{ 263 comments… read them below }

1. MtDoom* March 16, 2026 at 12:15 am

   On #5, you might ask if the company is self insured and using United Healthcare as the provider. That usually means that the company sets the parameters and the carrier follows through under those guidelines. I have definitely see. That this can make a difference.
   1. MtDoom* March 16, 2026 at 12:16 am

      *seen that*
      1. Grandma* March 16, 2026 at 9:44 am

         We’ve all become so good at working through typos to figure out what people meant to say! Kind of like figuring out what personalized license plates are meant to mean/say. I got this one on the second run through *smile*. Oh, for an edit option.
   2. Observer* March 16, 2026 at 1:17 am

      I doubt that would make it any better. For one thing, their administration arm has some issues of its own (their claims processing operation suffered a hack that took several weeks to recover from – to the point of being totally out of commission). And there is also no reason to believe that they are going to be more decent in administering outside insurance than internal.

      Keep in mind that arbitrary determinations of lack of medical necessity are never *official* parameters. Same for some other shenanigans. That’s just how their people are trained.
   3. Duke Flapjack* March 16, 2026 at 6:59 am

      I *believe* this is the case with my company. I’m curious if the phrase “self funded” on my insurance card means something like this. I know my company funds their own *auto* insurance, for example.
   4. doreen* March 16, 2026 at 7:59 am

      It’s absolutely the case with my former employer, to the point where when I call the number on the card, the phone isn’t answered ” You’ve reached United Healthcare” . It’s answered with the name of my employer’s package and then you get Press 1 for medical ( United Healthcare) 2 for prescription ( CVS Caremark) 3 for hospitals ( Anthem) and 4 for the mental health/substance abuse provider. United Healthcare administers the program and processes the claims , but doesn’t actually pay the claims or decide whats covered.
   5. Pastor Petty LaBelle* March 16, 2026 at 9:14 am

      That does not help. My husband’s company is self-funded and while not under United, its still not great. You are still dealing with the insurance company. In fact, they wouldn’t even speak to me even though I was the insured without him putting it in writing that I was the insured and they could talk to me. Its still negotiating the insurance company’s ways just under what deal your company has made with them. In our case, a terrible deal.
   6. Parenthesis Guy* March 16, 2026 at 9:32 am

      Ironically, depending on the state, the other way around be better. If the company is fully insured then the State Insurance Administration can come in to arbitrate any disputes. In general, the insurance company doesn’t like fighting against many states although your state may vary.
   7. SnackPack* March 16, 2026 at 9:32 am

      I’m currently on a self-insured UHC plan. Their phone service is useless. They have 1) told me to tell the clinic I had a physical at to submit the billing differently in a way that the clinic said it absolutely fraudulent and 2) failed to bill a PT office correctly until I asked HR for a person to contact. I now call that person when I have any issues.
      Highly recommend contacting HR for a contact if the standard phone line doesn’t yield results.
   8. Another One* March 16, 2026 at 9:37 am

      My employer is self insured and uses United. I’ve had some issues (like when United decided absolutely everyone could only get a medication every 12 weeks, instead of some people getting it at 10 weeks)

      But generally because my employers plan is so generous, it’s fine. And we have separate contact points for United and so forth. As well as a separate organization that can help with our health insurance.

      (I have chronic medical conditions that means I need expensive medications frequently and regularly see specialists. That said, obviously the fact that this works for me doesn’t mean it would work for someone else.)
   9. well* March 16, 2026 at 9:37 am

      additionally (and while I realize it’s too late for LW5 who already removed themself from the job search), some employers offer opt-out or cash-in-lieu programs so employees who choose not the take the employer-provided coverage have some extra money they can use to buy other insurance (on the exchange, by adding themself to a spouse or parent’s plan, etc.). There are a bunch of details for the employer to work out and the extra income might not cover the whole cost of getting the other insurance coverage, but it could be better than turning down an otherwise good offer of employment.
2. Charlotte* March 16, 2026 at 12:18 am

   I went through a pregnancy, gave birth to a sickly infant, and recovered while on United health plan. Worst insurance I’ve ever had. Personally, I would never accept a job that offered this as the only healthcare option. It tells me right off the bat they don’t care much about their employees in my opinion. Good luck.
   1. Normal Rachel* March 16, 2026 at 3:41 am

      I’m not sure that it’s fair to say that UHC is a reliable indicator of a company that doesn’t value its workers. My company recently switched to UHC after Aetna raised our premiums nearly 30%. UHC was the only option that my employer was able to find that would match our previous coverage under Aetna without raising our premiums so much. (They do cover some of our premiums but not 100%). Incidentally the switch to UHC happened under a new CFO who has implemented a lot of worker-friendly policies and increased transparency in a number of ways. Everyone was super mad about having to change but none of us would have been ok with the rate hike either; as unpleasant as UHC is, the company made the right call to switch.

      Insurance companies have us all in a chokehold. When trying to see how a company values their employees, I’d pay way more attention to the plans offered than the specific provider, especially since they may well end up switching.
      1. Antisloa* March 16, 2026 at 8:28 am

         I agree it doesn’t mean the company doesn’t care about its workers … but now you’re paying the same amount for insurance you essentially can’t use?
         1. Normal Rachel* March 16, 2026 at 8:37 pm

            What do you mean “can’t use?” My coverage is exactly the same as it was under Aetna. UHC is just slightly more irritating to deal with than Aetna, but not tremendously so.
      2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama* March 16, 2026 at 9:06 am

         Is it a small company? Is there a reason that the company couldn’t pay the increase in premiums? I hope they do match your previous coverage but as the LW notes, they’re historically impossible to deal with. (Though, to be fair, my primo federal-gov-provided BCBS did some stuff that seemed shady, like just never respond to mailed-in claims on multiple occasions).
         1. Alan* March 16, 2026 at 10:45 am

            My employer chose a company with poorer coverage to keep the employee part of the premium smaller. At least that’s what they claimed. I still remember calling the person who made the decision to say that the company they switched to would not cover what the other one did and all they could say was “But it’s costing you less! Why wouldn’t you want to pay less? Everyone wants to pay less!” They could not get it through their head that people *use* insurance, and the actual cost to the employee isn’t just the premium.
         2. Normal Rachel* March 16, 2026 at 8:43 pm

            They cover 75%, so their costs were already going up as well. UHC is not so much worse than Aetna that it would have been worth the taking on such a major expense, we had to switch PEOs for an unrelated reason, and the plans we ended up with under UHC were actually better. It’s just that UHC isn’t in-network in as many places here and has worse prescription coverage. But so far I’ve had fewer random denials than Aetna.
      3. Goober* March 16, 2026 at 11:53 am

         My employer switched to UHC when our previous company wanted a 30% increase, too. The head of HR (who handles insurance for the company) had to switch primary care physicians because her doctor refused to deal with UHC entirely. I had to switch to an HMO for the same reason (he didn’t deal with them directly, only through the medical group). It took UHC three months to do a prior authorization on a medication I’d been on for two years.

         It’s one thing when the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing, but in their case, they don’t know what the left hand is doing, either.
      4. Elizabeth West* March 17, 2026 at 10:55 am

         I don’t think any of them are good. The entire business model is designed to profit off people first and foremost and pay out as little as possible. And with so much deregulation going on, it’s only getting worse. It’s been shown time and time again that companies do NOT regulate themselves.

         And as pointed out above, your mileage may vary — I had UHC once before with a smaller company, and it utterly sucked. Now I have it with a humongous company and it’s much more navigable. Mind you, I’m not praising them, but so far, anytime I had to call them, they were very helpful (once I got past the AI — you have to curse at it, literally).

         Everything I’ve had to do so far has been covered, but it does help that I’m being paid enough to take care of the parts that I have to pay out of pocket. That wasn’t the case before, and premiums took such a big bite of my miniscule paycheck that it wasn’t much different from not having insurance at all.

         That said, with the OP’s health situation, it really may not be the best option, though.
   2. Dogmomma* March 16, 2026 at 4:33 am

      Wonder if its different with the Medicare plans..which is what we had..it was great for us. under 65, sounds like more of an issue
      1. sagewhiz* March 16, 2026 at 7:39 am

         Agreeing somewhat on this. When my trusted, independent Medicare ins rep advised me to switch to UHC last fall, I vociferously balked. She convinced me that it was now the best choice (I do wonder, maybe the “best” being the “least worst”?) and so far no issues. Other than their all-too-often phone calls, which I just ignore.
      2. PhyllisB* March 16, 2026 at 8:19 am

         I was going to say the same thing. My husband and I have a Medicare Advantage plan. We had Atena then we were switched to United Healthcare (we were not given a choice.) But we haven’t had any problems whatsoever.
         My husband has had a pacemaker put in, a ” tuneup” to it, and I’ve had a hip replacement with the required physical therapy and we haven’t had one bit of trouble with any of that, and very little co-pay required.
         I’ve heard complaints about them in the past from others, but our experience has been overwhelmingly positive.
         1. TotsPotato* March 16, 2026 at 8:41 am

            Well, of course Medicare is going to be good. Insurance companies know they will get money. Doctors know they will get money. No one is going to deny most procedures.
      3. Chocobo* March 16, 2026 at 10:55 am

         Medicare Advantage is different because Medicare has rules about what has to be covered under MA plans. My dad was in the hospital for a month including many expensive procedures; everything was covered without a problem and with a very reasonable patient cost. But as soon as he transfered to a rehab facility everything was different, because more coverage decisions were up to UHC, and it was a fight to get things paid for.
      4. J pina* March 16, 2026 at 11:06 am

         I work for an insurance company and there are absolutely different plans for Medicare Advantage (which is highly regulated by CMS) and non MA plans. Under non- MA plans, the plans will also be different if you’re buying direct as an individual (eg through the public exchanges – also highly regulated by CMS as well as your state insurance department) and through your employer. If your employer is small (say under 50 employees in most states but 100 in a few others), your plan is also highly regulated. Beyond that – it’s really the employer’s choice on how they contract with the insurance companies (smaller companies are likely covered by traditional insurance vs larger ones pay thier own claims and “self fund”). Employers also decide how generous the benefits they provide as well as how to manage payroll contributions. I’ve seen plans that are very generous – eg, low copays, low payroll deductions, broad network / pharmacy formulary and generous out of network benefits, very extensive mental health (beyond what is required for mental health parity), or low touch prior authorization and/ or a nurse advocate or guide. Of course, this can be expensive so an employer is always prioritizing between what they can afford and what their HR benefits strategy is. The most generous benefits I see typically are union benefits, gov’t employees, or high wage firms like tech or law firms – but there are definitely outliers who are willing to spend here even if the rest of their peers do not. On the other extreme, I’ve seen some employers request very lean benefits even to the point that we warn them will generate complaints but they choose to do that maybe because that’s all they can / want to budget.

         My point is that insurance companies while not perfect by far (we’re humans too who are dealing with outdated systems and complex cases but most of us are trying our best to meet our customer’s needs!) are highly regulated and many of the issues that folks have can be based on choices their employer made. So definitely give your employer feedback (and preferably the hr benefits team if you have one) – and if it’s something that not in their control and they’re hearing lots of noise (and your employer cares about it), they should consider that the next time they bid for a new insurance carrier
      5. Nope UHC* March 16, 2026 at 3:47 pm

         OP here

         My brother is on Medicaid with UHC. It’s still terrible here. No idea why when my mom signed him up for it (he’s autistic) she picked UHC. We have several providers in the state that are better.

         The main issue here is that one of our major hospitals no longer takes them. I have chronic health conditions that can mostly be treated by other hospitals, but occasionally, they are the only option. I’ve also been on a wait-list with that hospital for over a year for a specialist that only they have. There is no way I could even consider them, especially since BCBS in our state is one of the better BCBS providers.
      6. Dancing Otter* March 16, 2026 at 5:05 pm

         Definitely different under Medicare.
         Medicare has standard plan definitions (originally A through G or higher, but some have been dropped) of what HAS to be included for the insurer to call their policy that kind of plan. They can offer extras, but must meet the plan definition.
         So if Medicare says plan X covers cataract surgery, but not necessarily astigmatism correcting lenses, insurer Y is damn well going to cover that surgery (but probably not the fancy lenses) if they want to continue selling Medicare supplements.
         In another example, Medicare sets the criteria for extended care after procedure Z, not the insurance company.
         Drug plans can be harder to evaluate, because the formularies can vary, especially around preferred brands, but if Medicare says drug Q is first choice for condition W, there’s not going to be a lot of argument about approving it, at least a generic version. Off-label use, well….
   3. Turbo Ranger* March 16, 2026 at 5:00 am

      I agree. UHC is terrible and wouldn’t even approve basic tests. It felt like I was constantly jumping through hoops. It shows too. Research has showed that UHC has the highest rejection rate out of all of the health insurances.
      1. morethantired* March 16, 2026 at 12:51 pm

         I kid you not, I had to call UnitedHealthcare to challenge a claim rejection because they said that the routines VACCINES I had received were not covered. We’re talking TDAP, flu and COVId19 vaccines. I got them at my doctor’s office since I was there for my physical and could just get it over with rather than have to go to a pharmacy after. TWO different reps I spoke with said they’d have to check to see if I qualified for vaccine coverage.

         If you have to call UHC, always ask to speak to a patient advocate or supervisor immediately. They do not adequately train their reps and so the reps often give out incorrect information. As soon as I was on with a supervisor, they apologized immediately for the error and told me the vaccines were of course covered.

