coworkers are bouncing on yoga balls on Zoom calls, paid parental leave but only for women, and more by Alison Green on January 16, 2025 It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. People are bouncing on yoga balls during Zoom calls I’m at an all-remote company. Zooms are our go-to. In the Zooms I organize, I prefer videos off and most people know that. (So I don’t have to do my hair or get distracted, and it just drains me so much!) Obviously I make exceptions where called for. But I’m at the mercy of others when I join their meetings, and a lot of them have videos on as a default. And a few of my coworkers have recently started bouncing on yoga balls and walking on walking pads throughout their meetings. This makes me feel ill/seasick! And, then I feel really irritated at them, unfairly, because they’re making the meeting more difficult for me. Will I seem overly nitpicky, grumpy, irritable if I ask them to just do videos off when they do this? I don’t have a medical condition like vertigo or anything. I’m one of the most senior execs in the company, FYI, and the people who do this are all my level or below. (None of them report to me directly.) As a senior exec, you absolutely have the standing to say, “Kudos to anyone choosing to exercise during this call, but please turn your camera off if that’s you. The movement is rough on the rest of us.” And if that doesn’t solve it, feel free to direct it to specific people — “Jane, can you turn your camera off, please? The activity is distracting.” Frankly, it’s obnoxious (and maybe a little performative?) that people aren’t figuring this out for themselves and need to be told, and I bet others on the call will be silently thanking you. You also probably won’t have to do this a ton; it’s the kind of message most people will retain after being told once. Related: is it unprofessional to take a Zoom call from a treadmill? 2. Employer wants to offer paid parental leave — but only for women My employer is thinking about joining the modern working era and offering paid parental leave. But … only to women. As you can imagine, the reception is mixed. On one hand, we’re excited to possibly finally have something. On the other, many staff feel like this devalues a) the role of fathers, b) the responsibility of men to care for their children and partners, and c) the role of women in the workplace generally (after all, why promote a woman who might need this leave when a man definitely won’t?). We’ve clarified that adoptive moms would qualify, so physical recovery is not the sole issue. The employer is hinting loudly that we should be grateful that he is doing “more than he legally has to” and that he might drop it entirely if we push too hard. Any thoughts on next steps? Well, it’s illegal. Offering different amounts of parental leave to male and female employees violates the federal law against sex discrimination (just like basing vacation leave or raises on sex would). It would be different if it were framed as “pregnancy leave” or otherwise linked to medical recovery, but it’s not. So: the strongest argument against this is that it’s illegal. Of course, if you point that out, your employer might drop the whole thing — so you should pair it with a strong lobbying effort by employees for a legal, gender-neutral parent leave policy. If you can show that your competitors offer that, that could help too. Related: my company is creating a paternity leave policy, but has no maternity leave 3. My company is ignoring my reimbursement form after laying me off I was laid off from a remote job in November 2024. I was told to ship my laptop back, given a paid shipping label and told to purchase packaging at the shipping store and submit a receipt for reimbursement. I submitted the form for reimbursement with a receipt the same day … then heard nothing. Every few weeks I would send an email asking about the reimbursement status and would hear nothing. On the emails I’ve included my manager, my manager’s manager, and the HR representative who handled my layoff. It’s been two months and no one replies to emails (which have all been cordial). The amount of money ($30) isn’t a big deal but I’m frustrated that I followed their directions and then they’re not honoring their commitment. Also them not reimbursing me after laying me off is just rude and petty! Any other ideas about what I can do? For context, I also signed an NDA so I probably can’t make a post on social media publicly calling anyone out. Stop emailing and call instead! Start with HR, and if that doesn’t work, call your manager, then your manager’s manager. If you get voicemail, leave a message explaining the situation; say that it’s been several months, and ask to get it handled ASAP. They should be replying to your emails and it’s rude that they haven’t, but one when method of communication isn’t working, moving to another will often solve it. (And who knows, it’s possible that emails from your personal email address are being filtered as spam or something. Probably not, but calling will solve it if that’s happening.) 4. Can my company completely change my job? I am an executive assistant at a remote-first organization. There is currently no requirement to come into our office, with the exception of our front desk staff (who belong to a separate department). I have been told confidentially that due to financial constraints, a plan is in place to lay off our front desk staff and require myself and another executive assistant to perform the duties usually performed by our front desk staff (in addition to our current duties). This change would mean that I would have a completely different role than what I was hired to do, not to mention what I see as the extreme burden of being one of the only employees in a remote organization with an in-office requirement, and the significant extra work. Can they legally do this? What can I do to resist this change, other than simply walking away from a job that I really don’t want to quit? We have a union in place, which I have been told I am unable to join due to the confidential nature of my job. Would appealing to the union anyway have any influence? They can legally change the requirements of your job. You can push back on that, of course — but ultimately they can make the change. The union probably won’t help since you’re not a member (unless they see benefit to their membership in some way, which isn’t impossible — you can certainly ask them and see). How much standing do you have at your job? Are you a highly valued employee who they don’t want to lose? Or even a reasonably valued one who they don’t want to deal with the inconvenience of replacing? If you have a decent amount of standing, your best bet is to talk to your manager and say exactly what you said here — the change would leave you with a completely different job than the one you were hired for and significant additional burden — and that you’re strongly opposed to doing it. The trick with this kind of conversation is to walk a fine enough line that you’re not outright refusing or openly saying “I will quit over this” but leaving the strong implication that you are indeed highly likely to leave over it (maybe not on the spot, but soon). On the other hand, if you’re willing to openly say you’ll quit over it and are comfortable with whatever that results in (including “okay, we’ll be sorry to see you go but let’s set your last day”), go for it. There’s a possibility they’ll see this as an opportunity to hire a replacement who’s willing to do the new job, so this is all very dependent on how much capital you have there, how willing you are to walk away over it, how quickly you’d be willing to do that, and how much they’d care. If the other assistant affected by this is willing to do the same, that can give you additional power, particularly if she has capital of her own to spend. 5. What is a “director of first impressions”? I’m on the job market. I’ve been in higher ed. administration for years (also a teacher), and I’m done with it. All I want to do is help people, help an organization function well, get paid / treated decently, and stay with a good job until I retire, if ever. I’ve been on the market for roughly four months with little luck. I had one interview, which I think went well, but I didn’t get the position. Part of it, I think, is that I’m “overqualified” for the kind of role I’m looking for. The thing is, I don’t want to be in charge. I hate being in charge. I make an excellent assistant. But then I see job adverts for things like a “director of first impressions”: “The director of first impressions will play an important role in setting the tone for the organization. As the first person and last person clients see when they are in the office, the director of first impressions is instrumental in making sure clients have a positive experience. Ability to work in a high capacity, high intensity position is a must, while maintaining a joyful and diplomatic spirit. Multitasking is necessary also, as this position is characterized by spontaneity and being ready for any phone call or visit. You will be the direct source of office support leadership, while maintaining office supplies and managing the calendar.” Good lord. I don’t even know how to respond seriously to this. Is this a receptionist role? Okay, I can work with that. Director of first impressions? I cannot. Yep, it’s a receptionist role, with what sounds like some additional admin support thrown in. It’s a silly title, but it’s usually the sign of an organization trying to put a high premium on you making visitors and callers feel warmly welcomed and taken care of. As in, they’re not looking for the vibe visitors get at the DMV. The best way to approach it is to ignore the title and focus on the job duties. You may also like:is it unprofessional to take a Zoom call from a treadmill?more on AI attending meetingsmy employee keeps adjusting himself while we’re talking { 520 comments }
Testing* January 16, 2025 at 12:16 am I have no problems with the few colleagues I have who move around while on video calls. (They don’t bounce, though, maybe that’d be a bridge too far.) It’s the people who snack while speaking/presenting I can’t handle…
PineappleColada* January 16, 2025 at 8:08 am haha! I haven’t encountered this, but it does sound crazy-making. For me, I *would* perceive the LW as a grump if she gave this direction. Is there a reason she can’t just turn off/block her screen and treat it like a conference call, since she doesn’t like video anyways? (Wouldn’t work if there is screen-sharing of course, but there’s ways to minimize others’ screens as people have mentioned.) I’m just getting the vibe that she’s very aware of what makes her comfortable (prefers video off, finds it draining), but doesn’t care that others are walking/on yoga balls for their own comfort. I think I’m sensitive to this because it’s so easy for this to devolve into people feeling like “I guess I better not use the walking mat anymore” which does make their well-being take a hit.
metadata minion* January 16, 2025 at 8:23 am They can still use yoga balls/walking mats/etc., just with their camera off.
Jackalope* January 16, 2025 at 8:29 am This is where I land. I’m supportive of people getting exercise during meetings; I’ve definitely walked around briskly (with camera off) and found it helpful. But it’s distracting to many people, myself included, if you can *see* it in the camera, and it seems like it would be even more so if the person is bouncing up and down. Turning the camera off isn’t a huge ask; if they need to talk they can stop their exercise for a moment, turn the camera back on, talk, and then turn the camera back off and resume the exercise.
Michigander* January 16, 2025 at 10:03 am Yes, turning the camera off when you’re doing something potentially distracting is not a burden. It takes 5 seconds to do.
Jules the 3rd* January 16, 2025 at 8:28 am Many meetings have presentations or worksheets that people are all sharing. You can’t turn off your screen, you need to see what people are discussing. The other attendees are usually in small squares around the edge, and it would be really distracting to me to see a couple of people moving around in those. One might be ok, if they’re not presenting, but as soon as they talk, the software usually shifts to focus on them and yeah, I can see the issue. I do think this trend is new enough that there’s not norms around it, and that ‘turn video off if you’re moving around’ is a norm we should embrace.
Slow Gin Lizz* January 16, 2025 at 8:33 am I have such issues with people moving around in Zoom calls. It’s fine if it’s a small group meeting and we’re all contributing*, but on those big all-staff calls with dozens or even hundreds of people and only one or two presenters, I get incredibly distracted by all the little movements everywhere on the screen. And because I’m very fidgety myself on Zoom calls, I keep my camera off unless, again, it’s a small meeting. For the big group calls, I set my Zoom to show me “speaker only” and that helps a lot. That could work for OP, maybe, although I’m not sure if Teams has a similar option. * I did have a coworker at my last job who would walk on a treadmill during calls and I did find that distracting at first but I got used to it. But again, that was only when we were doing small meetings with just a few people.
Pastor Petty Labelle* January 16, 2025 at 9:03 am This is me. For some reason clients will be sitting perfectly still at the time of sign on, then immediately get up and start walking somewhere else. Like, get to your good spot first and stay there. If they are in their car — not driving that is a very strict rule, like I will end the meeting strict — they keep reaching over to fiddle with the camera which moves it. All of this makes me motion sick. I get it, folks want their exercise, but I have to be able to participate too. I think not making people sick overrides the need to exercise at that exact moment of the meeting.
just me* January 16, 2025 at 10:03 am The LW’s request for exercisers to turn off cameras avoids sick-making while allowing exercise.
inksmith* January 16, 2025 at 11:50 am I agree. This doesn’t feel that different to the runner tracking in mud from the other day – like, you’re at work to work, not to work-out. Do it some other time.
Rainy* January 16, 2025 at 1:19 pm I had someone call in for a zoom meeting while in their car driving, tell me happily that they were on the freeway doing 80mph and had so much time to talk, and they were VERY snippy when I said “if you cannot pull over we’ll have to reschedule this call.” He pressed me about why I was being unreasonable and after a couple of times of me gently deflecting as he got more and more frustrated and angry, I’d finally had enough and said “Distracted driving on the highway is a major cause of accidents. You may be comfortable with that risk, but if you’re going to crash and die on a call with someone it’s not going to be me because I don’t need that in my head for the rest of my life. Call the front desk to reschedule sometime when you can be in the same place for the duration of the call.” I had colleagues at that job who were happy to meet virtually with people who were actively operating a motor vehicle, but I wasn’t.
Bart* January 16, 2025 at 8:56 am Someone in my organization does the laundry during faculty meetings. I can see, oh, they got the laundry out of the dryer! Now we are moving to the room where laundry is folded (camera on their face as they walk). Oh, they are making great work folding. Time to put the clothes away! It is so distracting. And the person is just listening, never participating.
Saturday* January 16, 2025 at 10:24 am But it also sounds super distracting! Doing some other task on their computer during the meeting would be much more appropriate.
Lenora Rose* January 16, 2025 at 1:30 pm Or… they could turn their video off unless involved. This isn’t that different from being on mute until you need to talk. From the personal rather than business perspective, folding finished laundry is a *perfect* fidget; it’s quiet, it occupies the hands but not the mind, and unlike many fidget toys, it has a practical and useful outcome. When doing laundry, I *want* something else to listen to / look at that fills my ears and attention, an I am fully capable of being responsive if/when input is needed. All that’s missing is the bit where it’s distracting to someone else and takes their attention off business, and this is helped by a single setting.
Flor* January 16, 2025 at 2:04 pm Yep, I recently discovered that the best way for me to stay focused on Zoom calls is doing housework, often folding laundry. It gives me something to do with my hands and occupies the “extra focus” my brain has to expend on those calls where I need to be around for 2 minutes out of 30. The other option – doing something on my computer – means that I block out anything people are saying, and miss the rare bits that are important to me. But, of course, I keep my camera OFF and my hands still (or, at least, quiet) whenever I’m called on to talk.
WillowSunstar* January 16, 2025 at 10:45 am It’s possible they’re not given any choice but to attend the meeting. There are companies where meeting attendance is forced.
Bart* January 16, 2025 at 6:53 pm Not only is it optional, but this person is one of about five people who has their camera on during the meeting—there are about 65 with cameras off.
Sabina* January 16, 2025 at 10:30 am Activities I have observed on Zoom meetings: a married couple obviously engaged in an argument, a person cooking and eating an entire meal, a woman wearing a ?towel? while sitting on a toilet and appearing to shave her legs. Also, a meeting host who came directly from having dental work and could barely speak due to Novicane.
Nonprofit writer* January 16, 2025 at 12:44 pm This made me laugh! Alison, you should do a post on weird things people have seen on Zooms! (Maybe you already have?)
Rainy* January 16, 2025 at 1:12 pm Did the woman in the bathroom realize her camera was on?! I once turned my camera off to go make tea (in earshot of the computer) and came back only to realize that in getting up I’d somehow jiggled something and turned my camera back on. Whoops! I was extra careful after that.
Flor* January 16, 2025 at 2:06 pm When I’m doing things during a call (usually light housework; it’s the perfect way to keep my hands busy and my brain on the call), I have physical cover over the camera as well as the camera turned off, so if I accidentally hit a keyboard combination that turns my camera on, it’ll just be a black screen. If your computer doesn’t come with a cover like that, you can get stick-on ones from Amazon. I highly recommend them just for general peace of mind!
COHikerGirl* January 16, 2025 at 3:00 pm I thought the covers for laptop camera were a little silly, pre-COVID (in-office all the time). Now…I love them and permanently have my cameras covered on my work laptops.
StephChi* January 16, 2025 at 7:14 pm There’s no need to buy one. I stick a piece of blue painter’s tape on mine. Comes right off without leaving a mark, then I just stick it back on again when I don’t need to be on camera.
MigraineMonth* January 16, 2025 at 4:40 pm I had a diabetic cat who loved to lie down right in front of my computer, which was fine with me as long as he didn’t try to help me with my typing. There was one small three-person meeting where he had a sudden seizure and everyone got to watch me panic while kitty paws suddenly flailed everywhere.
Pine Tree* January 16, 2025 at 3:57 pm I’m a big fan of the unspoken rule in my work that if there are more than 5ish people in the call, everyone turns their video off unless they are speaking or want to speak. If less than 5ish, people generally are on video unless they are moving around a bit. It drives me crazy when external people have their video on but clearly are not even paying attention to the call. What is the point of that??? People are weird.
Blue wall* January 16, 2025 at 8:56 am It’s distracting and it draws your eye to the person moving, because that’s how our brains work. It also makes me dizzy to watch person in box A bounce while the rest of the screens are people sitting or standing with limited movement, and I’m trying to pay attention in class.
iglwif* January 16, 2025 at 9:45 am I would be peeved if someone told me that I can’t {exercise | walk around | knit | drink coffee | whatever} during meetings AND that I have to keep my camera on. If the request is “do what you want, but please be video-off if you’re doing something distracting”? I have zero problem with that. In larger meetings, I routinely turn my camera off when I’m eating, “negotiating” with the dog, walking around the room, or (tbf) just not feeling it. If I’m not taking notes, I am often knitting, and while I try to keep my hands out of sight of the camera because I know repetitive movement can be distracting, I’d be equally happy to turn my camera off. Heck, sometimes I even turn off my camera when I’ve moved the screen-share window to my larger screen, because of how weird it looks when I am staring off to the side and slightly upwards relative to where my laptop camera is lol. “Don’t do X” is a grump directive. “Please do X with your camera off” is not.
WillowSunstar* January 16, 2025 at 10:48 am Well, I have a mandatory camera on Teams meeting once a week, and no one else does anything except maybe drink coffee while the meeting is going, but the boss is in it. If I have camera off, sure I’ll eat or whatever. But I think it depends on the company. I’d probably not run on a treadmill, but I have sat and done soleus pushups while my camera was on. (Those are the ankle reverse-walking exercises you can do while sitting that last year, suddenly the health experts were telling us lowered blood pressure and everything.)
iglwif* January 16, 2025 at 11:56 am Yeah, nobody can see what your legs are doing under your desk, and believe me I take advantage of that to get my fidget-energy out! But I’m not gonna lie, I think “mandatory camera on” is a terrible business practice and people shouldn’t do it. (Obviously you do not have control over that!)
WillowSunstar* January 16, 2025 at 12:25 pm I believe the reason the boss gave for it being mandatory was that Lean Six Sigma encourages it. But I agree with you, sometimes people have medical reasons and whatever that the camera shouldn’t have to be on.
iglwif* January 16, 2025 at 5:41 pm idk what Lean Six Sigma is, but if it encourages mandatory cameras on … yuck. (please don’t enlighten me! I have been hearing it talked about by people whose general approach to life I dislike for some time, and am actively avoiding learning more about it XD)
I Have RBF* January 16, 2025 at 1:30 pm Our CEO handed down a “cameras on” mandate last December. We even got admonished to dress appropriately and not have messy backgrounds. *Most of us use company supplied backgrounds now.) We actually have a “cameras off” culture. There are only one or two meetings that we do cameras on, because they are cross department or external. The mandate is observed only for bigger meetings. I still loathe it.
NotAnotherManager!* January 16, 2025 at 10:37 am Being camera off doesn’t distract other people. Bouncing around in your box because you’re exercising during the meeting is distracting. The movement draws attention and requires sustained attention to ignore it. The idea that it’s even appropriate to exercise during a work meeting is pretty new, and the fact that they have the option to turn their camera off and continue it is a nice perk. Being asked to turn your camera off is a bare minimum. There are other times during the day when someone can improve their well-being with exercise, it does not have to be during the work day or during a meeting.
ZoomWhileStill* January 16, 2025 at 11:51 am I would make this request, and it’s not because I’m a grump. I had a 30 minute zoom yesterday and one of the people in it were walking, and it made me physically nauseous from being motion sick. Luckily she stopped after a few minutes, but being asked to turn off your camera while moving so you don’t make others sick seems very reasonable to me.
I Have RBF* January 16, 2025 at 1:32 pm This. If the bouncing and moving made me nauseous, I would ask that they turn their camera off too.
not nice, don't care* January 16, 2025 at 12:40 pm If people can’t stop using their exercise gear for the duration of a meeting, that’s a whole nother problem.
Happy* January 16, 2025 at 12:54 pm Meetings are a great time to use exercise gear though! (As long as cameras/mics are off and they aren’t distracting anyone.) I’m not coordinated enough to do most of my job while on a treadmill or exercise bike, but I can absolutely participate in most meetings, as long as I’m not the one leading it or sharing my screen. It’s fantastic for health and work/life balance, especially if your job is otherwise mostly sedentary.
Lenora Rose* January 16, 2025 at 1:41 pm It’s not that they can’t – it’s that in many cases it **improves meeting attentiveness** to be doing something other than sitting still and looking attentive for the camera. That sort of requirement for camera-on performative attentiveness is worse than a camera off option to walk or bounce or do something that assists actual focus.
Ms. Murchison* January 16, 2025 at 1:52 pm Virtual meetings have a different psychological effect than in-person meetings. Like others here, I need movement to stay focused on the presentations and discussions, but then I always turn off my camera before starting to do squats or stretching.
COHikerGirl* January 16, 2025 at 3:04 pm They make and market exercise equipment for under the desk. Treadmills, foot cycles, etc. They make it a point in the commercials and ads to say they’re quiet enough for an office or a virtual meeting.
