“asking for lots of unpaid time off, a job interview at 11 p.m., and more” plus 3 more Ask a Manager

asking for lots of unpaid time off, a job interview at 11 p.m., and more
is it bad to lay people off instead of firing them?
my client wants me to be constantly available
ask the readers: moving back to mainstream jobs after sex work

asking for lots of unpaid time off, a job interview at 11 p.m., and more

Posted: 26 Jul 2018 09:03 PM PDT

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

1. Asking for six unpaid weeks off a year

I am in my fifth year of a job that I really enjoy. I could imagine myself staying with this company for many more years, but the idea of working full-time continuously for 30 or 40 years until I retire is too much. I am also an artist, but I have trouble completing projects when I am away from home 11 hours a day for my job. Creative work that should take weeks or months takes me years to finish.

The answer seems to be that I need to reduce my work hours. I’m far from rich, but I am able to live on 60-70% of my income. One option that is available to employees in my position is to work part-time with flexible hours that are capped at 28 hours per week. If I took this option, I would lose health insurance and 401k benefits. I could probably live that way for two years before my savings ran out, but I would rather have a more long-term solution.

I have an alternative idea. I would like to give up all 15 of my PTO days in exchange for 45 unpaid days off. I’ve calculated my employer’s cost to offer one paid day off, and it is more than three times what it costs them to offer one unpaid day off (factoring in all of their insurance and tax payments). This seems like a better system because I would still have access to health care and my income wouldn’t drop more than I could manage. I would also be available to work full-time or even overtime during their busy season when they struggle to keep up with the workload.

I worry that this proposal is too unusual and that it would seem like I am trying to cheat the company. I would have to talk to the company vice president for permission. He values uniformity and dislikes giving anyone special treatment. Still, it seems like there would be no harm in asking. Do you think this is an unreasonably unusual request?

I don't think it will seem like you're trying to cheat the company. You're proposing swapping paid time off for no paid time off, plus additional unpaid days off. It would be a stretch to see this as anyone being cheated.

But the more relevant question is whether your company can easily go without you in your job for an additional six weeks of the year. Looking at it strictly financially, they might come out ahead. But if they actually need someone in your position doing your work during that time, then this might not make sense for them.

That's the biggest question that would be on my mind if I were your manager and you approached me about this: Does the workload and/or workflow of your position lend itself to you being gone that much? Or will it leave holes that be difficult to cover? If there were a slow season where you could easily do this, I'd definitely be open to it, assuming you're an otherwise good employee. But if there isn't much of a slow season, I'd be wondering how we'd cover your responsibilities during that time. That doesn't mean I'd refuse to do it — if you were an outstanding employee, it might be better to have you for 43 weeks a year than someone else for 49 weeks a year. But that's what I'd be thinking about.

2. Dealing with work after a fight with your spouse

Yesterday I had a fight with my husband (not even a huge one, but about some ongoing issues in our relationship) and today I’m finding it a little tough to be at work. I feel tired and a little on edge, like I might cry, and I’m having a hard time focusing. While this is about my relationship, I know this issue comes up for people in many different ways. Do you have any tips for being at work the day after something bad happens that makes you distracted/unfocused, but isn’t bad enough to justify staying home entirely?

It's okay to cut yourself a break. You don't always have to be 100% on your game at work every single day. You're human and you're going to have occasional days where not working at maximum capacity. As long as that's not happening all the time, that's fine.

I'd treat it the same way you would if you weren't feeling very well but weren't bad enough to stay home — work on things that are less challenging and don't require maximum brain power, to the extent that that's an option. Alternately, if you respond well to distractions, sometimes it can help to immerse yourself in something that will consume you for a few hours. But it's fine to treat this like being under the weather (to the point that it's even okay to say, "I'm a little under the weather today" if you need to explain seeming off to colleagues).

