Speaker 1: My colleagues, We'll stop commenting on everything. My assistant rolls
Speaker 1: his eyes at people and meeting. Why does my coworker
Speaker 1: keep taking credit for all my ideas? Have any wisdom
Speaker 1: for me? Hi? I'm Alison Green. Welcome to the Aska
Speaker 1: Manager podcast, where I answer questions from listeners about life
Speaker 1: at work, everything from what to say if you're allergic
Speaker 1: to your coworkers perfume to what to do if you
Speaker 1: drink too much at the company party. Let's get started, Hi,
Speaker 1: and welcome to the show. Today, I'm going to answer
Speaker 1: a bunch of shorter questions from people. The first question
Speaker 1: today is from someone whose boss is using a pretty
Speaker 1: offensive term. Hi, Alison, I have a tricky situation that
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how to navigate. My boss keeps using
Speaker 1: the word retard as a derogatory term. She doesn't use
Speaker 1: it to describe people, but she does use it to
Speaker 1: describe things and ideas. We don't work in the same office,
Speaker 1: but we often travel to client side together. She did
Speaker 1: want to say it in front of my client, which
Speaker 1: is really awkward for everyone but her seemed. She's an
Speaker 1: otherwise great manager. But I'm not sure how to approach this.
Speaker 1: Some people think being offended by this word is just
Speaker 1: being too sensitive. How do I ask or tell her
Speaker 1: not to use this term tactfully without causing resentment or
Speaker 1: making things awkward? Or is this just something that I
Speaker 1: should ask her manager to handle? This is an interesting one.
Speaker 1: I do think there is some truth to the idea
Speaker 1: that the message about how offensive that word is has
Speaker 1: not reached absolutely everyone yet, at least until recently. I
Speaker 1: think we are in something of a transition phase with
Speaker 1: the word. There are people who grew up with it
Speaker 1: being an acceptable thing to say, and I think it's
Speaker 1: taken a while for the message to reach all of
Speaker 1: them that it's not, and that it is now widely
Speaker 1: considered a slur. I think we're at the tail end
Speaker 1: of that transition, though, But you do still run into
Speaker 1: this situation sometimes where otherwise decent people don't seem to
Speaker 1: understand that it's hurtful, or they think that the people
Speaker 1: who will find it hurtful are just a very small,
Speaker 1: overally sensitive minority, and they truly believe that it's still
Speaker 1: okay in the mainstream, even though it's not. Um it's odd.
Speaker 1: They seem to truly not realize that many people will
Speaker 1: be shocked by it and maybe hurt by it, especially
Speaker 1: if they have a developmentally disabled friend or loved one,
Speaker 1: and we'll think less of them. And then, of course
Speaker 1: you have the people who have heard the message know
Speaker 1: that it's considered a slur and just don't really care.
Speaker 1: I think the best approach with your boss is to
Speaker 1: approach her as if you're assuming that the message just
Speaker 1: hasn't reached her yet, and that you're sure she wouldn't
Speaker 1: want to inadvertently cas offense or hurt anyone around her,
Speaker 1: even if you suspect she has heard the message plenty.
Speaker 1: I think the conversation will be more effective if you
Speaker 1: approach it from more of a place of giving her
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't mean you have to
Speaker 1: give her the benefit of the doubt in your head.
Speaker 1: It just means that you want your tone to sound
Speaker 1: that way. So you could say something like, Jane, can
Speaker 1: I ask you to stop using the word retarded. It's
Speaker 1: actually a hurtful word to a lot of people, and
Speaker 1: I know you wouldn't want to has pain to anyone.
Speaker 1: If she pushes back on that, if she tells you
Speaker 1: that it's no big deal or that she doesn't mean
Speaker 1: anything by it. Then you could say, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: sure that you don't mean to be hurtful, but it
Speaker 1: really is widely considered a slur these days, and it
Speaker 1: can especially be hurtful if you can say it in
Speaker 1: front of someone who has a developmentally disabled family member,
Speaker 1: which a lot of people do. Now that assumes, of course,
Speaker 1: that you have a pretty decent relationship with her. Frankly,
Speaker 1: even if you don't, I still might say it anyway,
Speaker 1: because it is a reasonable thing to point out, especially
Speaker 1: now that she's saying in front of clients, but especially
Speaker 1: if you do have a pretty good relationship with her,
Speaker 1: and I'm betting that you do, since you said that
Speaker 1: she's a great boss. This shouldn't make things horribly awkward.