Lauren* January 16, 2025 at 8:45 am This. It’s odd to hear this described as obnoxious and even performative (?!). One of my teammates has been walking on a treadmill during video meetings for years and it has never bothered me (or anyone else, to my knowledge). She’s the nicest, least “performative” person.
JB (not in Houston)* January 16, 2025 at 9:50 am Yeah, it bothered (and baffled) me that Alison used that wording. Not everything that people do in view of others is done performatively. And honestly, *why* they are doing it (for themselves or for impressing others) doesn’t really help the OP, so I am surprised that Alison said it. But I don’t think the OP will necessarily come across as a grump to say something. I’d certainly understand, and I think a lot of others would, if she said it was distracting or making her sick. They can turn off their screens and bounce/walk to their heart’s content, so everyone gets what they need.
a clockwork lemon* January 16, 2025 at 9:51 am I agree–These people are using their stuff for its intended purpose! Yoga ball chairs and standing treadmills both have been around for ages and are often recommended for people who like to fidget or pace when they’re on calls. It’s reasonable to ask people to turn their cameras off in a call if something they’re doing is distracting, just like it’s reasonable to ask people to mute themselves if they’ve got a lot of background noise, but framing it as performative is a weirdly aggressive stance.
JB (not in Houston)* January 16, 2025 at 10:18 am Agreed. Something doesn’t become performative just because it’s being done where others can see. But yeah, whatever reason they’re doing it, it’s completely reasonable to ask them to turn off their cameras. They can keep doing their thing without distracting or nauseating anyone.
madhatter360* January 16, 2025 at 8:45 am Like the first LW I find it distracting (and a bit seasick making) when people are rocking back and forth or what have you. Which is why I keep a stack of post-its at my desk. Pop the post-it over the wiggling coworker’s square and the problem is solved.
CeeDoo* January 16, 2025 at 8:54 am I rock all day, every day. If I’m not rocking from side to side, I’m nodding my head. I can’t stop it. I’d prefer to keep my camera off at all times, anyway, but I can be a distraction.
LegoSucculent* January 16, 2025 at 9:02 am Teams user chiming in here — does Zoom not have an option to turn off incoming video? That’s a lifesaver for me when my internet connection is dicey and I have 20 incoming video feeds (fortunately, my team generally doesn’t do cameras-on, so this is rare). It seems like it would also solve LW’s problem.
Heloise* January 16, 2025 at 11:14 am It does! (Or at least it used to). I’ve used it before when my internet was so bad I needed to stop all videos (not just my own)
I Have RBF* January 16, 2025 at 1:49 pm Click on your self in the upper right, go to Settings => Video and scroll down. There is an option called “Enable stop incoming video feature”
Totally Minnie* January 16, 2025 at 2:23 pm Does that disable all incoming video? Can you disable only the video of a single person that’s being distracting?
aneles* January 16, 2025 at 10:31 pm There’s a toggle in host tools to “hide all profile pictures” but not sure if you can turn off individual pics. You can in Google Meet.
Dust Bunny* January 16, 2025 at 8:48 am I feel like a normal degree of moving around is not quite in the same league as bouncing on yoga balls, though. That’s a lot of extra movement. And people can’t really help it if it makes them seasick. But they can just leave their cameras off. The LW isn’t asking them to stop bouncing.
Etiquette stickler* January 16, 2025 at 9:41 am Disagree. It’s totally obnoxious. No point in having the video on if you’re going to move around a bunch. Agree on the snacking. Also obnoxious. If you have to eat, no video and mute yourself.
LL* January 16, 2025 at 10:17 am Imo, the biggest drawback of being fully remote and having only video meetings is that things that people generally wouldn’t care about before are much more annoying because the camera is always on your face. When we have in-person meetings where food is provided, it’s not annoying because you don’t have to look at people while they’re eating.
JMC* January 16, 2025 at 10:23 am We generally have cameras off during meetings luckily but I have to say I haven’t encountered anyone bouncing on anything or walking on a walkpad or anything like that. But I do want to say that NO ONE has to worry about doing your hair to be on video, it’s silly. Just be comfy.
Georgia Carolyn Mason* January 16, 2025 at 11:27 am Well, no one that you’ve encountered, which is awesome. But, it’s not silly for everyone — some people absolutely call out others’ looks in camera-on meetings. It wasn’t hair, but after having a boss text me after a meeting to ask if I was sick because I “looked exhausted” (I wasn’t — just hadn’t put concealer on my under-eye circles because I was running late), I’d say it depends who you work with/for.
JMC* January 16, 2025 at 1:53 pm If they worry about trivial things like hair and makeup that’s on them. It’s ridiculous.
umami* January 16, 2025 at 10:58 am I just experienced the snacking thing! So bizarre, it was a call with a colleague, and for some reason he kept popping his snack (grapes, or something, I’m not sure) in his mouth WHILE HE WAS TALKING. Like, why not wait to eat when I’m speaking? Very weird.
Just Another Cog* January 16, 2025 at 1:02 pm I sit on a yoga ball a lot of the time. I specifically do NOT bounce during meetings (and have asked a trusted person to ping me in the Teams backchannel if I start to slightly bounce. The ball is a comfortable seat, but I can bounce between meetings, not during. It seems 100% obvious to me.
Jaina Solo* January 17, 2025 at 3:44 pm Yeah, I really prefer camera off too but if I was in a meeting like OP1, I’d just minimize the video (Teams, Zoom, etc.) window so I can still participate and toggle to it if needed, but it’s not front and center.
Educator* January 16, 2025 at 12:19 am LW1, rather than trying to control your co-workers (maybe that is how they listen best!) why not adjust your settings? Sounds like you are looking for what Zoom calls “floating thumbnail window view” so that you see just the speaker or, if even that makes you seasick, no one at all. Or stick everyone in “immersive view” and see if it bothers you less.
nnn* January 16, 2025 at 12:23 am I’m sorry, running or bouncing on camera during a business meeting is just rude. If that’s how they listen best, they can go camera off.
Lance Ito* January 16, 2025 at 12:40 am Let me suggest that most Zoom calls would be better with all cameras off.
Reader* January 16, 2025 at 7:08 am Why? I agree that someone bouncing or running would be distracting, but generally, I definitely like/prefer being able to see people when they’re talking. Facial expression, body language – those are helpful and important cues. (And for meetings with coworkers I collaborate with often, it’s honestly just lovely to see their faces and smiles!)
Account* January 16, 2025 at 7:27 am Oh me too. A zoom call is supposed to be a stand-in for a meeting— you see each other, make eye contact, connect non-verbally. If everyone’s cameras are off, it’s just a conference call, which is a different animal.
Smol Boi* January 16, 2025 at 8:59 am OP here- sure! But in an in-person meeting imagine people bouncing up and down on their chair at the conference table or getting up and walking back and forth around the table. (Neither of those would actually make me feel seasick, though, like it does on zoom.)
Leenie* January 16, 2025 at 10:40 am OP – Please don’t let anyone discourage you from making this reasonable request. I was spinning in my chair a bit without realizing it. Someone told me it made them seasick, so I stopped doing it. It’s really not a big deal. You’re not even asking them to alter their behavior, just take it off camera. There are probably other people experiencing a similar seasick feeling, or even just feeling distracted by the movement, but they may not feel empowered to say anything about it. You aren’t being controlling, merely asking people to be considerate of their colleagues.
Smol Boi* January 16, 2025 at 12:15 pm thank you :) (I used to also have a spinning person a couple years ago and did ask them to stop!) But now it’s 2-3 people that walk and bounce. So I needed a vibe check.
Lance Ito* January 16, 2025 at 2:21 pm You are not seeing organic facial reactions on Zoom. You are seeing articulate ones, where people preen and play to the camera.
New Jack Karyn* January 16, 2025 at 9:49 pm This seems unkind. People do still have facial reactions on Zoom.
Wayward Sun* January 17, 2025 at 11:51 pm Something about seeing my own face on camera makes me hyper-aware of my own expressions. It’s very distracting.
MigraineMonth* January 16, 2025 at 11:04 am For me, it depends on the meeting. On a large conference call, anyone other than the speaker being on camera is generally a distraction. For team check-ins, it doesn’t seem to matter either way. When there’s a sensitive topic to discuss, I really prefer camera-on so I can read others’ non-verbal reactions. Same with one-on-ones; if I’m talking about having to push back a deadline or a personal issue that’s affecting my work, I don’t want to be talking to a black box.
Peanut Hamper* January 16, 2025 at 8:01 am I work on a mostly remote team and all of our meetings are camera-off. And they work. Extremely well, in fact. People who say “I need to see facial expressions and body language” always puzzle me. In the days before Zoom how did they handle conference calls? That was literally just a phone sitting on a table.
PineappleColada* January 16, 2025 at 8:10 am In the days before Zoom most of us had face to face meetings. Not endless conference calls.
iglwif* January 16, 2025 at 9:52 am I think that depends what kind of work you do and what kind of setup you had! I worked in an office for 20+ years and while yes, there were face-to-face meetings on the regular, I did actually spend an enormous amount of time on conference calls: – talking to colleagues in different offices – talking to editors and editorial boards located all over the place (I worked in journal publishing) – in committee meetings involving people from a variety of different organizations in different places Two of the biggest advantages of a platform like Zoom or Teams over an old-school conference call are (1) that you can tell who is speaking, because their little square is highlighted in some way, and (2) that people can raise their hands to speak and be called on. The chat function is very useful, too. None of these require everyone to have their camera on!
Lacey* January 16, 2025 at 8:21 am Yes, I know they’re meant to be a stand in for in-person meetings, but they don’t function the same. My team always does cameras off, but multiple department meetings are always cameras on and all it does is show me a bunch of bored faces that I wouldn’t have been looking at in a real meeting anyway, because I’d only be looking at whoever was talking.
Jaydee* January 16, 2025 at 8:47 am I really think it depends on the size and type of the meeting. If it’s a small meeting (everyone’s little boxes fit on one screen) and it’s highly collaborative (most participants are likely to talk at some point during the meeting), then I think the default should be cameras on. The non-verbals are important. I want to see that Mary looks confused about topic X and that Joe and Sue are nodding in agreement about option 2 being better than option 1. Certainly some people will need their cameras off because of bad connection or they’re under the weather that day or whatever. But it’s nice to have the majority of cameras on. If it’s a larger meeting where the purpose is for just a couple of people to share information with a larger group and the most the “audience” will participate is by asking questions, then I think cameras off or cameras off unless you’re the one asking a question should be the default for the audience. Most of us probably have it in speaker view anyway so we can’t even see most of the audience. And if we can see other audience members, we don’t want to be distracted by them eating a snack, cleaning their desk/office, staring at their other screen while they check emails, bouncing on their yoga ball, or whatever else they’re doing while they listen.
Jamjari* January 16, 2025 at 9:35 am I definitely find I have more of a connection to the meeting and others in the meeting with cameras on. And if my camera is off, I’m much more likely to only be half in the meeting while I do something else.
metadata minion* January 16, 2025 at 8:26 am Before Zoom, I’m pretty sure I had less than five conference calls total in the 10+ years I’ve been working. This is going to vary dramatically by position, obviously, but I find traditional phone conference calls almost unworkable. In Zoom, you at least have digital options to indicate things like turn-taking.
lanfy* January 16, 2025 at 8:30 am I ‘handled’ the occasional conference calls I had to deal with… frustratedly. Just because they were all there was, didn’t make them any better
Eldritch Office Worker* January 16, 2025 at 8:32 am Zoom isn’t supposed to replace a conference call it’s supposed to replace a meeting. Also a lot of people really hated conference calls.
Smoothie Queen* January 16, 2025 at 8:37 am As one of those “I need to see facial expressions” people- I handled conference calls with a great deal of discomfort. Voice tone isn’t helpful for me, especially in sticky conversations. I will always be flexible with what the group consensus needs and never push my needs and preferences on others, but I personally interact best when I can see faces. The other thing that helps with seeing your colleagues on Zoom is to identify people who are trying to speak up. Visual cues and tells, a quick hand raise, especially if there’s a lively discussion that’s hard to edge into. Without cameras, you’d have to start calling on people (“Prunella, anything to offer?”) and that might not be comfortable for them. Anyways, I’m not saying there’s one right answer, since everyone is different and has different needs! Just offering my perspective as a “camera on” person.
inksmith* January 16, 2025 at 11:57 am Yes! And it’s harder to get a good flow when people have to raise their hands because you can’t see who wants to break in. Also, I find it much harder to understand people if I can’t see their lips moving, so I actually do kind of need cameras on if possible. I think my ability to comprehend the meeting is probably more important than someone else’s “need” to do their exercise for wellbeing in that exact moment.
JK* January 16, 2025 at 8:57 am I’m am grateful as well to be able to see faces. (Phone calls have always been a source of dread to me.) Otherwise I can’t read the room or tell when someone else is about to talk and either repeatedly start talking at the same moment or just end up not saying anything. It is very awkward and undefined-feeling.
Caramel & Cheddar* January 16, 2025 at 9:20 am A lot of people hate regular phone calls and did so before the pandemic for this very reason.
Radioactive Cyborg Llama* January 16, 2025 at 9:30 am People handled conference calls by frequently accidentally talking over each other because they couldn’t see the body language that helped let you know that the other person was done speaking.
iglwif* January 16, 2025 at 9:54 am Yes! And also, SO many people sound SO similar to each other on the phone?! So you’d have to keep saying “it’s Leila” or “it’s Shira” or w/e unless you were the one dude in the group or the one person with a specific accent and thus could easily be identified. Yuck.
Lenora Rose* January 16, 2025 at 1:49 pm And this is where even a camera off screen helps, because it still highlights the speaker and their name…
Goldfeesh* January 16, 2025 at 2:11 pm This is the bane of transcriptionists. You finish a two person interview then in the last minute you hear, “Thank you, Leila. Thank you, Shira,” and you realize two people sounded exactly the same and now you have to figure it out.
LL* January 16, 2025 at 10:24 am I never had conference calls. The meetings I have on zoom now would have been in-person pre-pandemic.
Hush42* January 16, 2025 at 10:49 am Because you lose about half of your communication when you can’t see the person you’re talking to and they can’t see you.
H.Regalis* January 16, 2025 at 12:22 pm I do video on for trainings, because it helps to see if I’m totally losing the other person.
Curiouser and Curiouser* January 16, 2025 at 12:33 pm Well I don’t hear perfectly and seeing someone’s mouth moving really does make a difference for me. I DIDN’T do well with conference calls, and I missed things. It’s my issue, so I don’t usually ask others to go on camera and instead make my own accommodations, but I do try to mirror it by my own behavior. If they work for your team, then awesome! My mother says the same thing about her team in her company. It doesn’t work well for me.
Slow Gin Lizz* January 16, 2025 at 8:40 am I think that depends on the Zoom call. I mentioned in the thread above that I think if it’s a large all-staff meeting with only a couple of presenters, then it makes a LOT of sense for all the other participants to be cameras off so they aren’t distracting to others, but if it’s a small meeting with everyone participating, then seeing everyone’s faces can be helpful – I really don’t like actual phone calls and I really like being able to talk face-to-face with a coworker in another location. That said, I was pretty distracted by my former coworker walking on her treadmill during small group meetings, but I got used to it after awhile. And for those large meetings with lots of tiny heads moving around and distracting me, I set my Zoom to show me speaker only, and that also helps a LOT.
Dinwar* January 16, 2025 at 9:14 am I agree. I can think of no situation where my face adds sufficient information to warrant occupying screen space. We either have maps, charts, diagrams, or, if nothing else is available, the meeting minutes on the screen, which works out well. The nature of my work (field-heavy) is such that it’s not infrequent that the only time people can eat is during meetings, and this allows them to do so without offending anyone.
inksmith* January 16, 2025 at 11:59 am I can comprehend what you’re saying better if I can see you lips. That’s one situation where your face adds sufficient information – it actually allows me to understand what you’re saying, which presumably has some value or you wouldn’t be saying it.
inksmith* January 16, 2025 at 11:54 am Yeah – who doesn’t love talking to a bunch of silent grey boxes with no idea if anyone’s listening? It’s my favourite way to engage with a meeting! /s
Lenora Rose* January 16, 2025 at 1:47 pm I like to START meetings with cameras on, even if individual ones go off later, especially during intros. See people for 5-10 minutes so I have them and their expressions and voice in mind, then blank them out when they start walking etc (or once the presentation screen is shared.)
I Have RBF* January 16, 2025 at 1:53 pm I mostly agree. But for d|Deaf and/or HoH folks it can be a problem if they need to try to read lips. Now, lip reading on video sucks anyway, but it’s impossible in a cameras off environment.
Lenora Rose* January 17, 2025 at 9:47 am For this the obvious solution is to ensure the person speaking turn their camera back on. The one meeting I’ve had with a person who walks during, she’d have her camera off UNTIL she spoke, turned it on for her turn commenting then back off right away. I’ve definitely had other meetings where the speakers did that, even if they were sitting quietly at home.
sb51* January 16, 2025 at 6:32 am If they’re using the speaker-only setting themselves, it might not occur to them that people see them bouncing (assuming they stop when speaking). I only drink coffee when I have my mike off, for example, in case anyone is bothered by it, but I don’t turn my camera off.
PineappleColada* January 16, 2025 at 7:54 am Why is it rude? There’s a fair amount of us that aren’t bothered by it. In fact, I like the normalization of taking care of our bodies while we work. A lot of people who are sitting on yoga balls or walking during meetings are doing it because they don’t have downtime to do so otherwise. Add in the fact that many health practitioners say chronic sitting is really not good for our health and we should move every 1-2 hours. I’d like to see MORE people walking/bouncing on meetings :D
Totally Minnie* January 16, 2025 at 8:28 am A lot of people are distracted by movement. The point of a meeting is for the team to share information and get on the same page, and that’s not happening if some members of the team are being continually distracted during the meeting. I’m perfectly happy for people to get movement in during a conference call, but they should do it with their cameras off so that other attendees will be able to pay attention to the meeting.
Eldritch Office Worker* January 16, 2025 at 8:32 am The LW literally says it gives them motion sickness
BatManDan* January 16, 2025 at 9:28 am Yup. When my wife walks around the house during a FaceTime call, I turn my phone face down until she indicates she’s not moving any more. Makes me motion sick. (She complains when I do it, too, so I know she knows what I’m talking about.)
Jules the 3rd* January 16, 2025 at 8:36 am It’s rude because it is distracting and could cause motion-sickness. 1-1, it’s not bad, but if I had more than one person in the meeting, my attention would always be drawn to the moving one rather than to the speaker. To make that issue explicit, distracting from the speaker is rude. And watching people move while you are not moving can trigger the eye / ear disconnect that drives motion sickness. The walking desk / yoga ball trend’s been around for a decade or so, but the combination with video calls is new enough that there’s not a lot of norms around it. “Turn camera off if you’re moving around” is a norm we should embrace.
Fluffy Fish* January 16, 2025 at 8:47 am If you were in person, and half the people in your meeting stood up and started jumping up and down, don’t you think that would be extremely distracting? Do what you have to do, just do it with cameras off. It doesn’t bother me so it isnt a bother is not ok.
Lisa* January 16, 2025 at 8:52 am A Zoom meeting is still a meeting. If you wouldn’t do it in an in-person meeting, don’t do it *with your camera on* in a Zoom meeting.
Radioactive Cyborg Llama* January 16, 2025 at 9:37 am A fair number of people unbothered by it is not the standard for what is rude (especially when the “fair number of people” is probably you assuming people aren’t bothered by it because they haven’t mentioned to you that they’re bothered by it). I have ADHD and find movement like that incredibly distracting (and it makes me motion sick, bonus). The reasonable way to address this is who can address it most easily to get to a satisfying result for everyone, and the answer to that is turn off your camera. A lot of people are acting like it’s impossible to bounce on one’s yoga ball with your camera off. I walk and bounce during meetings with the camera off If cameras have to be on, I fidget in a less distracting way.
Baunilha* January 16, 2025 at 10:24 am But the issue is not that people are exercising, it’s that they’re doing it with the cameras on.
Olive* January 16, 2025 at 10:40 am That’s why I wear 5 sprays of perfume to work meetings. There are a fair amount of people who aren’t bothered by it. I like the normalization of self-care at work. /s
Smol Boi* January 16, 2025 at 11:08 am Yep and I eat a big mac during in person meetings with loud slurps of my soda.
Elitist Semicolon* January 16, 2025 at 11:22 am I hope you chew with your mouth open, too! I really love that.
