my coworker was penalized for things I never said, junior employee keeps interrupting me, and more

by Alison Green on September 24, 2024

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

1. My coworker was penalized for feedback from me, but I never said those things

Recently, during my coworker Wendy’s performance review with her management team, she was denied a raise and demoted on paperwork to someone “still developing” instead of being listed as “meets/exceeds expectations.” The reasons for this were: a low customer loyalty score for our location (not an individual low score — and the other person in Wendy’s position was still given a raise and significant praise from management despite having the same score and Wendy having seniority), and because she’s been reported for “poor communication on Slack.”

When Wendy asked for specific examples of this, management couldn’t give her any, but included my name along with two others as the sources of this. I have never complained about Wendy to management, especially not in regard to Slack. The other two coworkers listed no longer work here, but I worked with one of them long enough to know she wouldn’t complain to management about something like this either. Our job is an in-person job in a small location, and I’ve noticed Slack is not the preferred mode of communication for many in Wendy’s position.

I feel extremely uncomfortable that my name was dragged into this. I want to escalate this in some way, to say I have never had a problem with Wendy and that I don’t appreciate being used in false accusations, but Wendy is apprehensive about potential retaliation. What should we do? What should I do?

You shouldn’t do anything without Wendy’s permission, but ideally you’d talk to your manager or hers and say, “I’m concerned there’s been miscommunication somewhere. Wendy spoke with me about concerns she thought I’d expressed about her communication over Slack but, as I told her, I’ve never raised concerns about her work or her communication and don’t have any. It sounds like someone misunderstood something somewhere. How can I get this cleared up so that she’s not wrongly penalized for feedback I haven’t given?”

But also — what’s going on in your workplace? Are they disorganized enough that feedback gets warped like this? Are they targeting Wendy for some reason? If this is at all part of a pattern rather than a one-time mistake that gets quickly fixed, I’d be concerned about what’s going on there.

2. My junior coworker constantly interrupts me in meetings

My junior report (who was moved to another manager last year) constantly interrupts me in meetings. I’ve tried multiple approaches to get her to stop. She’s white and mid 40s, I’m Asian and mid 30s. I’ve noticed she only does this to me and I’ve even had other members on our team say they’ve noticed it too.

The approaches I’ve tried:
– Speak over her and keep going when she tries to interrupt. This works sometimes but sometimes it doesn’t.
– Stop her and tell her I’m not finished yet. This has worked a couple of times but not always.

Other approaches I’ve considered:
– Talk directly to her and ask her to be mindful of the interruptions.
– Talk to her manager and ask him to talk with her about this behavior.

Talk to her one-on-one and name what’s happening and what she needs to do differently. For example: “I’m guessing you don’t realize it, but you frequently interrupt me in meetings. I haven’t seen you do this to other team members, but it’s frequent when I’m speaking. Please wait for me to finish speaking before you start talking.”

If that doesn’t work, then yes, flag it for her manager. It’s a big deal to regularly be interrupting a colleague, especially a senior one, and especially after she’s been spoken to about it and told to stop.

And going forward, every time she interrupts you from now on, hold up your hand in a “stop” motion and say, “Please stop interrupting me and wait until I’m finished.” It will get pretty awkward pretty quickly for her if you’re consistent about doing it.

3. Can I ask to be fired sooner?

After 18 years at a company, I was recently surprised at my mid-year review with a rating that I’m not meeting expectations. It was followed with a 60-day PIP. Originally, I told my boss that despite feeling surprised, I’m 100% committed to making changes. Since then, I have realized that I no longer want to work there but need to be able to collect unemployment in the interim while I’m looking for another job so I can’t just resign.

I have a hard time pretending to do a bad job but my mental health is taking a toll. Is there a script for me to discuss with my boss ending the PIP earlier so that I can be let go sooner and then start collecting unemployment while looking for a new job?

In some cases you could say something like: “I appreciate you being candid with me about your concerns. I want to be candid in return that I’m not confident about my ability to meet your expectations and I don’t want either of us to invest further time in the process if it’s unlikely to work out. Would you be open to wrapping up the process earlier and letting me go with an agreement not to contest my unemployment benefits?”

4. We’re switching to unlimited PTO and I feel cheated

My company allows up to five vacation days to roll over each year.

We recently underwent a compensation study and one of the results is that we will now have “open PTO.” No more separating of sick days, vacation days, personal time, or floating holidays. This will begin when our 2025 fiscal year begins.

The issue that many of my colleagues and I have is that they told us this with three weeks until the fiscal year begins. I was going to roll over 36 hours — between my already scheduled vacation days and the vacation days of my coworker (one of us has to be in our office at all times), there is not enough time for both of us to use all the time we were going to roll over. There is no compensation offered for our leftover time. HR claims that because the rollover time is the first time that gets used up and now we are unlimited, we will use it in FY25. My objection is that it is FY24 compensation that I am not receiving. Could this have been handled better?

Yes. They could have given you more notice of the change — at least six months, not three weeks.

The thing is, when you have a specific amount of accrued time off (rolled over or not), there’s no debate about whether you’ve earned that time: it’s there, it’s yours, you can take it. (That’s an oversimplification, since of course it’s subject to workload, coverage, etc. — but no one disputes that you have the time on the books.) When you just have unlimited PTO, there can be more of a question around it. For example, if you get four weeks off per year, and this year you have those four weeks plus a week that rolled over from last year … well, you’ve definitely got five weeks on the books. But when you switch to unlimited PTO, it may be harder to justify taking five weeks in a single year.

You and your coworkers should press for a longer notice period before the change is made.

5. What does this email from a recruiter mean?

I’ve been in a painstakingly long interview process with a well respected organization in my field for a senior level position. I’ve done a phone screen, hiring manager interview, and panel interview (all virtual). It was posted in early June and I applied right away.

I just received a baffling email from the recruiter and I honestly can’t decide what to make of it: “Thank you for your patience. Our team decided to move two candidates forward that have more X experience to the next rounds for now. You remain a strong candidate and still under consideration. I can provide another update in the next couple of weeks.”

What gives? The job would be a huge step up for me, an almost $70k/year raise at minimum so it’s not shocking (although I’m disappointed) that I’m not a finalist, but why not just reject me? The dangling / stringing along at this point is an huge bummer. Appreciate any insight or if this is a common practice with more senior roles?

That message means: “You’re not currently one of our finalists, but you’re strong enough that we’ll come back to you if neither of the two people we’re currently talking to pan out.” It’s actually very transparent! It’s not stringing you along; it’s letting you know pretty candidly exactly what’s going on.

You may also like:
{ 287 comments }

{ 287 comments… read them below }

    1. Ellis Bell*

      I think this is a pretty great line to use generally, but the thing shocking me the most about OP1’s problem is that OP has tried speaking up and it’s not working every time. Possibly even more concerning is that it’s only happening when OP is speaking. I actually give quite a lot of the benefit of the doubt for interrupters, given that I have struggled with not interrupting (it’s the conversational pattern I was raised with), and sure, OP’s employee might be interrupting her because she has more to say about her boss’ topics of conversations, and this is all enthusiasm. That said, you’ve got someone who 1) can refrain from interrupting when it’s someone else, and 2) who’s been corrected for interrupting in the moment. The only benevolent assumption left is that the employee thinks interrupting is fine and OP will correct her if she’s not finished. A really serious conversation is needed to make this clear.

      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        Yes! Interrupting is not automatically a Huge issue – it can be annoying, but it can also be a natural conversation pattern, a quirk of the dreaded zoom lag, a symptom of ND, a show of excitement, many other things. Most people can handle and respond to correction – or at least not continue to talk over someone.

        But when it’s only happening with one person, repeatedly, to the point of people noticing, then it’s aggressive. When that person is senior, it’s a faux pas. When that person is marginalized in a way the speaker is not, it’s hard not to see it as a microaggression.

        This is a serious problem and should be treated as such. I agree that OP should speak to the person directly, but I do wonder if I might talk to their manager regardless of whether or not it improves. To me it signals a serious need for coaching that is likely to be showing up in other parts of this person’s work.

        1. Miso*

          > But when it’s only happening with one person, repeatedly, to the point of people noticing, then it’s aggressive. When that person is senior, it’s a faux pas.

          Ehhhhh, not necessarily. I still don’t know why, but for some reason I kept interrupting my boss when she was talking – it was in no way intentional, meant as disrespectful or aggressive or anything like that, it was completely unintentional. I guess she just had a speech pattern where I thought she was done with a sentence but she wasn’t or something like that, I don’t know.

          Of course I always shut up right away when she kept talking and apologized…

          1. Sloanicota*

            Not that this can never happen, yeah. My boss has a way of trailing off meaningfully but not, in fact, being done. She also “thinks out loud.” I do sometimes jump in and there are definitely times it annoys her. In our case, it’s evident to me because she bites her lip and stops speaking (cutting off mid-word when we overlap) and then waits over-long to resume, which is a signal to me. I’m expecting her to chime in and return the conversational ball when I bat it to her; she does the equivalent of holding the ball and frowning at me. I do wish she’d hold the floor less, but, well, she’s senior so I just have to accept being Talked At while saying nothing. In our case though there’s no gender/racial disparity (there is an age disparity). Someone certainly needs to be firmer with this employee.

            1. Eldritch Office Worker*

              All of this, definitely – and also when it’s your own manager I find the dynamics are just a little different. They have more power to correct your behavior, typically you talk more often, there’s usually a different rapport – immediate team dynamics and communication styles are just usually very different.

          2. Workerbee*

            But in your case, did you eventually learn to compensate for your misperception, and stop yourself before you would jump in?

            If this pattern kept happening with someone after it’s been made clear, either through learned behavior or directly pointing it out, that I was pausing to end a sentence and start a new one, not finished with what I was saying – well, I’d think the interruptee was more focused on what they were going to say than listening to what I was saying.

        2. Flax Spinner*

          ” When that person is marginalized in a way the speaker is not, it’s hard not to see it as a microaggression.”

          There’s nothing “micro” about it – the White colleague is being not-so-passively-aggressive towards the LW. And it’s past time for their manager to step in and slam the lid down on this kind of behavior!

      2. duinath*

        Yeah, the “this works sometimes but not always” had me shook tbh. If you interrupt me, I ask you to let me finish, and you keep talking, that is a big big problem.

        I would loop in the manager now, tbh, this is not something she doesn’t know she is doing and I find it …suspicious that she apparently *only* does this to OP.

  2. Sally*

    OP1, this stuck out for me: “…and the other person in Wendy’s position was still given a raise and significant praise from management despite having the same score and Wendy having seniority”. So having the same score but Wendy being senior can be read to mean that Wendy is operating at a level below her rank, thus justifying her harsher review. Maybe the comment with Slack was about her not responding to messages from colleagues including you, something management observed from the outside. Maybe management did not say that this complaint came from you. Are you getting all this information from Wendy? If so, are you sure she is telling you everything?

    1. KateM*

      Hm, or maybe if she is the most senior person in that place, she is more responsible for the low scores? As in, if there is a team of several employees and a manager, and some employees are scaring away previously loyal customers and manager is not shutting it down, then the manager is not doing her job of managing while one of the lower employees may still be doing their best?

    2. Aggretsuko*

      Wendy could also being targeted for her age/seniority, and when you start getting slammed in reviews like this and written up for petty shit and lies are being made up–they probably want her gone.

      1. Miette*

        Ding-ding-ding we have a winner. Management doesn’t like Wendy for some reason, they are too chicken-sh*t to give direct feedback on these “issues” if they really exist, and they are manufacturing reasons to make her unhappy enough to leave.