Speaker 1: I mean, she might feel a little bit embarrassed, but
Speaker 1: there's no way around that. We all feel embarrassed when
Speaker 1: we get corrected on this kind of thing, but we
Speaker 1: learned from it. As long as you keep your tone
Speaker 1: warm and you make a point of being warm with
Speaker 1: her afterwards, I think it should go okay. And actually,
Speaker 1: before we move on, I want to say something more
Speaker 1: about what I just said about making a point of
Speaker 1: being warm with her after the conversation because this is
Speaker 1: a good tactic for whenever you have to have a
Speaker 1: slightly awkward conversation with someone and you're worried about things
Speaker 1: being tense or feeling weird. As soon as possible after
Speaker 1: you have the potentially tense conversation, find an opening to
Speaker 1: have a more normal, better feeling conversation with them, because
Speaker 1: by being warm and being normal, you can help them
Speaker 1: return to feeling normal more quickly too. It sort of
Speaker 1: resets things between you. But if you let things go
Speaker 1: too long without talking after the awkward conversation, then things
Speaker 1: can really start to feel weird. So as soon as
Speaker 1: you can just reset things with a different interaction so
Speaker 1: that their most recent interaction with you is one that
Speaker 1: felt good or at least normal, rather than one that
Speaker 1: felt weird. Okay, let's do the next letter. Hi, Allison,
Speaker 1: I started a job search about a month ago and
Speaker 1: I'm still actively interviewing with about four companies that are
Speaker 1: all in the same industry. Most of the companies that
Speaker 1: I'm speaking with are progressing at a pretty normal pace,
Speaker 1: so I'm close to wrapping up my interviews, but I'm
Speaker 1: not quite there. However, one of them has moved really quick,
Speaker 1: and I think they're pretty close to giving me an offer.
Speaker 1: I'm insitant to accept and stop my job search because
Speaker 1: I'm more excited about a couple of the other companies
Speaker 1: that I'm interviewing with. But I don't want to accept
Speaker 1: now and decline later, especially since my industry is pretty small.
Speaker 1: I would definitely burn a bridge. I've asked the other
Speaker 1: companies to speed it up, but it might be a
Speaker 1: few weeks before another offer comes in. I know that
Speaker 1: we always say that a bird in the hand is
Speaker 1: worth two in the bush, but do you think that
Speaker 1: advice supplies here? Any help you can offer would be
Speaker 1: much appreciated. I get so many questions about versions of
Speaker 1: this because no one knows how to handle it, because
Speaker 1: there really isn't a perfect solution that will guarantee that
Speaker 1: the timing will work out. Some is the timing, it's
Speaker 1: just not in your favor. But there are some things
Speaker 1: that you can do, and it sounds like you have
Speaker 1: done the first thing that I would recommend, which is
Speaker 1: to contact the companies that you're interviewing with that you're
Speaker 1: more interested in and explain the situation. Ideally, when you
Speaker 1: do that, you say something like I'm really interested in
Speaker 1: working with you, but I'm likely to be receiving another
Speaker 1: offer very soon. I will probably need to give them
Speaker 1: an answer with you know, X amount of time within
Speaker 1: a week or whatever you think it's going to be.
Speaker 1: I don't know if there is a way for you
Speaker 1: to work within that timeline, but you would definitely be
Speaker 1: my first choice. And then if the company is very
Speaker 1: interested in you, in a lot of cases, they will
Speaker 1: expedite their timeline so that they don't lose you. Not
Speaker 1: every company will do that. Some have really rigid hiring
Speaker 1: practices or timelines that they won't deviate from, or maybe
Speaker 1: they would like to be flexible, but the scheduling on
Speaker 1: their side just won't line up. And of course, if
Speaker 1: they would be just as happy going with one of
Speaker 1: the other candidates who they have in the mix, they're
Speaker 1: probably not going to speed things up for you. But
Speaker 1: if you've gotten the sense that they like you and
Speaker 1: they consider you a really starting Canada, it's worth asking.