NotAnotherManager!* January 16, 2025 at 10:53 am It’s good that you’re able to stave of the basic human instinct to watch and attend to movement and that it doesn’t make you motion sick. You’re not everyone, and the negative effects on people bothered by it are more impactful than the neutral/positive impact of those who are not bothered by it. There are also organizations in which this would be wildly inappropriate behavior. I would almost pay to see someone try this with some of the teams at my office. Zoom is a virtual meeting – imagine being in a conference room where everyone was bobbing around and pacing. It’d be quite distracting, noisy, and unproductive.
e271828* January 16, 2025 at 1:17 pm If you wouldn’t run on a treadmill or bounce on a yoga ball or do headstands or martial arts poses during the meeting in a conference room at work, do not do it on Zoom. The only acceptable off-script Zoom activity is acknowledging and praising pets who wish to check in!
Lenora Rose* January 17, 2025 at 9:57 am * Do not do it on zoom with your camera on. There are things you should not and never do in a zoom meeting, regardless of whether or not your camera and mike are on or off (use the toilet, undress – you can probably fill in the other obvious ones), and things that are fine as long as you’re camera off (walking, bouncing on a yoga ball, knitting, stretching, eating.)
just some guy* January 16, 2025 at 8:21 pm If you make it clear that camera-off is acceptable, that’s fine. But I’ve met a lot of people who consider it impolite to switch cameras off, so one person’s “polite” option ends up being another person’s “rude”.
Lexi* January 16, 2025 at 12:42 am Teams lets you turn off incoming video in a meeting’s settings. Does Zoom have the same option?
MistOrMister* January 16, 2025 at 2:10 am With zoom you have a few options for how you see the video, from the default size to completely minimized, so that could be an option for OP.
Sloanicota* January 16, 2025 at 8:08 am I was like, I’m 99% sure there’s a way to hide the camera view of specifically people who are annoying you, and that seems like the move to me, assuming these aren’t people you supervise. Maybe it’s by pinning a different screen and then turning off the collective view. If it was one person I’d say something but this seems like a team culture thing, and since you actually prefer videos-off anyway …
Antilles* January 16, 2025 at 9:34 am Did not know this was an option in Teams. Does that still allow for screen-sharing or does the “turn off incoming video” also block screen-sharing?
Kevin L* January 16, 2025 at 10:42 am Under View.. “Focus on content” hides all the video and icon tiles.
Hush42* January 16, 2025 at 10:44 am This. I was like I don’t understand this whole discussion. If you don’t want to see incoming video, then turn it off? I know Teams can do it and I think Zoom can do it. It doesn’t effect anything that is being presented, it just turns off the live video stream from other people.
Myrin* January 16, 2025 at 1:54 am It’s certainly worth it to suggest OP try and fiddle with the settings on her end – although her “at the mercy of others” could mean that that’s something she’s tried already and found that for whatever technical reason doesn’t work when she joins someone else’s call – but calling this “trying to control [one’s] co-workers” is probably the most bad-faith and aggressive way the sentiment could’ve been framed. The coworkers are the ones doing something that’s unusual and distracting, the onus is on them to minimise that.
Shinespark* January 16, 2025 at 7:47 am Agreed. It’s one thing to be exercising on a large conference call where you’re not really participating – I always get the exercise bike out for our all staff updates, but those meetings have 600+ participants and our cameras and mics are off. It’s another thing entirely to be on camera with a handful of people, trying to listen to one person speak while someone else’s head is bouncing around on the side like the DVD logo screensaver.
londonedit* January 16, 2025 at 8:31 am I agree. The way it works where I work is that larger meetings are camera-off unless you’re chairing the meeting or you’re speaking/presenting/somehow involved in the actual conversation going on. So there’s no one on camera who isn’t actively involved, which means you don’t get a gallery view of a load of people bouncing around/working on something else/eating etc. Everyone else is just initials/their Teams profile photo until and unless they need to speak. If a speaker/presenter *was* bouncing around on a yoga ball while doing their bit of the meeting, I have no doubt the meeting chair would say ‘Excuse me, Anne, would you mind not bouncing while you’re presenting? It’s making me feel a bit sick’ and no one would have a problem with that.
Disagree* January 16, 2025 at 2:19 am I would agree to this solution of OP was a junior employee and had no possibility to influence meeting culture. But they have the standing to do that! And while the other employees are free to do whatever they like, this should not put additional burden on others. The well have the absolutely same experience walking their pad with video off, too. But I wonder if they are being thoughtless or somewhat intentional. Not that they want to irritate others, but that they know about the sounds they are making and want to show that it is “only” bouncing on yoga balls and not doing a fully distracting workout?
Jackalope* January 16, 2025 at 8:22 am Yup, this! I’m also supportive of coworkers getting exercise during meetings, but if the group is more than 2-3 people it’s probable that the LW isn’t the only person getting distracted by bouncy colleagues. And if she’s senior management, she’s one of the people who has the authority to tell them to turn their cameras off. So don’t just tiptoe around it; tell people pleasantly but firmly to go cameras off if they’re exercising, the end. They can always turn the camera back on if they’re going to talk.
Radioactive Cyborg Llama* January 16, 2025 at 9:39 am I bet a nonzero number of people would silently thank whatever deity they subscribe to if she does that, also.
Jules the 3rd* January 16, 2025 at 8:38 am mm, everyone who is not speaking should be microphone off, so I don’t think that would be the intent.
Pastor Petty Labelle* January 16, 2025 at 9:08 am should be microphone off. We are 5 years into widespread zoom meetings and the number of people who have to be told microphones off is still not an insignificant number. I’ve heard radios playing, conversations with others, etc.
Leenie* January 16, 2025 at 2:39 am It’s ok to try to curb behaviors that may annoy many other people on the call, who may not have the standing to object. When we first went back into the office after a very long 100% WFH period, I was apparently enchanted enough by being back at my spinny desk chair that I was spinning lightly from side to side without even noticing I was doing it, while on a Teams call. Someone pointed it out to me, saying it made them feel a bit seasick. So I cut it out. I also could have gone off camera, if the spinning meant that much to me. Honestly, it’s not a big deal to ask someone to go off camera while exercising. It’s distracting at the very least, and can actually cause one’s colleagues to feel a bit seasick. So I don’t think it’s about controlling others. I think it’s about trying to get others to consider their colleagues’ comfort.
Crashing into Middle Age* January 16, 2025 at 7:47 am I take most meetings/ calls from my desk treadmill because I’m less likely to get distracted and have better focus. I usually set the pace around 1.8 mph, so an easy walk. Nothing about it is performative! I turn my camera on if others have camera on and/or am actively participating in the meeting, but generally leave it off if I’m mostly just listening or if everyone else is camera off. I do worry about being distracting but try to weigh that with the value of camera-on interaction. If someone mentions me being on the treadmill, I’ll say it helps me focus but offer to turn my camera off if it’s distracting and no one has ever taken me up on it. For the LW, I would say just mention it! I would totally understand if someone found me distracting and would have zero problem turning my camera off.
Sutemi* January 16, 2025 at 8:34 am If asking others not to bounce on screen doesn’t work, would putting a small post-it over their picture be a low tech solution to hide them? You could still get the raised hand alerts and screen shares but just cover their image.
madhatter360* January 16, 2025 at 8:51 am I suggested this above! I’ve used a post-it to cover a rocking meeting participant before and it worked great.
Totally Minnie* January 16, 2025 at 8:43 am So, every time we get someone in these comments who says “I concentrate better on meetings if I’m knitting,” they get yelled at by a dozen commenters who say they shouldn’t do it because it’s distracting to other people. But now, we’ve got people bouncing on yoga balls in meetings, which is about 7000 times more distracting than knitting, and our LW specifically states that it’s harming their ability to focus on the meeting, but the general consensus I’m seeing so far in the comments is that the distracting people should be allowed to do it and LW should just not look. So, is it okay do do something that might distract other people in a meeting or is it not?
learnedthehardway* January 16, 2025 at 9:32 am Good point. Personally, I KNOW that watching someone bouncing on a yoga ball would make me nauseous in a meeting. Just the idea is making me queasy (seriously sensitive stomach). But if you can put a post it note over the person’s tile or turn off the video setting, I would go there first, before complaining about them.
Elitist Semicolon* January 16, 2025 at 11:27 am So how many post-its should OP have to stick on their screen before a general “if you’re gonna exercise, please turn off your camera” request is acceptable, then?
Happy* January 16, 2025 at 9:51 am I think what you are seeing is a bias where people who disagree with the LW are more likely to speak up in the comments, rather than a real shift in consensus.
Leenie* January 16, 2025 at 11:01 am I don’t think that’s necessarily the consensus though. I’ve seen some people overstating the burden that’s being put on people if they’re asked to turn off the camera, and I’ve seen someone characterize the request as controlling. But I’ve seen at least as much pushback on those perspectives as support for them.
Leenie* January 16, 2025 at 11:54 am I’m with you. I think asking the moving people to turn the cameras off is a totally reasonable, quite small request. But apparently, this is far from a universal take.
inksmith* January 16, 2025 at 12:05 pm It’s OK if you’re doing something I’d like to do in a meeting/don’t find distracting, and not OK if you’re doing something I don’t like/do find distracting. Obviously. And that works, because there’s a worldwide consensus on this. Or – exercising is OK because it’s about wellbeing, but knitting is just a hobby, so it’s of lower value/importance and therefore OK to make people stop doing. One of the two.
I Have RBF* January 16, 2025 at 3:28 pm I’m definitely seeing a bias of “But it’s exercise! So it’s okay.” Yuck. Knitting isn’t even onscreen.
MigraineMonth* January 16, 2025 at 4:53 pm Comment sections aren’t a good way to take the temperature on a subject, particularly because 20 people disagreeing with the top commenter tends to *amplify* rather than drown out the top commenter’s opinion. In general, I’d treat this kind of thing like competing accommodations: no one should “win” or “lose” and we should try to find a solution that works for everyone. If Sheryl concentrates better while knitting and Jim finds it distracting, dig into what the actual problem is. If it’s the noise, Sheryl might switch from metal knitting needles to plastic ones. If it’s because he’s sitting right next to Sheryl, maybe Jim could sit elsewhere for future meetings and be less distracted.
BW* January 16, 2025 at 9:44 am Zoom has several options for hiding other people’s windows. Just because the meeting comes up in gallery view doesn’t mean you have to keep it that way. Change it to speaker view. If someone is spotlighted or sharing their screen, you can use the little menu bar at the top of the strip of faces to completely close all those little windows.
Kelly* January 16, 2025 at 9:48 am I usually keep my zoom on gallery view, so I can see everyone and unless someone enters or exits, they stay in the same spot on the screen. And then if someone is annoying me I can put a sticky note over them. As in, an actual sticky note stuck to my monitor.
Lucy P* January 16, 2025 at 9:59 am Isn’t there an setting option for the moderator of the meeting to have all cameras and mics turned off at the start of the meeting?
toolegittoresign* January 16, 2025 at 10:28 am I was going to say the same thing. You don’t even need to be looking at the zoom video window or your screen at all during the call. This is not a real problem.
Inkognyto* January 16, 2025 at 11:11 am Zoom has had a feature itself for a while to stop incoming video. This doesn’t even impact others. This pertains to anyone that just doesn’t want to see someone or it having bandwidth issues (mental or computer). You can click on them and disable the video feed. Or I think all feeds.
HalesBopp* January 16, 2025 at 11:36 am This is the best suggestion! LW1 can also play with different views – I don’t care for speaker view, so my view stays on gallery setting. It’s less distracting for me whenever every is in a small box versus taking up the whole screen.
Adele T.* January 16, 2025 at 12:27 am Just noting for LW4: be very very careful about understanding your environment and the consequences before talking to the union. At my institution, the only reason why some positions can’t be part of the union is if they have access to this kind of information (like you said about yours), and so I’d assume that reporting an impending lay off to the union outside of management’s planned notification is a fireable offense. I can’t think of any other reason why those EA jobs at my institution are excluded; they have the same benefits/etc as our union negotiates but they’re specifically not allowed to be a part of the union.
Bilateralrope* January 16, 2025 at 1:14 am I’d like to know who is telling LW4 that they aren’t allowed to join the union. Because if it’s only company management saying that, I’d suggest asking the union what they think about that restriction.
WeirdChemist* January 16, 2025 at 6:43 am Yes I was thinking that too… if the union themselves if telling LW4 they’re ineligible, then that’s one thing. But if it’s just their boss, something’s fishy…
Radioactive Cyborg Llama* January 16, 2025 at 9:23 am Yes, I was thinking the same. I did a quick google search and it’s not just “confidential” employees but those who have a confidential role in labor relations, eg those who “formulate, determine and effectuate management policies with regard to labor relations.”
Happy* January 16, 2025 at 9:31 am Yes! I wondered the same thing. If it’s company management saying LW can’t join, don’t just take their word for it!
LW#4* January 16, 2025 at 1:24 pm Just to provide some clarification – it was management who told me I was ineligible to join the union, and similar to what some of the commentors noted below, the reason I was told was because of my access to certain confidential information I might see based on the executives I support. I’m not part of management, and have nothing at all to do with labor relations. The front desk staff in question are part of the union.
Happy* January 16, 2025 at 1:36 pm Please at least check with the union to see if they agree that you are ineligible!
Not A Raccoon Keeper* January 16, 2025 at 1:53 pm Definitely check! I work in a big research uni, and all of our EAs are in either in a union, or a separate professional-level ‘not-a-union’ (which is totally still a union) (this division is about job level, but for example me and my EA are in separate unions and we have the same level of access to private exec info). And we’re a medicine faculty, so our level of private info is higher than most.
Kevin Sours* January 16, 2025 at 3:25 pm Never take managements word on anything related to unionization.
Jaydee* January 16, 2025 at 8:02 am LW #4 may not be able to join the union and might risk her job if she shares confidential information about pending layoffs with the union. But that doesn’t mean the union wouldn’t care about this information. If the front desk staff are part of the bargaining unit, the union would probably be very upset and see this as an attempt to layoff employees represented by the union and reassign their duties to employees who are not part of the bargaining unit. In fact depending on how the bargaining agreement between the union and the company is worded, this might violate the bargaining agreement. It would absolutely be fair to raise this concern with your boss/other managers who are involved in this decision-making process. Is the cost savings worth it if the union raises a fuss about the layoffs and potentially grieves the layoffs and the employer has to pay legal fees and maybe damages if the union wins? Also, it’s possible that under the terms of the bargaining agreement management has an obligation to notify the union about the potential layoffs prior to laying off bargaining unit employees.
Sloanicota* January 16, 2025 at 8:13 am I would think OP could also go to the union rep and ask for clarification about what circumstances they are allowed to join, without revealing any kind of confidential information. It is sad if the union excludes some of the most-vulnerable people (receptionists and EAs) since those roles often need the protection.
Jackalope* January 16, 2025 at 8:26 am This was the part that was tripping me up. Being management would be a good reason for an EA to be ineligible for the Union; having access to confidential information does not seem to be a reasonable bar to joining, on the other hand. Obviously we don’t know the specifics and that could be wrong on our parts, but it seems sketchy.
Slow Gin Lizz* January 16, 2025 at 8:43 am I was so confused about that line in the letter. Because someone might know confidential information they can’t join the union? I believe OP when they said they can’t, but I want more details on why.
Radioactive Cyborg Llama* January 16, 2025 at 9:42 am I googled that because I was curious, too, and the rule isn’t 100% clear but it is clear that the confidentiality has to be about labor relations. Also what I read said ““persons who formulate, determine and effectuate management policies with regard to labor relations,” not just those with confidential info.
Carly* January 16, 2025 at 12:36 pm I think someone’s lying to LW about her eligibility for the union, tbh.
Doreen* January 16, 2025 at 11:09 am It’s not if someone knows confidential information – it’s whether someone has access to certain confidential information as part of their job. Depending on the organization, it might cover everyone who works in the labor relations department or an EA to a vice president who handles labor issues but not every assistant.
sloanicota* January 16, 2025 at 1:08 pm It’s possible if OP is switched from mostly-EA to mostly-front desk admin, she could request to be union-eligible or just request not to be shared on the salary info or whatever makes her ineligible (if it’s access to the CEO’s email I see why that’s hard, and I don’t know if an honor system promise not to look and confidential info is sufficient).
fhqwhgads* January 16, 2025 at 2:11 pm It’s not just access as part of their job. They have to be someone whose job “formulates, determines and effectuates” the labor relations stuff. If the EA to the vice president who handles labor issues knows the confidential stuff the VP formulated/determined/blah, but has no actual effect on it, that’s not enough.
Doreen* January 16, 2025 at 3:16 pm What the law actually says is “ (13) “confidential employee” means an employee who acts in a confidential capacity with respect to an individual who formulates or effectuates management policies in the field of labor-management relations;” “Acts in a confidential capacity with respect to an individual who formulates” means being an assistant to the person who formulates/ effectuates those policies. The person who actually formulates those policies would be excluded from the bargaining unit as a “managerial employee”.
Happy* January 16, 2025 at 11:18 pm This is not a case where you need to trust the narrative of the LW! The LW is accurately relaying their knowledge of the situation, but there is no reason to assume that the LW is working based on good information from their management! LW can be telling us what they have heard from their bosses without that being the Word of God. LW can be relaying bad information because their management is wrong – that doesn’t mean LW is lying.
Great Frogs of Literature* January 16, 2025 at 10:56 am It’s not a GOOD bar for joining, but I am also not part of a union on the grounds that I have access to too much information. (I think it’s a pretty BS excuse, at least in my case.) Could the union have fought it? Yes, technically, and they might have won. But there weren’t that many of us, and it would have held up the process for everyone else, some of whom badly needed the union protections. The relevant categorization is “confidential employees.”
Sudsy Malone* January 16, 2025 at 9:16 am Chiming in here from the perspective of someone who has been heavily involved in union leadership in the last! So the “confidential employees” thing is very real and a matter of labor law. Basically, employees who have access to confidential information *that would influence contract bargaining* are excluded from being eligible. This most commonly applies to folks in HR and Finance who would have inside information on compensation and benefits. That said, we also had several EAs who were excluded from our bargaining unit as well. EAs often have access to executives’ inboxes, meetings, and other communications where bargaining strategy would be discussed. Not saying I like it or that it’s fair — but it’s a real thing that isn’t entirely up to the union OR the employer. That said, it never hurts to reach out and double-check with the union if you think your position has been wrongly excluded.
kalli* January 16, 2025 at 10:48 am It’s usually not ‘access to confidential information’ but ‘being part of management’. EAs to management aren’t just glorified admin, so their duties may rule them out. This would differ company to company based on the EA/executive balance. In this case it wouldn’t hurt to approach the union and double check coverage if OP hasn’t already.
Hot Flash Gordon* January 16, 2025 at 8:38 pm Honestly, I think the whole scenario of laying off the front office staff is de facto union busting and it’s gross. Something similar was done at a very popular restaurant in my area about 10 years ago. The owners wanted to expand, but needed a zoning variance and wanted some local tax breaks to do it. They were approved for the variance and received city money to expand their location, which included laying off all their workers during construction (who were union) and then hiring a whole new crew with no union. I don’t have any advice for the LW other than if they don’t want to quit, keep in mind that management/ownership might end up being crappy in other ways. I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up hiring new receptionists without the “burden” of a union several months after the lay offs.
Mockingbird* January 16, 2025 at 12:28 am LW4- I once took a job as an executive assistant and in hiring was asked if I’d be ok helping out in the office. Sure, I said, thinking they meant covering the other assistant’s phone if he stepped away. Nope, the exec I was assisting never came into the office, and I got put on reception. There’s more to why it was a bad job, but those sets of duties don’t overlap well, which is the point I’d make if I were you. Being a good assistant to someone who isn’t in the office is hard when you’re having to prioritize people physically in front of you or calling the front desk. And you can’t do that when you’re putting out a fire for your exec. If they don’t care that combining these two jobs would lead to you doing both at a lower standard, start looking for a new job asap. “They changed the scope of work to the point it wasn’t the job I was hired to do” is a totally valid reason for why you left a job, no matter how long you were there.
Elizabeth West* January 16, 2025 at 9:29 am This, and if you run across “helping out in the office” or “other duties as assigned,” make sure to ask the hiring manager what that entails.
KC* January 16, 2025 at 9:56 am Former EA here – every single EA job I took had me at some point doing a job that was totally not the job I was originally hired to do. It’s incredibly frustrating, and I think it has to do with the fact that a lot of people don’t see an executive assistant brings as different to a receptionist, office manager, or general admin. But they’re different roles using different skills!! EAs are involved in implementing strategy and use a lot of project management-adjacent skills, but because it’s such a behind-the-scenes role (and most commonly occupied by women), people simply don’t understand that the role is not the same as a “secretary” or “receptionist.” And therefore, they have less respect for the value an EA brings to the table. I wish I had a solution or advice for LW4; all I have is shared frustration and commiseration!