         I also suspect they try to automate things a lot and it make a lot of claim automatically get rejected for no reason. I believe they do this because if you’re not informed or don’t have the time, you’ll just pay the bill rather than spend the time and energy on the phone arguing with them.

         This was all on a UHC plan that my husband’s employer pays for 100%. I ended up switching to my employer’s health plan and paying hundreds each month just so that I don’t have to fight UHC every time I go to the doctor or need a prescription. Which is probably stupid but I value my peace of mind.
         1. Freya* March 17, 2026 at 10:08 pm

            Sometimes money is the cheapest thing to pay
      2. Observer* March 16, 2026 at 1:27 pm

         Research has showed that UHC has the highest rejection rate out of all of the health insurances.

         If I recall correctly, their rate is approximately double that of the industry.
   4. Magpie* March 16, 2026 at 6:56 am

      This is really interesting to me. My company has UHC and also offers the best overall benefits package I’ve ever had, by far. Six weeks of PTO, 6% 401K match, salary that’s above average for jobs in my area. I also have a kid with an expensive chronic health condition and have never had any trouble getting UHC to pay for tests and treatments.
      1. Clisby* March 16, 2026 at 7:32 am

         Same experience here. I realize UHC has different plans, though, so maybe some are crappy.
         1. Antilles* March 16, 2026 at 8:06 am

            This is the actual answer. United is so enormous that it basically depends on the plan you have. If your plan is generous with coverage, it’s a snap to get stuff covered; if your plan itself is stingy, then there’s lots of hoops that come along.
            1. Guacamole Bob* March 16, 2026 at 9:49 am

               Yeah, we’re a local government agency that provides excellent health care coverage in general. We have a couple of provider options – I was on the United Healthcare plan for a number of years and it was fine. We had the same annoyances as with any other plan I’ve been on here and there, but no real issues, even with covering stuff for a pretty expensive condition that one of my kids has where the doc prescribed more frequent replacement of a medical device than is standard. But I think the fact that we’re on a pretty high tier of plan is largely responsible for this.

               UHC did stop being accepted at a major university health system network in our region that included a lot of affiliated specialist practices in our area – I think it was due to a dispute about reimbursement rates. I wasn’t sad that my employer switched plans shortly after, because that was a mess for some people.
               1. Bee* March 16, 2026 at 11:16 am

                  A friend of mine is scrambling because her Blue Cross insurance stopped being accepted at a major health system here, so she has to find all new doctors – and she’s on a controlled medication that only gets prescribed 30 days at a time. Truly one of those situations that illuminates how horrible the whole system is!
                  1. Guacamole Bob* March 16, 2026 at 11:51 am

                     It’s really terrible. Someone in my office was pregnant and planning to deliver at a hospital in that health system, and she had to decide whether to switch OBs at the last minute, be induced slightly early to ensure it was before the coverage drop, or fight with the insurance company and/or hospital to get a waiver. Such a broken system.

                     Not sure what she ended up doing, but it was now many months ago and the baby is very cute!
               2. Gila Monster* March 16, 2026 at 11:30 am

                  Right, I am on UHC at a medium-sized non-profit, and it’s generally been AMAZING. My family incurred several hundred thousand dollars of medical expenses last year, and aside from mediocre-at-best pediatric behavioral health coverage, we were covered for almost everything.

                  Husband to son, who was insisting on being taken to the ER after hand injury: Do you know how much this will cost?!?
                  Mr. 11: $100

                  Husband was agog. Son was correct.
      2. Bee* March 16, 2026 at 11:10 am

         Yeah, I think it’s really just the case that all insurance companies are terrible, and whether you have a good experience or a bad experience is down to a hundred factors where the three biggest are luck, how good your doctor’s office is at handling them, and state law. (My one almost-bad experience with United was when my in-network doctor sent my tests to an out-of-network lab, which meant I got hit with an $1800 surprise bill. Luckily, my state had outlawed that the year before, so it only took about three 10min phone calls to get that treated as in-network with a $15 copay. There was even a big bolded part on the notice that said “If this is a surprise bill, we are required by your state’s law to cover it, call us” – which is also probably part of the law, but it certainly brought my heart rate back down.)
         1. Elizabeth West* March 17, 2026 at 11:04 am

            Ugh, that outside lab thing happened to me when I was on a subsidized program through my doctor’s hospital system when unemployed (no idea who was paying — and this was in a different state than where I live now). The lab sent me a big fat bill. I called them directly and explained to them that they didn’t tell me they would be sending it out, and I got a massive discount.
      3. Nope UHC* March 16, 2026 at 3:55 pm

         OP here.

         My issue with them here is that there is a major hospital in the area that no longer takes them. UHC blames them, they blame UHC…I am inclined to blame UHC.

         Ethically, I also just cannot give my money to UHC because of how much money their upper management makes. They’re choosing profit above people’s lives. Some BCBS state providers are for-profit; ours is not. I expect them to still pay employees and doctors what they’re worth, but I also don’t want them to prioritize profit over people’s lives.
   5. Duke Flapjack* March 16, 2026 at 6:58 am

      I just realized that the insurance I got through my job of about a *month* is United Health (I KNEW I had heard that name, I just hadn’t connected). Well, hopefully it’ll be OK as I barely use my insurance and otherwise the company is pretty decent (at least so far).
   6. Katie* March 16, 2026 at 7:24 am

      The thing is, I can give you all my nightmare stories dealing with Blue Cross (currently on month 13 of getting my non walking twins 11 year old twins new wheelchairs. They were 5 the last time they got one). So is it if they chose UHC that they are a bad company or is it that insurance is a nightmare and if you ever have a constant need for it, you better learn the insurance companies phone number by heart because you are going to be constantly calling them because they are all evil.
      1. Jen* March 16, 2026 at 10:24 am

         Yeah, I have spent a lot of time fighting with Blue Cross over medication I need for a chronic condition that landed me in the hospital a few years ago. They all suck!
      2. Nope UHC* March 16, 2026 at 3:59 pm

         OP here. I have a bunch of health conditions (up to and including cancer) and have had to learn how to understand insurance.

         BCBS is going to depend on your state. I have had two different state ones. My state is excellent; the other one I had was even better, but there are state providers that are absolutely crap. I take a bunch of medications; only have one that I have to fight with them about approval, and my pharmacist pushes it through.

         If our state one weren’t good, I’d choose a different provider.

         The other issue here is that one of the major hospitals and UHC had a falling out. It’s a major problem because if I needed more treatment for my cancer (another surgery) that’s where I would need to go, and I’m on a wait-list for another specialist because they’re the only ones with that specialist.
         1. Former Admin turned Project Manager* March 18, 2026 at 2:56 pm

            I had a similar issue recently with UHC dropping Johns Hopkins; many of my doctors and my local hospital are all under the JH umbrella, and now I’m having a recurrence of a problem from last summer (including an outpatient surgery) that I thought I’d gotten resolved just before our Hopkins coverage dropped. I am navigating the medical issue while also trying to change doctors.
   7. Strange the Librarian* March 16, 2026 at 9:03 am

      I’m still grumpy at my husband’s UHC plan–when we got married, we did the whole “look at whose insurance is better etc.” thing and they had what I dubbed the “feminism tax.” Because I had a job through which I could get insurance, if he added me to his plan there would be an *additional* monthly fee on top of the usual single vs family plan price difference. Ultimately, we just stayed on our own until we had a kid and moved everyone over to mine.
      1. Kat* March 16, 2026 at 9:13 am

         This has nothing to do with UHC – adding a working spouse surcharge is a choice that his employer made and is very common. (I work in health insurance pricing.)
         1. Strange the Librarian* March 16, 2026 at 9:39 am

            Good to know! Still shitty, but at least I know to be mad at the global medical company with even more resources than UHC, lol.
      2. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy* March 16, 2026 at 9:55 am

         That’s a pretty common choice for employers to make. Mine doesn’t let me add my spouse to my insurance plan for anything more than secondary coverage unless spouse does not have an insurance plan available to them that meets specific minimums through their own employer. (No employer, or employer-without-sufficient-insurance, etc, then I could add them for primary coverage without an additional charge beyond the employee-and-spouse premium.)
         1. Strange the Librarian* March 16, 2026 at 10:13 am

            It’s so dumb! (I understand the financials behind why, but ugh.) Also so interesting that it’s so common–everyone I’ve told this to irl had never heard of it being a thing before.
            1. doreen* March 16, 2026 at 11:31 am

               That depends on the people you know – I can almost guarantee that most people I know have never heard of it because an awful lot of the people I know work in some sort of union environment, even if they themselves aren’t union memebers. And those jobs often have the reverse – I paid for family coverage whether it was me and my husband or me, my husband and any number of kids, whether his job offered insurance or not. But if I turned down the coverage altogether because my husband’s insurance was better, they would have paid me $3000/yr for not taking theirs.
      3. ScruffyInternHerder* March 16, 2026 at 10:17 am

         Eh, we don’t have UHC, and that’s been a thing here since time immortal (i.e. predates my employment by several years). Its ridiculous though, because if there are multiple household health insurance plans, and can sure get messy!
   8. Mid* March 16, 2026 at 10:08 am

      In the last several years, I’ve had United, BCBS, Cigna, and back to United. First time with United was a nightmare. BCBS was fine, I didn’t have a lot of health issues at the time so I didn’t interact much. Cigna, which a lot of people love around me, was a nightmare. Back in United and they’ve been incredibly easy to deal with. I think the change is largely because I’m now on a HDHP instead of a PPO.
3. Crencestre* March 16, 2026 at 12:34 am

   OP2: I completely understand that you can’t leave your job right now, but your description of your workplace makes me wonder if you’ve normalized a “red flag” environment. Companies that resent their employees having any life outside of work and who regard the normal ups, downs and challenges of life as evidence of those employees’ weakness and as merely annoying distractions from the all-important, all-encompassing job are very unlikely to be supportive when an employee has an emergency.

   We’ve all read AAM letters in which employees’ family deaths, cancer or ADA-qualifying medical problems are treated as if they’re irritating interruptions of corporate life for which the employee should be blamed, scolded, threatened or harassed. OP, please don’t let your company brainwash you into thinking that it’s normal and acceptable for them to try to emotionally blackmail you into acting like a robot (spoiler alert: it’s neither normal nor healthy!)
   1. MK* March 16, 2026 at 1:36 am

      My read of the letter was not do much that the company resents the employees having a life, as much as a role where “image” is very important. It sounds very old-fashioned, I cannot think what field still views divorce so negatively in 2026, but a few decades ago it was pretty prevalent to regard it as a personal failure (which is not the case with being widowed, or even never married to the same degree).

      As to OP’s actual question, while it’s absurd to consider it obligatory to disclose personal information, I find it a good idea to share basic details in your own time and in a mundane manner, rather than finding yourself in a situation where it comes out at an awkward time.
      1. Mabby* March 16, 2026 at 2:30 am

         I’m wondering if it’s not the field necessarily but the geographic location. Is it somewhere that is very conservative and/or religious (with a less progressive religion). Despite its prevalence there is still a perception of stigma around divorce — I’ve known many people who were terribly embarrassed about having to tell people of a divorce and I’m silently thinking “half the people you are telling are divorced and many of the rest have partners who were divorced”.
      2. Midnight Glitter Raid* March 16, 2026 at 2:53 am

         I was thinking LW3 might have a political position, work at a private religious school or some kind of religious leader, because I can’t imagine any other setting where your image is tarnished if you’re divorced.
         1. Midnight Glitter Raid* March 16, 2026 at 2:57 am

            LW2!
         2. allathian* March 16, 2026 at 3:00 am

            They’re legal-adjacent but not a lawyer. I don’t think a field that expects 70+ hours of work per week even in the busiest of times is healthy or has healthy standards…
            1. Amateur Linguist* March 16, 2026 at 4:24 am

               This is a sidebar to the actual question, but here goes…

               Having had experience with parents who worked that kind of life, to a large extent people who take on senior careers work that without issue. My parents are now in their 70s but they still have the energy that got them to the top of their careers (in my dad’s case all the way up from outside-toilet industrial poverty). They managed to have it all and with Mother’s Day just past in the UK, I reminded my mum of that and how impressed I am looking back on what she achieved.

               While I do think that work-life balance is important, for some people the drive is different. 70 hours a week isn’t for me, but just like we ask that they not be judgmental about us, maybe we could lay off the judgement about OP and their working life or the demands of a senior career.
               1. allathian* March 16, 2026 at 7:54 am

                  That’s a fair point. But I don’t think it’s either realistic or fair to expect the majority of employees to be able to handle that sort of workload. The exceptionally driven people are, and will always be, the exceptions.
                  1. Malarkey01* March 16, 2026 at 9:31 am

                     Yeah but those fields are full of those people. I’ll add that this also happens in some medicine and in some blue collar careers. Talk to linemen, they’re working 100 hour weeks and clearing enormous paychecks.