Speaker 1: It sounds like you've done that part, so that leaves
Speaker 1: you with trying to figure out if there's anything that
Speaker 1: you can do about the first company's timeline, the one
Speaker 1: that you think is about to make you the offer.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you can build in a bit of delay by
Speaker 1: asking time to look over the benefits package or having
Speaker 1: questions about the offer, and you can always ask for
Speaker 1: some time to think it over. But generally speaking, in
Speaker 1: most cases they're only likely to give you about a week.
Speaker 1: There's some industries that are exceptions to that. There are
Speaker 1: some industries where it's really normal for people to take weeks,
Speaker 1: but for most fields, probably they only want to give
Speaker 1: you up to about a week because they want to
Speaker 1: get their new higher in and also they have other
Speaker 1: candidates who are waiting to hear back from them, and
Speaker 1: if you're not going to take the job, they want
Speaker 1: to move on and offer it to someone else. Plus,
Speaker 1: if you ask for more than a week to think
Speaker 1: it over, in a lot of cases they start questioning
Speaker 1: if you're really interested. But that said, once you do
Speaker 1: have the official offer, you could go back to your
Speaker 1: top choice and update them. At that point, you could
Speaker 1: say something like, hey, I wanted to let you know
Speaker 1: that I did receive another offer. I need to give
Speaker 1: them a decision within a week. You're still my first choice,
Speaker 1: so if it's possible for us to work within that timeline,
Speaker 1: I'd be thrilled, although I understand that might not be possible.
Speaker 1: The type of response that you get back if you
Speaker 1: do that should give you some amount of insight into
Speaker 1: your chances with them. If they don't reply at all,
Speaker 1: or if you get a kind of formulaic sorry, I
Speaker 1: can't do it, that might be a sign, but they're
Speaker 1: not super invested in you as a candidate, and that's
Speaker 1: good to know. Ultimately, though, the crappy truth of it
Speaker 1: is that the timing might just not work out, and
Speaker 1: you might have to decide if you want the first
Speaker 1: offer regardless of what happens with the other companies, and
Speaker 1: you have to decide are you willing to risk being
Speaker 1: left with no offers if you turn this one down
Speaker 1: and the other ones don't come through. That's a really
Speaker 1: hard calculation to make, and it's going to depend on
Speaker 1: things like your sense of how many options that you
Speaker 1: have and how easy you think it will be to
Speaker 1: get another offer from a totally different company. There's no
Speaker 1: easy answer here, but definitely because it's a small industry
Speaker 1: and people know each other. The thing I would not
Speaker 1: do is except the first offer and then back out
Speaker 1: if something else comes through later. That will burn a
Speaker 1: bridge and in a small field where you're likely to
Speaker 1: run into people down the road. You don't want to
Speaker 1: be applying for a job that you want in five
Speaker 1: years and find out the hiring manager for that job
Speaker 1: is the person whose job offer you reneged on this time.
Speaker 1: So if you do accept it, I think it's got
Speaker 1: to be with the intention of really taking it and
Speaker 1: withdrawing from the other companies, which sucks. I know. We'll
Speaker 1: take a short break here and then come back with
Speaker 1: more questions. Here is our next question. Hi, Alson, I
Speaker 1: just received a voicemail for an employer checking references for
Speaker 1: an employee at my previous job. I was not this
Speaker 1: person's direct manager, but I did have daily oversight on
Speaker 1: her work. She didn't get along with our manager, and
Speaker 1: I was probably due to a personality mismatch on both sides.
Speaker 1: This employee was a quick learner, great with customers, and
Speaker 1: did good work, although there were definitely some attitude issues.
Speaker 1: I did have some mild concerns, but I do feel
Speaker 1: a lot of it was due to immaturity and this
Speaker 1: being her first job. I would have been happy to
Speaker 1: have given her a positive reference. Then she quite without notice.
Speaker 1: I think she was trying to send a message to
Speaker 1: her manager, but all she did was put the rest
Speaker 1: of the team in a bind. A few months later,
Speaker 1: I left for another job, but I do still keep
Speaker 1: in touch with our manager, who was fantastic. I found
Speaker 1: out through her that our former employee also quit her
Speaker 1: new job without notice. I have not been in contact
Speaker 1: with her, and I didn't expect to be asked for
Speaker 1: a reference. If she had reached out to me, I
Speaker 1: would have told her I wouldn't be able to provide one.
Speaker 1: I'm planning and just ignoring the reference checker. She's young,
Speaker 1: and I feel horrible if my reference cost her a job.