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Yep, yep, yep. It is so obvious. They want Wendy gone.

          OP, you can’t really help Wendy if they want her gone. But you have to consider if you want to continue working someplace that does that to someone. Who also dragged you into it as part of their plan. No one is saying quit. But it never hurts to check out your options.

      2. ScruffyInternHerder*

        This is textbook.

        I’ve always held that if I’m over 40 and I start getting crap reviews out of nowhere….its time to start job hunting.

    3. Bilateralrope*

      I read that as saying that both Wendy and the other individual have the same position, but Wendy has been working there longer. Nothing about them having different duties.

      1. Myrin*

        Yeah, that was my read as well – I have to admit I’m unclear where the “operating at a level below her rank” is coming from because that sentence seemed entirely clear to me in the letter; Wendy and coworker do the same work, got the same score (since it isn’t individual to begin with), and Wendy has been there longer (“seniority”), and yet one person got a raise and the other got demoted.

        1. KateM*

          I’m not sure that “demoted” in the letter isn’t misleading – it seems that her score was “demoted” from “meets/exceeds expectations” to “still developing” not that she lost a job title.

        2. MK*

          However, “meets/exceeds expectations” likely looks very different depending on seniority; a score that might be considered good, even unexpectedly good, for a employee of one year can be considered unacceptable for an employee of 10 years, especially if they used to perform much better and there has been a drop in the quality of their work.

          1. KateM*

            Yes, if a junior llama groomer. a llama groomer, and a senior llama groomer all perform on “llama groomer” level, then the junior one exceeds expectations, middle one meet expectations, and the senior one doesn’t meet expectations.

            1. Not your trauma bucket*

              That only works if they have three separate positions. Someone in an official senior position would presumably also be compensated for those higher standards. If they’re holding someone to higher standards because of tenure and past performance while keeping that person at the same level, then that’s just terrible management.

              1. Spencer Hastings*

                How often do you get promoted to another official title? If people are llama groomers for an average of 4 years before being promoted to senior llama groomers, then of course you would expect a third-year llama groomer who was progressing satisfactorily to be more efficient/accurate/whatever than a first-year llama groomer, even though they have the “same” title.

          2. Emmy Noether*

            The way I read it it’s a score for the location, so a score for the whole team together, not that both have the same individual score.

            Could one still make an argument that more senior employees are more responsible for a bad team score? Maybe! But giving out performance ratings that disparate should be based on some insight into the inner workings of the team (which they maybe had, or not, it’s unclear on the third hand info we have here).

            1. MK*

              I think evaluating individual employees for a bad location score about customer loyalty is odd, frankly. The manager maybe, but there are so many factors that play into that (e.g. convenience of the location).

                1. MigraineMonth*

                  I know someone who worked at a store that was at risk of being closed because too many customers gave a bad score for the location’s dressing room cleanliness. The bad score turned out to be “N/A”.

            2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

              But she is not senior. She has seniority meaning she has been there longer. It does not mean she is more responsible for anything that occurs. If both are llama groomers and one got a raise and one didn’t based on the same location score, something is really off.

          3. fhqwhgads*

            I sort of disagree. If they have the same role, same title, same responsibilities, unless one of them just started a few months before the review period and the other has been there years, then the expectations shouldn’t be different from someone who has been there longer. The expectations should align with the role, not the individual in it. That’s the whole point: to evaluate people’s performance against the role, not some arbitrary standard per person.

    4. Melissa*

      Yes, my question also is, Are you getting all this from Wendy? Because if you are, I might seriously choose to stay out of it. Who among us is *really* fully honest and transparent when we are kvetching to someone about our poor performance review? I definitely wouldn’t take her account as gospel.

      1. Sally*

        Especially that Wendy does not want to escalate it. She might have been venting and telling you how unfair her treatment was, but it’s possible there is information she isn’t telling you, that makes her claim look flimsy. If so she wouldn’t be the first person to make herself look better to colleagues. I’d only do something if Wendy is on board.

        1. anotherfan*

          Wendy may not want to make a big deal about it because she can see that anything she does will be considered an even blacker mark against her. Talked about her evaluation? I’m sure someone will tell her that what’s said in those meetings is confidential, for instance. Wendy may just be hoping to keep her head down and exist until time passes (or she gets another job) and doesn’t want to remind management that she is still there. She may be friends with the OP and doesn’t want to get the OP tainted with her status as a pariah. Wendy may be the type of person who doesn’t make a big stink about stuff. I think assuming Wendy is lying or coloring the experience to get OP’s sympathy and then panicking that it might get back to management is … a stretch, although I’m sure it happens. It didn’t seem like that when I read the OP’s explanation, though.

          1. Aggretsuko*

            I recently read Mobbed!: What to Do When They Really Are Out to Get You to Do When They Really Are Out to Get You by Janice Harper and the author indicates that there is literally nothing you can do to make it better. Keeping as quiet as possible may help delay escalation, basically, but speaking up will only get Wendy penalized more.

      2. Despachito*

        I would however definitely tell Wendy that I never complained about her in that sense.

        If she doesn’t want to escalate it further I wouldn’t but if she agreed I would tell the boss what was written above – that Wendy wanted me to tell her what she could improve because she was told I complained but there must have been some misunderstanding because I never did that.

      3. Smithy*

        Yeah….she might also be telling the complete truth, but it’s leaving out other details. The point about poor communication on Slack could be something where it was never that the OP and others complained, but rather the communication was observed as being poor. Or perhaps the OP once noted that they were still waiting for Wendy to return to them and that was taken by management as a complaint.

        Now, those observations and interpretations from management may still be harsh and unfair – but perhaps not as inaccurate. So Wendy did feel a need/desire to express that frustration but not for anyone to challenge management.

        I once had a review where the feedback was very much “you look unhappy at work and that’s a problem”. Now the first part of that feedback I’m sure was 100% true, however the part about that being a problem is where I got frustrated/angry. So if this is a case where the details are largely accurate, but the interpretation is harsh or disproportionate – you may really be walking into a situation that could just hurt both of you.

          1. Bitte Meddler*

            LOL, and I once got dinged on a review because I was enjoying my work too much.

            I was a salesperson who spent all day on the phone with clients and prospects. I sold more when the conversations were full of smiles and some laughs (on both ends of the conversation).

            But, nope, my manager said, “Work isn’t mean to be FUN, Bitte.” And told me to “tone it down”.

            [And you can guess what my next review was like: “Your numbers are slipping, Bitte. I used to be able to count on you to knock your quota out of the park. I need you to step it up or I’ll be forced to put you on a PIP.”]

            1. Aggretsuko*

              Reminds me of how my mom’s old job–she was a receptionist for accountants–would ding her for being personable and talking with people. Boy, did they realize how wrong they were once they laid her off.

              Don’t you love that catch-22 there? What happened?

      4. ferrina*

        There’s a couple things that make me think that LW is a bit confused on some of the points. This might be due to something they are hearing, or maybe LW is a bit confused on how of these things tend to work.

        LW says: “The reasons for [the low review] were: a low customer loyalty score for our location (not an individual low score — and the other person in Wendy’s position was still given a raise and significant praise from management despite having the same score and Wendy having seniority)” The seniority thing is confusing- “seniority” can either mean someone that has been there longer, or it can mean someone with more responsibilities. If it’s the latter, then it might make sense that Wendy would be dinged for this. If it’s the former (which I suspect), then seniority is completely irrelevant to these kinds of reviews.

        LW also uses the term “demoted” strangely: “[Wendy was] demoted on paperwork to someone “still developing” “. Did her role change to remove responsibilities and authority and/or pay and benefits (as would happen in a demotion), or is LW saying she was downgraded but the role is the same?

        I can’t tell if this is something where LW is confused how workplaces tend to work; if their particular workplace is strange; if Wendy is miscommunicating things; or if this is just a quirk of LW’s language usage.

    5. Cj*

      I agree with the part that if this is only coming from Wendy, she might not be telling the OP the whole story. but if Wendy is telling the truth / whole story, the fact that management could give her any examples leads me to believe that it’s just the case of her not performing up to her level of seniority.

      and like others have said, it sounds like she’s just been there longest, not that her duties or responsibilities or any different than her co-workers.

    6. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      I’m wondering if Wendy is in a senior leadership role then maybe the area score affects her review more than someone at a lower rank. And maybe it has to do more with her role. I do think OP should talk with her manager, especially if Wendy starts acting out towards OP>

      1. Dawn*

        This sounds an awful lot like a retail store to me (a ‘customer loyalty’ score for their location? Corporate retail) and if that’s the case, they don’t really have on-location senior leadership as such.

    7. Lydia*

      If that were the case, why would Wendy bring it up at all? The part that doesn’t really pan out is that Wendy didn’t have to follow up with the OP at all if her manager said she’d noticed Wendy didn’t respond on Slack in a timely manner. There’s no connection between “my review says I don’t respond quickly enough,” and “Hey, Manager said you had given feedback that I don’t respond quickly enough.”

  3. Thankfully no longer a manager*

    I am not a fan of unlimited PTO. At an old job, after working my way up to a healthy vacation annual accrual, we became unlimited. It’s so great! But reality was, our company president was limiting us to two weeks a year without clarifying that to anyone. Making it fuzzy for supervisors know how to approve vacations. Aside from losing the bank, upon separation there is nothing to cash out. Which kinda sucks on a whole different level, either if you are waiting for a new pay period to sync up or you end up with a gap between jobs. I get it from an employer standpoint, less risk out there and overall less time being taken off because no one wants to be the one to be seen as abusing the system. But as an employee- no thank you.

    1. Cj*

      and their second paragraph, they call it open PTO, and talk about all types of leave being combined, but in the last paragraph they say unlimited PTO.

      for all the reasons Alison mentions, I’m not a fan of unlimited PTO either. but the way they describe the whole thing confuses me. why do they need to use up the hours they were going to carry over if they have unlimited PTO starting in 3 weeks?

      I know some companies don’t really mean unlimited even though they call it unlimited, but the way I understood it is at HR is telling them that they will be able to take all the vacation days they had planned to take if they hadn’t changed it. but I find the way that that is worded confusing also.

      1. Emmy Noether*

        I don’t think any company actually literally means unlimited. Can you take 261 days? No? Then it’s not unlimited in the literal sense.

        The problem I have with “unlimited” is that it takes an explicit limit (x days) and turns it into an implicit limit (a “reasonable” amount). Implicit limits always disadvantage those with less power, those with bad managers, and those who hesitate to ask for things. So it screws over exactly those people who are already getting screwed anyway.

        The issue with the switchover is that, say, they had 20 days in the old system. They have 5 rollover, so they would be able to take 25 days in 2025 under the old system. If they have a good manager, they’ll be able to take 25 in the new system as well… but if their manager gets it into their head that 20 days is a “reasonable” amount of vacation per year, the extra 5 days may be denied with no recourse.

        The other issue is that if they quit in January, they won’t get those 5 days paid out.

        1. Allonge*

          But these are (very legitimate!) issues with the ‘unlimited’ leave system, not the switchover as such.

          In any case, I also found the issue and the suggested response confusing. I totally get that this would be frustrating for OP on the personal level, and I also get frustrated about things that are not 100% logical (to say the least).

          But at this stage, if I am reading this right, the switchover is a done deal AND it’s connected to the financial year which is the calendar year – delaying it half a year may not be an option.