3. I was scheduled for an interview at 11 p.m.

I applied for a job online with a large retail company. Today at 1 p.m. I received an email informing me that I have been scheduled for an interview at a local location at 11 p.m., same day. The email domain appears legit but the email itself is sort of sketchy looking and provides no contact information at all. My attempts to contact anyone re: this supposed interview have been fruitless.

Why would a hiring manager schedule an interview at 11 p.m. on a weeknight? I asked a friend who works in HR and she laughed out loud. Can I conclude that this is a scam or something?

I don't know what's going on with it, but that is very much Not Normal. Assuming this isn't some kind of late-night business that only runs from like 10 p.m. to 3 a.m., it's not reasonable to ask you to show up at 11 p.m. for an interview. And simply announcing that you've been "scheduled" for this weird time, and on the same day you're being told, adds a whole new level of WTF to it. I cannot explain it to you, only tell you that I wouldn't go.

4. Should you assume a Skype interview will be on video?

Would you assume that a Skype interview would be on video or not? I finished one today that turned out to be just audio — but having been caught out once in yoga clothes and wet hair, it seems safer to expect that if it’s over Skype (or a similar technology) that there could be video involved. It’s so much more invasive in some ways than going to the company’s office!

I’m used to working remote, so getting my webcam face on and not having dirty laundry in the background is not as much a trial as it could be. But still, that’s time that could’ve been spent doing other things. (Notably, either my current job or prepping for the interview.)

Also, I work in a field (though maybe don’t we all?) that requires looking youthful and effortlessly put together. So I guess this is both a gentle reminder to anyone with hiring responsibility who interviews over Skype and a question about why employers don’t tell you what to expect. If you’re coming into my house, let me know!

With interviews, if the employer doesn't specify, I'd default to assuming it's going to be video (since otherwise they're more likely to just do it by phone). But if they don't specify, it's fine to ask when it's being scheduled by saying something like, "Is this a video call or just audio?"

5. Should I put department lunches on my time card?

If you’re an hourly employee and the entire department is going out to lunch for someone’s birthday — ranging anywhere from one to two hours — or holiday lunch or whatever and the boss pays, should you include that time on your time card or no?

It feels tricky because I normally don’t take a lunch (just eat at my desk) or just take 30 minutes, but these things can go for hours, they’re required (not formally, but it would look weird if everyone goes but the hourly person), and everyone else who goes is on salary so they are all getting paid to be there. What’s the etiquette for these things?

Yeah, this can be tricky. If it's something like a team meeting over lunch, that's work time and you should log it. If it's "hey, let's all take Jane to lunch for her birthday," that's generally considered social even if it would look weird if you didn't go, and thus not something you'd put on your time card. Holidays lunches are more likely to be considered work time, and if they're mandatory they definitely are, but it can vary.

The best thing to do with the not-obviously-social ones is to ask your boss. Just say, "Hey, I'm never sure if things like today's holiday lunch should go on my time card. It feels like a work event, but I wanted to check with you.”

I work at an organization that does this instead of firing people. Among long-time employees there's a joke that it's impossible to get fired here — they can think of one guy, nine years back, who was fired for theft (it was a relatively minor amount, and was not reported to police.) Everyone else with performance issues, no matter how ridiculous, eventually gets downsized.

I'm not in management or HR but I have legitimate access to a fair amount of behind-the-scenes detail due to my position. I am discreet and don't gossip. I am amazed by some of the situations and how they're resolved. Things drag on for months. Nobody gets a PIP to the best of my knowledge, although supervisors and HR have talked to the employees about the issues, so it's not totally out of the blue.

I think my employer's argument is that it's easier to quietly get rid of difficult employees with a small severance package, and we don't give references anyway (just confirm employment dates.) From the employee's perspective it's nice for reasons that you've outlined before — they can job-hunt while they're still employed, and they can point to their position being eliminated as the reason they're looking.