                     People who work these schedules aren’t on a blog commenting so you don’t see just how typical this is in several industries.
                  2. Rex Libris* March 16, 2026 at 9:37 am

                     I think it also needs to be said that very, very few people are actually going “Yay! 70 hours a week! I wonder if they’ll let me work 75?” There are simply people who are willing to do it and people who aren’t, but that doesn’t mean it’s healthy in either case. There is no way that a 70 hour workweek isn’t cutting drastically into sleep, food and personal time, whether you’re “driven” or not.
                     1. MK* March 16, 2026 at 1:06 pm

                        It may not be healthy, but there definitely are people who enjoy their work that way. Not the majority, but it’s not as uncommon as you think. However, as Malarkey01 said, they don’t have reason to post on advice blogs.
               2. Irish Teacher.* March 16, 2026 at 8:20 am

                  I don’t think the judgement is of the OP. If somebody chooses to work a 70 hour week, that’s fair enough, but a job that expects it of everybody and is suspicious of people having life changes that could take from their ability to do that is not reasonable.

                  It also tends to be somewhat discriminatory because there are certain groups that have more freedom to do that than others. And also certain groups who are more likely to be stereotyped as able to do that. So there is a real danger a field which expects it will employ a lot of younger able-bodied men from middle class backgrounds or higher as they are often expected to have “less distractions” than other groups.

                  And doesn’t the UK have the rule about 48 hours being the maximum one can average working per week?
                  1. EventPlannerGal* March 16, 2026 at 9:00 am

                     “And doesn’t the UK have the rule about 48 hours being the maximum one can average working per week?”

                     Yes, but you can opt out of it by signing a form. Most of my jobs (events/festivals/adjacent fields) have given me the opt-out form during the onboarding and said something along the lines of, you don’t HAVE to sign this but it’s the reality of the job that some periods will require long hours. I’ve never really had an issue with that as I wouldn’t have gone into this line of work if I didn’t expect to be working long hours during event delivery, but YMMV.
               3. MigraineMonth* March 16, 2026 at 12:11 pm

                  I haven’t noticed any judgement of LW, just concern that the job has pretty extreme expectations. LW is worried about her workplace denying her good cases and advancement opportunities if they learn she’s having a divorce. That’s not a concern in most careers, and it’s reasonable to wonder if her workplace would treat her just as badly for any future unavoidable life events such as illness.
            2. Transatlantic* March 16, 2026 at 5:25 am

               Yeah, I think its the crushing work levels + a belief that people can’t have normal life issues without cracking. I was an attorney in private practive at a very busy medium/large law firm, and when I went through a divorce, I was definitely treated like I was going to break down at any minute, ironically by the male partners who were all on wives 2 or 3. I got sat down by the partner I work with the most and warned I can’t have a bad year for business reasons. Even worse, by the time they found out I was going through a divorce, it was already over and I was the happiest and most focused I’d been in years. They found out because my name reverted back to my maiden name, which was at the end of a 2 year divorce process. This was also the firm that immediately tried to mommy track me when I got married (again, finding out through name change, as we eloped and I definitely didn’t talk about my engagement prior). They assumed that we eloped because I must be pregnant. I was not. We just didn’t want to deal with wedding chaos.

               So happy to be gone.
               1. Radioactive Cyborg Llama* March 16, 2026 at 9:12 am

                  When the LW said she had seen friends be treated poorly for going through divorce, my immediate thought was “female friends”? I bet it was female friends.
                  1. cchrissyy* March 16, 2026 at 3:51 pm

                     no doubt!

                     OP, I would completely avoid the topic at work until after it’s finalized, and even then i would wait until i could present it as ancient history.
               2. Thomas* March 16, 2026 at 10:26 am

                  “I was definitely treated like I was going to break down at any minute, ironically by the male partners who were all on wives 2 or 3”

                  I was thinking myself that I bet *men* who divorce don’t get treated anywhere near as badly as women do.
            3. Georgia* March 16, 2026 at 7:32 am

               I was an equine vet. Many practices (not all) have associates working 70-100+ hours a week in the busy spring season. My own contract required 50 minimum. On the other hand, getting divorced isn’t seen as a major personal fault, but you would have been “in trouble” if you let your personal life affect your work too much at the practices I worked for. The old guard often bragged about missing anniversaries and the birth of their children.
               1. FYI* March 16, 2026 at 9:44 am

                  100+ hours per week is … stopping only long enough to sleep. That doesn’t seem safe for the animals or sane for any human.
                  1. bird in the hand* March 16, 2026 at 10:53 am

                     I really hope those 100+ hours include travel time!
                     1. Georgia* March 16, 2026 at 3:36 pm

                        It includes travel time, but that can be ninety minutes at 2 am to see an animal that has been sick for 12 hours. And no, you don’t get any time off to sleep.
                  2. Rex Libris* March 16, 2026 at 10:58 am

                     One of the biggest cons the corporate ruling class orchestrated is convincing everyone that their self worth is based on how much they “contribute” at their jobs. People act like how much exploitation they can handle from their employer or career field is some sort of badge of honor.
                  3. Georgia* March 16, 2026 at 3:38 pm

                     It’s really not. My one boss mocked me when I had gone 36 hours sleeping 3 hours and said I “wasn’t a team player.” I also got paid garbage money and time off could be rescinded at any time for business purposes.
            4. Kevin Sours* March 16, 2026 at 3:42 pm

               It’s the sort of workload that leads to a lot of divorces.
         3. Irish Teacher.* March 16, 2026 at 8:14 am

            From the context, I took it less as being about a disapproval of divorce specifically than being a field where it is expected you give 110% of your attention to the work and anything that could take your attention away from that – getting a divorce, being a single parent, having ill-health – is seen as indicative that you might “lack committment.” It reminds me a little of the LW who wrote in to ask if she should assume her employee will be less reliable in future because she’d taken more than the bare minimum of time off for a bereavement and had cried on one occasion.

            For this reason, I doubt remaining single would be seen in the same way. That might well be seen as being free to give your all to the job. Though being widowed might well be. Assuming I am right here.

            Though it’s definitely possible that a perception that divorce indicates some kind of “fault” or “failure” whereas being widowed is beyond one’s control, could play into it, which could definitely be related to a more conservative or religious field. Divorce is still forbidden by Catholicism, for example, although this is increasing ignored by many. Heck, in Ireland, divorce has only been legal for 30 years and it was legalised by a margin of 50.2% to 49.8%. And yeah, “the past is a different country. They do things differently there,” and I can’t imagine anybody advocating for divorce being illegal here now, but it still does show that there at least was until quite recently a stigma against divorce in certain places.

            None of this is to justify the whole thing. The idea that you can’t have any life events that take your attention from your job is just ridiculous. And likely to become discriminatory against people with disabilities and quite likely women as caregiving responsibilities are more likely to fall to them as well as things like people who get divorced or have family crises.
            1. WillowSunstar* March 16, 2026 at 8:59 am

               Agreed. Life happens. I’m single currently and have never been married, but that might not be the case forever. Companies in general need to realize that as long as they employee humans, the humans are going to have life changes sometimes.
            2. xylocopa* March 16, 2026 at 10:04 am

               That was my read too–that the issue wasn’t so much marital status as the perceived distraction/drama of relationship issues and the process of getting a divorce (and then being a single parent).
            3. Crencestre* March 16, 2026 at 10:42 am

               “… (I)t is expected you give 110% of your attention to the work and anything that could take your attention away from that – getting a divorce, being a single parent, having ill-health – is seen as indicative that you might “lack committment.”

               That was exactly my point! Getting a divorce, single parenthood, illness HAPPEN in life – even if the first two don’t then the third (illness) certainly will! A company that sees these normal if challenging/painful aspects of human life as evidence that you lack commitment to your job is going to twist your perception of “normal” if you stay there very long. In effect, this attitude blames people for whatever befalls them even when it’s neither their fault nor within their control. And this is NOT a realistic or healthy approach to either a job or your life!
         4. bird in the hand* March 16, 2026 at 10:08 am

            I have to wonder if this is also applied to male staff, or if there’s only a stigma towards divorced women.
         5. MCMonkeyBean* March 16, 2026 at 12:46 pm

            It sounds to me like the issue they are worried about is less “this person has been divorced and we judge divorce” and more “this person is going through a divorce, that’s going to eat up a lot of their time and distract them from work, and also now that they’re a single mother we’ll make a lot of assumptions about how that will eat into their time as well.”

            Still bad, but I think coming from a place of unreasonable work/life expectations and not from like a religious place or something.
      3. Midnight Glitter Raid* March 16, 2026 at 2:57 am

         Wondering if Kristi Noem or Karoline Leavitt are readers of AAM?
         1. LifeisaDream* March 16, 2026 at 7:46 am

            I doubt it. Some people believe that they don’t need advice from anyone even when they clearly could use some. My most respected boss admitted when they were wrong and accepted good advice if the situtation merited it.
         2. Rex Libris* March 16, 2026 at 9:41 am

            Unlikely. If you’re already convinced you have all the answers, you don’t really look elsewhere for them.
         3. Fishsticks* March 16, 2026 at 10:05 am

            If they were, they would 100% be the “my employee wants time off to attend their own graduation, how DARE THEY” type.
      4. Darcy Mae* March 16, 2026 at 4:42 am

         My read wasn’t that the job cares about divorced employees, but that they don’t want divorced employees that let their home life impact their job performance in any manner. It sounds like the LW is in one of those all-encompassing professions where the expectation is that you work a boatload of hours and that your brain in “in the game” at all times (in fairness to these employers, this kind of business/industry typically pays well and the expectation for hours and mental commitment are not at all hidden at time of hiring). This kind of employer doesn’t want their employees’ bandwidth taken up by matters of divorce mediation, custody transfers, and eventually dealing with childcare issues – they expect their employees to have that kind of thing handled (logistically and emotionally) every day when they walk through the front door and to not have it impact their job performance. Quite simply, they’re paying their employees a monetary premium to keep their home life in order so that they can give peak performance at work. (please don’t comment below about the right-and-wrong of this – I’m laying this out as a foundation for the next paragraph, not commenting on the morality of it)

         The LW is rightly concerned about keeping news of her upcoming divorce on the down low. Her HR department will need to be told if the kids or her ex-husband will be coming off her insurance coverage and they may need to remove the soon-to-be-ex off as beneficiary on life insurance and retirement accounts if your divorce decree dictates that. Otherwise, their employer and co-workers do NOT need to be told and I’d argue SHOULDN’T be told if their workplace is as I’ve described it above. Their employer clearly doesn’t want to know that that an employee is in the middle of marital issues/divorce; they want them to handle life such that no one in the office know that they’re going through it. I’d imagine that once the LW is divorced, they’ll also need to plan to keep signs of single parenthood to a minimum – when little Matilda runs a fever at daycare at 10 am, the LW better have a plan for someone else to pick her up and care for her, for example. But it sounds like the LW is well aware of the reality of her profession and of her employer and is just asking us whether it’s okay to keep news of her upcoming divorce to herself. The answer to this is YES it’s okay and it’s actually a smart idea. Once the divorce is well in the rear view mirror, they can mention it casually to the office motor mouth (every office has one!), word will get around, and as long as they’ve professionally kept the logistics of the divorce from impacting their productivity and availability in the interim, LW’s management will have less cause for concern. It’s unfortunate that the employer can’t be counted on to have some grace during this kind of tough time but I suspect that the “keep your home life in order and out of the office” mandate is one of the tradeoffs that the LW made many years ago to work in her industry.
         1. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 6:42 am

            in fairness to these employers, this kind of business/industry typically pays well and the expectation for hours and mental commitment are not at all hidden at time of hiring

            There was a letter about ten years ago from someone mid-senior in one of these sectors who was utterly perplexed by the fact that their new junior staff, who were supposed to be taking over the 70-hour weeks so that she (or he) could finally have a life, kept noping out and leaving the profession instead, despite the high pay and supposed rewards. I would love to know how they are doing now.
            1. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 6:48 am

               (It was 5 years ago, and 100-hour weeks: https://www.askamanager.org/2021/10/our-highly-paid-overworked-junior-staff-keep-leaving-just-as-we-get-them-fully-trained.html
               1. Bathyphysa Conifera* March 16, 2026 at 10:16 am

                  There was a more recent letter for a similar environment where, to the commentariat, it seemed that the problem was the recruiter couldn’t sell the long-hours-high-pay to top new-grad candidates.
            2. Hlao-roo* March 16, 2026 at 7:59 am

               Yes, I would also love an update on this letter:

               https://www.askamanager.org/2021/10/our-highly-paid-overworked-junior-staff-keep-leaving-just-as-we-get-them-fully-trained.html

               The letter-writer was very active in the comments section (username Vaca*).
               1. TK* March 16, 2026 at 1:16 pm

                  I remember that thread well. The comments were really interesting because it showed the huge level of distance between the sort of work world most of the commenters here are in and the sort of work world that high-level investment banking and industries with similar setups is. Both the OP and the commenters kept coming at things from completely different angles and replying “that just wouldn’t work and here’s why” because of such different presuppositions. It was illuminating.
                  1. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 2:52 pm

                     It was, but there was also a fascinating disconnect between Vaca and the other people who kept defending it saying, “you just don’t understand, it’s not for everyone, and if you don’t like it you can leave!” when the actual problem was … people didn’t like it and were leaving.

                     I’d be so interested to know whether they’re still having the same problem, whether it’s got worse, whether they still have the same requirements for entry-level work or whether some of that work is now being done by AI, and if so what that means for their long-term talent pipelines. Or whether LW themselves has left the industry!
   2. Elf* March 16, 2026 at 3:20 am

      In the same vein, I wouldn’t describe ‘50-60 hours a week in a typical week, 70+ in the quarter leading up to a big case’ as ‘moderately heavy’! No qualifier needed there!
      1. TK* March 16, 2026 at 1:21 pm

         Most salaried employees in the US work 40-50 hours/week on average, I’m pretty sure. What OP describes is going to average out to around 55-65. So yes, it’s moderately heavy. There are industries (investment banking, Big Law) where at all but the most senior level 70-90+ hour weeks can be the norm.
   3. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 3:44 am

      Perversely, those are also the fields that tend to be… conducive to divorces (“work before all else” is hard on relationships.)