          I would find it more practical to use the push for clarifying the rules on how ‘unlimited’ will work. Also because I assume there will be coworkers who don’t have five (or any) days left in the bank now and are very much looking forward to ‘unlimited’. But most importantly because open does not have the same ring as unlimited, so the new system may not be clear to everyone yet.

          1. Emmy Noether*

            I think if they had had more notice of the switchover, they would have used up their days completely. So the problem is that they essentially held back and saved up for nothing. They (reasonably, IMO) don’t believe they’ll get approved extra days next year. If they had had time to get the balance to zero, unlimited PTO would still be a problem, but at least the switchover would be fair.

            It’s kind of like… imagine you’re a child and you get an allowance. You’re saving up for something and putting money in your piggy bank. Then suddenly one evening your parents go “we’re stopping the allowance, we’ll just buy you stuff you want directly! We’re also taking away your piggy bank as of tomorrow morning”. That would feel unfair, right? You saved up for nothing!

            I agree though that pushback on the switchover timing will probably lead to nothing. I’d probably try to talk to my supervisor and get my vacation for 2025 approved right now (can still ask to switch dates later), while the carryover promise is still fresh in their mind.

            1. Great Frogs of Literature*

              This happened at my job… but we were allowed to carry over 300 hours under the old system, and we only got two months of notice. (And people were really bad at taking vacation, so a LOT of people had several hundred hours accrued. When I started there were numerous people doing things like taking every other Friday off because covid had bumped their vacation accruals to a point where they were in use or or lose it pretty much every month.)

              People were PISSED. And management didn’t understand AT ALL why this was a problem, because it would be unlimited next year, so it didn’t matter how much you had saved up, did it? But I’d known someone who’d taken all that accrued leave and taken a travel sabbatical, and it seemed unlikely that that would be possible under the new system, not to mention that nobody thought it was going to be cool to take ~12 weeks in a year under the new system (which is what you might reasonably take if you were fully accrued in January and spent it all that year, plus what you earned that year).

              I only had a week or two saved, but I told my manager that I would be taking it in December, since I’d be losing it otherwise. My understanding is that almost the entire Engineering department declared that they’d be using their saved leave, thank you very much, which was going to tank productivity in December and part of November, and very abruptly we got an announcement that the banked hours would be converted into hours of pay at our current salary, which would be paid out when we left the company. (So fighting it as a group CAN work, though I’m sure that the massive accrual totals helped, which effectively meant that a lot of people could go on strike at full pay.)

              1. Annie*

                My company was bought by a different company, and they had a use-it-or-lose-it policy. Many people at my company had 100s of hours of vacation saved up because it all rolled over.

                The new company basically burned down the vacation, by giving us one week extra vacation in each year and paying out one week of vacation each year, for x years, until it was burned down. Or after x years the remaining vacation days were paid out.

                I think in the case of the LW, they should just pay out the remaining balance so that it is fairly received as compensation for that year. It shouldn’t just disappear.

                1. Anax*

                  Agreed. Making it ‘just disappear’ would be illegal in certain states, too – California in particular – although this “switching to unlimited” nonsense does complicate that.

                  If someone left, I would also be concerned about whether they would be paid out on their accrued vacation time – which could be a big financial hit, and could be another legal issue.

                2. Hannah Lee*

                  Anax, I think that’s why there’s a sense that LW is trying to use it before the shift happens.

                  Right now they’ve accrued a certain amount of time, and that’s in the bank for them to use. On January 1st or whenever the cut-over happens, that accrued time goes *poof*. That means they didn’t get the benefit of that PTO they’d earned. And if they work in a state where accrued PTO is considered part of compensation, they should be legally entitled to that being paid out instead of just being vaporized. Or at least paid out for the # of hours that were allowed to be carried over under the existing policy.

                  The change in policy isn’t in and of itself a negative (aside from the issues Alison raises with unlimited PTO); it’s that the company is changing the policy AND not giving enough lead time, schedule flexibility for people to use up their existing time. And the quick implementation makes this seem like it’s

            2. MCMonkeybean*

              Yes, if I were in OP’s shoes, I think my top priority would be to talk to my manager. Tell them that in order not to feel like I’m losing out with this transition I would like to plan on taking time off next year as if I had my current allotment plus the 5 days rollover. So if OP usually has 4 weeks, plan on taking 5 next year.

              Ask your boss if they see any issues with that, and get on the same page now about what times of year you would be aiming for to try to get ahead of any potential approval issues.

                1. TeaCoziesRUs*

                  I’m shocked that a few people didn’t walk out immediately – “You’ve given me notice to use or lose 36 days of leave with 15 days’ notice. You’ll see me on 1 Oct and we’ll discuss then how I’ll be compensated for the remaining 21 days.”

                  If enough of the staff did that, Management would change their time pretty quickly.

      2. JM60*

        why do they need to use up the hours they were going to carry over if they have unlimited PTO starting in 3 weeks?

        If they’re in a jurisdiction that requires vacation to be paid out (such as California), then they’d count any vacation taken against the remaining vacation balance. In that situation, if someone had accrued 5 weeks of vacation at the time of the switch, but they left the employer after using 3 weeks of vacation after the switch, then the employer would need to pay out for the remaining 2 weeks.

        At the end of the day, “unlimited/open/flexible vacation” is essentially a 0 vacation policy in which you have to negotiate each vacation individually. That’s not a policy that anyone would view as acceptable if it was done for salary instead of vacation.

    2. Ellis Bell*

      I’ve never worked in an unlimited PTO system, but I don’t understand how you can be told you can have it, and then it just gets turned down without cause. Like, if I have 25 days holiday to take, and I’ve only taken 20, then I don’t have to take the five days on the exact same week everyone else has off – so okay, I’lltake it the week after. What I don’t understand is how these refusals are being phrases in this system. In a typical system it’s “we don’t have coverage” or “you’ve used up your allowance”. Im imagining a lot of “not in the near future, try again later?” Also, it sounds like you’d need to do a lot of communication as a group to figure out the boss is only allowing two weeks off, but then surely the numbers speak for themselves?

      1. MagnaCarta*

        In my workplace a specific request would not be denied outright (unless there was a major coverage issue, like in any system).

        Instead, the manager would have a conversation with the person — “how much additional PTO are you expecting to take this year? You’re currently at X days in the past 6 months, which is getting to a point where you’re not able to keep up with the demands of the job, so we’d expect you to take something like Y days across the next 6 months unless there are special circumstances. Does that work for your plans?” And then work it out from there.

        We are lucky to have an office in Europe so can use that as a comparison point for an amount to take. I wouldn’t expect the conversation above to happen unless the person was using like 6+ weeks in a 12 month period and also was not a very strong performer.

      2. Slow Gin Lizz*

        We had unlimited PTO at my last job. Some of the issue behind taking PTO when it’s unlimited is that the org will make you feel guilty about taking the PTO, like if you take more than your coworkers do you’re abusing the system or something like that. Because you didn’t earn any specific amount of time, it’s hard to know how much PTO is ok to take and how much is too much (or, as Emmy Noether put it, an implicit limit rather than an explicit one).

        Our CEO made us feel guilty for taking PTO. My last year there, right after our busy season (fall fundraising events), he gave a speech where he said that some people had taken a lot of vacation time during the busy season and how we shouldn’t have done that. It was a blanket statement and we were all like, um, who is he talking about? because many of us had taken some PTO during that time. And it’s not like we needed all hands on deck during that time; we had enough people that some folks could be out of the office for a few days while others were working the events. And it’s not like people could postpone some of these vacations if they were for family events or weddings or something.

        The guilt factor is real.

        1. Elizabeth West*

          What if you DON’T feel guilty? Would people get fired? I’m curious about this because if I get a new job that has it, PTO is part of my compensation and I damn well intend to take it.

          I’ve always either had PTO awarded in January (a finite amount) or it’s accrued. Exjob even let us go 40 hours in the hole, which made it possible for me to take that second UK trip, and then earn it back before we started accruing again.

          So if you took your earned PTO (in a reasonable manner of course), would that put your job in jeopardy? That would just be evil. Maybe even worth a black magic curse (old-school AAM reference, lol).

          1. Workerbee*

            Especially if the guilt-trip is coming from the CEO, presumably one of the wealthiest members of said company with perks not available to the people actually doing the work to keep the CEO afloat. Screw that.

          2. Emmy Noether*

            I think both options are bad: if it doesn’t put one’s job at risk, then people who are immune to social pressure get more time off (unfair). If it does put one’s job at risk, that’s just straight up horrible.

          3. fhqwhgads*

            I’ve seen it play out a handful of ways and it really depends on whether management is a jerk or not. The safest thing to do based on my observations is to basically keep your own track of it, as if it weren’t unlimited. Make your plans as if the rules never changed. Then if someone comes along implying or outright stating you’re taking too much, you already have the backup that you’re not doing anything differently than what you got before. How can you be abusing “unlimited” by not taking any extra? Blink-blink, kind confuzzled look on face.
            In a lot of cases, doing the above (even without your own personal paper trail) will actually not cause anyone to say anything. It’s just fine. If you’re working for a medium-jerk, they’ll inquire and then back off when presented with the math. If you’re working for a big jerk, there’s nothing you could’ve done to appease them so don’t bother trying.
            And if you work for a good company that isn’t just using “unlimited” to get a liability off the books and actually cares about work-life balance, you do what you normally do most years, then one year something comes up, whatever it is, your kid starts preschool and suddenly you’re sick constantly. You move. You have a sick relative. Who knows. You take more than usual to deal with the life stuff. Your work gets done in a reasonable fashion and a reasonable quality when you’re in. Nobody has any qualms about anything. You’re a human and they treat you as one. These are unfortunately rarer, but they do exist. If you realize you work for one, stay there.

      3. UnlimitedTimeOffIsAwful*

        Because it’s misnamed. At many companies it’s actually get rid of artificial barriers to having to say yes to time off requests (no use it or lose it pressure) and get rid of the need to pay out unused vacation/PTO when someone leaves. In cases where it also combines sick and vacation/PTO from two buckets into one it’s often also now you folks who take more sick time than I like will never get to take any other type of time off. In most companies all of the benefits of unlimited PTO accrue to the company not the employee.

        1. doreen*

          Even in the best case scenario, it’s misnamed. My husband’s company used to have unlimited sick leave. Not PTO – they had separate vacation time which was not unlimited. But of course, it wasn’t really unlimited – it would have more accurately been described as “no preset limit” and just because they paid the 25 yr employee for a year while he recovered from a stroke didn’t mean they would do the same for someone who worked there for 5 or 10 years. And it’s the same for unlimited PTO – there’s no preset limit and maybe they’d continue to pay you for six months or a year if you are out for medical reasons but even if they do, that doesn’t mean you’ll be able to take 12 weeks of vacation.

    3. Media Monkey*

      in the UK, companies that do unlimited PTO have to legally ensure their employees take 20 days holiday a year. i believe that some will have an expected number of days you will take (likely to be similar to what your role would get in other companies) and then you have flex to take an additional few days. sick leave is separate from this and also legally mandated (but not considered to be part of your compensation as everyone gets it and it’s not earned or able to be banked).
      i have heard of at least 1 company who weren’t prescriptive about it and all the junior employees took every friday off, meaning that no one more senior could book any holidays at all (and these were not the people who made the PTO decision – just slightly more senior people who would need to be available to cover for their team’s holidays). funnily enough it got taken away.