Ohno* January 16, 2025 at 12:33 am Lw4: I’d start looking for another job, as these layoffs will probably continue and will reach you sooner rather than later. Your situation sounds a lot like one I was in years ago. The random consolidation of different roles/different departments is a desperate – maybe panicky – move, likely to be followed by more desperate and drastic measures.
Artemesia* January 16, 2025 at 12:45 am If parental leave is goiing to be fairly short e.g. 6 or even 12 weeks, it can be linked to the physical recovery from birth. Many people are not more than minimally physically recovered at 6 weeks. But as ‘parental leave’ it is illegal to differentiate. This is one that my egalitarian values and reality clash on. In academia when they offered a year’s addition to the tenure track for new parents, the effect was that men published more and were more likely to get tenured while women fell behind. Because women on parental leave were taking care of babies and many men were taking the break to write and publish and thus literally got an extra year of productivity.
duinath* January 16, 2025 at 1:14 am That is unsurprising but it still makes me very angry. I wonder if there is a way to prevent that kind of thing.
Bi One, Get One* January 16, 2025 at 1:36 am Presumably these men were also reaping the benefit throughout their careers of dumping the lion’s share of domestic and childcare labor on their spouses. Women can benefit from a culture that normalizes parental leave for all genders, but a cultural shift that also normalizes men taking a larger share of domestic work in order to support their spouse’s career growth is desperately needed. (I’d just been thinking about your example when discussing this exact thing with a friend, thank you for bringing it up again!)
Nebula* January 16, 2025 at 4:24 am I once read something about parental leave in Sweden – and this is a while ago, so I might be getting it wrong – where they have a year to share between parents. Iirc the usual thing for straight couples there is that the woman takes the first six months and then the man takes the next six months. So the birthing parent has that physical recovery period, but both parents have the experience of being at home alone with the baby sort of thing. The men in the article who had done that said it gave them much more of an appreciation of just how much their partners did in the home. I think the issue is getting that sort of culture started, as you say – again, I might be remembering wrongly, but I think the article also covered the fact that when this shared parental leave was first introduced, uptake among men was still quite low, and they ended up actually tweaking the law to make it so the most economically beneficial thing is almost always that both parents take leave.
Emmy Noether* January 16, 2025 at 4:56 am Germany has a policy where 14 months total paid leave can be shared between parents, but each person cannot take more than 12 months. Unfortunately, the most common way to split it is still the mother taking 12 months and the father 2. And since the leaves can be taken consecutively or concurrently, those two months are often taken at the same time that the mother is also on leave, so that the father never actually cares for the child alone. It’s pretty galling, though I will say that at least the 2 “daddy months” have become more socially acceptable, where before it was just nothing. Small step in the right direction. I don’t remember the Swedish policy exactly, but I think I remember they did a better job at incentivizing an equal, consecutive split.
Myrin* January 16, 2025 at 7:02 am Yeah, it annoys me to no end. I’m still puzzled by my friend who is very feminist both in ideology and by his daily-life actions, who actually earns less than his wife, and who has been completely burned out on his job because his boss basically views him as his personal serf, who still, despite all of this, took only two months instead of the majority of leave. Now granted, his wife almost died giving birth and took quite some time to recover (she’s thankfully completely okay again) and I obviously have no insight into their marital agreements and decisions but if even these poster conditions don’t result in a man taking longer leave, then I don’t know what will.
Irish Teacher.* January 16, 2025 at 8:20 am I wonder if there might have been unofficial pressure on him, like that he feared his boss would retaliate against him for taking more. If it’s usual for men to only take two months and his boss is already horrible to him, he may have felt the boss would view it poorly if he took more and use it against him in some way.
rebelwithmouseyhair* January 16, 2025 at 2:26 pm Yes, we so often see women treated poorly when they come back from maternity leave, of course men don’t want the same treatment.
Kisa* January 16, 2025 at 7:09 am In Finland the law was changed in 2022. Now a family gets paid leave support for 13 months and it gets devided by both parents equally. Each parent can give 10 weeks to the other parent. (You can even give that to a non-parent if they are taking the time to care for the child.) Of course nothing is perfect and there are still families who end up “losing” some of the leave instead of the other parent taking leave. But evidently more and more fathers are taking longer leave to care for the baby/child! In this case I do believe that this kind of national guiding is neccessary to change the culture. I work in health care and I do a lot of “contract” work and just last year I was covering for a male colleague, who was on leave for 7 months. First for everything!
Kisa* January 16, 2025 at 7:25 am *non-parent, as in they are your or the other parent’s marital or domestic spouse or legal guardian. (I hope Im making sense with these terms. :D)
JMC* January 16, 2025 at 10:30 am All of these policies in other countries really showcases how badly we are treated in the US. And in the next four years I wouldn’t be surprised if any and all parental leave was revoked. Rights are going to be stripped all over the place.
Nebula* January 17, 2025 at 4:57 am That sounds about right from what I know of German culture – it seems to me there’s still much more of an expectation that mothers will take care of children than in other European countries. Like when I went on an exchange trip to Germany when I was at school in 2007, there was still something of a stigma around working mothers, which was totally bizarre to us British kids. My exchange partner was surprised that my mum worked and always had! Then more recently, a friend of a friend lives in Germany and has two kids, and her experience has been that there is great social provision for parents – much, much better than in the UK e.g. on childcare – but it’s all subtly or not-so-subtly angled at enabling mothers to stay home with their children, rather than a model which is aimed at ensuring women can have children and retain continuity of their career. As I say, these are just my impressions, so I might be totally wrong there, but what you’re saying seems to fit with that cultural picture.
AcademiaNut* January 16, 2025 at 5:18 am The academic situation is a fairly specialized case, as most people on parental leave aren’t excited to have extra time to work. The woman spends the first while recovering from childbirth and all the hormonal stuff and is feeding the baby at three hour intervals around the clock, so she’s devoting all her time to childcare. By the time the husband takes over, the baby is sleeping longer stretches and he, of course, doesn’t have the whole childbirth thing to recover from. He’s on leave, so he doesn’t have the teaching and administration responsibilities he would normally have, so he can find free time to do his own research, which gives him a boost professionally after going back. I’d be interested to see a study of same sex or adoptive academic couples and how it works for them – how much of the difference is the actual childbirth part, and how much is expectations of what they should be doing with the time. FWIW, getting universities to pause the tenure clock while women were on maternity leave was a non-trivial accomplishment.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 6:41 am By the time the husband takes over, the baby is sleeping longer stretches … so he can find free time to do his own research There may be some babies who work like this, but it’s definitely not the norm. Slightly older babies don’t just sleep longer: they also stay awake for longer. And they need more engagement and activity when they are awake. And they generate more mess. If the non-birthing parent “finds free time”, it’s more likely to be because their partner is still doing very intensive parenting and everything else that goes along with running a household.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 6:50 am (Speaking as the birthing mother in a lesbian relationship, with an academic partner: I would have been pretty fcked off if my partner used her three months’ leave to “get ahead on research” rather than, y’know, bonding with the baby and figuring out how she fitted into the household!)
knitted feet* January 16, 2025 at 8:12 am Yep, the older baby might be sleeping better at night (possibly) but they’re napping less in the day, could well be moving around by themselves, and need you interacting with them for a lot of their waking hours. Free time is not easily found. (And if I found out my partner was plonking the baby in a playpen all day and ignoring them to do optional work, I’d be bloody furious.)
Mgguy* January 16, 2025 at 10:37 am I’m an academic, a father of a 2 year old, and we have our second on the way due in July. Thanks to politics at my work(and nearly being denied tenure for taking any leave-and thankfully the dean I pissed off was stupid enough to put that in writing) I only ended up taking 3 weeks right after the birth. That was still a lifesaver for my wife as it at least let her make some progress on physical recovery and we were able to trade off night feedings without either of us needing to worry about having to get up for work the next day. I’d stacked my schedule so that I only had to be on campus two days a week that semester, and once my wife went back to work I pulled a LOT of late nights getting my prep done for the next day after taking care of baby all day while my wife was at work. I was able to take the entire summer off, so did full-time dad duty to the extent I could(incidentally, baby 2 will be born this coming summer, so I am also taking this coming summer off, and will be taking 4 weeks of leave after my wife returns to work in the fall. I say all that just to say that working while taking care of a young baby was relatively easy in the sense that it was an hour or two awake with feeding, a little bit of play, and then an hour or two of naps. By ~6 months, if I had things to get done, I had to use that hour or two of morning and afternoon nap time efficiently. Past a year, when the morning nap went away, it was almost a scramble of “Okay, he’s asleep, what are my highest priority things to get done?”(and I don’t mean just work related, I mean the domestic stuff like dishes and laundry I normally handle also) and along with that hoping that he’d sleep for a full 2 hours in the afternoon-which usually is dependent on keeping him occupied/busy enough in the morning to be tired enough in the afternoon to sleep that long.
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 8:06 am Norway has some interesting data on this. Before 2018, the amount of leave reserved exclusively for each parent was much smaller, with the shared portion quite large. Something like 6 weeks could only be taken by the mother, 6 only by the father, and then 40 weeks to share as they pleased (I don’t remember the exact numbers). However, what they found was that the women would almost exclusively take the entire shared portion. In an effort to combat this, they shrank the shared portion considerably and increased the allotment that could exclusively be used by each parent. The impetus for the change was exactly what you point out: the career progression of women was potentially suffering as a result of being out of the workforce for a year (times however many kids they have), they were more vulnerable to employment discrimination as a result of employers potentially not wanting to hire women of child-bearing age, and to encourage bonding between the father and child and encourage men to take on a greater share of the domestic labor. However, something interesting and unexpected happened: the percentage of women taking unpaid leave (which you are legally entitled to tack onto a parental leave period for up to a year) skyrocketed. Men did on average take out their full quota, but women were still taking out the same amount of time, just now at a financial loss. There are many reasons for why women were willing to forego months of salary to stay home longer, but the driving factors seem to be an unwillingness to be separated from their children so early, a high prevalence of breastfeeding which can make it difficult to combine fulltime work with childrearing, and needing to cover the gap between the end of paid parental leave and the start of daycare (which isn’t legally guaranteed until August the year the child turns one, which may be a full 6 months after paid parental leave is over). The fallout has been interesting to witness, as a policy intended to promote gender equality has had the opposite effect. Several of the organizations that once supported it, like the The Norwegian Nurses Association, and the the Norwegian version of the APA, now officially oppose it based on several years of data. The latter has encouraged the government to rescind the policy on the grounds that they have seen no measurable improvement either to childhood development or maternal psychiatric health, and in fact may be detrimental to both as the age that the transition is likely to occur is a particularly vulnerable age for babies. I think what people have found (to their surprise in such an egalitarian country like Norway) is that we can shape the culture to a certain extent, but you will run up against some inherhent biological realities and preferences (broadly speaking) that no government policy can adequateley account or compensate for.
Sloanicota* January 16, 2025 at 8:21 am It doesn’t seem that odd to me that where breastfeeding is high, women will maximize their time with the baby – from what I understanding pumping can be really awful (I’m sure it varies by person). I know women who have really struggled with it. I can imagine if they’re at the office trying to do that every couple hours they realize they’d be better off taking unpaid leave.
Irish Teacher.* January 16, 2025 at 8:30 am That’s really interesting. I wouldn’t necessarily assume it was down to “biological realities” though. It’s possible, of course, but it’s more likely due to socialisation. You said this only came in in 2022, so the women would have seen their own mothers take longer leaves, other mothers in their workplaces take longer leaves and would have perhaps taken the longer leaves themselves with their older children, so there would be a sense that they should spend as long with the younger child as with the older one or even that they would be showing they “didn’t care as much about their children as women who had children earlier did.” And I don’t know about Norway, but in Ireland, certainly, particularly in rural areas, there is still a sense that men “might not know what to do.” One of my friends, before she got pregnant, was talking about how once they had their child, she’d leave her with her mother if she was going away when the child was very young because her husband might not know what to do. I would say her husband is even more involved with their child and more hands on than she is, but that surprised her because society still assumes that women are the nurturers. It’s really very hard to judge what is due to biology and what is due to centuries of socialisation.
Irish Teacher.* January 16, 2025 at 1:36 pm And sorry, realised after I posted that it was 2018, not 2022. Got it confused with info on another country above. But it’s still recent enough that attitudes will still be affected by the previous norms.
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 3:06 pm Hi Irish teacher, I accidenally replied to you in another thread. heres my message, edited for uodates! Thanks for the reply and insight! Biology is only one factor, and I cited it merely because breastfeeding is the overwhelming choice here for infant nutrition (I think figures are at 80 percent before the infant is introduced to solids) and something that is challenging to outsource, as any pumping mother will tell you. There are many factorsnbeyond that, but so much of it is individual that I didn’t want to open that door. For what it’s worth, I think there are other biological considerations that come into play that we’re now only just starting to understand. I myself participated in a groundbreaking study being conducted by the University of Oslo examining the link between pregnancy and physical changes in our bodies and the human mind. It involved 3 separate 2 hour sessions of MRIs and EEG tests, blood tests, and health check ups. The study is still ongoing so the results aren’t in yet, but it explores how increased brain plasticity during pregnancy supports adaptation to change but also raises the risk of mental health challenges. The aim is to uncover the mechanisms behind this balance and how our minds and bodies adapt not just to pregnancy but beyond. You raise some good points, but interestingly Norwegian maternity leave was pretty meager up until the early 00s. My mother’s generation barely had any leave, and the generation before that was largely out of the workforce. So the decision to stay home longer in connection with childbirth happened in tandem with the expansion of maternity leave benefits, finally settling to about the 10-12 month mark. You did correct for the date, but I do think 6 years is a long enough time to gain a decent understanding of the implications of the policy and course correct if it continues ro have unintended consequences. I would also say it’s worth questioning the premise of the argument: I don’t find it inherently problematic that women are more inclined to stay at home longer than men, as long as they aren’t punished financially or in their careers for it, and as long as men feel like they can also fully participate to the extent they desire. That’s why I’m for policies that expand choice for families and especially women, rather than continuing to reinforce structural patterns that perpetuate inequality.
MountainAir* January 16, 2025 at 2:47 pm Your last line is so dead on, particularly when socialization can, at times, mean that men *are* functionally less prepared to be hands on with babies as a material fact. I tend to think that people coming from a the more conservative “it’s all biology” perspective really underestimate (and may not even have the language to engage with) socialization – but I have also started noticing, since becoming a parent, that sometimes more progressive attitudes do overlook the biological and emotional reality of motherhood/life as a birthing and breastfeeding parent. I’ll admit that some of where that last bit chafes for me is where occasionally – in America at least – there’s this implicit sense that getting back to work represents progress for women. I am the primary earner in my marriage, and let me tell you, I did not want to go back to work after 2 months, I wanted to be with my baby. My husband wanted to be with our baby too, but as a nursing mom it was a whole other level of emotional and physiological experience.
MountainAir* January 16, 2025 at 2:48 pm (My first line doesn’t mean men can’t learn – they do, they must, and hands on parenting is the best way to fix it! But it still seems to be generally the case that women get more experience and socialization around babies prior to parenthood than men do.)
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 9:33 am I would not assume that because something is resistant to public policy that proves it’s an “inherent biological reality” rather than a very strong cultural preference.
Whomst* January 16, 2025 at 11:01 am Breastfeeding is the biological norm, and many countries don’t have the infrastructure necessary to support most babies surviving off infant formula. Honestly, I’d even lump the US into this because of the 2022 infant formula shortage and the fact that something similar to that could very very easily happen again. I’d love to live in a world where breastfeeding really is a choice, but for many many people it is not.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 11:59 am I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but by the time you’re past the first 9-12 months (which Norwegian leave covers quite easily), even an exclusively-breastfed baby is unlikely to be solely dependent on breastmilk, which makes expressing milk either a much lighter task or unnecessary. I expressed milk for about six weeks when I went back to work when my second-born (exclusively breastfed) was 7.5 months, which she refused to drink from a bottle or a cup, so I stopped. We carried on breastfeeding until she was 18 months, but I didn’t need to express. I am fortunate to have been able to make a choice about when I went back to work and how long I breastfed, and I appreciate that other people will have different circumstances, make different choices, and have different babies! But those are choices and they are strongly affected by personal preferences and cultural and social factors, not “inherent biological realities”.
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 1:10 pm Thanks for the reply and insight! Biology is only one factor, and I cited it merely because breastfeeding is the overwhelming choice here for infant nutrition (I think figures are at 80 percent) and something that is challenging to outsource, as any pumping mother will tell you. There are many factor beyond that, but so much of it is individual that I didn’t want to open that door. You raise some good points, but interestingly Norwegian maternity leave was pretty meager up until the early 00s. My mother’s generation barely had any leave, and the generation before that was largely out of the workforce. So the decision to stay home longer in connection with childbirth happened in tandem with the expansion of maternity leave benefits, finally settling to about the 10-12 month mark. And a minor but important correction: the change came about in 2018, so we’ve had about 6 years now to study the outcomes of the policy.
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 1:25 pm Meant to reply to Irish teacher above, nesting fail. To your point, parental leave covers 11 months at 100 percent pay, but maternity leave stops at 7 months. I think appreciating the challenges of breastfeeding, even when a child is no longer exclusively breastfed, absolutely must be a factor when trying to understand why women choose to take longer leaves. Even if cultural and social norms also play a significant part.
Whomst* January 17, 2025 at 9:51 am I’m glad that worked for you, but the way the math worked out for me, breastfeeding had Significant benefits over formula, but my biology dictated that I could not go a full workday without pumping or feeding my child and continue to breastfeed the rest of the time, even at after my child started on solids. If I didn’t respond to pumping or my child wouldn’t take a bottle, I’d be up a creek.
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 11:21 am Yes, the biological realities of childbirth and breastfeeding are unfortunately gender-based. And if it can be attributed to strong cultural preferences, what does it say when the most progressive country in the world when it comes to women’s rights and gender equality, has these outcomes?
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 12:50 pm What exactly are the cultural preferences you are hoping to shift? I thought we were talking about women not being penalized financially and in their career progression for the choices they make regarding childbirth and family planning. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.
Plate of Wings* January 16, 2025 at 10:54 pm Agree with you bamcheeks, that it’s definitely worth at least STRONGLY considering the cultural change. It’s likely that many birthing parents imagined or expected a longer leave well before they actually got pregnant. Let’s say I spend ages 20 to 30 planning for an extended paid leave when I have my kid, and being surrounded by moms who take long paid leave. Then I have my kid at 31, I no longer get paid that whole time? It kind of doesn’t have anything to do with making sure things are “fair” with any partner I have, I just lost a paid benefit I was planning to use! I think that could change enormously over time. It might not feel like a sting to someone who has grown up with this new system. I’m surprised to hear about such strong opposition so soon.
Socks* January 16, 2025 at 9:44 am I feel like “needing to cover the gap between the end of parental leave and the start of daycare” is a big enough deal it’s kind of odd your conclusion is this can be chalked up to “biological reality and preferences.”
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 9:47 am the biological reality of male accountant, male doctor, male teacher etc being higher paid jobs than female accountant, female doctor, female teacher.
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 12:59 pm If by biological you mean socioeconomic then we are in complete agreement; the disparity is indefensible. That’s why I’m so concerned about interrogating the value of policies that look good on paper but whose outcomes directly undermine the stated goals of said policy.
knitted feet* January 17, 2025 at 4:11 am As I understand it, the point is that chalking this up to biology is premature to say the least when there is still a huge cultural and socioeconomic weight pushing women to stay home with children.
Juniper* January 17, 2025 at 12:33 pm Hi @knitted feet, I’ve commented on this at length on other replies, so feel free to search my name if you’re interested in an elaboration. But to your point, I don’t “chalk it up to” biology, but point to physical factors as an important consideration (among many others).
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 11:28 am It’s not my conclusion; it’s the conclusion of pretty much every professional organization that has weighed in on this topic and the findings of numerous papers that have been written on the policy since its implementation, including the welfare agency that administers the program. The gap between the end of parental leave and daycare was mentioned to highlight how gender-based the leave taking is. As before, women are taking the bulk of it to cover this gap, they’re just now getting paid even less for their domestic labor.
Socks* January 16, 2025 at 11:31 am Sure, I believe it’s increased gender disparity. I don’t believe you can look at something this deeply cultural and chalk it up to biology.