      I know a field that kind of fits the description – heavy workloads, casework, very conservative. Someone I know who got out quipped “you get more control over your workload when you make partner, but by then you’re divorced anyway”. I don’t think they’re judgy about divorce, though, because it’s so common.
      1. Amateur Linguist* March 16, 2026 at 4:30 am

         Yeah, although my parents managed it well. The rocky part of their marriage was while they were ramping up in their careers, but when they were both at the top, they had a relationship in which they understood that work would get in the way (in one instance they were living in separate countries) but they always got back together. (My mum actually wanted to come back to where my dad was because he was trying to make the move himself, but that fell through, so she found her dream job where he was.)

         My parents are just incredibly energetic people, though. They are active in retirement as community volunteers and still take long activity holidays across the world. My sister and I both took the scenic route, but it is definitely possible to maintain a marriage with senior jobs.

         This is not to say that LW should have been able to hold it together — individual circumstances are individual and that’s ok. But it’s more of an answer to the inevitability of it, which I just don’t think is actually true.
         1. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 6:23 am

            There are basically two ways to make it work, and both of them are predicated on both partners knowing exactly what they’re signing up for.

            Way 1 is to have one career spouse and one supporting spouse. Supporting spouse has to be ok with basically being a single parent, but with more money.

            Way 2 is having two high-power careers, so doing it symmetrically, and outsourcing basically everything else.

            (Actually, there’s a third way: not having children, and being single or finding a spouse who is ok with always coming second).

            Also, if it actually is a “senior” job, meaning high pay and high autonomy, that does make it more manageable. If you have both the money to throw at problems, and the capital to say “I’m off that afternoon to go to my kid’s recital”, that can work. The difficult spot is when you’re junior but expected to put in 70 hours anyway, with no flexibility. Hence why people get divorced *before* they make partner. Once they make partner, sustaining a family is more realistic, but the relationship may not survive until then.
            1. Another One* March 16, 2026 at 9:50 am

               My grandparents ended up doing the 2nd- unintentionally really. There were concerns about my grandfather’s health at one point so my grandmother went to back to grad school and to work so she could take care of the family if she needed.

               It didn’t become necessary but she went from being a stay at home mom to being a professor/subject matter expert. (It was a massive adjustment for my grandfather.)

               The housekeeper/nanny played a huge role in all of that working.
      2. allathian* March 16, 2026 at 7:51 am

         Indeed. I expect that in those fields, divorces are a matter of course and NBD as long as the employee doesn’t let it affect their work performance at all. Sure, court hearings happen when they happen, but other than that…
   4. Radioactive Cyborg Llama* March 16, 2026 at 9:20 am

      There are industries where the “red-flag environment” is well-known and well-compensated. BigLaw* and large financial consultants, eg, work enormous hours and are well paid in exchange. I view those somewhat differently from the red flag situations where it’s a regular business that “is like family” or demands a kidney. Everyone going in knows it’s punishing and has consciously bargained that for the $$$$. The chances of her finding a job that doesn’t have these features AND pays the same is pretty much zero. That kind of work is not for me (BTDT at one of the less-horrible firms and still left after 3 years) but it’s a choice she is making.

      Some of the biggest firms have (had?) nicknames mainly but not exclusively used by law students. E.g., Weil Gotshal & Manges was “while we’ve got you, we’ll mangle you.” Morrison & Forrester was referred to as MoFo, and then they embraced it themselves–that’s the kind of industry we’re talking about. I used to joke that law firm attorney vacations meant they only had to work 30 hours a week.
      1. Slow Gin Lizz* March 16, 2026 at 10:08 am

         Ah, yes, I worked in a very much adjacent-to-law-firms role years ago and when I discovered that MoFo’s website is, in fact, mofo dot com, I laughed hysterically for probably days. And I always thought of Weil as Weil Gotshal and Meninges, never made the connection to mangle, that’s pretty funny.

         My very favorite firm name, though, was of a pretty small firm: Allen, Allen, Allen, & Allen. (Seriously, they couldn’t have just called themselves Allens or something?????)
         1. MtheR* March 16, 2026 at 11:06 am

            Makes me think of the joke on Psych about the one lawyer who was the only one in his family who hadn’t made partner at his family’s firm: Hornstock, Hornstock, Biederman, & Hornstock. “Well, your sister didn’t make partner.” “She’s Biederman. It’s her married name.”
         2. UKDancer* March 16, 2026 at 3:45 pm

            When I was at university doing contract and tort the name of the law firm in all the problems we were set was Sue, Grabbit & Runne. It always made me laugh.
            1. Sienna* March 16, 2026 at 7:50 pm

               I forget where I read this one, but “Dewey, Cheatem & Howe” always makes me laugh.
               1. SimonTheGreyWarden* March 18, 2026 at 9:42 am

                  Three Stooges!
   5. Artemesia* March 16, 2026 at 10:12 am

      The OP definitely needs to not be discussing this with friends. A friend who tells you that you MUST tell the workplace you are engaged has poor judgment (not that you shouldn’t but you certainly have the choice. In this situation, where the OP is not discussing a lot ot their personal life at work, just not mentioning it is certainly appropriate and perhaps strategic here.
      1. TheseOldWings* March 16, 2026 at 12:59 pm

         If I’m OP, I would just say something to my friends like “yeah, it’s sort of weird that I don’t share a lot of personal details with work, but trust me that any sort of personal issues will be perceived negatively so it’s better to keep quiet about this stuff”
4. They knew and they let it happen* March 16, 2026 at 12:34 am

   I have UHC now and it’s been great including covering $1M medication for my spouse, but that doesn’t matter, OP knows their own situation and it sounds like it’s a deal breaker.

   No reason you can’t mention that without disclosing anything specific that you don’t wishto
   1. Anonym* March 16, 2026 at 10:15 am

      Yeah, companies should know there’s a cost to choosing a notoriously crappy insurer. Agree with many of the caveats noted above re: limited options for employers, some people having a perfectly fine experience with them. Doesn’t change that it’s worth sharing.
   2. ThatGirl* March 16, 2026 at 12:14 pm

      My husband has UHC through work, and they’ve been MOSTLY fine – there was one potential treatment they wouldn’t cover because he wasn’t “sick enough” but his dr found an alternative that seems to be working well. And overall he hasn’t had to fight them on anything they said they would cover.

      But yeah, I definitely trust the LW to know their own situation. And I do wonder if being in Illinois has anything to do with our relatively good luck.
5. Mabby* March 16, 2026 at 12:40 am

   LW3 it’s great your company has that team but sounds like they need some training so they know when it’s appropriate to do something and when it’s appropriate to say this needs to be resolved by the managers involved.
   1. I&I* March 16, 2026 at 7:06 am

      I think the whole workplace needs a clearer directive, because this sounds like the kind of situation that results when normal communication and decision-making processes are so broken that EEO is the only place anyone can think to take them – very possibly because EEO is the only place with halfway sensible people working in it.

      They’re picking up all the work that should be getting done elsewhere, and it’s possible it’ll continue whatever LW3 does as long as more reasonable alternatives don’t exist. If you don’t clear the blockages, the pipes are going to keep backing up.

      LW3, are you in a position to go to general HR and say, ‘There’s clearly a lack of communication and resolution processes at a base level that’s filtering up to us, can we consider implementing some new systems?’ Or are they part of the problem too?
   2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama* March 16, 2026 at 9:29 am

      I’m pretty sure the EEO office has to investigate and can’t just say “nah, not discriminatory” right out of the gate. Also, I had a small amount of training in mediation and they said that a lot of people go to the EEO without a discriminatory issue when there is no other mechanism to resolve disputes. I’m sure it’s unpleasant to be involved in an investigation, but it’s a little odd that the LW recognizes how dysfunctional her workplace is without realizing that that is why people are going to EEO in droves.
   3. Artemesia* March 16, 2026 at 10:15 am

      HR should have put a stop to this forthwith and so perhaps it is run by a busy body controlling type who loves to boss people around. ‘That is something you need to discuss with your co-worker and then with your manager if you cannot resolve it normally.’ HR is the problem here. (obviously too many people are watching those tiktocs where ‘going to HR’ is a big threat.
6. Apricot Croissant* March 16, 2026 at 2:13 am

   I’ve had two managers who set deadlines, then exploded if the work wasn’t done way in advance. One would give us 7 days, then be shouting and screaming if it wasn’t done after 5 days. The other would give us 1 month, and then be on the phone threatening dire consequences if it wasn’t done with 3 weeks still to go. Reminding either of them of the deadline just made the first one angrier and accuse us of not caring about the work, and the second one would completely ignore the words and repeat all the threats and re-explanations of the work, even ignoring offers to show him the almost-completed work or a calm “I’m on it” or “I’ll have it finished by [date way in advance of the deadline”]. I don’t work with either of them any more! But what if reminding them of the deadline they set, however calmly and politely, makes the situation worse?
   1. allathian* March 16, 2026 at 2:41 am

      Such people are unreasonable and impossible to work for unless you have exceptionally thick skin and can let them rant and rave without it affecting you. It’s more difficult to deal with when it’s a boss rather than a coworker, but basically the only thing to do is to get out when you can.

      There’s no reasoning with petty tyrants, which is what those managers were, and organizations that permit such behavior are profoundly toxic.
   2. Jay (no, the other one)* March 16, 2026 at 7:35 am

      I once was in charge of the newsletter for a volunteer org I was part of. One of the leaders wrote a column every month. When we reorganized the schedule she asked me when I needed it and said “by the 15th of the month.” She said “OK, but when do you really need it?” I repeated what I’d said. We continued with that inane back and forth for a while until I finally asked what she was looking for. Turned out she needed some kind of “soft” deadline to make sure she met the real one and she couldn’t seem to manage her calendar on her own. It was – interesting.
      1. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 7:58 am

         I would always rather have a deadline with a reason for why that’s the deadline than just a deadline with no explanation. “The deadline is Thursday at 5pm — that gives me a week to bring everything together and edit it before it goes to the printers the following Friday, which means it’ll be printed by the end of the month”. “I need it by Wednesday, because the papers go out to the committee on Thursday, giving them a week to read everything.” “We have to submit it to the Department of Education by 12noon on Wednesday 18th, so I need the figures by Friday 13th.” It’s much easier to understand how to prioritise something if I understand how it fits into other people’s workflow.
         1. Sneaky Squirrel* March 16, 2026 at 8:48 am

            This works for me but I’ve learned it wouldn’t work for so many people in my company. My company loves skirting deadlines. If the deadline is Thursday at 5pm and I say that I am going to the printers the following Friday, I’m not getting the documents until at least 12pm Friday.
         2. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 9:31 am

            Yeah, with some people this works great, but some will read “gives me a week” and go “great, this deadline is extendable by a week”.
            1. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 9:46 am

               Usually I don’t mind that! If it means I’ve got the first 50% and can start working on them and teh other 50% trickle in over the course of the week, that works for me. If I need everything in before I can start working on them, then I give myself two weeks.
            2. Adhd haver* March 16, 2026 at 2:44 pm

               Me, somewhat. I have ADHD and I really struggle with deadlines. If I knew a deadline was soft, depending on how soft I perceived it to be, I might really struggle to meet it. It’s better if I don’t know the details. One of the only ways I can be accountable is perceiving a deadline to be hard.
               1. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 2:54 pm

                  I’m the other way around— “if I don’t get this done by Tuesday I will be making Colleague’s life harder” is usually the only way to motivate myself to do something. Abstract deadlines don’t mean much but I’m *extremely* conscientious about things I’ve told other people I’ll do.
                  1. Adhd haver* March 17, 2026 at 11:29 am

                     Oh, me too. Being accountable to others is something I’m very good about. But if I believed that it was actually ok and not putting them out too much to be late for a day or so I might not be good at meeting the deadline. It really would depend on if they’d conveyed to me that it was extremely inconvenient to them or not.
         3. Jay (no, the other one)* March 16, 2026 at 10:06 am

            Oh, I said that. “If you get it to me by the 15th, then I have time to proofread and do layout before I get it printed. It takes two days to turn that around and we want to have it mailed by the 20th.” This was back in paper newsletter days. Her response to that was “but when do you really need it?” I tried explaining why it needed to be mailed by the 20th (to make sure people had the next month’s info before the next month started – mail gets delayed). “But when do you really need it by?” She finally said “I need a week’s notice before the deadline.” Great, then put that in your calendar.
            1. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 10:33 am

               Oof, OK, that definitely sounds like a her problem then! If you haven’t provided that detail, I would probably ask for it, but if you had then it does sound weird.
      2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama* March 16, 2026 at 9:30 am

         She was managing it, by asking for a soft deadline.
         1. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 9:37 am

            no, she’s making other people manage it for her.