      1. londonedit*

        Yes – a friend’s husband ended up in an ‘unlimited’ leave situation and it pretty much became ‘you have to take your legally mandated 20 days plus bank holidays, but anything over and above that is at the discretion of your manager’. And guess what the majority of the managers would say when people tried to book time off. Most people in mid-level/senior positions would expect at least 25 or 30 days’ holiday a year plus bank holidays, so it basically cut their leave to the bare minimum. People were not happy.

        1. Media Monkey*

          ugh that’s horrible. i haven’t heard of that happening with people blocking leave but could def see it happening. i don’t really get it though. why not just give people their usual holidays but with a couple of flexi days?

    4. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      I’ve upset recruiters and HR who drink the “unlimited” PTO Kool Aid by refusing jobs on the grounds that “unlimited” PTO means no PTO. No minimum, nothing guaranteed, no rollover, no payout.

        1. Lydia*

          I’m curious about what a good roll out and policy look like, because I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a good example.

          1. Apex Mountain*

            Well in the case of this letter the company should have paid them out on the old unused time, or given more of a runway before this took effect so they could use the time off.

            In general, unlimited PTO can work well when the culture genuinely supports time off AND there’s a minimum required (say three or four weeks)

            I’ve had unlimited (should really be called “flexible”) for almost 20 years and I cant’ imagine going back

  4. Scottish Beanie*

    One thing I absolutely hate is when I’m answering a question or addressing someone, and a colleague says “what she’s trying to say is…“. That drives me up the wall and it’s like nails on a chalkboard. Coworkers out there, please don’t try to finish your colleagues sentences or disrupt them mid-sentence. It is rude beyond belief and does not reflect well at all, especially when it’s someone of a marginalized identity constantly experiencing it at the hands of a white woman.

      1. OP2 - Interrupted*

        it’s not even that I need a translator – I was born in the states and have spoken English all of my life. I’m going to Try Alison’s recommendations. I’m sensitive to the language I use because I’m male and a minority. I’ve had some bad treatment from female white counterparts. on the flipside I’ve also been treated well by white female counterparts at other companies. however, I have noticed a consistent pattern of being straight up ignored or even strange non verbal responses from white female colleagues.

        I know there’s good people out there who want to be allies. but, I’ll also agree it’s hard catering to the bad ones.

        1. Observer*

          it’s not even that I need a translator

          I may be misunderstanding, but I don’t that @earlk was actually implying that you need an interpreter, but rather providing a snarky comeback to anyone who tires to “explain” what you are saying.

          I’ll also agree it’s hard catering to the bad ones.

          And you should not have to. In this case, I don’t think I would try. If you are in a reasonably good company, I would hope that you could kick it upstairs and have something reasonable happen.

        2. Festively Dressed Earl*

          Yeah, Earl was being sarcastic (when are we getting a sarcasm font?) but Beanie is on to something. You didn’t say anything about how your coworkers are reacting to this in meetings; is it possible that you could recruit some allies to politely interject “Interrupted’s still talking, I want to hear this” or “Hold that thought, Blabby. Now, Interrupted, you were saying?” I’ve had to be that mediator personally and professionally, and people like Blabby seem far more likely to curb their interruptions when someone else calls them on it, even when that person isn’t senior.

    2. Ellis Bell*

      I’m pretty interested in the type of interruption actually; if it was phrased like the way you are suggesting, that the junior is interrupting so as to be the OP’s translator that would be particularly maddening. The type of interruptions would give us more info on whether they are more enthusiastic or patronising. I think the very worst type of interruptions involve saying the exact same thing in different words, rather than enthusing with, and riffing off your ideas (I think that one goes hand in hand with race and gender issues because it only counts when a certain type of person says it). But even an interruption caused by enthusiastic agreement is still an interruption. If I were raising the interruptions issue with this person I would also be very tempted to say “You only seem to do this with me – why is that?” If the report is particularly interested in OP’s area of expertise and can hardly contain their enthusiasm when they speak about it, well they can say so. If it’s for another reason or if the report doesn’t even register the fact that they are interrupting OP, well that might become clearer too.

      1. OP2 - Interrupted*

        they’re patronizing interruptions – a good example of this is once in a meeting with a partner, I made a comment and they didn’t understand what I said. to which they then explained all the reasons why it wouldn’t work and then a few reasons why it would (it made sense to do what I said and ultimately we did it). After they finished, I said “I’ve been trying to explain this for the last 5 minutes but you didn’t give me a chance.” they apologized that time (probably because I called them out in front of the partner), yet proceed to interrupt me all the time.

        another example is our company used to do stand up meetings to share updates. a question would be directed to me and the junior report would speak before I had a chance to get a word in.

        2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          OP you are getting the blunt Pastor today. You need to use your words. You need to name the pattern to her and tell her it has to stop. Now. That it must not happen again.

          When it inevitably does, you need to call it out in the moment, each and every time. Say This is what we talked about it. You have to stop interrupting me. She will eventually get the message. If she doubles down or blusters, take it to her manager. If it still continues, you take it to HR.

            1. OP2 - Interrupted*

              I have spoken to HR about this. them and my direct manager were the people I began this conversation with, to which I received sympathy, but no actual solution to the situation.

              1. Eldritch Office Worker*

                BLEH I’m sorry. HR should be taking it seriously and talking to this person directly if not their manager.

              2. ferrina*

                Is there an ally that can reinforce this with you? Someone that is in the meetings with you that is willing to say “My dead Interrupting Imogen, you are talking over OP. I’d like to hear what OP has to say. OP, please continue.”

              4. Coffee Protein Drink*

                Oh hell. I’m sorry you’re not getting solutions from them. They’re supposed to handle this kind of crap, not wring their hands at you.

              5. Observer*

                to which I received sympathy, but no actual solution to the situation.

                Blech!

                Can you go back to them and ask them what they intend to do about this? If not, or they don’t give you any good answers, is there a way to push this up the ladder?

                Even taking aside the apparent racism, this behavior is gross and inappropriate. It needs to stop. And on the other hand, given that it’s pretty obvious that there is almost certainly a racial aspect to this, and this is happening in public, competent HR should want to shut this down, because they simply cannot claim that they “didn’t know.” Which creates a potential problem.

                See, even if the can claim that this was not so bad that *you* have a “hostile workplace” complaint, or they are convince that you would never take legal action, it leaves them open to *someone else* claiming that the reason they didn’t use whatever process the company has because they could see that no one takes this stuff seriously.

                Of course, it’s not obvious to me that your HR is actually competent, and that’s a real shame!

              6. The Starsong Princess*

                I recommend having one more conversation with her using this phrase “your repeated interruptions of me, despite our conversations on the topic, is impacting your ability to be successful in your role and your future in this organization. You interrupted three times in our last meeting. I need for you to stop doing this immediately. Can you do this?” Basically, you would be telling her that you are going to do everything in your power to get her fired if she doesn’t improve. Hopefully, this will get her attention. If it doesn’t, start providing negative feedback without the sugarcoating to her manager and try to get them to put her on a PIP.

                1. Scottish Beanie*

                  I love this example, but is he her boss, or her senior? I don’t think seniors have that much power.

              7. Lydia*

                OP, would it help if you named what you’re pretty sure you’re seeing to HR? You mentioned you’re Asian and young and Interrupting Imogen is a little older and white. It feels a lot to me like a pretty maxed out microaggression. It just feels very particular that she’s doing this to you and only you.

          2. Scottish Beanie*

            Agreed and, OP2, you might not necessarily get a pleasant and conciliatory response when you do so. Most of these people hate being called out. I would suggest (if you haven’t already) that you take this person aside and clearly lay out the pattern you’ve seen. Her reaction will tell you everything you need to know about her attitude (mine constantly interrupted me to say, “I already said I’m sorry”, while I was telling her to stop interrupting me). If you’ve already told her and she still interrupts you, continue to call her out publicly and with confidence (and document for HR, this sounds like a case).

        3. Myrin*

          I am truly aghast at your second example. What on earth? That seems almost pathological (not in an armchair-diagnosis way but just like… she sounds obsessed with interrupting you/not letting you speak).

        4. ShirleyTmpl*

          Hey OP2, I really really feel your pain. My organization is almost all calm, chill, patient people and it has meant that the one “bad apple” type-A person has been interrupting people for years and getting away with it. He seemed to do it to younger people, juniors, and women especially. I couldn’t imagine how weird it would be to have this *only* happen to you, like it was targeted!

        5. Ellis Bell*

          Thanks for the details OP; I am totally against and I actually think calling it “interruptions” is downplaying this quite a lot. The junior employee is actually trying to speak for you, dismiss you and outright silence you. In order for you to be interrupted, you have to speak first, right? This is someone whose answering questions posed to you to prevent you speaking. I would be logging the crap out of this and showing HR every incident and telling them in no uncertain terms this must be racially targeted, because what else could it be?

  5. Sally*

    OP3: I thought you cannot get unemployment benefit if you get fired for cause. Doesn’t refusing to go through with the PIP potentially put you in danger of this?

    2. allathian*

      That’s why the agreement not to contest unemployment benefits is so important. Employers can pay unemployment benefits even in cases where they aren’t strictly speaking required to do so by law, or at least that’s my understanding of how the system works in the US.

      I’m in Finland, and we have single-payer unemployment benefits. Both employers and employees pay a percentage of salary to a fund from which unemployment benefits are paid out, and employers have no say in whether a particular employee gets benefits or not. You can get benefits regardless of the reason for losing your job, although the mandatory waiting period is longer if you’re fired for cause than if you’re laid off/furloughed.

      1. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

        The US system is similar to yours, although the details vary by state. Employers do not pay unemployment benefits directly at all, ever. Rather, employers pay insurance premiums into the single-payer system, and the single-payer system pays out benefits to the unemployed person. (And I’m pretty sure employees are also paying into that system, but I can’t remember for sure right now.)

        The way it works in my state is this: I’m laid off (or my contract ends, or I’m fired illegally, etc) and I apply to the state for weekly unemployment payments. The state agency contacts my past employer to check on the validity of the claim: was I actually fired for cause? was I actually employed there at all? If the past employer lies or makes a mistake, then my benefits are denied — but I can appeal that denial, and it’s worth the effort because especially at small companies, they really can make mistakes. (In my experience, one time 2 digits in my record were reversed, and that came to light because of the appeal.)

        Ultimately, employers want to keep unemployment claims low because too many claims will lead to a rise in their premiums, just like any other kind of insurance. But they aren’t cutting checks directly to former employees.

      2. Observer*

        Employers can pay unemployment benefits even in cases where they aren’t strictly speaking required to do so by law, or at least that’s my understanding of how the system works in the US.

        That’s not how the system works. There are specific differences in different states but over all, employers don’t pay unemployment nor do they get a say in whether someone gets unemployment.

        However, whether a person is eligible for UEI depends in part on why they were let go. And how much an employer needs to pay into the fund – which they don’t get a choice in – depends on how often their former staff are eligible for UEI. That means that when a company is informed / asked about an application for UEI, they have an incentive to “contest” it, ie to make the case that the person should not be eligible for the payout.

    3. Cj*

      you are eligible for unemployment if you are fired because you are not good at your job. you aren’t eligible if you are fired for misconduct, insubordination, etc.

      in the letter writer’s case though, I would want it in writing that they want contest their unemployment because it could be considered quitting your job if you are leaving it before your PIP time is over. plus you could pass your PIP, and wouldn’t get fired.

      1. UnemploymentRules*

        That may be true where you live, but it’s not the case in any state I’ve lived in. Unemployment is primarily for layoffs and redundancies. There are a few very specific, very rare circumstances where you can get unemployment when fired (and a slightly larger but still small set of circumstances when you’re eligible after quitting). In most cases where the company offers you unemployment in exchange for going quietly (or whatever) they classify it as a layoff of one employee.