This happened recently to Jane, a longtime employee who I'm friendly with and actually quite like outside of work (although I'd have quit if assigned to her as my manager.) She's bright and hardworking, but she's prickly, condescending to everyone (including VIPs and board members who grew to dislike her), and as far as I can tell, simply cannot receive and process criticism about her management style— and management is a key part of her position. If I were Jane, the fact that I was being downsized by this company would ring all sorts of alarm bells. But she is oblivious to her own role in this, at least publicly, which I guess supports the company’s standpoint that there's no point in trying to discuss it with her further.

Do employers "owe" more honesty to problem employees? I can't help feeling like they're doing her an enormous disservice. At the same time, I can see from her reaction that firing her would likely have been a lot more arduous than quietly easing her out. I thought about leveling with her, even at the risk of costing us our friendship. But I don't think I can, partly because I can't divulge knowledge of some of the details, but mostly because they've clearly opted for the “it's not you, it's us" routine. I feel management could have made clear to her something along the lines of: we're letting you go because you've alienated so many people, and you need to seriously evaluate your soft skills if you're going to succeed in this kind of role elsewhere.

This has happened with five employees in the time I've been here (although obviously the details differ). Each one of them was angry and hurt, and seemingly oblivious to their role in the situation, and anyone else in the organization would say they should have seen it coming, so a reasonable person wouldn't be in that position in the first place. I can't articulate why but this seems like a terrible policy to me.

It's a morale issue for coworkers who are glad to see Jane finally go but resentful of the circumstances. Full disclosure that I was fired once — nicely. I was hired to do X but the job turned out to be much more Y and I was terrible at it. But being fired, while totally humiliating to me in the moment, was ultimately a great learning experience that informed a lot of my behavior going forward, both in gaining clarity about a position during job interviews and in how to reach out for help while working. Several years later I actually wrote a thank-you to them. Anyway, I'd love your thoughts on the topic.

First of all, did they really eliminate those positions? Or did they re-fill them soon after?

If they re-filled them, those weren't “position eliminations” at all, and if any of those "laid off" people noticed that, they’re going to feel lied to … and when people you let go think you lied to them about the reason, they often start wondering if the real reason was something illegal (discrimination, retaliation for reporting harassment, etc.). That's when people consult lawyers and you end up dealing with legal headaches, even if there wasn't any actual illegal action.

If they didn't re-fill those jobs and did genuinely eliminate the positions, then I'm wondering whether it actually made good business sense to cut those roles (in which case, fine) or whether they lost roles they actually needed just so they could call it a lay-off and avoid the hard conversation of firing someone. (Here’s the difference in the two terms.) I suspect it was the latter, since it seems unlikely that every time your company has let a low performer go, it just happened to conveniently be a role they wanted to eliminate anyway.

But even aside from that, it's generally a bad practice to do this. It means that your employer probably isn’t having honest conversations with people about their performance, which means that they're not giving people a chance to improve, which means that people are losing their jobs without realizing there were serious problems, which means they're being blindsided by something pretty terrible (on top of the aforementioned lack of any chance to fix it). It also means your company's managers aren't managing, since laying out clear expectations and holding people to them and talking to people when they need to things differently are all fundamental parts of a manager's job.

It also means that other people — people who aren't being fake-laid-off — are seeing this happen and realizing that they too might be blindsided with this one day, rather than hearing it straight when their work has problems. And they might wonder what else the company misleads people about, or what else they're too weak-willed to deal with in an honest, up-front way.

So sure, it's easier in the short-term to just announce to someone one day that their position is being eliminated and “hey, we're so sorry but there's not any work for you.” Now they don't have to have a hard conversation about what it really stemmed from! But it's a terrible practice for all the reasons above.

Firing is not some terrible, shameful thing that companies need to hide and send themselves into contortions to avoid. If they're fair with employees and lay out clear expectations and are candid with people when they're not meeting them and give them a chance to improve, they don't need to — and shouldn’t — hide what the decision is really about when they decide to let someone go.

Rapitful Shqip

Search This Blog