            One can set one’s own soft deadlines. I just set my Outlook tasks for a week or two before hard deadlines – voilà, soft deadline with automatic reminder set! And no human needs to carry my mental load for me.
            1. Jay (no, the other one)* March 16, 2026 at 10:07 am

               THIS.
   3. Antilles* March 16, 2026 at 8:18 am

      Unreasonable people are going to be unreasonable.
      The person who’s calling screaming that it’s not done when when you’re only 25% of the way to the deadline isn’t going to care what your rationale is, no matter how reasonable or bulletproof.
      In fact, I’ll go further and guess that even if you *did* do it within that first week, they’d find some other reason to complain. Maybe even the fact you did it so quick, because we scheduled a month for this project and you finished in a week, you must have done a bad job!
      The best you can do when you have something like this is to to CYA by making sure all the deadlines are in writing, documenting everything, looping in others as you can, etc.
   4. Tio* March 16, 2026 at 10:17 am

      Possible, but in the situation OP and the admin are on the same level, so if the admin explodes on OP that’s a separate issue to be taken to managers. (It SHOULD be an issue if your manager explodes on you too but power imbalances hurt)
7. KateM* March 16, 2026 at 2:25 am

   will end up a single mother. I have a lot of support in place, but will be paying significant alimony and child support to my ex-husband

   How does this work in USA – how can you be a single parent and pay child support at the same time? Are they dividing children up, with more for ex-husband than OP?
   1. allathian* March 16, 2026 at 2:55 am

      Not in the US, but I suspect the LW has a significantly higher income than her soon-to-be ex, and that they will be co-parenting but that she’ll be a single parent when she has the kid(s) in her care. Just guessing here, though.

      I’m in Finland, and the way it works here is that when a couple gets a divorce, unless there’s a prenup, the property both parties own (jointly or separately) is split in half, and the wealthier ex-spouse has to pay the less wealthy one the difference. But when the divorce is final, the duty of care for the other spouse ends. So while the wealthier parent may be ordered to pay child support if the child lives with the less-wealthy parent at least some of the time, alimony is no longer a thing here. The expectation is for the adults of the family to earn their own living if they’re capable of doing so.
      1. Goreygal* March 16, 2026 at 3:48 am

         The problem with that is that if one spouse’s career/earning potential was limited by the marriage/children children. And because these systems are typically patriarchal in origin they’re usually pro the “male spouse”.
         1. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 4:25 am

            Yes and no. The good part is that the decline in alimony awards is largely due to women being able to earn their own living, having education and qualifications etc. The bad part is that it’s – imho – overshooting. Lots of women can indeed earn their own keep, but at a level well below what they would have had if they’d never had a family (while statistically the man does not take that hit). And that sacrifice isn’t adequately reflected.

            According to the EU legal site, Finland does still have the concept of alimony when one side cannot earn their living, but “cannot” is interpreted strictly, so it’s very rare.
            1. allathian* March 16, 2026 at 8:00 am

               Indeed, hence the “…if they’re capable of doing so” caveat. But I guess I wasn’t clear enough there.
      2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama* March 16, 2026 at 9:33 am

         Alimony in the US is usually temporary–it’s meant to give the parent who sacrificed career advancement time to recover a bit. (There’s still an economic hit to the less-employed partner, traditionally the wife).
         1. Ina Lummick* March 16, 2026 at 5:00 pm

            This give my mother’s request even more insanity. She wanted £400/month until either parent passed away.

            Keep in mind both children were adults & financially independent & she’d already got a fulltime job that comfortably covered living expenses.
   2. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 3:59 am

      I’m guessing that the soon-to-be-ex will have the children at least some of the time and earns significantly less, hence child support. And if he was, say, a stay-at-home parent (or reduced his earnings significantly in service of the family), alimony would also be fair, at least temporarily.

      It sounds like this is all very fresh, so Idk if LW has all the legal information or is operating on assumptions. It may be less than they think.

      For example, whether or not LW is stuck in their high-paying job or be allowed to make a career change will depend on what the rules are where they are (there are sometimes provisions designed to keep deadbeats from purposely significantly under-earning, but I’m not sure how those would apply to a legit career change).
      1. Great Frogs of Literature* March 16, 2026 at 1:49 pm

         Yeah, my parents shared time with us 50/50 (one week here, one week there), and my dad had been a stay-at-home-dad until just a few years before they split. My mom earned a lot more than he did, and I think she paid him some amount of child support until we were [18? Stopped living with him? Went to college? Something like that].
   3. Dahlia* March 16, 2026 at 4:20 am

      Single parent = not married or in a relationship. It doesn’t automatically mean there isn’t another parent in the child’s life – it means YOU don’t have a partner.
      1. amoeba* March 16, 2026 at 1:06 pm

         Huh, interesting – in my language, I’d definitely only use that word when you’re at least the primary caregiver (like, the “classic” model where the kids visit the other parent every second weekend or something like that). In which case you definitely wouldn’t have to pay, no matter the salary difference.
         Otherwise, I’d call it co-parenting or similar. But then it’s also called “alleinerziehende Mutter”, which literally translates to “mom who raises the kids alone”, so I guess it’s a bit differently phrased than in English and makes less sense to apply if the other parent does a significant share of parenting.
         1. David* March 16, 2026 at 2:42 pm

            Personally I’ve always known the term “single parent” to mean the other parent is pretty much not involved in raising the kids at all. Even visitation on weekends is enough to make it count as co-parenting, not single parenting, for me. (And FWIW I am a native English speaker.)
   4. HojiBerry* March 16, 2026 at 6:07 am

      “single parent” often just means that you take care of your kids without a partner (including eg 50/50), not necessarily that you’re their only parent.
   5. HannahS* March 16, 2026 at 8:13 am

      Also, the term “single mother” has changed over the years–I don’t know how the OP is using the term (and it’s none of my business and I am not at all interested in judging how people use the term.) From my recollection of about 25-30 years ago, a single mother referred to a woman who had sole or nearly sole custody of her child/ren, and very little contact or support from her ex-partner.

      Nowadays, I hear single mother/father used for a parent who is divorced and has some custody. I know lots of folks who have 50/50 custody who owe (or receive) child support money and describe themselves as single parents. *shrug* it’s a terminology thing, rarely my business, and probably not salient to the question the OP asked.
      1. allathian* March 16, 2026 at 9:27 am

         I’ve seen the same change here. I think it’s rather sad that a kid can have two single parents. The only cases where I’ve seen this particular use of the term have involved parents whose relationship was so contientious that they only communicated through their lawyers. I hate to think how that affected the poor kids who were stuck in the middle.
         1. Radioactive Cyborg Llama* March 16, 2026 at 9:36 am

            Having two single parents doesn’t mean they don’t communicate or co-parent well together. I always found it a bit weird that the term often mixes marital status with parenting status but it is commonly used for any parent who is not legally bound to their co-parent, not just contentious cases.
            1. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 9:52 am

               There are so many different configurations.

               One of the nice (and work-relevant-ish) things about being a coupled parent is that one can shift around parenting work more easily. If I’m supposed to do daycare pickup but my meeting runs late, I can probably just text my husband to ask him to do it. If I need to go on a work trip, the home responsibilities are covered.

               For single-in-the-old-sense parents where the other parent is not at all in the picture, that’s much harder. Ditto for contentious splits. If it’s an amicable split, it may not change that much. If it’s an amicable split and one or both a repartnered, it may even get easier, because there are more potential responsible adults!

               So “single parent” covers a lot of different situations.
      2. Happy* March 16, 2026 at 12:37 pm

         Oh, that’s interesting! If someone told me they were a single parent, I would absolutely think that meant they had sole custody.

         Now I’ll know better.
      3. fhqwhgads* March 16, 2026 at 1:43 pm

         Right. I feel like in the 1980s it usually was used to mean “sole parent” whereas now it usually means “am parent and am single”. But of course any given person’s intention when they use the phrase may vary.
         1. Free Hugs* March 16, 2026 at 1:55 pm

            That’s how I always heard it – “am parent and am single”, not relevant to custody at all.
      4. Great Frogs of Literature* March 16, 2026 at 1:55 pm

         Heck, I’ve heard my (AFAIK happily married) say things like “My wife’s at a work conference, so I’m single parenting this week.”

         I think — at least in the US — it’s coming to mean more that you are a parent who doesn’t have a co-parent who is present much of the time to share the load. I could even imagine talking about a “single parent” whose spouse has one of these high-powered 100-hour-a-week jobs, so the primary caregiver is in no way single, but in day-to-day practice, there may not be someone else who can take the kids to the park for an hour to run off their energy if the parent has a headache.
   6. doreen* March 16, 2026 at 8:18 am

      A parent can have less than full-time custody and the other parent still pays child support. For example, the lower earning parent provides health insurance through their job, so the higher earner contributes to it. Or both parents have to live in the same school district to make the split custody easier on the kids and the lower earner can’t afford it on their own.
   7. Ainsley Hayes* March 16, 2026 at 9:03 am

      “Single parent” likely refers to parenting children on your own without a partner in the home.

      Child support is calculated (generally – it’s similar but can vary from state to state) by looking at amount of parenting time and income – the more equal your parenting time AND more similar your income, the lower the support order would be. Here, based on the comments that OP is a high earner, I would guess she and her ex either don’t have similar incomes and/or her ex is going to be the primary parent.
   8. Just Me* March 16, 2026 at 10:51 am

      My understanding, and I’ve only known it this way for 4 decades, is “Single” refers to their relationship status (not married or in a union with a partner) and “parent” means they have children still living at home, whether part-time or full-time. So “Single Parent” means they are no longer with the other parent and they have children with them at least part of the time. My aunt referred to herself as a “Single Parent” or “Single Mom” back in the late 80s when he ex -husband left her for his mistress. They continued living in the same town and while the kids were mostly with her, he would see them weekly. But ultimately, she was single and cared for the kids a majority of the time.

      In addition, which goes to show the gender pay gap is real, they were both teachers in the same school district their entire careers. Both had the same degree and started teaching the same year, yet he was paid significantly more then she was. But, because he made so much more, he did at least have to pay her child support.
   9. Another One* March 16, 2026 at 11:01 am

      It could be either.

      But most likely, she’s the higher earner. A friend of mine is divorced (in the US) with 50/50 custody. Her ex- makes significantly more than her so he pays child support, even though they have equal custody.
   10. *shrugs** March 16, 2026 at 11:17 am

       It’s state-dependent, but the likeliest answer is some combination of LW being (or will have been) married to their spouse for a certain number of years, LW and spouse have a pre-nip covering alimony, their spouse makes significantly less money, their spouse does (or plans to) take on a greater % of childcare, etc.
8. Bird names* March 16, 2026 at 2:46 am

   Alison, I believe LW 4 had “gaps between employment … from one to nine months.”, but some of her jobs lasted in the multi-year range.
   1. Ask a Manager* Post author March 16, 2026 at 8:45 am

      Fixed, thank you!
9. Ellis Bell* March 16, 2026 at 3:09 am

   I have a feeling OP2s friend works in a very different field than they do, possibly one where emotional intelligence and connection with colleagues by far trumps having the sort of impassive professional veneer that is valued in OP’s line of work. I can think of quite a few fields where it would be seen as very strange to be so reserved and other fields where it would be firmly considered no one’s business. OP2, it might help to lean on your EQ a little and acknowledge that your field is putting quite a bit of emotional labour on you by making you think your way around your divorce logistics as though they are professional landmines. I would tell your friend that you would change it if we’re up to you, but since it’s not, you need her support rather than her criticism.
   1. Anonym* March 16, 2026 at 10:20 am

      That’s a kind interpretation. I think it’s very unreasonable to take the stance they’re taking; they should be supporting OP in setting the boundaries that will protect both their privacy and their job.

      I work in financial services, and would not expect to learn that kind of news about anyone outside my own team, and even then it’s not expected, just a reflection that we have a high degree of camaraderie and trust. It is completely unacceptable to treat something so personal and painful (and risky in this case) as an obligation to share at work. I don’t care why they think that, they’re stuck in their own frame of reference and failing to support their friend in a difficult moment in life.
10. Dogmomma* March 16, 2026 at 4:30 am

    #5. had UHC for 9 yrs without a problem. in no way were they difficult. however in the last open enrollment we had to switch to Blue Cross advantage PPO bc UHC dropped our particular policy , a PPO with in network coverage in a bordering state as we are part of that large city’s metropolis and we are in a,small rural town. So a PPO without out of network coverage at all. This is since the new CEO took over.

    Luckily, BC is in network for all our specialists & it was a smooth transition. Though I spent a lot of time researching the in network piece
11. Turbo Ranger* March 16, 2026 at 4:48 am

    LW 1 – I’ve seen people do this as a way to manage others to get what they want. Sometimes it was due to no one reading their emails and sometimes it was due to wanting to get the project out of the way.