        1. ThatGirl*

          I’m not up on state by state rules, but I got fired from a job way back in 2007, I had been on a PIP, came off it successfully but didn’t fully understand that I had no goodwill left – so I made another mistake and that was that. Anyway, they *told* me to file for unemployment as I was being dismissed, and while I do recall having to talk to someone about the circumstances, they did not contest it and I did receive unemployment money.

          So, tl;dr in my experience it is possible to get UI after being fired.

          2. Aggretsuko*

            From what I’ve been told, if you get laid off/not employed through no fault of your own, you get unemployment without any pushback from anyone. If you are fired for cause (in CA at least), unemployment money is not given by default and the organization will probably investigate and more specifically contact your employer to see if they are willing to put those funds in for you. A friend of mine who’s been canned a lot in the tech industry said she never had any former employers deny her unemployment. So it might happen, but it’s not guaranteed and probably depends on employer goodwill and how much they want to be rid of you, she said.

        2. Laura*

          Really depends on your state! My mom had to go to court when an employee she fired* contested it and the employee won and was able to receive unemployment.

          *(for sexting with her boyfriend while on the clock, using a company device)

          1. Orv*

            I worked for a company that had that happen after they fired an employee for stealing tools. (The employee would take expensive tools on a field job and then pawn them while he was out.) It was their own fault they lost, though; they didn’t keep adequate records to prove the case in court.

        3. doreen*

          I’m sure there are some states where you can’t get unemployment if you are let go for poor performance – but sometimes states have unexpected definitions. For example, in NY you are eligible if you lost your job “through no fault of your own” – and you might think that poor performance is your own fault. But it’s not – apparently , what they mean by “fault of your own” is violating a policy, rule or procedure. As the judge said to me many years ago when my employer contested my claim “Incompetence is not misconduct”

        4. RealUnemploymentLaws*

          This is not even remotely true in any of the states where my company employs people. People who are fired qualify for unemployment benefits all the time. I wish Alison would remove this inaccurate comments that speak in absolutes and discourage people form obtaining benefits to which they are entitled.

    4. Sally*

      Also, has OP considered that it might be much harder to find a new job if officially ‘fired’? I think it would be better to find a new job while on a PIP, though I understand it is very stressful. I don’t think you have to disclose in a job interview if you are currently on a PIP, but you are often asked directly if you have been fired.

      1. Aggretsuko*

        Yeah, I think OP needs to stick it out on the PIP as long as possible to keep the firing off their record. I got a lot of lectures about how I had to get out before firing happened because I’ll have to admit to the firing at every job for the rest of my life.

    5. Retail manager*

      In my state you are technically not eligible if fired for cause but the unemployment judges are overwhelmingly sided with employees to the extent I have had employees who no call no show for several days before picking up their paycheck without responding to any calls or texts asking if they still want to work there and ones fired for stealing get unemployment. It got looser with COVID but has always been more employee sided than my reading of the law would suggest it should be.

      1. Friday Hopeful*

        If this is happening I have to say that someone in your HR is not protesting the unemployment. People will always apply. Its up the the employer to protest the notice when it arrives. If they don’t then the unemployment is paid. We have had a number of employees who no-showed then file for unemployment. We send the notice back saying they were not fired, there is still a job available to them (that they don’t show up for) and they don’t collect.

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Not necessarily. We had a huge debacle at my last job because the state of California did not think the reason we fired someone for cause was good enough (it was “not doing any part of her job and failing a PIP”).

      2. Snow Globe*

        There is almost certainly a legal definition in your state of what “for cause” means. It generally means intentionally violating company policies, not just poor performance.

        1. Pizza Rat*

          I think “for cause” usually refers to some kind of malfeasance like stealing vs not being able to fulfill the responsibilities of the job. I’ve noticed a few people in the comments who have collected unemployment after being fired after PIPs.

    6. Khatul Madame*

      OP3, also check your company severance payment policy for those terminated for cause. At 18 years’ tenure, it may come to a tidy sum. My first thought reading your post was they want to get rid of you and this is a ploy to get out of paying severance.

    7. Lindsay*

      Husband was fired years ago after a PIP and was able to get unemployment. He actually got a letter from the company that said they wouldn’t contest his claiming benefits. He tried on the PIP at first, but it became clear he was never going to make it, so he just let it play out so that he would be eligible for unemployment.

    8. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      not necessarily. You can be fired for performance issues and still get unemployment. Most companies do not contest it. The only time I’ve heard of not getting unemployment was if the employee did something really bad like try to fight with a customer or steal from the company. There was one time a family member’s employer did fight the unemployment and she just gave up on it. Looking back she should have gotten a lawyer becuase they fired her after her having medical issues.

    9. Madre del becchino*

      The only time I was fired from a job was for poor performance (cold-call agricultural feed sales was not a good fit for me) and I was able to file for unemployment without issue.

    1. ferrina*

      I was wondering about this too. In certain states, vacation needs to be paid out. When my company switched to unlimited PTO, employees in certain states had to have different rollouts due to state laws.

  7. Testing*

    Does ”open PTO” actually mean unlimited PTO, though? The letter just says that different kinds of time off aren’t separated, not that the pot is theoretically unlimited.

    2. Snow Globe*

      I think many companies are different phrases, like “open PTO”, rather than saying “unlimited” because it’s obviously never really going to be without limits. The boss needs to approve it and there needs to be coverage and the employee needs to be meeting their objectives, etc.

      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        Calling is “discretionary PTO” probably shines too much light on its actual nature.

        1. Evan Þ*

          My employer does literally call it “Discretionary Time Off.”

          It’s worked out well on my team, but that’s because my manager’s given us soft limits of “I expect you’ll be taking off at least as much time as you had before; as long as you’re taking off less than $amount I don’t see any problems.”

          1. Eldritch Office Worker*

            That’s interesting. For us Discretionary Time Off is a separate bucket that managers have to give people an extra day or two after a big push or something.

            1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

              The only Discretionary PTO I’ve seen has been unpaid, so that would really throw me for a loop.

  8. Bilateralrope*

    LW1: Managements refusal to give specific examples, then lying about the people complaints came from, makes me think that they are unable to give examples because the poor communication never happened.

    I also note that the gender of the other person in Wendy’s position was not stated in your letter. Which makes me wonder if that’s relevant.

    1. Your Former Password Resetter*

      Vague complaints with no concrete examples or feedback definitely seems to be a common smokescreen for more underhanded motivations.

      1. Alternative Person*

        Yep, this happened to me. Insecure management wanted me gone and used this exact playbook whilst refusing to address the issues I was bringing up.

        I landed on my feet and looking back, I wish I had handled things differently but I’m well shot of that place because of the festering culture there.

      2. ferrina*

        100%
        Seen this several times- especially if management gets defensive when you question their inconsistencies.

    2. soontoberetired*

      I know managers who have taken feedback and warped it to fit a view they wanted. I gave what was postive feedback once, telling the manager the person was capable of doing more than what the kept getting assigned, so please assign the more complicated stuff, we aren’t using the person to their full potential. It got turned into the person was a slacker. Some managers just suck.

      1. JustaTech*

        I had that happen to an entire department once. On the annual survey they were all “we’re so excited to start the new project!” and what came out the management machine was “you’re not invested” and “you don’t have anything to do so we should probably get rid of a bunch of you”.

        And HR wonders why we aren’t honest on the survey anymore!

    3. Skitters*

      This could also be Wendy not being told any specific names and now she is indirectly accusing others to ferret out who complained.

      I think Wendy should try to move jobs before this becomes a PIP/write up.

    4. I Can't Even*

      This right here, my boss is currently openly sexist and will rate male employee’s higher than female employees across the board without any support for why it is happening (e.g. specific examples). It has been a problem that has been brought to HR.

  9. Clementine*

    For the person on a PIP, I’d suggest consulting with a lawyer before making any moves to negotiate. You might be in an at-will state (sounds pretty likely), but there are other factors to consider in any event.

    1. Cj*

      what difference does it make if they are in an at will or not? I’m curious as all, not meaning to argue with you that it doesn’t make a difference.

    3. ferrina*

      A lawyer might help with understanding employment law (the conditions under which LW can collect unemployment), but nothing in this letter screams lawsuit to me.

      1. I'm just here for the cats!!*

        I am curious why after 18 years they all of a sudden are getting put on a PIP. IT shouldn’t have come as a surprise if the OP was not doing well. I wonder what has changed (has the job duties changed, etc.) and what the company has tried. The OP could be in a protected class (over 40) so there could be agism going on.

        2. Malarkey01*

          I can’t speak for everyone but I’ve had to put 3 very long term employees on PIPs this year. It’s been a combination of things but a big one is that some of the relaxation we did during covid becoming a permanent problem (for example we gave a ton of grace to an employee that had to basically online school a child for 14 minutes and their output cratered, now that we’re back the output didn’t bounce back), we’ve also changed some processes and folks good at the prior one just aren’t adjusting.

          All to say employee performance changing isn’t always unheard of and more common if you look around most offices.

        3. Observer*

          I wonder what has changed (has the job duties changed, etc.)

          That’s a good question. Because something *has* definitely changed. Consider that the LW thought about it and decided that they do not *want* to “pass” the PIP and continue working. They want some way to walk away and find a new job, but they need some sort of cushion.

  10. Nodramalama*

    For LW3, in the U.S is it likely that jobs will ask if you have ever been fired? It’s quite a common question in Australia so if possible I think I’d rather try find a new job, as stressful as it is, while I still have my current one.

    1. Marina Rose*

      Yes, in my experience in the US it’s very common to ask if you’ve ever been fired. If the recruiter doesn’t ask you directly, they will usually ask the previous jobs when they check references if you were fired / are eligible for re-hire at that company.

    2. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      It’s pretty common, and the Scarlet F is usually enough cause to fire an otherwise-good employee if it comes to light later. On paper, being fired is usually better, but in practice, it’s often something that haunts the former employee in an opaque manner.

    3. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      It really depends on the position and the industry. I’ve been a part of several hiring committees and we have never asked. when I was job searching I don’t think I was ever asked “were you fired.” Typically they ask why you left a job.

      1. Space Needlepoint*

        I’ve seen the question on job applications, but never had it come up in an interview. I’ve been interviewed and hired after answering the question on an application. It never came up in the interviews.

        2. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

          I’ve seen it asked “was your employment ever terminated by the employer” or something like that, which leaves a pretty wide range. The termination I’ve had — as part of a layoff of two entire teams, not performance-based — has come up a few times and hasn’t seemed to bother any of the potential employers who have asked. (I didn’t always get the job, but it has seemed more like a fit issue than “we can’t hire someone who had a layoff.”)

          1. Space Needlepoint*

            I’ve seen different phrasings, some like what you wrote and up to, “Have you ever been fired from a job? If yes, explain the circumstances.”

    4. Melody Powers*

      It’s pretty common where I am and it’s why I chose to resign when given that option by a previous employer who wanted to fire me (plus that option came with severance pay, I assume to make the option that would be easier for them more attractive to me). Then the applications started phrasing the question by asking if I was ever fired or asked to resign, so there went my attempt to control the narrative since the true answer to that is “yes” regardless.

    5. Red Canary*

      It’s pretty common. Obviously, it’s good if you can answer that you’ve never been fired, but it’s not like being fired will stop you from being hired– depending on the reason, of course.