Speaker 1: Then again, she's now quit two jobs without notice. What
Speaker 1: would you recommend? This is an annoying situation to be in.
Speaker 1: You want to cut someone a break, which is great,
Speaker 1: but then they make it really hard for you to
Speaker 1: do that. It is definitely kind of you that you
Speaker 1: were willing to give her a positive reference despite having
Speaker 1: maybe mild concerns. You're definitely right that when it's someone's
Speaker 1: first job, there can just be some immaturity due to that,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be
Speaker 1: carrying those traits with them. Forever. But once she left
Speaker 1: without notice and put your team in a bind, that
Speaker 1: does kind of burn the bridge and make it hard
Speaker 1: to give her a good reference. And then when you
Speaker 1: heard that she did it a second time, that's not
Speaker 1: someone who you want to use your own professional reputation
Speaker 1: to vouch for. It's annoying that she listed you as
Speaker 1: a reference without talking with you to make sure that
Speaker 1: you were willing to give her a good one. I
Speaker 1: will say sometimes when people get reference calls and they
Speaker 1: get annoyed that the person didn't give them a heads
Speaker 1: up first, I will tell them, hey, don't assume that
Speaker 1: that's what happened, because the person didn't necessarily list you
Speaker 1: as a reference. Some reference checkers will just call your
Speaker 1: last few jobs, regardless of whether you put them on
Speaker 1: an official reference list or not. But in this case,
Speaker 1: because you were not her direct man her, and especially
Speaker 1: because you're no longer at that job anymore, and so
Speaker 1: they must have reached you through your personal contact information,
Speaker 1: it does seem like she must have listed you rather
Speaker 1: than them just calling up past employers. And it's not
Speaker 1: great that she listed you without bothering to verify with
Speaker 1: you that you would give a good reference, especially because
Speaker 1: she knows that she left that job without notice and
Speaker 1: that you would know that. So it's a weird assumption
Speaker 1: on her part, and I suspect it does go to
Speaker 1: youth and inexperience anyway, when you are not able to
Speaker 1: give someone a good reference but you kind of want
Speaker 1: to give them a break, one way to handle that
Speaker 1: is to just not return the reference call. Your silence
Speaker 1: sends a message of its own, and even if that
Speaker 1: message is not picked up on, at least it gets
Speaker 1: you off the list of people being asked to vouch
Speaker 1: for her work. So I think it's fine that you
Speaker 1: chose to handle it that way, But what I would
Speaker 1: recommend is contacting her and letting her know that you're
Speaker 1: not able to be a reference for her, both so
Speaker 1: that she stops listing you and so that she gets
Speaker 1: a sort of reality check on her understanding of how
Speaker 1: you view what happened, because it sounds like right now
Speaker 1: she might be thinking that you're fine with how she
Speaker 1: handled things, and so it'll be helpful to let her
Speaker 1: know that that's not really the case. So you could
Speaker 1: say something like, hey, I received a voicemail from someone
Speaker 1: who was looking for a reference for you. I don't
Speaker 1: think I'm a well positioned to be a reference for you,
Speaker 1: and I wanted to let you know so that you
Speaker 1: don't include me on future reference lists. And if you want,
Speaker 1: you could explain that it is because of how she
Speaker 1: left the job, but you don't need to get into
Speaker 1: that if you don't want to. Whether or not to
Speaker 1: get into it, I think depends on your sense of
Speaker 1: how she would take it. If she is someone who
Speaker 1: handles feedback really well and isn't going to argue with you,
Speaker 1: it would be a kindness to explain it to her.
Speaker 1: But if you think she'll be argumentative or even a
Speaker 1: jerk about it, and then you could just stick with hey,
Speaker 1: letting you know that I can't do this. I hope
Speaker 1: you're doing well now. All of that said, I do
Speaker 1: think that there can be an argument for giving an
Speaker 1: honest reference if that's something that you would be comfortable with.