    Either way, I would take it that she was asking if her email was seen. “I saw your email. I’ll respond when I have time.”
    1. Allonge* March 16, 2026 at 6:13 am

       When I have the patience (some conversations can definitely wait until I am in a constructive mood), I also like to point out the specific issue: ‘unless something is very urgent, I would appreciate not to get a reminder before the deadline, or at least very close to it. I am not sure what you expect at this stage but if the information cannot wait until [deadline you gave], feel free to give a tighter one next time!’
       1. Turbo Ranger* March 16, 2026 at 6:42 am

          I don’t suggest doing that. That can cause a fight, bad feelings, and it can read as condescending. Alison’s scripts are good enough.
          1. Allonge* March 16, 2026 at 10:43 am

             I think this can be done without being condescending, although of course the possibility is there. Why not spell out the issue instead of (strongly, but still) hinting?
    2. Colette* March 16, 2026 at 8:07 am

       I’d probably say something like “I was planning to have it ready by the deadline of X, has the deadline changed?”
12. Susan Calvin* March 16, 2026 at 4:56 am

    LW1, I sympathize – our admin is similar, and while it’s got me creeping towards BEC territory (among other things), I try to reason myself out of my annoyance by considering the following: I know getting people to complete low priority tasks that are tangential to them but crucial to you can be extremely frustrating (for me that’s punctual timesheet submission), and in her case the deadline is usually a hard one where chasing people after they already missed it would be too late. I suspect she thinks she’s doing people a favor by helping them not letting things fall off their radar, possibly because she can’t fathom that some people just don’t actually care that much and would not be heartbroken to not get a shirt, participate in an optional team building event, or renew their first aid certification.
    1. Just here for the ads* March 16, 2026 at 7:37 am

       I had a similar issue with a coworker about five or six years ago and actually wrote in about it. (I wouldn’t even begin to know how to find the letter—it was one in a morning five like this one and I forget the headline). I had finally had enough and snapped at her via email and got admonished by my boss.

       I don’t recommend that path.

       A lot has happened in between, and I still work with this person, and she’s still annoyingly persistent. (Side note: She’s also really good at her job, which is a lot of cattle herding so I understand the annoying persistence.) I do all the things Alison advised today’s LW to do. It helps.

       The other thing—and I know it sounds petty—is that I wait until sending the requested thing. If it’s a t-shirt size and I have the answer right away, I’ll send it right away. But if it’s a task I need to get to, I don’t prioritize it based on the constant reminders. In my head, I feel like that’s training my coworker to understand that not everything she asks for can and will be done immediately. But if I’m honest I am being a little petty too, because it’s annoying. But I always meet or beat the original deadline and my coworker and I enjoy a good working relationship.
    2. London Calling* March 16, 2026 at 8:19 am

       *she can’t fathom that some people just don’t actually care that much*

       I’ve been the co-worker where people did actually care that much (personal expenses). It’s just that in some cases they didn’t regard my time as being as important as theirs, but were very ready to jump up and down when they missed the (notified in good time and with a reminder) deadline and were then financially inconvenienced.
    3. Sloanicota* March 16, 2026 at 8:31 am

       Yeah and also, I always give people some time because it’s more polite, but I can say in my experience 99% of the people who are going to do a quick task do it right away, and the rest probably won’t do it without a reminder.
       1. Guacamole Bob* March 16, 2026 at 10:16 am

          The thing is, following up on an email within minutes isn’t even giving people a chance to do the thing right away. I might have seen the email or even skimmed it within 10 minutes, but I probably won’t write back until whenever in my day I’m doing more processing of emails, just because of the ways I shift among tasks. I would still very much consider that a prompt response.
          1. Allonge* March 16, 2026 at 11:17 am

             Yes, this – the only good reason to come by with ‘I just sent you an email’ is if you need the thing immediately and I should be dropping everything to get it done. It happens! It’s pretty rare though.

             And I say this as someone who does the ‘less than five minutes – respond immediately’ thing as much as possible.
    4. Parrhesia25* March 16, 2026 at 9:06 am

       A combination of priority mismatch and a tendency to overworry about deadlines can be very frustrating for all involved. I think it would be kindness if you could let the admin (or their supervisor) know that the reminders are crossing into annoying territory before it becomes a BEC situation. Not in a “knock it off!” tone but more “I don’t think you realize how this is coming across”.

       And yes, if the admin or their time is being disrespected that needs to be addressed to. Making work for your fellow employees is not cool.
    5. MCMonkeyBean* March 16, 2026 at 1:12 pm

       There might be room to see it that way if she were not harassing people 8 minutes after sending the email!
       1. Ellie Monday* March 16, 2026 at 1:52 pm

          This happens in my office. i don’t mind it personally and can respond with one of the statements Alison recommends. However, this admin waits a mere 9 minutes after I send out an email with responses required… which barely gives the recipient (not in our company) time to read the email much less do what it says. My attempts to explain this to the admin are met with a blank stare and nothing has changed.
13. Darcy Mae* March 16, 2026 at 5:03 am

    LW4 (concerned about looking like a job-hopper): It occurs to me that a resume filled with short stints is a little like having a bad credit report – the reasons for having it aren’t always 100% in your control, but you still have to live with the consequences of it and the best way to repair it is time showing improved behavior. I’d really recommend staying in your current job for another 9 – 12 months before making another move to show longevity to a single employer. You can start applying in earnest before then, maybe after the summer months, with the idea of being somewhere else in 2027. If you job hop now, the bar to moving on from the next one becomes really high without staying for quite a while.

    Any chance of getting another position with the same employer? It’d be easy to explain away your current six month stint on a resume if it was followed by a year or more in a new position with the same employer.
14. I should really pick a name* March 16, 2026 at 6:06 am

    #4

    Employers understand that layoffs are different than you deciding to leave all your jobs after very short stays

    While employers might understand this idea, a resume rarely indicates why you left each job. So getting as far as an interview where you could explain your background may be harder.

    So staying at the current job for a couple of years is probably a good idea idea if possible.
    1. Sloanicota* March 16, 2026 at 8:33 am

       Also unfortunately there’s still a pervasive idea that companies often use layoffs to cut “deadweight” which actually varies a lot by the company, the layoff, and the field overall, but it’s something you might want to directly address in your interview. Especially unfair as lots of layoffs always target the most-recently-hired across the board, meaning this can end up happening repeatedly to the same person.
       1. Seven If You Count Bad John* March 16, 2026 at 12:13 pm

          Yep this was me from 2001 (just after 9/11) through 2006. I went through SO MANY jobs that were supposed to be permanent and then as soon as benefits kicked in “we’re really sorry, it’s just not working out”. It made me look *really bad* on paper, because surely for so many employers to have let me go “for no reason” there must be something wrong with me, right?? Employers start to sort of …not really quite believe you…when you tell them “layoff with no reason given, position eliminated” after the fourth time it happens in a year.
    2. Another freelancer* March 16, 2026 at 10:24 am

       Agreed. I have a connection who has something like “Role eliminated” by each experience in her LinkedIn profile, and I’m guessing on her resume, too. She’s had a run of bad luck, so I think she’s taken the approach that she doesn’t have much to lose by being upfront.

       I do think OP #4 should try to stay for at least one year. I’ve also discovered in my job search that sometimes, interviewers aren’t always that great at calculating length of tenure.
15. ChurchOfDietCoke* March 16, 2026 at 6:12 am

    ‘Did you see my email?’

    ‘Yup……………………………………’
    1. Happy* March 16, 2026 at 12:44 pm

       Yep. LW has my empathy! That would drive me up a wall.
16. Mutually Supportive* March 16, 2026 at 6:13 am

    #2 I can totally see why you’d want to keep a divorce quiet in your circumstances.

    If you referred to “the kids father” in a conversation with me, I’d absolutely assume that you weren’t in a relationship with that man anymore, so this may not be as subtle as you’d like/need, depending on how it’s used.

    May need to work on a few other options, perhaps other commentators have ideas? (I’m struggling but will post again if I think of any). I think that just using his name as you’ve suggested is a good start.
    1. Jam* March 16, 2026 at 6:34 am

       i think if you just always refer to him by name people will cope and make the assumptions themselves, given that you’re senior. my skip level boss occasionally will mention “I’ll be late that day because I have to pick up Bob” or “Bob and I love that restaurant” and I just assume that Bob is her partner. I’ve never had a reason to think about the legal status.

       the only trick would be that if you have a new relationship and suddenly start mentioning Jim. but this really feels like such a badass everything-under-control move that I reckon it has to work in your favour. imagine the awe-filled gossip when people realize that you got divorced years ago and none of them noticed.
    2. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 6:50 am

       I think it depends on the context.

       “The kids went to see that film with their dad” -> unremarkable.

       “I’m meeting with my kid’s father after work” -> obvious divorce flag.

       If the colleagues know soon-to-be ex’s first name, that may indeed be the least telling way to refer to him. If they’re likely to respond with “who’s Peter?”, less so.
       1. Elsa* March 16, 2026 at 7:19 am

          I often refer to my husband by his name even to work colleagues who don’t know anything about him. They can usually figure it out from context.
       2. Bespoke Budget Formatting* March 16, 2026 at 12:36 pm

          Only tangentially related, but I was trying to think of why one example sentence sounds more divorced than the other, and I think it’s a mix of formality (father vs dad) and the fact that we expect the relationship in the sentence to be the closest one the subject has.

          “The kids went to see that film with their dad” -> The kids are the subject, so the description being “their dad” doesn’t raise any flags

          “The kids went to see that film with their father” -> more formal, could imply distance between you and their father but not necessarily a divorce

          “The kids went to see that film with my husband” -> implies that “mom’s husband” is the closest relationship the kids have with him, probably a step-dad

          “My husband went to see that film with the kids” -> Doesn’t really imply either way but would probably be assumed to be the kids’ dad

          “I’m meeting with my kid’s father after work” -> Sounds divorced for the same reason “went with my husband” sounds like a stepdad

          “I’m meeting with my kid’s dad after work” -> still divorced but you like him more
          1. Hroethvitnir* March 16, 2026 at 7:06 pm

             I love this.
17. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 6:37 am

    LW1, that sounds super annoying, and it’s the kind of thing where once you’ve noticed it, it just gets progressively more annoying every time. My tactic for stuff like this is to gamify it– “ooh, email from Sue with a deadline. Start the clock! Last time it was eight minutes from sending the email to asking people why they hadn’t done it yet. Will she beat her record?”

    Acknowledging to myself that it’s ridiculous and turning it into a game means I can have a sense of humour about it rather than wanting to scream. When I’ve been at jobs where I’ve had a good work friend, it’s usually been a shared thing– not super overt, but just something where one of us can raise an eyebrow and we both know what we’re thinking. But it works to do it in my head too.
    1. HonorBox* March 16, 2026 at 8:29 am

       I like this approach. Making it some sort of game might make the ridiculous aspects of it a little more tolerable.
    2. Ally McBeal* March 16, 2026 at 8:36 am

       I agree. I had to do this with a coworker in the sales division many years ago – he would hit send and rush over to my cubicle, sometimes arriving before his email did. He did this to all the other admins too, but I was the one least willing to put up with it, so I started magically turning into the DMV Sloth from Zootopia every time he swung by. I tried talking with him about it a couple times (“do I ever ignore your emails or forget to reply in a timely manner? no. please give it a rest”), but SlothTime (TM) was the only thing that got through to him.
18. curious mary* March 16, 2026 at 6:55 am

    LW2: I get why you don’t want to disclose that you’re going through a divorce, but perhaps after the divorce is over and everything is settled into a new normal in your life, you should tell your coworkers? Otherwise they might still ask questions about your ex, which could be awkward, plus it would make it hard if you ever get a new partner and/or remarry (which might necessitate disclosing the divorce). It might give the impression you’re trying to avoid if people think you got divorced and then immediately moved in with someone new or remarried.
    1. Davey* March 16, 2026 at 8:33 pm

       Eh, people will just have to deal with their own impressions however which way LW chooses to, or chooses not to, inform co-workers.

       LW doesn’t owe any updates to anyone about their personal life, co-workers especially.
19. metadata minion* March 16, 2026 at 6:57 am

    For #4, I think there may be a misread of the letter — the job lengths were five months to three years; the gaps between jobs were one to nine months.
    1. Sloanicota* March 16, 2026 at 8:34 am

       IMO three years is okay to show longevity in most fields, although there are some where a long tenure is expected and three years would be more like the minimum, particularly if surrounded by short hops.
20. UHC is the Worst* March 16, 2026 at 7:26 am

    Been working in public service for 28 years. I pay my premiums, rarely hit my deductible…and then I got a pretty curable type of cancer. UHC denied common treatment multiple times and required many appeals.

    The way we can rid of them? Require anyone who works for the federal government to use them. Those people get cushy Federal Blue Cross. Everyone in Congress – all parties – needs to be prohibited from taking lobby money from the health care industry.

    At my next appointment I plan to tell them I identify as uninsured and indigent, because apparently then you can get fast, free treatment.
    1. Shannon* March 16, 2026 at 8:14 am

       As someone who works for the federal government, I can tell you that we don’t get cushy anything. My health insurance is okay at best. Now getting members of Congress to use what we’re all stuck with – that’s another thing altogether.
    2. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy* March 16, 2026 at 10:15 am

       If you tell them you’re uninsured and indigent, they’ll probably start jumping through hoops to find you a coverage program that you qualify for, because that’s what our financial navigators are there to do, but through that process they will in fact find out if you do have insurance, because that’s what insurance clearinghouses do.
    3. Davey* March 16, 2026 at 8:36 pm

       Um…I don’t know that federal workers like researchers at the NIH, national park forest rangers, and librarians of Congress are at fault here. Why punish them?
21. Jack* March 16, 2026 at 7:32 am

    On #1, I completely agree with the response about pointing out the deadline she already listed.

    But I had extra thoughts and feelings about this. I’ve always had brain conditions which make responding promptly difficult, so I find it *really* annoying when I arrange to reply by a deadline and someone is annoyed that it wasn’t earlier. On the other hand, it’s true that most people respond immediately or not at all, and true that it’s usually helpful to have responses earlier, so it does make a lot of sense for admin to follow up with people when she sees them if she wants answers at all.