  11. UnlimitedPTO*

    I don’t fully understand the answer to #4. From the description I don’t think this is what I work but it could be as they’ve also recently made the same decision. To me it feels like getting agreement with your manager that you will ‘take’ the rolled over PTO (eg they won’t penalise you if you end up taking more weeks ‘than normal’ in the first year) would be a lot more likely than one or two people complaining meaning the rollout is delayed.

    If the company is large then the rollout date impacts HR tooling & financial reporting, and asking for more notice has zero chance of success and would look pretty naive.

    1. Allonge*

      I think Alison suggested pushing back against the rollout time because that is what the question was about, but I agree with you that there are more practical things to focus on at this stage (unless the company is tiny).

      Beyond what you mentioned, there will be people who don’t have PTO that would be rolled over to next year, so finding allies in this is a bit tricky, as the issue may be very theoretical for a lot of coworkers.

    2. Great Frogs of Literature*

      When this happened at my company, the concern wasn’t about our direct managers, but about upper management. No one was worried that if we went to our manager and said, “Hey, I had three weeks saved when they wiped our PTO accrual, so I’m planning to take seven weeks this year” that the manager would deny it. But our “unlimited” didn’t come with any guidance about what that actually meant in practice, including to the managers, so we were just all kind of operating under “take as much as you would have accrued last year” and nobody knew what the threshold was where someone in HR or a Senior VP-level manager would start side-eying how much PTO you’d taken that year. And since the managers weren’t confident they could shield us from that, no one wanted to stick their neck out and take a lot in one go.

      1. Great Frogs of Literature*

        Also, FWIW, I was only slightly affected, but I was still up-in-arms that my coworkers were going to effectively be losing hundreds of hours of accrued vacation — that just felt massively unfair to me. (That said, it’s probably harder to fight when it’s 40 hours, max.)

  12. The_artist_formerly_known_as_Anon-2*

    OP1 – unfortunate, apparently the manager is attempting a “divide and conquer” strategy here (turning you against Wendy).

    Unfortunate again, because rarely will a manager redo or expunge an unfair employee review. The worst career move a manager can do is to appear indecisive or, “wishy-washy”. The general procedure for a manager to work around it – if the affected employee decides to bail, and the employee is critical, often a “new review” is written, the employee has suddenly “turned it around”.

    In my 47 year career, I have only had a bad review re-written (once) and one, effectively expunged when I refused to sign it. That gave the manager an opportunity to undo the damage it would have caused, not just for me, but for him if I had to respond to it.

    There had been a major incident where the director AND manager pulled a “nasty” on me (long story) and regretted it ….and caused a temporary attitude problem — and they didn’t want HR to find out what they had done.

    So they backed away from it – insomuch that they wanted to go forward there as much as I did, they expunged the review. The situation created an aroma, and HR somehow got wind of it. The director breathed a sigh of relief when I wouldn’t discuss the issue when HR pressed it in a three-way meeting with HR, him, and me.

    Yeah I won that battle but it was one I would have rather avoided.

  13. They're Watching*

    LW1: what does your and Wendy’s Slack chat history look like? You mention that people in her position often resolve things offline, have they taken a look at it and it appears that she’s not answered questions from you because you wrote something and then spoke to her in person?

  14. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    #2 I’m fuming just reading this.
    Chronic interrupter interrupts only you, an manager who is Asian, but noone else. Are you the only manager or coworker in her meetings who is not white? Did she interrupt you like this when you managed her?

    Alison’s advice is good. Personally, I’d talk to her manager right away, her responsibility to deal with this arse and state that if her behaviour doesn’t stop promptly, you will escalate with an official complaint about racism.

    1. OP2 - Interrupted*

      I would love to escalate it to that level but this company is a mess. i agree with you however and I appreciate that I’m not alone in how I feel.

      1. Almost Empty Nester*

        Honestly would just stop her in the moment and and calmly ask her to please not interrupt me and let me finish my thought. I probably wouldn’t wait to speak to her in private, just stop her in the moment. Every single time.

        1. Observer*

          I don’t think it needs to be either / or. I think it’s BOTH.

          Talk to her, talk to *her* manager, and keep on stooping her in the moment. Every time.

      2. Observer*

        Is there any reason you are not looking for a new job? Or are you looking, but didn’t mention is as it’s not really relevant to the actual question?

        I ask because if this place is so much of a mess that this kind of thing won’t get resolved, it sounds like a pretty miserable place to work.

      3. The Unionizer Bunny*

        I don’t think Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow meant you should file an official complaint with company HR.

        Notifying her manager IS “notifying the employer”. If the behavior does not stop promptly, that employer is liable and you can file an official complaint with the EEOC.

        HR can ignore the company’s Title VII obligations if they want. They can’t tell the government to mind its own business, because racial discrimination is the government’s business. So what if they’re a mess? Don’t go through them. Once you tell management, the employer has been made aware. If the company doesn’t straighten out its mess, you ask the government to look into it. I bet they have a lot of other dirt in that mess. They don’t want to have everyone else asking if this is the best time to escalate a complaint, which gives you a kind of informal protection. If they try to punish you for filing (which it already “retaliation” explicitly prohibited by statute), you also have a protected right to speak with coworkers to gather evidence for your claim – which can turn into a lot of other workers becoming aware that the company is vulnerable and panicking. Panic doesn’t lead to good decisions. Strike while the iron is hot. If they come forth with their own stories of discrimination while your own complaint is being investigated, the company’s case that they have excellent processes and your complaint just “fell through the cracks” begins evaporating. Give them a chance to do the right thing, but be prepared in case they don’t.

        Transparency: pass 1, comment 3/3

  15. misspiggy*

    I’m confused about unlimited PTO. It seems unlimited PTO becomes discretionary on the part of one’s management. Doesn’t that take PTO from being a specific quantity, a predictable part of your compensation, to being an optional extra or perk? In which case isn’t your remuneration for your work being cut?

    1. MK*

      Yes. Theoretically, unlimited PTO means that, as long an employee’s work gets done, it doesn’t matter how much they are off work, but reallistically that only works in specific roles, where it’s possible to handle your workload whenever you see fit. And PTO is always somewhat discretionary, at least as far as scheduling, but if you have a specific number of days off, a manager will be more motivated to allow it, I think, when faced with the objective fact that you do have unspent time off, that was agreed on when you were hired. It shouldn’t work that way, but, psycologically, for some reason not having that specific number to look at makes managers less comfortable with denying PTO requests. I have heard of people with allegedly unlimited PTO, who ended up having to keep track of their own time off and use it as an argument when making requests (as in, “I want a week off in September, and also note that I have only taken one week of PTO so far this year, when our PTO allowance before unlimited PTO was three weeks per year”).

      1. Excel Gardener*

        I find this interesting, because I see this complaint about unlimited PTO a lot online, but people I know IRL who have unlimited PTO are generally taking 4+ weeks off per year while I know a lot of people with accrued vacation only getting 2-3 weeks per year.

      2. Emmy Noether*

        So this just made me realize the link between this and something else: I’ve never in my life encountered a job where one would ever be “done” with work – work has always been functionally infinite. Frankly I have trouble imagining such a job – wouldn’t one just get assigned more work if one had free time?

        So the only way that it works is you work during however much time you agreed to work (hours per week and days per year). So in that framework it’s better to negotiate time off up front, because how else to determine how much to take?

        1. Orv*

          For my job it often comes down to “how much of this work is time critical?” My job tends to divide up evenly between fires that must be put out immediately, and long-term projects with nebulous due dates. As long as I have backup for the fires, and/or pick a time period when there tend not to be many fires, I can take time off without too much trouble.

        2. doreen*

          That depends a lot on the job, but also, a lot of time it’s less “my work is done and I have loads of free time so I can take a month off ” and more “I’ve completed everything that’s due this week even though it’s only noon on Thursday” Not every job lends itself to assigning someone more work short-term and not every job allows you to complete work in advance. For example, there was a report I used to have to complete when someone had been a client of my agency for 36 months. I could not write that report before the end of the 34th month. Other reports had to be completed by the last day of the month, but couldn’t be completed before the first day. There were weeks where I worked maybe 20 hours and other weeks when I worked 60 – but I had to be present 35 hours even when was only actually working 20 of them ( and I got nothing extra the weeks I worked 60). Theoretically, I could have been assigned more cases so that I didn’t have the 20 hour weeks – but then the 60 hour weeks might have gone to 80. Which wouldn’t actually have happened because cases would have been reassigned but constantly reassigning cases had problems, too.

    2. Amy*

      When my company switched to unlimited PTO 3 years ago, I definitely viewed it as a downgrade.

      So I decided to take more than my previous allocation to make up for the loss of a benefit. Basically I used to have 18 days PTO + holidays, now I take 23.

      I know this wouldn’t work everywhere but it’s worked at my company.

      1. Anonymous Educator*

        All my previous office jobs gave me 10 vacation days, so now that I’m at a place with “unlimited vacation,” I make sure to take at least 40 vacation days a year.

    3. MagnaCarta*

      Yes. This is the actual purpose of it, from the corporate side. It looks better on financial statements because accrued PTO is actually debt, to whatever extent they are required to pay it out upon termination. This is why the tech industry “innovated” PTO policies in this area–companies constantly looking toward the next round of funding will take any edge they can get.

      1. ampersand*

        This makes so much sense! I knew it was a financial liability if an employee were to leave with accrued PTO that then had to be paid out; I hadn’t considered it in the context of securing funding. This probably explains why the start up my husband works for has unlimited PTO.

      3. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        It also short-circuits any attempt to negotiate PTO accrual when recruiting. The company can stand behind “we’re unlimited” as if it were, in theory, more PTO than a fixed amount, and “unlimited + X” is sort of gibberish. The new employee doesn’t learn the truth until they try to use said “unlimited” PTO.

  16. Audrey Puffins*

    OP2, given that your colleague will apparently keep talking over you when you do inform her that you haven’t finished yet, do you have a buddy or two you can rope in to back you up with a “Co-worker, I want to hear what LW was saying” where necessary? If nothing else, it should draw her awareness to the fact that other people can see what she’s doing and aren’t impressed by it

    1. Good Enough For Government Work*

      Yes, I agree with this. If LW is the only person of colour there, then it’s even more important for their white coworkers to weigh in and make it clear they have LW’s back and the interrupter’s behaviour is not acceptable.

      1. MsM*

        If it takes a white coworker intervening for her to knock it off, though, I think that’s worth escalating to someone.

        1. ScruffyInternHerder*

          The LW will know if it’s worth escalating.

          It looks like it on paper, but only the LW knows if there’s a chance its worth it.

          1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

            I gave up rolling over and accepting shit from whites decades ago. That’s a total red line for me.
            I’d escalate if need be and if that doesn’t work, I’d job hunt and just phone it in until I leave – with a stinking Glassdoor review. I’d warn people off that whole fucking nest of r#scists.

      2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

        I’d feel humiliated if I was frequently talked over and it took a white person to stop them. I exist, as a human being. Listen to me about my problems; don’t wait for another white person like you.

        If the OP is the only POC, then it is important they have the power to speak for themselves. If it takes a white coworker to get people to listen to a POC , then your workplace stinks.

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      If the OP does ask a buddie to chime in, I’d suggest only chiming in as support right after they do what Alison advised:

      hold up your hand in a “stop” motion and say, “Please stop interrupting me and wait until I’m finished.”

      I found I get better results speaking up myself – unless I am junior to the white person. The OP said they are senior so I would feel weak if I ask someone else to speak instead of, rather than in addition to, me.