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 12:55 pm I’m not; only pointing out that it’s one of many factors at play and one that is the most resistant to government intervention (and believe me, the Norwegian gov’t has tried by among other tactics instituting a reduced hours scheme for breastfeeding women.)
rebelwithmouseyhair* January 16, 2025 at 2:45 pm As a young breastfeeding mother and raging feminist in a country where being a SAHM is frowned upon, I very much felt like my yearning to stay at home with my baby was a biological necessity. It flew in the face of all my feminist, egalitarian beliefs. I learned that during childbirth and breastfeeding, our female bodies are inundated with hormones that induce loving, maternal behaviour, and every atom of my body was screaming that I needed to protect my baby. Definitely biological.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 5:49 pm @Juniper, but you’ve given no evidence that “biological reality” is the most resistant factor. That the policy has failed: fine, we will take your word for it that that is an established fact. Nobody is disputing that. That it failed because of “biological reality” rather than the strength of cultural forces is speculation, and completely unfalsifiable in a heavily gendered culture. It is not possible to design any kind of study or intervention which could prove or falsify that claim. That is what we are disagreeing with.
Juniper* January 17, 2025 at 12:05 pm @bamcheeks, you’re getting hung up on one of the many factors I cited as a reason for why the policy isn’t working as intended. I’m not sure why that seems to be a sticking point for you, but we’re not disagreeing that there are other forces, cultural and socioeconomic, and financial among them, at play. The latter was the driving force at to why I had to take unpaid leave; I had stopped breastfeeding, but my husband runs his own business and 3 months away from his clients would have been financially devastating. If you’re questioning the term ‘biological reality,’ it’s shorthand for the physiological changes within and physical demands on a woman’s body and that make it more difficult to return to a normal schedule compared to the father/non-birthing parent.I don’t think we need to marshall the full force of our research institutions to understand why this might be a factor in a society where 80% of mothers are still breastfeeding at 6 months of age. If you’d like data, then breastfeeding was cited as the number 2 reason for taking unpaid leave in a large survey conducted by our national welfare agency. I can’t link here, so you’ll either have tobtake my word for it or search NAV and ulonnet-og-lonnet-foreldrepermisjon–modre-og-fedres-bruk-og-vurderinger. In the paper they link to, the 3 top reasons for increased leave taking are all ones that I mentioned in my original comment. The interplay between biology, environment and culture in life choices is nuanced but not unknowable. Studies combining quantitative and qualitative methods regularly explore these dynamics and new research is being conducted all the time to better understand the interplay; I participated in one of these studies, subjecting myself to hours of MRIs, EEG scans, blood workups, cognitive tests, and emotional self-assessments. The results, when they’re in, should greatly advance our understanding of how pregnancy affects women’s mental health, cognitive functioning and emotional state during pregnancy and the years after giving birth. So yeah, I don’t buy the premise that we can’t study the underlying factors behind policy outcomes to understand and adapt incentive structures and mitigate for unintended consequences. We do it all the time.
LL* January 16, 2025 at 11:08 am It seems like part of the issue, at least, is that there’s no legal guarantee to childcare before August of the year the kid turns one. That seems like something that can be fixed.
Juniper* January 16, 2025 at 2:41 pm You would think so! There have certainly been efforts to try. But the way our daycare and school systems are set up makes it exceedingly complex to institute. In the interim, I question the ethical implications of transferring the burden to address that shortfall onto the marginalized group.
iglwif* January 16, 2025 at 10:31 am In Canada, if you give birth you get 15 weeks’ maternity leave. If you want more leave after that, or if you are a parent who did not give birth (partner or adoptive parent), there is another 35 weeks — optionally extended to 61 weeks, but at a lower benefit rate (33% vs 55%) — of parental leave available. You can take that leave consecutively or simultaneously. The current rules are: – if you’re splitting the standard leave, between you you can take up to 40 weeks, but neither of you can take more than 35 weeks. – if you’re splitting the extended leave, between you you can take up to 69 weeks, but neither of you can take more than 61 weeks. Of course in practice women take more leave than men, and for the majority of straight couples (or couples including a woman and a man, whether or not either of them is straight), mom takes many months and dad takes a few weeks. But you CAN split it up any way you want.
Sloanicota* January 16, 2025 at 8:15 am I remember the letter here about the man who took parental leave from his company and then got another job at another company so his wife could continue to stay home. Some people are just going to do what they’re going to do no matter what.
Emmy Noether* January 16, 2025 at 3:05 am This is one of those things that makes me really angry, and there’s also not a lot a regulation or a law could do about it – there needs to be a shift in people’s personal attitudes and choices. And that’s because any one case can be an ok personal choice – each family can choose to do things in a way that serves them best. Pushing the partner most likely to get it (the guy) toward tenure (or in general pushing the higher earner to climb the career ladder) may well be the financially advantageous choice for a particular family* living in the world we live in. But in aggregate, when it perpetuates gender inequality, it’s a really bad thing. *as long as the family unit stays together, that is. It’s often a terrible choice for the sacrificing partner if there ever is a separation or loss. And a depressing amount of people seem unconcerned with the enduring financial security of the person they purportedly love.
Scarlet ribbons in her hair* January 16, 2025 at 7:39 am “If parental leave is goiing to be fairly short e.g. 6 or even 12 weeks, it can be linked to the physical recovery from birth.” But the OP said that “adoptive moms would qualify, so physical recovery is not the sole issue.” So their parental leave policy wouldn’t have anything to do with PHYSICAL recovery from birth.
Silver Robin* January 16, 2025 at 8:47 am yes which is why the next bit of the comment said that parental leave, which is what is being discussed, needs to be equal.
Mgguy* January 16, 2025 at 10:42 am Since it’s explicitly stated that adoption is covered, I wonder how they would handle a male same-sex couple adopting a child. Presumably no leave would be available, and that’s incredibly problematic for a lot of reasons…
fhqwhgads* January 16, 2025 at 3:00 pm Right, which is an example of why their current proposed policy is already illegal.
LL* January 16, 2025 at 11:01 am Yeah, this is a really crappy outcome and I don’t know what the solution is.
Majnoona* January 16, 2025 at 5:01 pm I saw that a lot too. Men with stay at home wives taking the time off and just doing research and female faculty struggling to recover and take care of the baby
Jules the First* January 16, 2025 at 1:24 am LW 5, are you leaning into your “I’m a great assistant” vibes in your applications and interviews? I’m in a different industry, but one of the hardest roles I have to hire for is the second-in-command. Finding someone competent who loves to support but has zero interest in “moving up” is like gold dust!
La* January 16, 2025 at 5:45 am that’s because many, if not most, of these roles come with enormous amounts of responsibility, without the equivalent pay. They also often require other things professional jobs don’t, like clocking in/not being allowed to be remote (just 2 examples), still require a ton of skills….and are regarded poorly by a lot of people. Which also plays into the pay issue. Also, even people who like to support might want additional training, because they like to get better at what they do, or they just like to feel they are using their brain. Are you offering benefits and pay that reflect the fact that you think people for this position are like gold dust?
Caramel & Cheddar* January 16, 2025 at 9:29 am Not just benefits and pay that reflect how important the role is, but rank? “Second in command” sounds pretty high up to me, so it’s weird to frame that kind of job as being for someone who has zero interest in “moving up.” I was an administrator in a previous role and I would have loved being a career administrator because I’m not especially interested in company strategy or management or whatever, but I had to get out because the pay stalls out, the work isn’t respected by colleagues, and everywhere I’ve worked the admin folks are the first to go when cuts need to be made because everyone thinks it’s a job people can do themselves. I’d love to have been treated like “gold dust” but I can’t say that’s the reality of anyone I know who does this work.
Katara's side braids* January 16, 2025 at 9:49 am Yup. As a pretty competent person who also doesn’t really want to move up, the reasons WHY I don’t want to move up are largely related to the amount of stress associated with those positions. I imagine that many others who don’t want to move up have similar reasons. This job probably isn’t appealing to the ladder-climbers because of the reasons you mentioned. To the non-ladder climbers like me, it still seems to contain some of the worst aspects of more ladder-climby positions (“high capacity, high intensity”, “ready for any phone call or visit”), but likely without the pay or prestige that the same level of stress would warrant in a leadership position.
anonymous anteater* January 16, 2025 at 4:06 pm On the ‘regarded poorly’ point, it’s possible that this posting for the Director of first impression is trying to get at this issue, by renaming the receptionist role into something that sounds, well, more important. Is it a bit over the top? Is it too whimsical for Most? Sure, but it might still stem from that motivation.
Lacey* January 16, 2025 at 8:31 am Yes, truly competent support staff who aren’t looking to move up is almost impossible to find.
TQB* January 16, 2025 at 10:29 am My assistant used to be a bank manager. She got tired of the stress and drama. People who just want to appear for 8 hours a day, do whatever, and go home are treasures. She’s incredible efficient and always helpful to others. She was used to so much stress that she’s now unflappable and powers through even the most mind-numbing tasks with a smile. She’s a wonder. LW, somewhere there’s an office of chaos just waiting to welcome you.
Six for the truth over solace in lies* January 16, 2025 at 2:42 pm I’m a natural follower. I’ve often said that my preferred role is “right-hand woman.” A fairly significant reason we’re hard to find, I think, is that there’s an invisible but strong incentive to fake leadership. We were told in high school that if we wanted a resume that will look good to colleges, we will need leadership roles on our extracurricular list. College admission and/or scholarship essays nearly always wanted you to talk about either your existing leadership skills or your plans to be a future leader. Performance reviews, even for individual contributor roles that have no management element, often want you to assess how you’ve demonstrated leadership. And even socially, being thought of as a follower is kind of an insult, like you have no thoughts or desires of your own. Being a trailblazer is lauded; being a trail maintainer is mildly pathetic. I don’t know that I have an answer to this. It’s deeply baked in to a lot of cultures. But if someone was interviewing me for a role, I would try not to show that I am not a leader, because I know that many people consider that embarrassing at best… even if the interview is for a follower role. “Leader” and “successful” are just too wired together in many people’s minds. tl;dr: I feel your frustration, from the other side, lol.
emmelemm* January 16, 2025 at 1:51 am So, the proposed parental leave covers adoption too… but not gay men adopting. Radically uncool.
Bi One, Get One* January 16, 2025 at 2:12 am I’m not a woman and I’ve been pregnant, watch HR try to wrap it’s brain around masculine intersex people having kids. The law is HR’s best friend here, parenting just isn’t that cut and dried anymore.
emmelemm* January 16, 2025 at 2:20 am Yeah, you can’t just slice this one neatly down the middle any more. Which is why it’s easiest to just say “Anyone who becomes a parent gets leave! You get leave! And you get leave! Here, have some leave.”
Sayyadina* January 16, 2025 at 2:35 am My (large) company broke parental leave into two parts. There was parental bonding leave that anyone who became a parent through whatever means got (so fathers, adoptive parents of any sort, etc…), and then there was a pregnancy recovery leave for birthing parents which I believe technically fell under short-term disability. I thought it was a great way of finding a balance between the new kid stuff and thee physical recovery. At the end of the day it worked out to 20 weeks for birthing parents and 12 weeks for non-birthing parents. (And then we moved back to Canada for my second kid and I’m off for 18 months and it’s just an entirely different experience. Having a kid in the US, having everyone else be “oh, your employer is so generous!, and thinking “not really” was weird)
La* January 16, 2025 at 5:50 am if leave for the women fell under short term disability that the women paid for and men got parental leave that they didn’t, isn’t this also really discriminatory? Particularly because if you are paying for short term disability, there are both a bunch of requirements/forms, and because it is usually limited. But also then women had to pay extra for their leave!
Emmy Noether* January 16, 2025 at 6:09 am I’m confused – what do you mean by women “pay for” short term disability? Do you mean because it’s unpaid leave? A lot of countries that mandate leave distinguish (in a variety of ways) between medical leave for birth + recovery vs. childcare leave for any parent of an infant. I think it’s a good approach to cover the variety of situations that can occur (thinking also of stillbirths, adoptions, etc. etc.). Of course the medical leave, and ideally both types of leave, should really be paid.
Magpie* January 16, 2025 at 7:13 am A lot of companies offer short term disability insurance that employees pay for out of each paycheck. This can cover a variety of situations like needing to take time off for surgery, and most companies that offer this insurance also use it in place of separate paid parental leave for the birthing parent. This insurance covers a portion of the salary for a period of time (a typical amount would be 60% salary for 6-8 weeks).
Funko Pops Day* January 16, 2025 at 10:15 am To piggyback on this– US companies differ in whether they offer employer-paid disability insurance (where everyone in the company is covered without needing to take any action/pay any premiums), or if this is an employee-paid optional benefit, where you only have this coverage if you sign up in the prior year and agree to pay the additional monthly premium. When my company had employee-paid disability, it meant that if I (as a person who can get pregnant) wanted to ensure that I would have medical leave to recover from giving birth, I had to pay for that insurance, whereas my coworkers who cannot get pregnant didn’t need to pay for that– which is the “that women paid for” that La is pointing out. (My company has since switched to employer-paid coverage, thankfully.)
Cass* January 16, 2025 at 7:18 am I’m in the US, and at my company (not known for generous leave policies of any kind) the only “parental leave” available is paid through short-term disability insurance, which we sign up for alongside medical/dental/etc, and for which a premium is deducted from each check. It’s 12 weeks at 60% pay, and only applies to the birthing parent.
Seeking Second Childhood* January 16, 2025 at 7:19 am I believe this is a reference to US Short-term-disability insurance.
AcademiaNut* January 16, 2025 at 7:27 am The birth mother would get both childbirth leave and parental leave, all other parents get just the parental leave. This is reasonably common in places that offer significant paid leave. Childbirth leave is for giving birth and recuperating from it, and also applies when the child is given up for adoption, surrogacy and still-births. Parental leave is for caring and bonding with the child, and applies to all parents, including adoptive ones.
I should really pick a name* January 16, 2025 at 8:05 am Look at it this way: If you give birth and take care of the child, you get maternity leave (not the best word, but using it for simplicity) and parental leave. If you don’t give birth, but take care of the child (ex. Spouse or adoptive parent), you get parental leave, but not maternity leave. If you give birth, but don’t take care of the child (ex. Surrogate), you get maternity leave, but not parental leave. It make sense if you view birth as a medical procedure.
iglwif* January 16, 2025 at 11:29 am Canada still calls it “maternity leave” (distinguished from parental leave), which is not ideal, but what it *actually* is is “leave for someone who has given birth” — which, yes, includes someone who has been a gestational surrogate for someone else, someone who has given birth and chosen adoptive parents for the child, or someone who has given birth to their own child but isn’t a woman, as well as the more standard “I am a woman and have just given birth to my own child”. Up to 15 weeks of this type of leave is available.* Parental leave is available* for anyone who has become a parent in any way (gave birth, is the partner of someone who gave birth, adopted a child, had a child via gestational surrogacy). *As long as you have been paying into EI for the requisite amount of time, so some people are excluded, which sucks.
Zahra* January 16, 2025 at 10:39 am For those who want to know, that breaks down to – 15 weeks exclusively for the mother – No time specifically for the father – 69 weeks to be shared but a single parent cannot take more than 61 weeks It’s different in Quebec, because the federal government took inspiration from our parental leave policy (that could top at 12 months if the woman took all the “shared” weeks, although fathers got some weeks reserved exclusively for them).
Janeway, Her Coffee In Hand* January 16, 2025 at 4:49 pm US employers giving no or bare minimum leave really makes me think about all those people complaining that no one is having kids anymore. Maybe if we gave more time off to new parents, people would be more interested in having a kid!
LGP* January 16, 2025 at 6:49 am Exactly. I’m a woman but my wife carried our baby, so where would that leave me? I wish people would stop assuming everyone is cis and straight.
MigraineMonth* January 16, 2025 at 5:13 pm It sounds like if you worked at this company, you and your wife would both get leave! Meanwhile, two male parents who had a child wouldn’t get any (even if one of them had given birth). It’s a ridiculous policy, in addition to being illegal.
Sloanicota* January 16, 2025 at 8:23 am A friend of mine ended up starting her family via surrogacy for reasons. It would have been brutally unfair if she had gotten no parental leave when she literally had a newborn baby on her hands. As it was, her husband got zero parental leave, only the few weeks of sick leave he had stored up (not because of the surrogacy, he just got no parental leave at his job).
Moira's Rose's Garden* January 17, 2025 at 1:50 pm 100% agree with this, though I would personally add that birth-recovery and parenting a freshly-born smol are 2 different processes, and a policy that covers them as such is perfectly reasonable. I think part of the point too, is, it never actually *was* a cut & dried 2 check-box problem. A whole bunch of the pushback is rooted in people wanting to go back to just stuffing others back into a box they think OUGHT to apply.
Watry* January 16, 2025 at 6:49 am Reply to a comment you think needs reporting with a link and note that you’re flagging it, it’ll be sent to Alison for review due to the link.
Seeking Second Childhood* January 16, 2025 at 4:22 am OP says they are discussing paternity leave without having maternity leave, so I read it ìn reverse: gay men yes, lesbians no. Either way, “parental” is the better word for an inclusive (and legal) policy.
Roland* January 16, 2025 at 5:19 am Sounds like it’s simply new mother yes, new father no. Doesn’t matter what method the baby was acquired by.
Emmy Noether* January 16, 2025 at 6:11 am I think you misread – the letter says “parental” leave, but it only applies to women.
Seeking Second Childhood* January 16, 2025 at 7:07 am I blame insomnia — I wish I could delete that because I went completely backwards and said someone else was completely backwards. My apologies!!
Totally Minnie* January 16, 2025 at 8:52 am I know a single man who adopted a family member’s child when that family member was no longer able to care for them. He wouldn’t be eligible for leave in this company either.
Mgguy* January 16, 2025 at 10:51 am My mind immediately went here, especially in a scenario where both men work for the same company so there would literally be no one at home to take care of the baby. Most daycares won’t even take a baby under 6 weeks old, and even if they did most people aren’t going to get placed with their adopted child on Monday and be ready to hand them over to daycare and go back to work on Tuesday. I can think of other situations where it’s problematic too, though. I have a cousin whose wife was diagnosed with cancer while carrying their second child. The baby was born as early as realistically possible, but the mother ended up not surviving. My cousin found himself a single father with a 2 day old premature baby and a 3 year old at home-how on earth would this policy have treated him?
Tg33* January 16, 2025 at 12:05 pm in Ireland (assuming everyone is cis / straight) maternity leave is passed to the father if the mother dies. I assume this policy has been updated to cover all people, but that was one of the cases where men qualified for maternity leave.
MistOrMister* January 16, 2025 at 2:14 am I’ve had a walking pad and now have a mini elliptical and mini stair stepper. I cannot for one minute imagine using either of them while on a video call!! What are these people thinking? I think it’s fine to be at a standing desk station or on a yoga ball on video if you aren’t moving, but to me moving around like that during a video meeting is rude in the same way it would be to get up and start doing mountain climbers in an in-person meeting while still contributing. Its just distracting and unnecessary.
Lions and Bears* January 16, 2025 at 4:56 am Yeah, when I WFH I’m pretty much either at a standing desk or on a yoga ball, so I probably move around on WFH video calls more than the average bear, but there’s a difference between “adjusting your balance” and whatever is (presumably) going on in this letter.
Jules the 3rd* January 16, 2025 at 9:02 am A coworker got a concussion and explained that constant walking helped their recovery significantly. It’s not a big deal 1 – 1.
MigraineMonth* January 16, 2025 at 5:15 pm Would turning off their video be a burden on this coworker?
Leenie* January 16, 2025 at 2:50 am The 4th letter seems to be indicating that financial constraints are forcing the organization to get rid of both of the receptionists, who are most likely among their lowest paid employees. This seems like an unsound and potentially alarming decision for any number of reasons. Laying off the receptionists wouldn’t move the needle in most budgets. So either they make bad choices, or there are more cuts coming. Or both, I suppose.
Plate of Wings* January 16, 2025 at 11:03 pm I agree but know nothing about budgets and personnel, but LW should be concerned. That said, someone I worked with who is supposed to know about these things says the opposite: that headcount is headcount and aside from c-suite, the differences between full time employees is effectively not worth considering if headcount is available (or if it needs to be reduced). Maybe everyone at his company makes a roughly similar amount of money and the exact same benefits? That would surprise me because there’s a New York office and people in Houston, but apparently that’s the strategy in his industry.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 3:21 am I’m so confused by LW1. Someone broadcasting video doesn’t oblige you to view it! If someone is sharing slides or their screen (so you can’t just minimise the window or open something else over it), open a window specifically to cover the gallery. I use Paint, because it doesn’t have text in so I won’t start reading it and miss what is being said. But if your preference is for cameras off, you can easily hide, minimise or cover the video feeds on your screen.
Seeking Second Childhood* January 16, 2025 at 4:27 am We have people join and drop enough that rearranging overlaps would be annoying. OP gets to use seniority for the power of good and save everyone else from getting seasick.
duinath* January 16, 2025 at 5:45 am Yep. There has to be limits to how much we ask people to bend over backwards to allow others to live their best, most inconsiderate lives.
Totally Minnie* January 16, 2025 at 9:19 am Thank you, this is a fantastic way to describe the situation!