    I wonder if admin could phrase things slightly differently, but otoh, maybe she already is careful in her phrasing, but she can’t stop leaking out her frustration that most people don’t reply
    1. Beth* March 16, 2026 at 8:28 am

       She starts nagging people less than minutes after a very low-stakes email request has been sent. I don’t think “being careful in her phrasing” comes into it.
       1. Guacamole Bob* March 16, 2026 at 10:13 am

          Yeah, if she were asking when she saw someone in the hall on day 8 or 9 of a 12-day response period, I don’t think OP would be writing in. Barely minutes later is wild!
          1. Matt* March 16, 2026 at 11:02 am

             Yes, it is. However … I know people who would send that email and call every single recipient on the phone.
22. Which_Sister* March 16, 2026 at 7:42 am

    Post number 2. There is no reason for you to bring it up unless it impacts something at work. For example adding a new spouse to health insurance, removing them, whatever. I worked for a small company that threw around But we’re a FAAAMMMMMMLLLLYYY” a lot. I am sociable, but don’t broadcast things. If it comes up, it comes up. My long-term boyfriend and I had broken up and I didn’t mention it. It wasn’t too dramatic. He left, I didn’t chase him. I didn’t mention it.
    A little bit later something came up and I mentioned my mom living with me. (Which was new.) One of the owners who was also the HR Manager asked how that was with Me, my kids, my boyfriend and my mom in the same house. I mentioned we had broken up like 2 months before and she freaked out! Why didn’t I tell them! Because it didn’t impact my work and its none of your business.

    BTW at any job I have had, I am considered competent, organized and on top of things. My house is a disaster, and my personal life was very bumpy for a long time. There may be correlation between work and personal for some but not everyone.
23. London Calling* March 16, 2026 at 7:48 am

    Sympathies with the co-worker of letter 1 – as someone who regularly sent out deadlines I have too much experience of the people who leave it to the very last minute on the day of the deadline to answer with the info rather than getting the email, thinking ‘oh, I’ll do that now and it’s out of the way.’

    Co-worker sounds to me like someone who has too much experience of the above and is trying get people to reply in good time and manage her workload. OK, she’s overdoing it a bit by chasing up within minutes, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the people she’s chasing are the people who cause her the most stress by leaving it until the deadline’s right up to the wire.
    1. mreasy* March 16, 2026 at 8:06 am

       She needs to give people deadlines that include a buffer, then – not start following up immediately. Neither is a perfect solution (people need to get things done on time) but the former would be less aggravating for everyone.
       1. London Calling* March 16, 2026 at 8:15 am

          Experience tells me that however much of a buffer you give people they will STILL leave it until the last minute; even when it’s something like ‘I need your expenses by x date.’ They’ll look at ‘x date’ and think that they can leave it until then.

          And I appreciate it’s aggravating to be reminded so quickly. It’s equally aggravating to be sitting there waiting for information and then being swamped just at or before deadline and having to de-prioritise other word because some people just can’t pull their fingers out.
          1. Susan Calvin* March 16, 2026 at 8:36 am

             That’s because “by X date” does literally mean you *can* leave it until then, that’s how both deadlines and language work.

             If you need to process expenses from 20 people then you can’t tell them the invoicing deadline (or even the day before) as submission deadline, it has to be long enough before to enable you to get it done EVEN IF everyone gets it to you only just in time. That’s what’s meant by buffer.
          2. Pretty as a Princess* March 16, 2026 at 8:58 am

             But if you anticipate needing to do this wrangling, this is as simple as saying “The turtleshmurtles are due to me by X date. Since X date is a hard deadline, on Y date I will follow up with everyone I haven’t heard from to make sure that we get your turtleshmurtle preferences recorded before the lunar eclipse.”

             That way you have the buffer built in, it’s been clearly communicated to people when the warning bell chimes, and you are only following up with a smaller group of people because you’ve given them time to get info in close to the deadline.
             1. bamcheeks* March 16, 2026 at 9:44 am

                I also use, “X is a reasonably complicated task and requires information from several different sources. Please make sure look at it before the deadline and let me know in advance whether it’s going to be possible to complete it in time.”

                But also, yeah — if you start from the position that all deadlines are equal and deadlines can never be negotiated, you are missing a key part of how the working world works and you are doomed to be permanently frustrated. Part of being a professional is understanding that there are many different types of deadlines, and part of most senior professionals’ jobs is understanding which deadlines are moveable and which are not. I frequently have to set deadlines for people who are more senior to me and have a whole set of different priorities that I don’t know about, and my job is not just to set the deadline, but to communicate why it exists, to gauge the right amount of reminders, and to build in a buffer. If you regularly set deadlines, expect 100% compliance, and get frustrated when that doesn’t happen, you might be in the wrong job.
          3. Antilles* March 16, 2026 at 9:04 am

             Of course, people will still wait until the last minute, and that’s exactly where the buffer comes in.
             Let’s say your invoice is due to the client by April 15th. What you do is tell everyone the deadline for expense reports is April 10th instead. Yes, you’ll get a bunch of people submitting expense reports on that date…but it’s perfectly fine because you’ve already included several days for you to deal with that before the invoice submittal.
          4. Emmy Noether* March 16, 2026 at 9:26 am

             But… why can’t they leave it until then? That’s how deadlines work.

             My work uses a lot of deadlines. Here’s how it’s done: I need the thing on March 31st to do the next step in my workflow. So I tell you to send it to me by March 24th. If you send it on the 24th, that’s great! If you haven’t done so on the 25th, I send you a reminder on the 26th. Urgent!!! reminder on the 30th. That’s a buffered deadline.
             1. Another freelancer* March 16, 2026 at 10:28 am

                What I do is I do weekly reminders (if possible). I also target the reminders to those who haven’t completed it at that time if it’s a large group. I also do a final reminder on the due date. Because a lot of times, employees see that something is due at 5 p.m. on the 15th so they just don’t do it until that time, especially if it’s something that doesn’t required too much effort on their part. This also avoids anyone being late.
          5. Amber* March 16, 2026 at 10:42 am

             If people giving you the information you requested by your deadline is making your work harder…. sounds like a you problem and you need to give them earlier deadlines.
    2. Susan Calvin* March 16, 2026 at 8:26 am

       I’ve already commented above about how I do sympathize with people who have thankless cat-herding type tasks like this on their plate – but if people using the entire timeframe allotted to a task is causing you stress, then that’s firmly a you-problem.

       Sticking with the shirt example, you have two options – either set the deadline on the actual day you need to order them, and if anyone doesn’t respect that deadline they’re not getting a shirt (or one in the largest available size). Or, if it’s truly crucial everyone has one in the correct size, you set the deadline with a buffer, and start hounding people once they’ve actually missed it instead of preemptively.
       1. HonorBox* March 16, 2026 at 8:35 am

          A third option for the specific shirt example: Have a deadline in your head, but don’t specify it. Change the request to indicate that you need to know shirt sizes, and that you’re going to be soliciting those from people as you have (or make) opportunity to do so.

          Not everyone needs to know the deadline you have with the company making the shirts. You’re giving everyone a heads up that you do need it, so they can be thinking about it. And then you can ask people as you have opportunity. In this particular type of situation, no one is going to feel like you’re pushing the issue, and you can be in control of gathering the information.
          1. Trillian* March 16, 2026 at 4:57 pm

             And recognize that for something like shirt sizes, there are people who don’t want to buy a corporate shirt in the CEOs favourite green, or don’t want to broadcast their size … and don’t want to get INTO why not. Let them miss the deadline quietly.
       2. Sloanicota* March 16, 2026 at 8:41 am

          It definitely takes the heat down if you can rearrange your tasks to be more like if “Unless I hear back from you by X date, I’ll order a size Y for everyone” or “if you want to be included in Z, reply by X time” so that you have some kind of path forward without having to chase down stragglers.
          1. Sloanicota* March 16, 2026 at 8:42 am

             Especially because a lot of people may genuinely not care about the thing you need to confirm they don’t care about.
    3. allathian* March 16, 2026 at 8:36 am

       The way to deal with that is setting earlier, soft deadlines. Don’t set a deadline that’s so tight for you that you’ll be scrambling if they don’t just want to get it out of the way before they absolutely have to. That said, I tend to allow low-priority quick tasks to jump the queue sometimes just to make my to-do list look better. Sometimes just dealing with a task as soon as it comes in requires the smallest amount of mental effort, but not always.

       The way to make yourself hated by all of your coworkers is to assume that your priorities are their priorities, unless you’re in fact the boss who actually has that authority (and even then your employees may resent your demands even if they don’t show it).

       It also depends on the way your employer uses email. At my org it’s very much an asynchronous channel, nobody expects us to check it more than twice a day. The same thing applies to our ticketing system for requests because ours are very rarely all that urgent. Our service promise only requires us to answer a request within a workday to acknowledge we’ve received it. In emergencies people contact us by IM first, or call, to let us know about an urgent request. We have our internal customers well trained, because this system’s very rarely misused.

       I’m just glad that the big bosses at my org realize that the projects I’m working on that have statutory deadlines have priority over theirs. Their projects are certainly important, but usually not urgent the way statutory deadlines are.

       When I first started my current job, the squeakiest wheel got the quickest response because my then-coworker just wanted to get people to leave her alone. When they tried the same trick with me, I started moving their tasks to the bottom of my to-do list. Sure, I got a few irritating calls, but once I started telling them that they were stopping me from working on their projects with their demands for progress reports, and when they realized that leaving me alone to prioritize my tasks so everyone got what they needed within the time allotted, and especially when I’d built a solid reputation for delivering by the deadline, that stopped.

       I very rarely get requests for progress reports now. I prefer to set a longer deadline, and send the completed requests back early if at all possible. So the demands for progress reports have all but stopped.
    4. Allonge* March 16, 2026 at 9:33 am

       Which is why you need to set deadlines that work for everyone? If I am working on a project, I am not going to drop that so I can immediately respond to the dozen or so non-burning things that come in in the meanwhile; I would never get anything done.

       Something is either urgent or it is not urgent. If you need or even want an answer now, tell me that. If you need an answer by end of the month, tell me the deadline is 21 March so you have time to process what you get from the on-time people and even to bug the non-responsive. An insta-reminder penalizes those who would get the answer to you on time.
    5. Coverage Associate* March 16, 2026 at 1:35 pm

       Self evaluations aren’t like T shirt sizes in terms of importance of administrative tasks, but I just purposefully left mine until the literal last minute before the Sabbath Friday to limit my own anxiety about it both before and after completing it. I set aside a reasonable but not excessive amount of time for it that afternoon, then divided the time between then and my hard stop by the number of questions. Then I set my timer for that length of time, and repeated it until my self evaluation was complete and the sun was about to set. It had the added advantage of making me put about equal thought into each question, though my brain did freeze on a couple, but at least I knew it could only freeze for x minutes before I forced myself to enter whatever complete sentences I could.

       And you don’t know what causes others anxiety. For T shirts, someone might have body issues. For family RSVPs, there might be any number of personal calendars that need to be checked (different schools for each child, sports leagues, partner’s work and hobbies, etc.).
24. RCB* March 16, 2026 at 9:14 am

    Just a general comment on UHC and insurance in general: I don’t think a lot of people know the difference between self-insured plans and fully-insured plans, and the difference can completely make or break your experience with your insurance company. I had always been on self-insured plans with companies that people LOATHED but my experience was great, and it’s because self-insured often doesn’t see the same issues that the general population has to deal with. So keep that in mind that if you had a great experience with a “nightmare” health insurance company there is a decent chance that you were self-insured, which is a whole different ballgame.

    On the UHC front, when I worked in insurance I would tell my clients that if UHC was the only coverage they could afford to offer their employees (it was the cheapest) then it is better than nothing, but if they can at all afford anything else please do it, they won’t regret it, that’s how bad UHC is at covering things.

    Because of the ACA, insurers have to give refunds to customers if they don’t spend a specific % on claims each year. UHC is the only carrier that I have seen consistently sending refund checks, which means that year after year UHC is not paying claims, they aren’t even getting to the bare minimum requirement set by the law, they are refusing to pay a penny over what they have to and not even that. And no, they aren’t just being efficient and returning the savings to customers, they are just denying valid claims. They truly are evil.
    1. Parenthesis Guy* March 16, 2026 at 10:18 am

       My experience is largely contrary to your experience.

       I find fully insured to be a much superior experience than self insured. When I get an adverse decision when fully insured, I can appeal to the state with great success. When I get an adverse decision when self insured, my options are limited. I can either appeal to the insurance company at the cost of hours of my time or I can sue at the cost of thousands of dollars. Or I can reach out to my HR which as a general rule doesn’t care.

       In general, I’ve received refund checks when working with other health care companies other than UHC. But insurance companies don’t just need to send refund checks when they’re under the MLR, they also have to pay a fine. As such, they don’t want to be under by too much. There aren’t many profitable insurance companies that are purposely paying over 90% of the MLR, so realistically the difference between a company that’s giving a refund and one that isn’t is probably something like 83% vs 87%. To say that means they’re not paying claims is perhaps a slight exaggeration.
25. Parrhesia25* March 16, 2026 at 9:19 am

    Regarding LW1, I know the T-shirt example was not the focus of the letter, but it did remind me of something that might be relevant. A couple of times I have intentionally ignored request for my size or preferred color/style because I didn’t want the item in question. Ignoring the request seemed far more appropriate than subjecting an admin or intern to my opinions about fast fashion or the environmental effects of plastic or the clash between my personal style and that of whoever created the last three t-shirts or even to tell them that I already had too many company t-shirts. Thankfully most of the reminders were by mass email with no clear focus for annoyance. But the last time I actually had to directly refuse an offered t-shirt (not to an admin or intern) the person’s reaction was such that you would have thought I sprouted an extra head.