    3. Southern Ladybug*

      I agree – I was going to make this suggestion as well, particularly as LW says it’s already obvious to others. Coworkers need to step up as well. “Please let LW finish,” “I’d like to hear what LW is saying – please don’t interrupt” etc. They are also positioned to speak to higher-up or to the interrupter. This shouldn’t be on LW alone (though I know many times in this situations it is).

      1. OP2 - Interrupted*

        thank you everyone. yes, I am the only person of color on this team and one of the few pocs in a management position. above me there’s no diversity. I’m also one of the few that’s not white presenting. there’s probably 1 other manager who’s also not white presenting at this company. his experience is wildly different than mine since he’s been here much longer than me and the team worked with him when they first started vs me being part of a newer team.

        1. Observer*

          Sigh.

          And then companies wonder why they “can’t find” or “can’t keep” POC on staff.

          Someone really needs to point out to someone with the authority to clean house a bit, that the racism here is *glowing* (as in radioactive glow). The problem is not the Junior here, but all of the people who are letting this happen.

          I hope that if you do ask some others to speak up, they will do so gladly and firmly.

  17. M*

    OP5, I’d also add to Alison’s answer that you applied early in their advertising of the role, and know that for a fact! It wouldn’t be that unusual for a senior role to be advertised for a month or so before they even start interviews – this really hasn’t been all that long a hiring process yet, with that in mind.

  18. Still*

    #5 – there really is no good way to give an update on the hiring process to someone who’s not being offered the job, is there. No matter how transparent you are, someone’s gonna be upset.

    3. SpaceySteph*

      I think the terminology ‘still in consideration’ does leave a little room for confusion. They aren’t REALLY considering them for anything.

      But that’s where the perennial job seeker advice to “apply and then forget about it” comes in. Don’t wait around hoping for a future role that may never materialize and compound your disappointment!

  19. r..*

    LW1,

    assuming you indeed have been given the whole truth — instead of just having received Wendy’s recollection of events — then it is very hard to not come to the conclusion that Wendy’s superiors either have it out for her or are, quite frankly, incompetent.

    You do not put a negative remark in someone’s file and deny a raise based on reports you haven’t verified, and you do not use the same score as justification to give a raise to someone and deny it to someone else.

    1. Friday Hopeful*

      My thoughts exactly. If this is the truth (and I’m not sure how everyone else is aware of what the other employees reviews and scores were) then it sounds like Wendy may have some sort of legal recourse. Especially if there is age discrimination going on.

    2. MollyGodiva*

      “You do not put a negative remark in someone’s file and deny a raise based on reports you haven’t verified”. This happens all the time. It is a common tactic when management wants to screw over the employee.

      1. r..*

        My comment, of course, was written from the perspective of what is and isn’t done while engaging in what at least could be charitably called ‘good management’. Once you abandon the notion of actually trying to manage well of course everything goes.

        But even then, it would be incompetence or being sloppy.

        If I wanted to screw someone over it’ll be a cold day in hell before I do it in a way that is so easily repudiated, and has such a high chance to blow up in my face in a rather embarrassing fashion.

        I work for a boutique management consultancy. I don’t particularly like swinging the metaphorical axe, but it comes with the territory and hence happens at times. Anyway, I know how it is done properly, and how you do not end up looking stupid because the other side hung you with your own rope (or tried to and failed, but got close enough for there to be repercussions). This type of bushleague nonsense is so far removed from proper worksmanship that it is disgusting.

  20. EvilQueenRegina*

    One time when my ex-boss Umbridge was still in post, she pulled my coworkers Charlotte and Elisabeth aside for what I thought at the time was a catch up about how the induction and training had been going for our new starters. As it turned out, she had actually taken them aside to yell at them over their flexible working hours, and she’d brought my name into it as though I thought it was a problem.

    I’d never said anything, and could never think of anything I’d said that could have been wrongly taken that way. (I did tell Charlotte and Elisabeth that, and they said they knew it hadn’t come from me, and didn’t believe anything had come from Martha, the other coworker named in the argument, either.) I never raised it with Umbridge because I liked having my head attached to the rest of me too much.

    The thing was, Charlotte had a medical condition that was under investigation, and had been given medical advice not to drive at night. She had quite a long commute, and it had been agreed for her to work different hours that winter so that she could get home in the light – Umbridge hadn’t been happy about this, but hadn’t had a leg to stand on. I knew all this, so would never have raised it. At the time of this argument, it was quite close to the start of British Summer Time, so it was getting to the point where Charlotte could have gone back to her usual hours and still been able to commute in the light, but this was a conversation Umbridge could have brought up calmly, without yelling at her and without bringing anyone else’s name into it.

    It ended up being the final straw in Elisabeth’s decision to quit and go back to her old job.

  21. Thomas*

    OP3 I think needs to consider what might be behind this, and whether their employer is acting in good faith or not.

    If the requirements have genuinely changed and you can’t handle the new version of the role that’s fine. If your own capability is declining, that’s a hard thing to deal with but nothing wrong with your employer.

    But otherwise, putting a long-serving employee on a PIP out of the blue is shady, and suggests they’re trying to get rid of you without paying severance or other benefits you should be entitled to. In that case trying to come to an agreement is likely folly.

      1. SpaceySteph*

        Ouch, the grey hair that just leapt from my follicle when you said this and I realized that when I hit 18 years I will indeed be about to turn 40.

  22. Ohio Duck*

    #5 – My workplace recently hired for a skilled position. 1st potential hire withdrew due to the salary not being competitive for him. 2nd choice, despite having lots of experience in xyz, crashed and burned late into the process.

    At this point you’d be back up to the top of the pile. For us, it was someone who applied too late to be considered the first time around, and we’ve very happy with her so far.

    You haven’t been rejected, it’s more like being put on a waiting list. Normally you’d never know about it, but this company is being a bit more communicative than most.

    1. Lacey*

      Yup. I was the third choice for my job. The first two candidates rejected the offer bc it was kinda crummy, but I needed a job so I here I am!

    2. JustaTech*

      My site has been hiring for a director position for more than a year. We’ve had two candidates actually sign paperwork and then nope out (they were going to have to relocate and the housing market here is bananas).

      So absolutely we are keeping folks on a waiting list in the desperate hope one of them will actually start.

  23. Been There*

    Re #3: I’ve read a number of stories/comments about this over time. I mean really…putting an employee of 18 years on a PIP? You’d think somewhere in that 18 years, you’d know if you’re meeting expectations. So dumb. Hope OP finds something better where they are treated with more respect.

    1. Generic Name*

      I worked somewhere that did this to their longtime receptionist. She could be gruff with clients, so it wasn’t outrageous she got fired, but I definitely gave the situation some side eye. I think I had been there like 5 years when she got fired, and I didn’t notice any changes in her behavior in that time. Maybe she was rude to the wrong client who complained and who was important enough? No idea. The overall management of that place is not optimal, so it was par for the course.

    2. Potsie*

      I agree. It is definitely possible that the needs of the job have changed and the employee cannot adjust, but a PIP should never come out of the blue. That is a management failure.

      1. MagnaCarta*

        Or possible that a new manager has come in who will not accept something that a previous manager was willing to accept (could be anything really — work quality, lack of collegiality, errors, delays, etc.)

        Given that the OP mentions they were initially willing to make the changes, it does sound to me like there’s a substantive performance issue being named that they recognize being at least somewhat accurate. And yes, out of the blue, but 60 days is also pretty long for a PIP so perhaps management is factoring that in.

        1. Cinnamon Stick*

          Managers are sometimes brought in with instructions to “clean house.” Or some just do that as soon as they can so they can bring in their own people.

          I wish we had more information, but we can’t say if the OP has any more than what they shared.

        2. Pita Chips*

          My experience with PIPs is mostly from the comments here on AAM. I’ve seen them run from 30 days through half a year, so I don’t think 60 is particularly long.

    3. Jennifer Strange*

      Working somewhere for 18 years doesn’t mean that person is above a PIP. Obviously we don’t know the specifics of what led to it, but it’s possible the LW wasn’t performing as well as they previously had.

      1. Apex Mountain*

        Sure, but you’d think the longevity would at least buy you a couple of conversations before it got to that point.

          1. Polly Hedron*

            Never mind, I re-read OP3’s post and I see that the bad review and PIP were a surprise. That should never happen!

            1. Observer*

              In theory, that’s true.

              In practice, it’s not always the employer’s fault.

              From what the LW says it’s equally possible that the management was being sloppy or that the LW wasn’t really taking paying attention to what was going on and to changes that needed to be made.

              1. Polly Hedron*

                OK, I may have been right after all when I said “Maybe there had been a couple of conversations.”
                This point is discussed further in the first link under “You May Also Like” above.

    4. Abigail*

      I do not like this attitude one little bit.

      I do not like insulting long term employees from constructive criticism.

      If people cannot take constructive criticism that is something they need to work on. This is true if it’s Day 1, Day 100, or Day 10,000 at a job.

      Deference to longevity is a HUGE mistake.

      1. Bast*

        I don’t agree with deference due to longevity, but if someone has been an good to outstanding employee for 18 years and suddenly things start to go wrong, your first instinct as a manager shouldn’t be to give them the finger and call it quits *unless of course, it’s something particularly egregious that makes it impossible for them to continue working for you*. Why wouldn’t you want to have a conversation(s) with them to try to understand about what’s going on, what changed, instead of just slapping on a PIP and calling it a day? IMO that’s a terrible attitude to have, to just treat someone like a cog in the wheel that way.

        1. Space Needlepoint*

          Agreed. A good manager is going to have a conversation with the employee when an issue arises, not wait to surprise them with the news of a PIP or at a review.

      2. Cinnamon Stick*

        Absolutely people need to be able to take constructive criticism. I disagree that the way to start delivering it is by giving someone a bad review and a PIP with no prior conversation.

    5. Aggretsuko*

      Oh, I got that treatment for years and I’d been there … come to think of it, 18 years and suddenly I met NO expectations.

    6. Observer*

      You’d think somewhere in that 18 years, you’d know if you’re meeting expectations.

      Not if something has changed. And there is a good reason to believe that something has changed.

      Now, it’s possible that what has changed is the company / management, and for the worse. But it’s hard to tell from what the LW writes.

  24. Lacey*

    LW4: You could also request that the time you can’t use gets paid out to you.

    When my work switched to unlimited PTO it was the middle of the year and there was almost no notice at all. But they paid out any unused vacation time we had accrued.

    1. YouCanAsk*

      Lucky you! That definitely didn’t happen for me or anyone else I know who has been through this process.

    2. Miss Muffet*

      Might also be a requirement of your state. Some states (like Colorado) have laws against use it or lose it (there are some stipulations like, companies can determine how much can get rolled over, but you can’t lose it outright). This conversation made me look at what would happen at my company if I got a promotion, because Directors and above get unlimited, and the rest of us get accrual based on YOS. I noticed in my company’s PTO policy paper that if someone in Colorado is promoted to Director, the unused accrued PTO is paid out.

      1. Lacey*

        It might be. Because at a previous company when I put in my notice they paid out my unused vacation days. And neither of those places are exactly beacons of worker friendliness.

  26. Pastor Petty Labelle*

    LW 3- instead of bailing early, because I doubt that the employer will agree to pay unemployment, use this time to job hunt. Instead of putting energy into your job, even energy to do poorly, redirect that energy to your job hunt. You know you don’t want to be there, so job hunt.

    2. learnedthehardway*

      Agreeing – I wouldn’t volunteer to be let go, both for the issue of getting unemployment, but also because you don’t know how long a job search is going to take you.