Peanut Hamper* January 16, 2025 at 8:06 am OP gets to use seniority for the power of good and save everyone else from getting seasick. 100% agree. If these employees are doing this in meetings with their boss, are they also doing it in meetings with other people like clients? That would be egregious, and a client might not feel comfortable calling it out. If they’re going to have video on, they also have the obligation to appear professional, which means appropriate clothing (no ratty robes or inappropriate t-shirts), no vaping, and no appearing to have priorities other than this meeting. Dragon onesies are exempt from this, of course.
Spacewoman Spiff* January 16, 2025 at 9:45 am Yes! Even things like ceiling fans whirring in the background make me a little seasick when I’m in Zoom. Obviously asking everyone to turn off their fans would be a step too far, but I often can’t just hide the person from my view because I need to engage with them at some point in the meeting or class, so I resort to things like sticking post-it notes over the part of the screen with the fan, and hoping Zoom doesn’t rearrange the view on me. For the people who aren’t made seasick by folks walking on treadmills or bouncing on yoga balls or constantly swiveling in their chairs, what can I say…I’m jealous.
Mockingjay* January 16, 2025 at 10:38 am Agree. A Zoom or Teams meeting is still a business meeting. We are expected to adhere to the same protocols that we use in a physical conference room. Decent attire, clean background, and paying attention, on or off camera. It’s work, not a gym class. The rationale is the same as those who use fidget devices or doodle or knit or check email during meetings – the action needs to be unobtrusive and not distracting to others.
WellRed* January 16, 2025 at 7:36 am I don’t understand why so many comments are viewing OP as the difficult one. If turning off video is so easy, than it’s easy for bouncing yogas. And she’s senior, not an intern.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 8:10 am Conversely, I don’t understand why anyone is being “difficultly or viewing it as a conflict! It’s just something I can easily resolve for myself, so why wouldn’t I?
bye* January 16, 2025 at 9:41 am A lot of people are saying it’ll save everyone from having issues, but it sounds like LW doesn’t know if anyone else is getting this seasick feeling! Yeah, LW has the right as a senior exec to do whatever, but to me it comes off as silly.
Totally Minnie* January 16, 2025 at 10:01 am I don’t understand why asking people to behave professionally in meetings, or to turn off their video if they need to do something that would fall outside of those norms, is silly. Why is everyone in these comments so vehemently defending people’s right to be rude and distracting in a meeting?
Michigander* January 16, 2025 at 10:14 am I find it odd how many people seem fairly passionate about someone’s right to exercise on a work call with the camera on. It takes 5 seconds to turn the camera off and I can’t think of a negative effect that the person bouncing on a ball could experience as a result. Just turn your camera off if you’re doing something distracting or non-work related! It seems like such a simple and uncontroversial opinion.
MigraineMonth* January 16, 2025 at 5:21 pm I turn off my camera any time I’m doing something that would be unusual in an in-person business meeting: getting up to stretch, getting a glass of water, eating lunch, having an argument with my cat, rolling my eyes at something the presenter just said, etc. That would definitely include walking around or bouncing on a ball while other people are trying to share information. Not doing so seems like it would reflect pretty badly on my professionalism in addition to being distracting to other participants.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 10:20 am Because we don’t find it rude? I accept that other people find it distracting, but it doesn’t follow that because A finds something that B does distracting does not mean that B is being rude or inconsiderate. People having incompatible needs does not mean one person has to be the bad guy! Yes of course a senior leader can mandate that people don’t do something because they find it distracting, but I personally would avoid doing that based purely on my own perception that it’s distracting.
Totally Minnie* January 16, 2025 at 10:52 am I’m not saying don’t exercise during a meeting. I’m saying, if you’re going to exercise during a meeting, turn your camera off. It takes a maximum of two mouse clicks. In general, I think if you are engaging in non-standard behavior in a work meeting, it’s your responsibility to take the steps that would ensure that your behavior isn’t distracting your coworkers.
Kay* January 16, 2025 at 10:56 am Just curious, how does clipping your nails fall into this, in your opinion? Appropriate work behavior or no? Because all of things are not work related unless you work in a gym or a nail salon and therefore should stay out of a work meeting – Zoom or otherwise.
Mark This Confidential And Leave It Laying Around* January 16, 2025 at 12:53 pm That is clearly a Hell No. I personally think it’s odd that people are openly multitasking in a meeting with senior management. Sure, some people can zone in on their cardio workout and walk us all through a spreadsheet but there’s a limit.
New Jack Karyn* January 16, 2025 at 10:22 pm What’s the downside to the exercising person turning off their camera? It’s less trouble for them to turn off their camera than for everyone else to create some workaround to avoid being distracted and/or nauseated.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 11:11 pm No major downside either way IMO! For me it would just be easier and quicker to minimise a window than change what other people are doing.
Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)* January 16, 2025 at 8:51 am It’s more of a hassle to keep opening another program/minimise the entire program to cover someone’s image than to just simply ask others to *try* and keep still on calls. Generally I’m a fan of low tech solutions but the letter writer here has more authority to push back. And yeah, I’m NOT a fan of people moving about on calls. Our boss videod in while walking and hoo boy the camera sway was awful.
Diomedea Exulans* January 16, 2025 at 3:49 am Different amount of maternity leave offered to men and women is quite common and legal outside the US. I’m not saying it’s a good thing but it’s really common. Although it makes sense to offer a somewhat longer leave for mothers (because of obvious things like recovery from giving birth, breastfeeding, etc.), it’s not acceptable to not offer any leave fathers.
r..* January 16, 2025 at 5:44 am That doesn’t really change much tbh, because there’s also plenty of countries where men have exactly the same legal *right* to paid paternity leave. For my current client, their legal environment is that the salary is being paid by the local equivalent of social security for their parental leave, but any legal parent has an entitlement of up to 18 month to stay with the child. If the parent requests this, they must grant the leave, and they must allow the parent to return to their same role afterwards, no matter of their sex or gender.
Hastily Blessed Fritos* January 16, 2025 at 7:20 am Not all mothers give birth. Not all people who give birth are mothers. And LW makes it clear that this isn’t even the distinction being made – adoptive moms get the leave, it’s purely gender based.
amoeba* January 16, 2025 at 7:47 am But that then only applies to birthing parents (of any gender, hopefully, but sure, laws are probably not really up to date on language there!) We do have that in Switzerland and yes, it sucks, but I guess it’s legal. However, offering leave to non-birthing mothers (adoption is covered!) but not to fathers is just blatant sex discrimination.
HannahS* January 16, 2025 at 10:43 am In Canada, there is a category of leave available to someone who gives birth, with different leave categories available for non-birthing parents. That way, it’s not linked to sex and it covers a lot of potential situations other than female/male couples having a biological child (including adoption, a surrogate who needs recovery time but not a full parental leave, etc.)
fhqwhgads* January 16, 2025 at 3:41 pm Offering separate Birth Recovery Leave and Parental Bonding Leave in the US is legal – as long as it’s not defined along gender lines. For one thing, trans and enby folks give birth too sometimes.
Strive to Excel* January 16, 2025 at 3:59 am LW 5 – isn’t Director of First Impressions out of a Dilbert cartoon? I feel like I saw it there years ago. It was a satirical title in and still is.
Dave* January 16, 2025 at 5:38 am I worked at a place this decade with one. Duties also included cleaning the kitchen and setting up for meetings. The overall company was a little odd with the culture but the nerf gun finally put me over the edge.
Falling Diphthong* January 16, 2025 at 7:32 am It’s hard for satire to keep out ahead of real life. I imagine “disruptive ninja” started out as a joke.
KC* January 16, 2025 at 10:06 am It definitely had to have started out as satirical; using it for an ACTUAL role honestly sounds condescending and infantilizing, unless the person occupying the role actually has director-level power and pay!
Elspeth Jones* January 16, 2025 at 10:36 am Last role I had – admin assistant, based on reception, in one of several branches – we were called Directors of First Impressions to many a raised eyebrow. Any chance this is a growing accountancy firm in the north of the UK?
Persephone Mulberry* January 16, 2025 at 1:48 pm It’s not nearly that niche – I’ve been in the US workforce for 25 years and I’ve seen this term in job ads quite often.
Kay* January 16, 2025 at 10:58 am I’ve had experience with companies that use this title and I can tell you that their management styles, pay structures and treatment of employees all belong to the realm of cartoons, and only cartoons. Beware OP.
Never the Twain* January 16, 2025 at 4:34 am Not exercise, but I think one of my colleagues has a rocking chair. In a Teams call, he always has the video on, and it’s memerising to watch his face slowly fill the screen and then recede to a tiny dot…and again and again. What doesn’t help is that he’s the leader of the team we collaborate with, and feels that it’s part of his role to drone on and on, one word never sufficing where two hundred could be used. In combination with his pulsatile facial screen-hogging, it has an oddly soporific effect, to the extent that after one of his interpolations I never have any idea what he’s actually said.
FashionablyEvil* January 16, 2025 at 8:16 am One of my employees had a rocking chair. I told him to turn off his camera since it made me seasick.
AngloNemi* January 16, 2025 at 4:40 am LW5 – currently job searching and the number of “stealth” sales and entry-level admin roles is shocking. I think the best/worst one I’ve seen so far was “Customer Happiness Manager” which turned out to be commission-only cold calling. And of course, going into each role to check it reads as interest to the algorithm so it just keeps sending me more. It’s such a waste of time.
PX* January 16, 2025 at 4:45 am OP1 seems like I might be one of the few dissenters but given that it sounds a lot like a you issue, why not use the option to turn off incoming video so you can’t see people? there is a setting for that in zoom. Alternatively if you have the standing you can either talk to IT about making the default zoom setting to be camera off (and ideally muted as well, you can also do this for any meetings you set up yourself) or just let the people you talk to frequently know. But you mentioned these are all *peers* or junior so while it’s a lot easier to set the tone for juniors, some of your peers may or may not take it as easily if they appreciate being able to move during meetings (something encouraged in some companies!)
Red Reader the Adulting Fairy* January 16, 2025 at 6:12 am I have a standing desk and am ND, so my fidgeting usually comes in the form of shifting my weight from foot to foot. A previous manager asked me a few times to stop because I was making her seasick, so I try to be very conscious of it when meeting organizers insist my camera is on, but it really does make focusing on the meeting one notch harder and I would SO much rather just turn the camera off. :-P
PX* January 16, 2025 at 6:54 am Interesting! I have a feeling the reason I’m feeling very out of touch on this question is part of that thing about what do *you* individually need to be productive on a group setting vs. the collective group and where you just need to accept that not everyone will be fine. I’ve ended up in a remote company but that means there is a heavy *video on* component to our culture especially in small meetings. *However* there is also a culture of accept what that means in terms of people taking meetings on their phone while walking (that was a new one for me!) or moving their standing desk up and down or while in the kitchen making coffee or who have distracting backgrounds or whatever. So in our case, the onus would be on the OP to say, “hey person, your movement is distracting me so I’m going to turn off video” (ie the OP takes responsibility for the action to solve their problem) rather than telling the other person to stop doing their thing. But it could also be because I work with a bunch of highly paid engineers who don’t like being told what to do so maybe I’m biased to solving these types of problems myself where I can ! :’)
Elizabeth West* January 16, 2025 at 9:53 am Lol, they tried to make people turn their cameras on at an old job, and they just . . . didn’t. Or they’d turn them on for a few minutes at the start of the meeting and then turn them off. Technically that counts, right?
Red Reader the Adulting Fairy* January 16, 2025 at 11:32 am I actually literally just met with my new team in person this morning, and while we were chatting, this discussion popped into my head and I said, “hey, I’m a fidgeter with a standing desk and if I’m not thinking about it, I sway, so please, if I’m distracting or making anybody motion-sick, just let me know and I’ll be more mindful and find some other way to fidget.” One of my team members was like “I’m so glad you said that — I am actually super prone to motion-sickness, but at the same time, you do what you gotta do to focus and I can just look somewhere else on my screen.” So I am going to put more fidget options on and around my desk so I can be more mindful about it, and she understands why I do it and that it’s generally not intentional, and we all used our words like grownups and it will work out fine :)
Karo* January 16, 2025 at 8:35 am Yeah I’m also not sure why “turn off incoming video” wasn’t their first move if it’s that aggravating.
Speechless* January 16, 2025 at 6:21 am It’s a silly title, but it’s usually the sign of an organization trying to put a high premium on you making visitors and callers feel warmly welcomed and taken care of. As in, they’re not looking for the vibe visitors get at the DMV. Wow, just wow. Who knew the owner of this site was capable of making such a blatantly racist dog whistle?
Baker's dozen* January 16, 2025 at 6:38 am I’m not US based so maybe I don’t have the cultural background to spot this one but where’s the dog whistle?
Confused* January 16, 2025 at 6:53 am I am U.S. based and am scratching my head as well. Wondering if it’s the acronym throwing things off?
sb51* January 16, 2025 at 6:53 am I am US-based (but white) and also don’t see the dog whistle. The office staffed with white people and serving mostly white people near where I grew up had that “do your business and then skedaddle” vibe with sad plastic chairs and surly staff.
heckofabecca* January 16, 2025 at 6:58 am I am US based, and I’m also baffled! In places where I’ve lived, DMV workers’ racial/ethnic demographics have been pretty on par with overall population numbers from what I recall—often more white employees than employees of color, but never entirely one or the other. I wonder if this is a case of things being very different in different areas, which would mean Speechless is picturing something different than what Alison meant (which I understood to mean brusque, disinterested, etc).
Speechless* January 16, 2025 at 7:12 am I’m referring to her comment about the “vibe” at the DMV. Ask just about anyone to think about the typical DMV employee and most will think about an overweight woman of color with a bad attitude (I obviously know this isn’t true, but it is the stereotype you see in most movies or television shows that portray a bad interaction at the DMV, hospital reception, etc.
Zarniwoop* January 16, 2025 at 7:26 am That’s your stereotype not mine. I picture a bored and tired white guy.
Clisby* January 16, 2025 at 7:42 am Yeah, the main DMV stereotype I’m aware of is that they take *forever* to process whatever you need done. Like, “Oh, God, going to the DMV, I better take a sleeping bag and some food.” This has not, in fact, been my actual experience at the DMV. My experience has been that they just want to move you along quickly and aren’t wasting any time on being warm and welcoming. Which is fine – if I have to choose between warm and efficient, I’ll take efficient every time. But that might not be the vibe you want in a receptionist.
Mockingjay* January 16, 2025 at 10:47 am My visits to the DMV since COVID have been quite nice. I’ve lived in two states since that time, and both state offices kept many of the appointment and online services implemented during the pandemic. These services have reduced line waits and getting in and out has been a breeze. Employees still tend to be brusque, but IMO that’s to discourage chit chat which can lengthen a transaction. They can serve many more people if they stick to business.
Guacamole Bob* January 16, 2025 at 7:56 am My first intro to the stereotype was Patty and Selma on The Simpsons. And yeah, even when employees have been great, it’s very much an experience of listening for your number to be called over a loudspeaker, not warm personal welcome.
Ali + Nino* January 16, 2025 at 10:15 am “Sometimes, we don’t let the line move at all. We call those weekdays.”
Aggretsuko* January 16, 2025 at 4:29 pm I work at the DMV (note: not public facing). No joke, sloths are the mascot. People love Zootopia here.
Magpie* January 16, 2025 at 7:29 am This is wild and only shows your personal bias. This is certainly not what most people think of when they think of the DMV as shown by the mass confusion you’ve caused by your comment. It’s really unhelpful to go around accusing people of racism when in reality you’re the only one thinking these thoughts.
Speechless* January 16, 2025 at 8:00 am I know it may not reflect people’s actual experience, but watch any scene set at the DMV and you’ll see what I mean. Just as people might enjoy walking through Harlem, we all know what people mean if they say they don’t like the “vibes” of certain neighborhoods.
metadata minion* January 16, 2025 at 8:41 am I believe you that this is how the DMV is portrayed in media, but given that this is an office that many people have to go to in person, and spend an inordinate amount of time waiting at in person, media portrayals are probably a relatively small part of most people’s internal image of the DMV. The DMV is a very common cultural shorthand for “unhelpful, impersonal, unfriendly agency”. I would appreciate any people of color on this thread chiming in if I’m wrong, but this seems like for once a negative stereotype in the US that actually isn’t based in racism.
Speechless* January 16, 2025 at 8:52 am That”s fair enough. Thank you for your response, and for responding in good faith.
My Name Here* January 16, 2025 at 10:44 am I think this is exactly right (Latina here if that’s of any interest).
Amy* January 16, 2025 at 8:48 am Probably 95% of American adults have been to the DMV. Likely many times over a lifetime if you move frequently. It’s not some place people use as an example of a perceived social phenomenon but have never personally visited so we rely on TV for context.
Clisby* January 16, 2025 at 11:04 am Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any TV/movie scenes set at the DMV. Not having a TV for almost 30 years might have something to do with that, though.
Account* January 16, 2025 at 7:31 am I’m sorry, what? Since when is the DMV staffed mostly by minorities? I’m not even being coy or argumentative— I genuinely think nobody has that stereotype. It’s mostly grumpy people (and my city is mostly white, so it’s mostly grumpy white people).
LGP* January 16, 2025 at 7:38 am I don’t think the stereotype is about who works there, it’s just about how going there is not a fun experience because it’s crowded, you have to wait around a lot, and it can be a bureaucratic headache.
MsM* January 16, 2025 at 8:33 am Um, I think of the sloth in Zootopia. If that’s where your mind goes, you’re telling on yourself here, buddy.
Katara's side braids* January 16, 2025 at 9:06 am Huh??? My brain’s default DMV employee is a kinda sleepy white guy speaking in monotone. Zootopia probably influenced this, I admit.
Dr. Rebecca* January 16, 2025 at 9:12 am “most will think about an overweight woman of color with a bad attitude” …no. We won’t. That’s entirely in your head, and you need to own that.
Sporadic Park* January 16, 2025 at 9:57 am brother I live in the Midwest and the DMV is fully staffed by White Women of a Certain Age
That Paralegal* January 16, 2025 at 10:14 am Uh, no, that’s what YOU think is a typical DMV employee.
even more speechless* January 16, 2025 at 10:55 am Imagine calling someone out for racist stereotypes because you yourself hold a racist stereotype of a job title in your head. I also picture the zootopia sloth, fwiw.
Strive to Excel* January 16, 2025 at 11:01 am Uuuuh… I don’t think that I’ve ever imagined a person when I think of the DMV. I think of a sad little concrete box that smells faintly of feet and is always cold no matter what time of year I go in (our local location is pretty sad, I feel bad for the folks who work there).
Kay* January 16, 2025 at 11:01 am The “vibe” at the DMV is not overweight woman of color but “you are going to spend far too long here for the simple thing you want done and it will drain the life out of you trying to get said thing done, if you are lucky enough to succeed”.
Squishy* January 16, 2025 at 6:49 am I am US based and I have no idea what you’re talking about. The DMV has been known to _be_ racist to customers on occasion. Can you be more specific for the rest of us who need the context you have?
Catagorical* January 16, 2025 at 7:02 am Department of Motor Vehicles. Not familiar with any alternatives for those three letters in common use.
LGP* January 16, 2025 at 7:19 am It can also be “DC, Maryland, Virginia” referring to the general Washington DC area, but that still doesn’t seem problematic?
geek5508* January 16, 2025 at 8:19 am Actually, in that context, “DMV” stands for Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, aka DelMarVa
Guacamole Bob* January 16, 2025 at 8:32 am It can be either, but “the DMV” is definitely a nickname for the region around DC specifically. And in that context, yes, the statement could be racially problematic – there’s a long history of DC as a majority Black city and perceptions of things like crime rates. I’ve seen warnings to (conservative suburban white) visitors to stay off the Metro or out of certain neighborhoods that are just thinly disguised racism. But that’s not at all what is going on with this letter and response.
mango chiffon* January 16, 2025 at 9:39 am Don’t tell that to anyone in the District! DelMarVa is completely different than DMV which people use to refer to the DC Metropolitan area
Elizabeth West* January 16, 2025 at 11:25 am In Missouri, it’s DMV or sometimes the License Office. In Massachusetts, they call it the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV).
Bananapants* January 16, 2025 at 7:19 am Also have no idea what could be interpreted as racist here??
Amy* January 16, 2025 at 7:26 am Please tell me an example of a Department of Motor Vehicles office that a warm friendly office building would want to emulate. It’s industrial, impersonal, and efficient at best, inefficient at worst. Or are you thinking DC, Maryland and Virginia? (It’s definitely not that DMV) But neither of these things would be a “blatant racist dog whistle.”
Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)* January 16, 2025 at 8:00 am She could sub in ‘visitors at the DVLA’ and get the same response. It’s not racist, it’s more to do with the stereotypical bored and uncaring mentality one gets from governmental services around the globe.