    I think some quantity of mutual annoyance in these situations could be avoided by giving people a way to say “thanks, but no thanks”.
    1. metadata minion* March 16, 2026 at 10:39 am

       You shouldn’t have to tell the person why you don’t want the shirts, unless it’s a mandatory uniform. Replying “thanks, but I don’t want/need one” seems like it would be the way to say “thanks, but no thanks”.
       1. Parrhesia25* March 16, 2026 at 11:06 am

          You would think so, but at least where I am (Southern US) refusing something free seems to confuse people. I don’t if it is just that so few people refuse free stuff that people don’t know how to respond or if it’s see as akin to refusing a gift. I feel obliged to give a reason (even one that might not be main reason) because people don’t how to respond to a simple “no, thank you”. I suspect that a lot of people just take the whatever and then toss it or give it away later but that’s wasteful and doesn’t really address the problem.
          1. metadata minion* March 16, 2026 at 2:30 pm

             Ah, got it; that sounds really frustrating!
    2. Coverage Associate* March 16, 2026 at 1:41 pm

       Related, the electronic RSVP forms for my workplace’s “family invited” events often don’t have a way to respond for just myself, so I have to send a separate message to the admin compiling the RSVPs. Hopefully, they have learned for this summer’s picnic.
    3. Freya* March 18, 2026 at 3:15 am

       The last tshirt order I’ve gone “no thanks” to, they gave three options. It’s a dance event thing, so we’ve got:
       – the ‘mens’ shirt where I have to order a size I swim in to get it to go around my chest and yet the neckline is still uncomfortably close to my neck
       – the cropped shirt, which is exactly the same as the ‘mens’ shirt except it’s a little bigger in the chest so that it hangs off a curvy chest and looks like it’s going to give people a glimpse up it when you move (whether it does or not, it LOOKS like it will, and I’m not comfy with that. Or showing off my tummy)
       – the batwing, where in order to get a size large enough to be comfortable around my chest and hips, I need to get a size where it’s entirely possible for me to shrug my shoulder and have it drop so far off it that my elbow gets caught in the neckline. Or for a lead to accidentally pull the neckline down past a nipple.

       I refuse to spend that much money on something I’m going to have to tailor that much just to be comfortable in it.
26. MrBean* March 16, 2026 at 9:25 am

    LW#1 Allison is being much too nice. :) I would say “You just sent the email and gave us 12 days to reply. If you need to know sooner then say so otherwise I’ll get back to you in the next week or so. “
27. anonymøøse bit my sister* March 16, 2026 at 9:26 am

    Omg #3

    I had a similar thing happen to me when I had to escalate some coworker errors up the chain (talking to the coworker got an “oops. sorry” with no change and sometimes hostility) and the complaint against me was seen as unfounded.

    But I was blindsided and like what.
28. Old Lady* March 16, 2026 at 9:31 am

    LW#2: At some point you’re going to have to make changes for things like health insurance, life insurance and 401K beneficiary. So at that point just be mater of fact with HR and tell them the changes you’re making.

    You said your work expects you to keep your home life in order. You are doing just that by being adult enough to realize you and spouse need to part ways before it becomes too toxic or unstable.
    1. H3llifIknow* March 16, 2026 at 12:01 pm

       I make all of those changes myself in the employee portal. There is quite probably no reason to talk to HR and tell them anything. I can add/remove beneficiaries/dependents, modify my W 4 withholding, and status, etc… and nobody has ever asked me about it, because there’s no reason for them to be browsing through my portal profile.
29. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.* March 16, 2026 at 9:44 am

    In LW1, it feels really strange to be this irritated by the other admin. Sure, it’s frustrating that she’s following up quickly, but what I think is happening is that she’s probably sending out emails to everyone (let’s say, 30 people) and she’s asking the people literally on her team, right in her eye line, the question immediately so she can tick those people off the list and then have that info off of her plate and have less people to hunt down later. Is it irritating in the short term? Maybe. But that’s how she’s managing her work and her time. If it’s not directly impacting other people in a detrimental way, let her be.
    1. Guacamole Bob* March 16, 2026 at 10:10 am

       I totally get the urge on the admin’s part, but that doesn’t make it less annoying for recipients! If it were just the one thing about the t-shirts, then fine, but it sounds like she does this a lot, across a range of tasks. That requires all of the people she works with to adjust their working cadence and style to this admin’s preferences, instead of being able to respond to things when it works best for them. In many workplaces, turning a non-time-sensitive request into a “please handle this right now” request without any business need is rude.

       I do understand the instinct – I occasionally have to stop myself from this kind of too-quick follow up. But I recognize that it’s annoying and micromanaging and that I shouldn’t do it. Just because something is top of mind for me doesn’t mean it has to be the thing that other people handle right this minute.
    2. Allonge* March 16, 2026 at 10:14 am

       If an objectively non-urgent task comes to me in two different channels, indicating two different levels of urgency, that is impacting me in a detrimental way. Also if someone assumes from the get-go that I will not respond on time that is not a great feeling.
       1. Guacamole Bob* March 16, 2026 at 11:56 am

          I agree with this. It adds to the mental load of how I triage and deal with all the tasks headed my way if I get mixed signals about urgency across multiple channels.

          When bosses do this, employees rightfully complain about micromanaging and unclear priorities. With peers or others it’s more just rude and annoying because the power differential isn’t there, but it’s still not a great way to work.
       2. Bluefox* March 17, 2026 at 10:12 am

          +1000
    3. metadata minion* March 16, 2026 at 10:42 am

       If it were me, I think I would find it much less annoying to be asked in person *first*, and told to ignore the bulk email that would be coming out in a few minutes.
    4. H3llifIknow* March 16, 2026 at 12:03 pm

       Eh. LW says this is a constant thing with any tasks she sends out. It’s one thing to occasionally have the other admin say, “oooh while I have you here, can you tell me what size shirts for you and hubby and I’ll go ahead and check you off the list?” It’s another to send an email and then immediately say, “Did you get my email? When are you getting me the information? What’s your size?”
    5. fhqwhgads* March 16, 2026 at 5:07 pm

       I strongly disagree that “ask someone outloud when you emailed them less than 10 minutes ago” is a reasonable way for her to manage her time.
       If her stated deadline were EOD and she followed up with people as she ran into them at least one hour later? I’ve got no beef with that.
       But when her stated deadline is measured in days, and her follow up is measured in minutes, she’s absolutely in “unreasonable” territory. It goes beyond “irritating in the short term”. It’s straight up inconsiderate.
30. AGS* March 16, 2026 at 10:07 am

    LW – 2 My boss (also the company owner) flat out asked me what my marital status was during a year-end review. I guess he had heard rumors about marriage difficulties I might be having and he’s obsessed with health care costs. He told me that he had continued to provide health insurance for a co-worker’s spouse until their divorce was finalized. I was and am still married. (The solution to our problems is to live apart. I haven’t told him this because it’s not his business.) The whole conversation has me unsettled even a few years later. I don’t believe that a divorce or a marriage or any change in relationship status needs to be shared. Make your tax filing status or whatever through HR and don’t mention it and don’t feel badly about it.
31. Sara without an H* March 16, 2026 at 10:58 am

    LW#3, you have my sympathy. It sounds as though your organization is so dysfunctional that people are using the EEO as a workaround for broken communications channels or, as you yourself suggested, as a means of revenge.

    I’ve worked for some seriously broken organizations before (higher education — dysfunction is endemic there). I don’t have any specific advice for you, but plenty of sympathy. You are right in thinking that the best remedy for you is to just get out. There’s lots of good advice in the AAM archives. Please send us an update when you find a job working for sane people.
32. Phony Genius* March 16, 2026 at 11:14 am

    On #2, you probably don’t have to mention a divorce unless you change your name as a result. Especially if you have your e-mail address changed. Years ago, a higher-up divorced and changed her name without telling anybody except IT, who changed her e-mail address. She got angry when people didn’t open e-mails from her right away as they did before she divorced. This was largely because nobody realized that Jane Smith was now Jane Brown.
33. On Eagle's Wings* March 16, 2026 at 11:22 am

    Soft deadlines are great.
    Reminders that deadlines are coming up are great.

    Screaming at people (or ALL CAPSing at people) shortly after the deadline was set is… not great.

    For my (adults) tech class, I set a due date, and warn them that shortly after the due date, the program locks – I can’t give them extra time even though I want to.
    And also I give them the earlier soft deadline, encouraging them to meet it.
34. Of two minds (but not today!)* March 16, 2026 at 11:51 am

    Keep in mind that sometimes, divorce is the way you “keep your house in order.” It’s may help you feel better if you, in fact, choose to divorce. And if you do go through with it, try saying “James and I are divorcing” rather than “I am getting a divorce. ” It sounds more collaberative, and hence less of a distraction from your work. But it sounds as if divorce just came up recently. Please do take the time to be sure it is the right route rather than rushing in to get it resolved as fast as possible.
35. First_Responder* March 16, 2026 at 11:54 am

    Ughhh OP 5, I feel you! Our union recently renogiated our benefits and switched to UH for health insurance. I am a chronic, debilitating migraine sufferer. I’ve tried every rescue med on the market, and even botox. At best the pills took the edge off. Then my Dr prescribed a once a month injection that’s been a Godsend. It doesn’t get rid of ALL of them, but I’m good for 3 weeks or so at a time, and when I do get one, it helps the rescue meds work better. Enter UH. They won’t approve it. So I went from ~$150 a month w/ insurance to now paying out of pocket with a GoodRx discount–$500 per month. And I can’t afford it. My Dr. has sent multiple preauthorizations to them. All denied. I can’t quit this job, but I also can’t do this job (first responder) while in the throes of a migraine. I’m so angry.
36. All this free time, suddenly!* March 16, 2026 at 12:17 pm

    LW2, sorry your personal business is potentially affecting attitudes at work. For about half the population, it seems to me a divorce makes it far *easier* to manage those 60-hour weeks and last-minute schedule changes as long as childcare support exists. I agree that just using your ex’s first name and not getting into the details is the way to go. (If it does come up, you could point out the advantages of not having to schedule around a spouse.)
37. ThatGirl* March 16, 2026 at 12:21 pm

    I’ve been laid off from three jobs in a row, though mercifully with decent stints between them – 9 years at the first company (4 in the role I was in), 3 1/2 years at the second (1.5 in the last role) and 4 1/2 years at my most recent job. And mostly folks I’m interviewing with understand – in marketing, layoffs seem to happen on a cycle as the economy fluctuates. But I have had a few people ask me why my team was laid off … as if I have any good answer besides “they were reorganizing to save money”??
38. E. Chauvelin* March 16, 2026 at 1:14 pm

    A few years ago, my employer switched to UHC and then switched back to the previous company a year later. The reps from the once and future insurance company who came to present on our plans when we switched back said that it was the only time they’ve ever received applause when they were introduced. It was definitely 100% about their not being UHC.
39. btb13* March 16, 2026 at 1:34 pm

    I’m in the same position as LW4 (laid off three times in 4 years, but with my longest employment stint being 2 years). I work at startups so it’s not uncommon to have short stints, but I do want to make it clear when the RIF’s were. Is it too much to do this on my resume?

    Company Name
    Jan 2022-January 2023 (Reduction In Force)
    Role Title
40. Fuzzyfuzz* March 16, 2026 at 3:09 pm

    I wouldn’t assume “everybody knows” that UHC is bad. I have had United Oxford for like 10 years and have had great coverage and experiences. And this is with a serious chronic condition and a few hospitalizations. The year my company switched to Blue Cross and I had a high risk pregnancy—well, they sucked.
41. Alanna* March 16, 2026 at 3:57 pm

    #5 – I have run into this exact issue with a small company, I refused to have UHC as my insurance. I really wanted to work there, and so I let them know that was my obstacle. They decided to then give me the monthly amount they would have been putting towards my insurance, so that I could put that towards a marketplace plan. Honestly that worked out fine for me – I’m sure it would be harder if you had dependents or whatnot.

    And it’s true that many people don’t know how truly awful UHC can be. I had the chance to speak with a lot of company owners in my industry and none of them were aware (this was several years ago). Unfortunately, they were the only carrier who was covering small remote tech companies at the time, so there weren’t really other options.
42. DJ* March 16, 2026 at 4:47 pm

    LW#2 it’s sad that you need to hide your divorce how ever you are the expert in how this would play out in your workplace and need to pay your bills. Tell any holier than thou friends they can pay your bills!
43. DJ* March 16, 2026 at 4:49 pm

    LW#4 I’d put on your resume with your 5 month job made redundant/laid off or how ever it’s termed. If there is a gap with the other jobs list a reason as well.
44. Majnoona* March 16, 2026 at 8:18 pm

    On a Medicare plan. Among the more ridiculous denials from UHC – I was seeing a therapist and they would randomly deny a session while the ones before and after were approved. no miscoding or reason give. reversed when my husband appealed on lawyer letterhead. Now on a Humana plan and have had no problems.

Comments are closed.