      That said, I would make efforts to raise my performance, at the same time – you’re going to need a reference and after 15+ years, any references you have will come from your current company. If you are unclear about the feedback, ask for specific things you can work on, or if you disagree, push back where you can to get your review changed to reflect your performance/contributions.

      That’s going to mean buckling down to both your job and a job search, but at least you would be able to take the time with a job search, and find a role/company that you really want to join. It’s a trope that it is easier to find a job when you have a job (but not entirely untrue), and it is certainly easier to evaluate a new company/job objectively when you’re not feeling the pinch of no income.

    3. Orv*

      That’s what I’d do. It’s going to be a lot harder to land a new job once you have the black mark of being fired on your employment history.

    4. Observer*

      instead of bailing early, ~~~snip~~~ use this time to job hunt.

      Keep in mind that Unemployment does not pay out a lot. And being without a job means being without medical insurance unless you pay for Cobra, which is *expensive*. Even if you get something decent on your state’s marketplace, that’s going to be money outo f your pocket and it’s going to take a lot of time and headspace to make it happen

  27. Sneaky Squirrel*

    #5 – The good news is that you know that your resume is getting some traction. So many times we apply for jobs and have no clue whether we were passed because of our resume or some other faux pas.

  28. learnedthehardway*

    OP#5 – that’s remarkably clear and open feedback from the recruiter. What it means is that the hiring team feels there are 2 stronger candidates than you, but that the recruiter feels you are strong enough that you could be moved forward to a next interview, if either of those 2 candidates bomb their next interview or drop out. Also, if you’re not moved forward now, they would consider you again, if the role comes up in future.

    So, not great news, but the recruiter probably feels that the other candidates might be stronger (perhaps they have more experience) but also that it’s unlikely that one or both would accept the role (perhaps they are pushing the top of the compensation range or are over it).

    I would thank the recruiter for their transparency, carry on with your job search, and touch base with the recruiter in a couple of weeks, if you remain interested.

    1. HonorBox*

      I think that’s the best first start. And then if it continues to happen, I’d raise the concern with junior person’s manager. I don’t think I’d let it go beyond one time after the conversation, though.

      1. OP2 - Interrupted*

        i was afraid of the reaction. this person did have a bad reaction to the conversation. totally disrespectful.

  30. Flax Spinner*

    LW2: The key here is in the third and fourth lines: ” She’s white and mid 40s, I’m Asian and mid 30s. I’ve noticed she only does this to me…”

    Chances are that it’s NOT a coincidence that she’s treating the Asian colleague disrespectfully. It took the COVID-19 pandemic to reveal the anti-Asian racism that generally flies below the radar in our culture, but yes, it DOES exist. There are many pernicious stereotypes about Asians that can make us “soft targets” for people like the LW’s colleague.

    The chances are also that the colleague has NOT been called out on her behavior in these terms, either – even though non-discrimination policies are supposed to apply to everyone, in practice those policies are often seen as applying only to African-Americans. Time for that colleague’s manager to get involved here and to crack down firmly on her arrogant and obnoxious behavior.

  31. Dawn*

    Hi, LW1! It sounds like you were scapegoated by your gutless management! That’s not something that you can actually fix, sorry; they already know that what they said wasn’t true, and they don’t care, because you’re being thrown under the bus. Again, I’m sorry, and it might be time to consider changing jobs!

  32. OP2 - Interrupted*

    update – I just had the conversation and it didn’t go over well. I followed the script and remained neutral but the junior report got very upset about it. I stayed neutral and after the meeting went to HR and shared what happened.

    1. My Brain is Exploding*

      Please post again or send Alison an update regarding what HR says/does about this. Thank you and good luck!

      1. OP2 - Interrupted*

        will do! I want to make sure I share an update and have this page bookmarked for me to come back to. I appreciate everyone’s support in handling this. I’m relieved to know I didn’t do anything wrong. I’ve been punished in the past for standing up for myself at work.

        I’ll continue to monitor comments and give input as I can as well.

        1. Observer*

          Sigh again.

          I would not be shocked if you got punished again. But that’s NOT because you did anything wrong! It’s because there is a problem in the organization and it may react poorly to any *reasonable* attempt to change and fix it.

    2. Hlao-roo*

      Sorry that the conversation didn’t go well :(

      Hopefully you can get some support from HR and/or your manager in handling this!

    3. Sydney Bristow*

      Honestly, even if the junior report got upset, it doesn’t mean it didn’t go well– or at least that you did the best that you could. Many people can feel defensive in the moment when receiving feedback, especially if they have been ignoring all of your gentler suggestions not to behave this way. Now you’ll have to see what happens– her being upset is not the bad outcome, her continuing to go on interrupting you is the bad outcome, especially the kind of interrupting she was doing!

      (And I am a terrible interrupter as a NYC native where it is seen as a normal part of conversation and had a hard adjustment to understand that dialogue is not a competitive sport)

      1. OP2 - Interrupted*

        ooh good point! I will say, it was difficult for me to know this was the response I received from this person. I can’t control their behavior/attitudes, but it’s nice to know from everyone here that I’m not in the wrong for telling them to stop interrupting, directly.

        it was difficult for me because I want people to feel good when we interact. I can’t do that when I’m not feeling good.

        maybe it was silly, but I was hoping we could laugh at it by the end of the convo. but, I agree their feelings doesn’t make this a bad outcome even if I’m hyper sensitive/aware right now.

        I got really scared thinking this could be used to scapegoat me – minorities will understand.

        1. MsM*

          That’s another reason not to beat yourself up too much over her being upset, though. I’m not saying she’s deliberately weaponizing her feelings, but if all the focus goes into making her feel better, the problem doesn’t get addressed, much less resolved.

          1. Scottish Beanie*

            It’s a great impulse to want people to feel good when interacting with them, just as a hallmark of being good people. I know that it also is sometimes a protective maneuver. In my own experience, I could not have been nicer, but it doesn’t matter if someone is intent on harassment.

            One thing I’ve also found is that people who harass generally find joy in it, especially if they believe you’re supposed to be subservient. The fact that you called her out turns that belief on its head and offends her, ironically.

            I’m saying all this as having dealt with this for years. Those sentiments don’t tend to go away but, when you defend yourself, they simply don’t express them as blatantly and/or as often if they sense the power dynamic working against them.

            You may have to escalate this beyond HR if they don’t step in and stop her behavior. I suggest you consult with a lawyer, especially if you believe that HR is going to scapegoat you for reporting this.

        3. Dawn*

          I was thinking about this one and I wanted to add this; what you’re feeling right now is very understandable because we, as women – and from what I have heard from other people, particularly women who are also visible minorities – are very much socialized to that “everyone should feel good after a conversation with you, everyone’s feelings should be preserved, your job is to make them feel good about talking to you” – but the truth is that if you’re a manager (which your letter implied but didn’t explicitly state) that you’re going to have to have conversations sometimes that don’t leave people feeling good and wanting to laugh about it.

          You can have that conversation compassionately and politely and sometimes kindly, but you’re going to have to have those conversations, and ultimately it will (should) be better for your reports that you do get comfortable with that and have them forthrightly and in a timely manner.

          So this is a particularly difficult circumstance, because there will always be that question of motive hanging over it, but maybe you can also look at it as an opportunity for you to develop as well? Just a thought.

          Still sucks that you have to do it, always does.

    4. Pizza Rat*

      Thank you for the update!

      I think you did the right thing. Junior report’s behavior needs addressing, and you’ve kept HR in the loop. Hopefully they will now do something like talk to the junior’s current manager.

    5. Mermaid of the Lunacy*

      People’s immediate reaction is usually to get upset when called out on something they know deep down is their fault. I guess it’s some sort of biological defense mechanism. So I would take her getting upset as a positive. Hopefully once she has some time to think about it she’ll be more rational, but if not I’m glad you talked to HR and hopefully they will help you navigate the situation.

    6. Dawn*

      I’m sorry to hear that, but please remember that you didn’t do anything wrong; as someone senior to this person, you brought up a work issue, and defensiveness is both 1. her problem and, 2. another work issue that it’s her responsibility to deal with.

      I guess what I’m saying here is, I sympathize with the concerns with being scapegoated – I’m not a visible minority but I am visibly trans and there’s some shared experiences there – but ultimately I think that if you remember that this is on her, not you, and comport yourself clear in the knowledge that this is her problem, you’ll come out the other side better off than you were before.

      (For the record: I’m not saying this is definitely what happened, but you may want to look into the concept of DARVO. DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is very typical for people who are objectively being abusive to become defensive and try to position it as being their target’s fault and you don’t want to play that game. This is a work issue and she is objectively at fault and has to be professional about it or face discipline.)

    7. Yes.*

      Hi OP2. I had exactly the same issue, and when I had this conversation with the interrupter she immediately stomped off (seriously, a 40-50 year old stomping), then falsely accused me of stealing her coffee a week later. I’d be very careful regarding to interacting with her without witnesses from now on.

    8. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Sorry to hear that, OP2, but I’m not surprised: it sounded to me like she’s r#cist, consciously or not and such people are usually belligerent when called out on their behaviour.

      I hope HR take appropriate action, such a stern warning and a mandatory DEI course.
      Looking forward to your update.

    9. Hroethvitnir*

      Another voice to reassure you that as soon as you described the dynamic it seemed overwhelmingly likely the motivation was racism, whether conscious or unconscious.

      Her responding poorly surprises me not at all, but that’s a reflection on *her*. Think of your own reaction to a similar conversation – I very much doubt it would resemble hers.

      Good luck with escalating it. :( Definitely do talk to some trusted peers about backing you up when she ignores your request to stop if that’s an option/potentially backing you up to HR/senior management (though people are far less likely to be willing to do the latter, sigh).

  33. WantonSeedStitch*

    Boy, I wish I had Alison’s script back when I was struggling to meet the conditions of a PIP at a job that was giving me serious anxiety issues. It never would have occurred to me to ask if they would consider not contesting an unemployment claim if I resigned. I ended up quitting without another job lined up and without the ability to get unemployment, and had almost run through my meager savings by the time I was able to land another permanent job, in spite of working in temp jobs for a few months.

  34. Cracker eating subordinate*

    #1 maybe it’s just a misunderstanding/ game of telephone? My teammates have made decisions, and when I asked why, they said it was from info that came from me! but the info had been filtered through my manager, who misunderstands a lot of things I say.

  35. JAnon*

    LW4: Just had this happen with a month notice, right before I was going on maternity leave so I was making a plan to use as much as a could beforehand. Then baby came early and foiled all of my plans. We are in the same boat of “using” the accrued before the Unlimited kicks in. But that just means that people who didn’t have as much saved up as me still get the same benefit I do. My goal is to track what I use so that I use at least what I accrued up to each year. So we could accrue up to 4 weeks before we stopped accruing. I am going to aim to use at least4 weeks every year. If I can’t get it paid out, I am going to use the time. I also find myself using it more when maybe i would just take an hour or so for an appointment. If my daughter has an appointment, I just take the afternoon to take her and then spend time together. I still prefer accrual but am finding ways to make this work out for me in a non-monetary sense

  36. stitchinthyme*

    I feel for LW4 — my company’s vacation policy had everyone start with 3 weeks per year, plus an additional 2 weeks which could be used as either sick or personal time; after 10 years the base vacation went up to 4 weeks. I had just passed my 10-year anniversary when they announced they were going to unlimited PTO. My boss told me to just make a point of using as much as I would have before the policy change.

Comments are closed.