Speechless* January 16, 2025 at 9:07 am If I’m mistaken then I of course apologize. But I actually don’t think it’s helpful to assume bad faith and jump down someone’s throat for calling out what looks like a racist dog whistle. Thank you.
Helewise* January 16, 2025 at 9:53 am Is that something you’ve ever seen on this page before? I don’t see the commenters as the ones assuming bad faith.
Allonge* January 16, 2025 at 9:54 am The thing is, your comment was also pretty jump-down-throaty. It is indeed helpful to assume good intentions! But that goes for all of us.
AMH* January 16, 2025 at 9:56 am And of course on the other hand it’s not helpful to assume bad faith on the part of AAM, either. A good lesson all around on extending a little grace in assuming motivation and how we phrase things, perhaps
AngryOwl* January 16, 2025 at 9:56 am Thank you for being open to being mistaken. I think the response is at least partly because it’s so wildly outside most folks’ experiences that your comment comes off a bit awry/biased.
Speechless* January 16, 2025 at 10:07 am Thank you. Admittedly my impression is formed largely from television, where the stereotype I’m referring to is indeed common, but I appreciate that for those with firsthand experience of the DMV this may not be the impression they have.
I should really pick a name* January 16, 2025 at 11:13 am I think you would have received a different response if your comment had been something like: “In case you weren’t aware, this could be considered a racist dog whistle because X”. People would have disagreed with you, but would have been more likely to take your comment in good faith without the aggressive tone.
Boss Scaggs* January 16, 2025 at 7:05 am FWIW the people at the DMV I go to are very friendly and helpful. This is an outdated stereotype and we must do better
Falling Diphthong* January 16, 2025 at 7:40 am Yeah, my actual DMV experiences have been unexciting. If you have to wait in a line (rather than have a scheduled appointment) it’s a long wait, because having it be a short wait costs more. (Literally we tried this in my state–the experience can be less frustrating, but that requires more staff and costs more, and so was an easy spot for the next round of budget cuts.) When I took my son to get his license we had to wait, and they had a person who went along the line checking what you were there for and that you were in the correct line and had the correct documents. A person in front of me did not have these documents but had reasoned that he’d come down anyway and they’d just give him a license, so I do see where any grumpiness from employees an be earned grumpiness.
Katara's side braids* January 16, 2025 at 9:17 am Agreed on all counts. I absolutely do not envy their job, or judge the individual employees for having some of their frustration leak out after dealing with one too many situations like the one you described. In a vacuum, the answer to that is “well, their job is to create a pleasant experience for the customer in front of them regardless of whoever came before, and if that’s too much for them they should find a different job.” Which is very nice to say, but as someone who has recently realized that my own public-facing job is too much for me, I can unfortunately confirm that it’s difficult put together an exit plan that involves paying all one’s expenses, having insurance, AND ensuring that one isn’t just jumping from one overwhelming public-facing job to another.
DJ Abbott* January 16, 2025 at 9:39 am IME the key with a public facing job is for each side to allow the other to be human. At my job I have to set boundaries – we all do – because sometimes our clients have unreasonable expectations. Sometimes we have to be firm about the things they ask for, and we frequently have to be firm about what paperwork is needed. If management did not support this it would be impossible, and if the clients didn’t understand we are human too, it would be much more difficult. So a public facing job with realistic expectations might work for you. WRT the DMV, I live in a big city where they are not rude, and not warm and friendly. They are very efficient because they deal with a huge volume of people. I’m sure most customers appreciate that.
Georgia Carolyn Mason* January 16, 2025 at 11:58 am Yeah, DMV folks probably have a lot of experience with bad behavior by angry customers. So, if you approach them politely, they’re fine. If you go up there loaded for bear, which can be hard to resist after an hour in line when an error is impeding your ability to drive legally, they’re defensive. It’s on the workers not to be rude, of course, but it’s also on the customers to know that no matter how big a snafu has happened or how much of a pain in the ass it is for you — abusing the frontline staff is never the answer.
Karo* January 16, 2025 at 9:31 am I don’t think Alison is talking about whether or not the receptionist is grumpy or angry, though. It’s the same as your standard doctor’s office. At either of those you go in, you say “good morning,” check-in, say “thank you,” and go sit down. I’d assume that a CEO of First Impressions would require more chit chat, more “what can I get you to drink” and personally showing you to a seat. It’s a very different type of job.
Jessica Ganschen* January 16, 2025 at 10:43 am The last time I went to the DMV, I discovered that the service ticket screens also showed things like recipes and yoga poses next to the ticket numbers. Other than that, it was all very unexciting yet adequate.
Elizabeth West* January 16, 2025 at 11:32 am They do that here too. At the RMV downtown, they have a guy that roams around the waiting area. He helped me fill out my license plate form.
Peanut Hamper* January 16, 2025 at 7:58 am The vibe at the DMV isn’t about the people working there, though. This is something they have no control over. There are too few employees trying to serve too many people, you have to wait in line forever, and no matter how important your particular task is to you, it is regarded as being just as important as anybody else’s task, no more, no less. The idea behind the “director of first impressions” is to give someone the exact opposite experience: that we have been waiting all day just for you, that your needs and tasks are the most, indeed, the only thing, we are concerned about, and that you are basically the center of our universe. (Until of course, we get you out the door and get another client in. Then they are the center of our universe.) I stand by the comment. It’s not a comment stereotyping people working at the DMV, but rather the sum total of the environment.
Falling Diphthong* January 16, 2025 at 8:13 am I agree with this. Even for those whose actual experience is positive–it was quick and efficient and everything went as expected–it wouldn’t be the vibe you were trying to create in your dental practice. People going to the DMV don’t have the choice to go somewhere else for their drivers licensing needs. So it’s not the model for businesses competing with other businesses for customers.
Boss Scaggs* January 16, 2025 at 8:57 am I get what you mean but I think that’s one of those “distinctions without a difference”
Peanut Hamper* January 16, 2025 at 9:51 am I don’t get what you mean by this. On the one hand, you have people assuming that this is some kind of dig at black people, and on the other hand, I am making the point that this is not about the people who work there, but that the entire process is not designed for comfort or to make you feel special. I think that’s a huge distinction and a huge difference.
Boss Scaggs* January 16, 2025 at 10:00 am I didn’t think it was about black people, but rather DMV employees of any race. That’s what the stereotype is about IMO. I do agree that it’s a bureaucratic mess and people know that, but it is also about the individual employees being rude, etc. As I mentioned, I don’t experience this in the DMV I go to, but I do think that’s the stereotype
Seashell* January 16, 2025 at 10:43 am I have definitely had experiences at the DMV where the workers are unpleasant and not very helpful. It happens in other places too (doctor’s office, retail stores, etc.), but the DMV seems to have it as a more common problem in my experience. However, I have a friend who recently had to make multiple DMV trips for various reasons and reported that the new local location & the workers were nice.
Doreen* January 16, 2025 at 11:14 pm Some of it is about the people working there – not their race and the stereotype is not necessarily that they are rude or even unpleasant , just that those government agencies (as a whole, not just the workers you see) don’t care about “customer service”. I worked for a government agency – about 10 years before COVID, management wanted employees to give their clients appointments. They didn’t want to do that, complained to the union and just plain didn’t do it when the union couldn’t fight it. Why? I don’t know except that they didn’t want to manage their time. I do know that from when I started in the 90s until COVID , staff gave their clients appointments day to come in but not a time, so people would show up before the office opened and might wait 4 hours or longer. For no real reason.
londonedit* January 16, 2025 at 8:27 am I’m always just surprised that the DMV is a place that people in America have to go to on a regular basis…I’ve only ever seen it in TV/films, and it’s just something that doesn’t exist here. Now you do everything car-related online, of course, but before that it was all by post. The DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency) is the equivalent here but it’s never been a physical place. We only have to renew our photocard driving licences once every 10 years (the actual driving licence is valid until you’re 70, at which point you have to renew every three years, but the photocard part expires after 10 years and you need to update it with a new photo) or if we change address, and you just do that online (or you can fill in a form and do it by post). Car tax is paid online (or, indeed, by post – or at the Post Office). There’s nothing we’d have to go to a physical building for. It seems to be quite a feature of US sitcoms/TV programmes, so I’d gathered it’s not the sort of place anyone wants to spend any time. But those are my only thoughts on it!
Guacamole Bob* January 16, 2025 at 8:43 am Things are moving that way in the US, too, with more options to renew or change address online. You generally do need to go in person when you move to a new state, and you generally have to show up in person at the DMV (or a title agency or dealer) when you buy or sell a car. My state requires that after a certain age you do periodic eye checks and the system to get your doctor to upload results is a giant pain and it’s quicker to go do their little test in person every few years. But the in person requirements are definitely diminishing.
londonedit* January 16, 2025 at 10:48 am Yeah, being such a small country the same laws cover the whole of the UK, so you don’t have to do anything except update your address if you move, and that’s easily done online. When you buy/sell a car you just update the log book document and send that to the DVLA, nothing to do in person.
Strive to Excel* January 16, 2025 at 1:16 pm Our state recently got a new DMV website and I was pleasantly surprised. Someone with a decent grasp of UI design clearly had a hand in its creation and renewing my tabs was quick and easy. Last time I had to go in person to our local area was to get my enhanced driver’s license, where you have to present several forms of photo ID and a birth certificate. That, unsurprisingly, could not be done remotely.
Amy* January 16, 2025 at 9:00 am You can renew online in most states. But you need to pass the vision test for a new license and then after a certain age. Also turn in your old license if you had one in another state.
Seashell* January 16, 2025 at 10:34 am Do you have to take a written test or a driving test before getting a driver’s license? That’s a common first visit to the DMV. I don’t think most people in the US are going to the DMV frequently unless they have a job in car sales that involves picking up new license plates or something similar. Going once every few years is enough for us regular folks.
Flor* January 16, 2025 at 3:03 pm You do both in the UK, but it’s not like the media portrayals I’ve seen of the DMV (okay, Patty and Selma in The Simpsons) where there’s a row of receptionists and you take a number and queue. You’re booked in advance, and the place *only* does written tests or *only* does driving tests, so you go in, talk to the one receptionist, and then begin your test.
Aggretsuko* January 16, 2025 at 4:35 pm Everybody has to go to the DMV in the US at some point because they handle ID’s of all kinds, not just driving issues. That said, they’re putting a lot more stuff online now and are specifically working to make people have to come in person less. The last time I went IRL was for RealID, and that actually ended up being quick and efficient.
Just Thinkin' Here* January 16, 2025 at 10:21 am Sadly, the rest of the US hasn’t caught up. I’ve never had a positive experience at the DMV (department of motor vehicles).
Mgguy* January 16, 2025 at 11:10 am The staff at my local DMV are not the model of friendliness, but they are incredibly helpful, diligent, and thoroughly professional. As a southerner transplanted to the midwest, it’s neither the over the top southern friendliness I grew up with or the typical midwestern politeness I’m use to here. There’s no idle chit chat or smiles. None the less, though, I respect the office and the people working in it a lot. I’ve never seen one be rude or anything less than thoroughly professional if a bit aloof even with people who were being much less than polite with them. Most recently, someone there walked me through a rather complicated and non-standard title transfer that also required a second employee and ultimately the supervisor to get everything correct. Through the whole process, they were patient, answered my questions accurately and thoroughly, and took care of everything correctly. I’ve also always found them to be quite efficient. Even if the bluntness and lack of smiles in the office can be a bit offputting, I respect and appreciate what they do and how they do it. In other words, I have no complaints.
Aggretsuko* January 16, 2025 at 4:33 pm I admit I’m biased now, but I’ve actually had very pleasant experiences going to the field office when I had to, and the guy running it in my state is working very hard to improve everything, including reputation and efficiency. My coworkers who had to answer phones probably have the most to say about customers losing it, though. Also, a lot of tech here is from the 80’s and getting things made more efficient is well, you know how bureaucracy goes.
Laggy Lu* January 16, 2025 at 7:27 am LW3 this happened to me and it was really just my new personal email going into spam. Start with whoever your direct contact was for the laptop return logistics and call them. Also, just FYI for future reference, if you had their Account Number, you could have had them charge the packaging directly to that. You just need to know the account holder’s name and phone number. Just something for folks to be aware of, if you are in that situation in the future.
OutOfYourControl* January 16, 2025 at 8:01 am That’s great in theory, but sometimes the alternative is not returning company equipment which they then ding you for keeping (and which is theft with potentially scary consequences).
LW3* January 16, 2025 at 8:02 am I’ll try calling! FWIW they specifically told me to pay upfront for the packaging and file for reimbursement. I didn’t have their account number and after signing a comprehensive NDA did not feel empowered to stray from the explicit directions.
Ginger Baker* January 16, 2025 at 9:14 am If you don’t get a response with HR, I would just call AP directly. Aim for “friendly and slightly confused as to how this has gotten stuck”. They can get this pushed through.
Sneaky Squirrel* January 16, 2025 at 9:22 am In my company, this would definitely not work. The A/P person would not have any clue what you’re asking for, would not go investigating why they don’t have an expense in their queue, and would likely tell the person over the phone that they would have to go through more proper channels.
Ama* January 16, 2025 at 10:25 am I have also seen every accounts payable system failure you can think of, from a payment getting marked as processed but the check getting stuck on the desk of someone who was on leave, checks actually getting lost by the post office, and even an employee who was pretending to process payments and wasn’t actually doing it. Especially at a big company there are a lot of steps a reimbursement has to go through and any one of those could have failed especially if they were handling a lot of layoff related adjustments. I would take Alison’s advice and call, and explain you haven’t received the reimbursement and could they please check the status.
KWu* January 16, 2025 at 7:32 am I work in tech and walking pads are used commonly enough that I haven’t seen people ask to turn off video just for that. Bouncing on a yoga ball would be very distracting, though. Seems like most people so far in the comments disagree but I feel like a visual-only distraction isn’t that rude since it’s easy enough to block it if it bothers you. Audio-distractions (the sounds of food crunching) would be.
Falling Diphthong* January 16, 2025 at 7:42 am I foresee a new market for those mini post-its that are just the size of a typical Zoom bubble.
CamerasOff* January 16, 2025 at 7:58 am everyone should just have cameras off all the time. This was the norm before the pandemic at every place I ever worked or had enough contact with to have remote calls. Most places had it as official policy. One major issue is how much of a bandwidth hog having *other people’s* cameras on can be. Just don’t do it.
amoeba* January 16, 2025 at 8:58 am The norm for the pandemic was also a lot more in person meetings, which is what camera on meetings are emulating! I don’t say everybody should be on camera at all times (I typically turn video off as soon as there’s more than, say, 4 people in the call or if I’m only there to listen), but there’s definitely a reason to have it on for *some* meetings. Never seeing the faces of my colleagues would be super weird for me!
Alton Brown's Evil Twin* January 16, 2025 at 9:33 am Well I was in a meeting Tuesday where everybody else had their cameras off and it was terrible, because there were lots of issues with people being hesitant to chime in (part of the culture of my client), and a little body language would have gone a long way.
New Jack Karyn* January 16, 2025 at 10:32 pm Being in a meeting where you can’t see anyone else is brutal. I get turning it off if you need to: move around, snack, run to the bathroom real quick, check in with your partner/child/cat, etc. But having it off for the whole meeting is ROUGH. (In a smallish meeting, like up to 10-12 people.)
Jay* January 16, 2025 at 8:00 am LR#4, you are being fired. This is ‘A Thing’ now, apparently. You can look up “Quiet Firing” for more details. Companies that over hired remote personnel (or are in financial trouble, want to reduce salaries/benefits, or just want to goose the stock price by laying a bunch of people off) will try to get them to quit by suddenly forcing them into being in office full time. They can’t get away with it for everyone (because Union), but anyone not in the Union is fair game.
Sneaky Squirrel* January 16, 2025 at 9:15 am This was my take too. Accept the new role or be fired. Unless LW has a lot of clout at the company, they’re unlikely to have a lot of power to pushback.
Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)* January 16, 2025 at 8:02 am 1. Absolutely ask them to turn off their cameras if they are actively moving! It would give me a dose of the wobblies too. No need to go into WHY they are doing exercise or why they are moving at all. It’s a perfectly logical request. “Can I ask all the people on the call who are moving about a lot to go audio only please?”
Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)* January 16, 2025 at 12:25 pm Would you bounce in your chair in an in-person meeting? No. Perfectly reasonable request.
Dahlia* January 16, 2025 at 12:47 pm Then what’s the point of having cameras on??? Also why are you assuming that OP can just stare randomly off into the distance and doesn’t need to be engaged in the meeting?
New Jack Karyn* January 16, 2025 at 10:33 pm The person creating the distraction is responsible for minimizing the distraction. There’s no downside to the exercising person turning off their camera.
inksmith* January 17, 2025 at 4:59 am That really only works until someone’s presenting, which is pretty common for the meetings I’m in. Surely it’s not that difficult for the person bouncing to turn their camera off?
Emergency Pants* January 16, 2025 at 8:04 am LW 1 – I think a lot of folks came out of the pandemic with the messaging that it was inconsiderate to have video off if others have it on. There were definitely AMA letters about managers expecting cameras to be on. I’ve never been a senior executive, so I can’t imagine saying something to coworkers about their camera when I can just adjust my view setting or minimize the window and treat it like a conference call.
ParentalLeave* January 16, 2025 at 8:11 am I’m very confused by the answer to #2. Parental leave is just another term used for maternity leave or sometimes paternity leave these days. So how can it be illegal to offer different paternity leave by gender but okay to offer maternity leave without paternity leave?
I should really pick a name* January 16, 2025 at 8:27 am They’re not the same thing. Parental leave generally refers to leave available to all parents to focus on taking care of their child. Maternity leave refers to leave available to the birthing parent to recover from pregnancy.
TPS reporter* January 16, 2025 at 8:37 am the law in my state allows for two types of paid leaves- a medical leave for someone who gives birth and a separate leave for new parents within the first year of birth. so someone who gives birth typically has two back to back leaves and the non birthing parent has one
Irish Teacher.* January 16, 2025 at 8:47 am In Ireland, we actually have maternity leave, paternity leave, parental leave and parents’ leave – four different things. Maternity leave is 26 weeks paid and the option of up to another 16 unpaid, for the birthing parent. Paternity leave is 2 weeks paid for the non-birthing parent. (Yes, the difference is ridiculous and plays into the traditional ideas about women being the primary parents.) Parental leave is unpaid, up to 26 weeks any time in the first 12 years of a child’s life. It can be taken in blocks of 6 weeks or more and is available to both parents. Parent’s leave is 9 weeks paid in the first two years of a child’s life. It can be taken all at once or in blocks of a week or more and is available to both parents. I know that Ireland is very different from the US and obviously has very different laws but yeah, the leaves can be different.
ecnaseener* January 16, 2025 at 8:56 am “You just gave birth” leave = okay. “You have a new child, whether or not you gave birth to them” leave = okay. “You have a new child, whether or not you gave birth to them, AND you also must be a woman to qualify” leave = sex discrimination.
amoeba* January 16, 2025 at 9:01 am This. In Germany, there’s also both – 12 weeks (actually starting 4 weeks before the due date) for the birthing parent, for physical recovery, fully paid. On top of that, a year parental leave that can be divided between both parents however they see fit. (There’s some additional rules, but that’s the general gist.) That one’s at 70% of salary, paid by the state, and there’s a cap – so if you’re a high earner, it’s a lot less than 70%.
DJ Abbott* January 16, 2025 at 8:29 am #5, I also changed my job direction, and I found it very helpful to explain in my cover letter why I was trying to do it. I was moving from an analyst position to one where I could have more interaction with people. Explaining this in my cover letter and how my experience would apply to the position helped, and I got several interviews after I had worked in a grocery store for customer service experience. However, I’m not sure I would apply for this position because I don’t know if I could understand their communication. Would they be sufficiently straightforward to understand what they want from me? Or would it be more “director of first impression” stuff? So if you think they could understand what they say to you on a daily basis, go ahead and apply. I have a similar position which I like. :)
ecnaseener* January 16, 2025 at 9:02 am I say apply regardless, see how the interview goes before you assume it’ll be a bad fit! Could be a company-wide edict to write all the job listings this way, with no real effect on how the employees actually operate.
