anywhere outside work.
      I’m now thankful I’ve never had to associate with such dreadful people and I’m sorry you have to work with horrible Joan.

      I’d be tempted to rub some cotton wool against a kitten’s arse, carry it in a Ziploc to work and then rub it over the rim of Joan’s cup. But no, you should not do this.

      1. I still kiss my cats*

        There were quite a few stories in the comments (which I presume are the ones that Alison has understandably removed) that detailed what a common practice this was in the past.

        1. Ami abroad*

          One of my favorite young adult books (“Clancy and the Grand Rascal”) is set in post Civil War Mississippi, and the kids in the story prevent exactly such a heinous act in a truly funny way.

    5. Resentful Oreos*

      LW, I am glad you went back to report Joan, and that she’s a “known quantity” around the company. I get the feeling nobody likes her.

      I wish a “Cats of Ulthar” fate to Joan.

  83. I Can't Believe It*

    For the cat comment poster, I have a male coworker who told a female intern “it sounds like you are a small kitten drinking water from a bowl when you drink” and then imitated the sound to her. I personally find his comment way grosser than yours.

  84. Sharon*

    #3 I would say sleeveless blouses like the one pictured would be OK in almost any business casual environment. However, regardless of the exact wording of the dress code, there will always be a perfectly compliant person that looks like they just rolled out of bed and a person wearing 3 prohibited articles of clothing but looking like a completely put-together professional.

  85. EC*

    The dress code is perfectly clear. Short and long sleeved blouses does not include sleeveless blouses. So the top pictured is not acceptable. Sleeves means sleeves.

  86. Candyfloss*

    I’ve been fostering kittens for 25 years and I probably would’ve gotten fired because I would’ve hauled off and punched Joan when she said kittens should be drowned.

  87. Raida*

    2. How to politely not compliment weight loss
    I just compliment their clothes.
    If it’s a new shirt, because their old ones were too baggy, and they are happy about that, they’ll tell me.
    If they don’t want to discuss their body, they’ll thank me for complimenting *their taste in clothes*

  88. CommanderBanana*

    As someone who is a very passionate (possibly too?) advocate against animal abuse, I would have been in HR’s office by the time the second comment came out of Joan’s cloaca of a mouth asking why we’re employing someone who is Jeffrey Dahmer-adjacent.

  89. Mmm.*

    I would absolutely go to HR to explain what happened, especially since someone volunteered to back me up! What that woman said was extremely concerning and could easily make a person feel threatened and uncomfortable to the point where, after offering a reasonable solution (changing the subject), their sense of self-preservation kicked in and they said something to stop what was happening. I don’t even think it was the *wrong* thing in this situation, as this person was graphically describing how she would kill an animal! And interjected into a conversation to do so!

  90. Zee*

    LW2 – an option for if you’re not sure whether or not the person wants their weight loss to be commented on: “That dress looks nice – is it new?” Someone who wants to draw attention to their weight loss will say “Yeah, I lost 40lbs so I had to buy some new clothes.” Someone who doesn’t will just say thanks.

Comments are closed.