CompanyPhones* January 16, 2025 at 8:30 am Does anyone actually have an HR department with a phone number anymore? Most companies I’ve worked for in the past 15-20 years didn’t even have a general phone number to call anymore, either for the company as a whole or a specific branch, let alone department level phones. Those that do have a general number typically go to a voicemail that only gets checked periodically, or that forwards text copies of VM to a designated person to decide if a response is needed. It took me hours and hours of hard research to find an internal only HR number for a previous employer when I had an issue come up with a tax filing they inexplicably made several years after my employment ended, and then it took me forever to get past the only for employees requirement (there were some automated enter an employee ID type checks), and then it took a long time to get through the next step and the next and the next… As an employee, HR often requires using a ticketing system only available as a portal or (sometimes) via email. At least one system I used rejected non-corporate email addresses. The last time I had an issue at a former employer I ended up having to track down a way into HR by getting a former coworker still at the company to find contact info for a local HR rep – he was only able to find an email address for her individual company account (i.e., not a general HR inbox of any sort). She was unable to help but able to give me a central HR email to use, but no one there responded and she wasn’t able to do anything about it. In the end, as annoying as it is, not getting reimbursed for the $60-80 (or whatever) for a laptop shipping container and the shipping may be a better outcome than trying to find further ways to pursue reimbursement for your own sanity. If it’s a scummy company they may be counting on just this, but it makes it no less true. Of course if you have the time and energy and creativity to try to find a successful way in, go for it.
Eldritch Office Worker* January 16, 2025 at 9:01 am LW has a specific HR rep that handled their layoff. If they have that rep’s email they probably have their phone number, or could easily get it. And yes many (most?) places have individual phone numbers for any HR staff, listed in their email signatures or their phone directories, and HR offices you can just walk into.
LW3* January 16, 2025 at 9:37 am So I just looked at the emails from the HR rep and there is no phone number. This doesn’t surprise me, I didn’t have my phone number in my email signature because it would have been my personal phone. Although this company has a large office space most people chose to work remotely. The office is about a 4 hour flight away from me so this isn’t somewhere I can go in person. I scoured through my termination paperwork and have found no phone numbers. I found another generic HR email address so I’ll try that.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 9:58 am If there’s still a main switchboard number, you can try calling that and asking to be put through to HR or your named contact.
Audrey Puffins* January 16, 2025 at 10:31 am Are you still on friendly terms with, like, anybody at the company? I know it’s not necessarily easy if everyone was remote, but if management and HR are proving unreachable from the outside, maybe someone on the inside could at least check in with a casual “hey, I was just speaking to LW3, are their emails actually getting through or are they getting lost in the ether somehow?”?
LW3* January 16, 2025 at 11:58 am Not really. I mean I was friendly with people there but only talked to them via Teams and in meetings. I was never friendly enough to get anyone’s personal contact info.
L* January 16, 2025 at 9:05 am #4 Is the front desk staff currently a part of the union? If so, the union may be able to intervene. In my experience, most collective agreements have language forbidding or limiting people outside the bargaining unit from doing bargaining unit work. Getting rid of a bargaining unit position but keeping the work and giving it to someone who is not a union member could be grounds for a grievance (not on your behalf, LW, but it could end up benefitting you too).
Elizabeth West* January 16, 2025 at 9:20 am #5 is a receptionist position. I really don’t like it when companies dress up job titles like that. You can’t tell what the job is from the title, it doesn’t show up in online searches, and it’s ridiculously pretentious. Plus, if you have a weird job title and you leave the company, you run the risk that a hiring manager will think you’re being silly and toss your resume. Case in point: at Subway, they call the front line people “sandwich artists.” My old boss at NonProfitJob got a resume from someone who had worked there and she didn’t realize that was the actual job title. She made fun of the applicant, until I told her that yes, that’s really what they call them.
Caramel & Cheddar* January 16, 2025 at 9:37 am It reminds me of all those titles you used to hear about at startups like “Director of Fun” or whatever. Just call the job what it is and make it clear in the job description that you seem to want to offer a concierge-level experience for the clients. Hell, call it the concierge if you want, at least that would be more accurate.
Peanut Hamper* January 16, 2025 at 9:48 am I completely agree. It doesn’t really help the company stand out at all. It’s just marketing. For the resume, I would probably put something like this on my resume: Sandwich Maker (i.e., “Sandwich Artist”) That way it’s clear what I actually did, but also shows what the company used as a job title. (I’m not happy about the “i.e.,”; still trying to figure out something better. Could probably just leave it out entirely.)
CherryBlossom* January 16, 2025 at 9:52 am I fully agree, I can’t stand when companies try to get all cutesy with job titles. I worked as a receptionist for ages, and I would always internally roll my eyes when I heard “Director of First Impressions” (It’s not uncommon in my region, for some reason), or “You’re the most important person here!” (I am not and I don’t want to be.) On the one hand, I know support staff aren’t always respected and this seems like a way to correct for that. On the other hand…it’s a reception role. It’s never life or death, and there’s no need to gussy it up. It just seems so silly to me.
Elizabeth West* January 16, 2025 at 11:42 am Oh, that “You’re the most important!” makes me SEETHE. I always wanted to ask, if that’s true, then why aren’t you paying me more?!?!?!?!
knitted feet* January 17, 2025 at 9:35 am Ugh yes. I hate it too. If I was the most important person here, I’d be making C-suite money. We all know I’m not and we all know why, so don’t patronise me. You need to respect support staff and acknowledge that their work keeps the machine moving – you don’t need to be so cutesy about it that it ends up sounding like a joke.
bamcheeks* January 16, 2025 at 10:00 am “Sandwich artist” appears in the official Standard Occupational Codes handbook used by the Office for National Statistics and various other government agencies, which has always seemed wild to me.
DJ Abbott* January 16, 2025 at 10:45 am The pretentiousness and inaccuracy are the reasons I wouldn’t apply for this job. I tend to be more straightforward, direct, honest, than average, and I have a lot of trouble communicating with people who do this. It would not be a good fit for me, but maybe LW5 would do better.
Kay* January 16, 2025 at 11:21 am So often companies that can’t figure out basic job titles have other business related issues they can’t figure out. I’ve yet to encounter any that have wacky titles and good management, but plenty that are toxic messes that don’t pay well.
Elizabeth West* January 16, 2025 at 12:01 pm Yep. Giving a role a nonsensical “director” title just seems like they’re trying to make it sound better than it actually is.
Mary Smith* January 16, 2025 at 9:33 am This might be the first time I disagree with Allison. A lot people find bouncing, walking on a walking pad, etc. as a way to focus during meetings. It keeps them off emails, etc. If it’s making her seasick, she should just minimize their video. I view it as her problem, not theirs.
Wingo Staww* January 16, 2025 at 11:17 am Fair! I get distracted by video in huge calls, so I tend to just hide the participants panel so that I can focus.
Ginger Cat Lady* January 16, 2025 at 11:34 am People can do what they need to do to focus in meetings….up to the point where it becomes a distraction for others. This has risen to that point.
Leenie* January 16, 2025 at 11:52 am I completely agree with Alison. The LW is probably not the only person disturbed by the movement (look at how reluctant they are to bring it up, even though they’re relatively senior). And I really don’t see how it’s any burden at all for people to use movement to focus with their cameras off.
Totally Minnie* January 16, 2025 at 11:55 am I would argue that if the thing you need to do to focus on the meeting is preventing other people from being able to focus on the meeting, you should either find a new thing to try or turn off your camera so you’re not distracting others. And I say this as an ADHD person who fidgets a lot. I have to force myself not to swivel in my chair when my camera is on and I have an array of unobtrusive fidget tools to use so I can focus without distracting my teammates.
New Jack Karyn* January 16, 2025 at 10:35 pm Come on. They’re creating the distraction, they can be the ones to solve the problem.
My Name is Jonas* January 16, 2025 at 9:39 am Letter 5: They could also be classifying this as a “Director” position so that they don’t have to pay you as an hourly employee that qualifies for overtime.
Peanut Hamper* January 16, 2025 at 9:55 am If they’re US-based though, the overtime rule depends on whether they are exempt or not, not whether they are salaried. And as we’ve seen with a lot of small businesses, if they don’t understand that distinction, they could end up violating the law. I have a lot of questions about this company and how well they are run.
I should really pick a name* January 16, 2025 at 10:27 am I assume exempt status is based on the actual job duties, not just the title.
Mgguy* January 16, 2025 at 11:19 am Correct, and the DOL actually has a nice 1-page flyer that lays out exemption. There is a salary threshold for being exempt, but also “classes” of employees. I’m working on memory as it’s been a long time since I’ve looked, but managers, highly qualified professionals(people in technical roles-engineers and scientists I think are specifically spelled out but not the only ones) and creatives are what I seem to remember. Basically managing other people can make you exempt, or being in a role where you have a lot of autonomy on the basis of skills or qualifications. There are even specific examples of roles that can’t be classed as exempt. Lab techs are one that I know of(speaking as someone who had to fight that battle in a former job because that was my job title even though it didn’t reflect the role I was doing or what I was tasked with). I’m pretty sure secretaries, administrative assistants, and other support staff are also explicitely excluded.
Peanut Hamper* January 16, 2025 at 10:00 am I just looked up “Director of First Impressions” job postings on Indeed. It seems to be mostly spas and real estate companies, with a sprinkling of financial firms, and also a single flooring company, a coworking space, a “decorative hardware” store, a dance school, a dental office, and a Boys/Girls Club. Maybe this is just a thing now?
Ginger Cat Lady* January 16, 2025 at 11:35 am Do any of them actually *pay a director level salary*? I bet they don’t.
Wilbur* January 16, 2025 at 10:20 am #3 This sucks, but if you get in contact with HR maybe suggest that they provide prepaid shipping labels instead of reimbursement. The company should automatically get tracking info and no one needs to deal with reimbursement.
A. Lab Rabbit* January 16, 2025 at 10:36 am They did have prepaid shipping labels. It was the box that OP had to purchase.
Frankie* January 16, 2025 at 10:26 am #4, it’s time to start looking. If their finances are that bad, your job is not secure.
Jaunty Banana Hat I* January 16, 2025 at 12:31 pm This is what I was coming to say. Any time they start making staff double up on those kinds of duties because they have to let other people go for financial constraints…it’s not a good ongoing outlook. Use this time to start looking.
Parenthesis Guy* January 16, 2025 at 10:31 am The problem with LW #1 is that some people find it annoying to watch other people run on treadmills while other people find it perfectly fine. Some people find it unacceptable to not be on camera during zoom meetings, and others prefer it. As an exec, you’re almost certainly in a talking or active role for every meeting that you’re at. If you’re not talking/active, you’re almost certainly doing something else while the meeting is going on in the background. Other people don’t really have that option. They’re stuck in a spot where they have to just listen while offering no input. Not fun. I think it’s fine to tell people to get off camera if they’re going to be on a treadmill desk. I think it’s less fine to tell people they can’t be on a treadmill desk during a meeting at all. I think it’s really frustrating to do it during a meeting where the person needs to be on camera but not be able to talk. I’m not saying you can’t, I agree that it didn’t happen in meetings that are in person. I do think that even as an exec, it makes sense to do other things before asking people not to use those desks. Only if there are no other options, and that should rarely be the case, does it make sense.
New Jack Karyn* January 16, 2025 at 10:36 pm No one is saying don’t use treadmill desks while on a Zoom. We’re just saying to turn off the camera when you do.
Too many dogs* January 16, 2025 at 10:57 am LW #1: The walking and bouncing does not bother me as much as the small child on the parent’s lap, chattering happily away, so we can’t hear the parent. Problem? the parent is our supervisor. Next favorite is the nice, decent co-workers who eat so loudly (chomp-chomp, slurp-slurp) that some of us get a little queasy. I think we have just relaxed about these Zoom meetings, are trying to work through lunch (?), and have no childcare, and this is the result.
Targaryen* January 16, 2025 at 11:00 am OP4 — I validate your frustration. It happens a lot to assistants, it fucking sucks, and you shouldn’t have to deal with it. Your best shot, in my opinion, is to look out for yourself and start looking for other work. As crappy as it is, this company is shown you how much they value you. Fuck that, and look for better. Good luck.
Wingo Staww* January 16, 2025 at 11:15 am HA! I used to bounce on a yoga ball for my call center job. My director thought it was hilarious, but customers couldn’t actually see me. It is highly possible (and core-strengthening) to sit on a yoga ball without bouncing.
Stop strobe lighting* January 16, 2025 at 11:35 am if you are moving around in the small side window I will get a multi day migraine. flickering in my peripheral vision is deadly. I bet OP can get a medical accomodation for some neurology something something
KBMB* January 16, 2025 at 11:41 am Please don’t move around on camera…PLEASE. It’s nice to know that I’m not the only person who will become physically ill if I have to watch people moving around on video calls. Simply not participating in the video portion of the call is often not an option as you need to see what’s on the screen. If you’re not bothered by this kind of movement, count yourself lucky. It’s no fun.
Ginger Cat Lady* January 16, 2025 at 11:43 am One of my doctors, who I primarily see by telehealth, constantly bounces and sways side to side on a yoga ball during visits. I hate it but the alternative is another doctor a half hour drive each way at a university medical center with crappy parking and a hike to the office so I deal. But I wish it wasn’t happening.
Emergency Pants* January 16, 2025 at 1:31 pm Fulltime telehealth provider here- you can also let you doctor know this is happening and ask if it’s okay for you to be off camera (flip your phone over) or if they can not yoga ball for your session. It’s hard to anticipate or meet a client’s needs if they never voice them. While I certainly am mindful of my appearance/background in video appts, I also have to accept that it is not possible or reasonable that I intuitively Know my clients’ needs and limits without their imput.
Sigh.* January 16, 2025 at 11:48 am LW5, “Director of First Impressions” is how my organization titles the front desk/receptionist position as well. It is a little silly, for sure, but we’re a company of financial advisors who have frequent meetings with clients in person, and have clients calling front desk if they don’t know their advisor’s number or are on a house account. So it kind of makes sense, because it’s not just a person saying “Next” in a bored voice, it’s quite literally the first impression clients get of our business, and we want them to feel welcomed and at ease – especially since their finances and retirement futures are in our hands.
DJ Abbott* January 16, 2025 at 1:51 pm I have a very similar position at a financial office. I hope your front desk person is getting paid Director level salary. I’m not, but my title is a straightforward assistant title.
Pop-up book from hell* January 16, 2025 at 11:48 am LW1, my one concern with the “please turn off your cameras if your exercising” wording is if I was using a yoga ball as my chair and was just fidgeting (which I tend to do) I might not register that your comment is aimed towards me.
Yes And* January 16, 2025 at 12:41 pm Genuine question re LW2: Say they were offering only leave for birthing parents (excluding fathers and adoptive parents of any gender), but not offering any medical leave for recovery from other medical procedures with similar recovery times. Wouldn’t that also violate some law? It seems it ought to, at least morally.
Mgguy* January 16, 2025 at 1:39 pm Remember that at the federal level at least, FMLA exempts a lot of small businesses(the threshold is 50 employees within a 75 mile radius). Some state have a much lower limit. Also, this policy that the LW cites is specifically about paid leave. FMLA protects your job, but there’s no requirement that it be paid. It’s pretty common for you to be able to use accrued PTO and/or short term disability(if you have either) but once those run out it’s unpaid. At least with my employer, and I think this is fairly common, once you exhaust paid leave you’re also on the hook for 100% of the cost of health insurance. My employer has no parental leave beyond FMLA, and I’m pretty well cleaning my leave balance out by taking 4 weeks of leave later this year. If I go beyond there, I’d have to pay my employer ~$1K a month to keep my health insurance.
Cinema nostalgia* January 16, 2025 at 1:19 pm Poor customer service interactions at the department of motor vehicles transcend race, culture, creed, gender, weight, etc. Like death and taxes, a bad day at the DMV (or PennDOT if you live in Pennsylvania) truly comes for us all (because even someone who doesn’t drive will probably need to go to the DMV for a non-driving photo ID card at some point—again at least in PA). So uhh, the only dog whistle here is coming from Speechless, maybe :-/
Raida* January 16, 2025 at 6:08 pm As an Aussie I am enthralled by some DMV stories. There was one, teenage girl getting her license: Mother gets some paperwork, they go in, need Form Of ID #4 because her parents are separated and Dad’s not present. Get the paperwork, go back a week later, all good, get a provisional… something. Teenager goes back with Dad and all the forms ready to get learner’s permit. Provisional thingie expired, because of the grade in school she’s in So you’ll have to do step #2 again. That’s at the other window. They aren’t here after 1pm on Thursdays you’ll have to come back. Come back, get asked about Form Of ID #3 which was from another state when girl was born, yeah not sure we can accept this… Do you have one from this state? Amazing.
It's all circles* January 16, 2025 at 1:40 pm are the receptionists part of the union? because if so I’ve never met a union that responded well to their members being fired and replaced with non union members.
higheredadmin* January 16, 2025 at 1:56 pm LW#4 – I kind of agree with the other commenters that if you don’t want to be in-person that you should start looking because there are possibly other issues. That said – if you are an EA who works for senior enough executives that you can’t join the union due to access to confidential information, my recommendation is to talk to the Executive(s) you support and explain that you are concerned that you won’t be able to do your job well while also trying to work as a receptionist and covering a front desk. They might have the clout to go to bat for you, or will be able to give you an honest read of what is happening at the company.
Same Boat* January 16, 2025 at 2:00 pm About #4: this question gave me a trauma flashback over a similar situation. Since people are talking about the union aspect, I am a member of a union at a workplace that prides itself on its union activity. They 100% shrugged and said “too bad.” They do a lot of good stuff but did not care at all about this situation. So I was forced into a job I would never, ever have taken, in a specialized area in which I had no background at all and zero natural aptitude, with a few weeks’ worth of training. I had a panic attack a day for about six months. It was pretty disheartening that no one cared and I had nowhere to turn.
ShenandaPanda* January 16, 2025 at 2:12 pm It does not sound like this is the case in LW#1’s company, but sometimes being on camera isnt a choice. There’s a few comments on how rude people people are for not turning off their camera when their looks are distracting. I use a yoga ball because it acts as a full body fidget and lets me be present in the meeting. My company expects everyone to be on camera all the time. No exceptions! I needed to escalate to an ADA accommodation for this, and the accommodation is simply turning off my camera. I wanted to mention it here for those of us who aren’t just oblivious to how their video shows up – those of us making the choice between being written up for being off camera, or being written up for using a ‘chair’ that works for them.
HonorBox* January 16, 2025 at 2:50 pm Op5 – I had someone on a small team who sat at our front desk, was the first person most people saw and heard on the phone. She had other responsibilities, but served as a de facto receptionist. I suggested we change her title to “Director of first impressions” and she actually pushed back. She told me it seemed like a stupid, made up title (it was) and devalued other things she did for the organization (it probably did). She offered a different suggestion, which all these years later I don’t remember, and we went with it. It was an attempt to be somewhat clever and also suggest that she was indeed the first impression for 80% or people. As suggested in the answer, I wouldn’t focus on the title as much as I would focus on the duties.
Raida* January 16, 2025 at 6:10 pm I had a mate get this suggestion and she just said “So I’m getting paid at a Director level? Sure, that sounds great!” and yeah nah actually let’s go with another name
Workfromhome* January 16, 2025 at 3:11 pm #4 depending on where ou work and the laws this could constitute constructive dismissal. Your current position is being eliminated and you are being asked to take a “new” different job. I you were hired as a baggage handler and they tell you your job is now to fly the plane that’s constructive dismissal and should you choose not to accept the new position you would (based on local laws) be entitled to severance
Nameless* January 16, 2025 at 3:16 pm Oh man, if you’re looking at a DFI role in education there’s a reasonable chance you’re looking at my husband’s employer! I am tickled by this!
ubotie* January 17, 2025 at 9:22 am “Frankly, it’s obnoxious (and maybe a little performative?)” I mean, I think that was kind of a weird call-out, TBH. The letter writer could change the zoom settings, for a start. For example, switching to gallery view might help. I just don’t know why we’re immediately making a leap to “people who sit at desks all day are trying to counteract the known effects of that MUST OF COURSE be doing that AT me!!!”
YaYaYa* January 17, 2025 at 3:07 pm LW5 – this is a receptionist/admin position with a likely expectation of look-ism. “First Impressions” wording may be about service, but in sooooo many places it’s a hint about desired appearance, from hush-hush legally protected statis to weight, style, age, hair eurocentricity, etc.
HugsAreNotTolerated* January 17, 2025 at 5:31 pm LW#4- As someone who is currently employed as an Administrative Assistant, but doing the work of an Executive Assistant and definitely being paid as an Admin Assistant, I feel your pain. Your company is showing that they don’t actually know what you do or value it. Just because reception, office management, administrative assistant and executive assistant all fall under the “Administrative” umbrella that doesn’t mean that they are interchangeable. Admin work at the level you’re handling is NOT something that can be constantly interrupted or something that can be picked up and put back down which is not conducive to reception position. Also? Can we just point out that if your position currently doesn’t allow you to join the union due to confidentially rules, then how are they okay with all that sensitive information suddenly moving from your private work area at home to the busy reception area of a communal office?