Speaker 1: I totally get that you don't want to be the
Speaker 1: reason she's rejected for a job, but if you are
Speaker 1: the employer about to hire her, you probably would want
Speaker 1: to know these details about her work history so that
Speaker 1: you could make an informed decision and maybe decide that
Speaker 1: you were going to choose a candidate who really wants
Speaker 1: the job and hasn't left her last two positions with
Speaker 1: no notice. I know that can seem harsh, especially to
Speaker 1: people who don't do a lot of hiring, but I
Speaker 1: will say that from the hiring side of things, I'm
Speaker 1: always so grateful for references who will speak candidly. And
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that you would get on the phone
Speaker 1: and slam her. It means that you would give a full,
Speaker 1: nuanced reference talking about her good points but also the
Speaker 1: parts that did not go so well. But you definitely
Speaker 1: don't have to do that. Either. One of these approaches
Speaker 1: is reasonable to take. Okay, next letter, Hi Allison. I'm
Speaker 1: a mid level manager in a male dominated industry in Sydney, Australia.
Speaker 1: After six months of being manager less, I'm finally getting
Speaker 1: a boss. When I interviewed from my role a year ago,
Speaker 1: I was very forward about my expectations in are to
Speaker 1: my work life balance. I need to work from home
Speaker 1: when I feel like it. I'm not getting until nine am,
Speaker 1: and I prefer transparency. In my annual review with my
Speaker 1: old boss, who is still with the company, I was
Speaker 1: told that I'm an excellent performer with an innovation and
Speaker 1: that I work incredibly hard. I've got four weeks to
Speaker 1: figure out how to approach my new manager and lay
Speaker 1: down the law about the way I work, that I
Speaker 1: don't want to be micromanaged, and that my work life
Speaker 1: balance is very important to me. It's been in a
Speaker 1: respectful way. Can you help me? Okay? So this is
Speaker 1: an interesting one. It can be really tricky when you
Speaker 1: negotiate certain things with the boss as conditions of your
Speaker 1: taking the job, and then they leave and a new
Speaker 1: manager comes in and they haven't necessarily agreed to those
Speaker 1: things and might not be as amenable to them as
Speaker 1: the old person has. So the way that you approach
Speaker 1: it is important. You definitely don't want to approach it
Speaker 1: as laying down the law, because the reality is that
Speaker 1: she does have the ability to say, actually, i'd like
Speaker 1: to tell something different. Of course, that happens at that
Speaker 1: point you might decide that you don't want to stay
Speaker 1: under those conditions, but ideally you want to handle it
Speaker 1: in a way where it doesn't get to that point
Speaker 1: at all. And that said, you also don't want to
Speaker 1: approach it as asking for her permission, because you're not
Speaker 1: really doing that either. It's more, this is the arrangement
Speaker 1: that I have. It's something that I negotiated when he
Speaker 1: took the job, and I want to let you know
Speaker 1: about it. So it's kind of an f y I,
Speaker 1: but with an opening for her to speak up if
Speaker 1: it's going to be a problem for her. That's for
Speaker 1: the schedule of stuff and the working from home. The
Speaker 1: pieces about transparency and not being micromanaged are a little
Speaker 1: bit different. No one really wants to be micro managed,
Speaker 1: especially not after a certain professional level, and it's likely
Speaker 1: to come across as strangely adversarial if you just announce
Speaker 1: that you don't want to be micro managed. And the
Speaker 1: reality is if your new manager is a micro manager,
Speaker 1: it's probably not something that you're going to be able
Speaker 1: to solve in one conversation or one declaration, So that
Speaker 1: one is something where you're more are going to need
Speaker 1: to wait and see how things play out. You could
Speaker 1: say something early on about what kind of structures you've
Speaker 1: been using with your old boss that have worked well.
Speaker 1: For example, you could say, so what I've been doing
Speaker 1: with Jane, the previous manager, is that I run the
Speaker 1: X program pretty autonomously, but I meet with her monthly
Speaker 1: to give her updates on Y and Z, and i'd
Speaker 1: consult with her about things like A and B, and
Speaker 1: my goals for the next six months are blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: and I'm on track to meet all of those, but
Speaker 1: I'll flag it for you if it ever looks like
Speaker 1: that might not be the case. So that's sort of
Speaker 1: a declaration of here's how I work, it's working well,
Speaker 1: here's how I'll keep you in the loop. And if
Speaker 1: your new boss does have micromanaging tendencies, potentially that can
Speaker 1: head off some of it by making it clear that
Speaker 1: you're on top of this stuff and laying out a
Speaker 1: structure for regular communication. A lot of micromanaging happens because
Speaker 1: the micromanager doesn't have good structures for those sorts of
Speaker 1: things in place, and because people don't have clear goals
Speaker 1: and regular updates on their progress towards those goals. So
Speaker 1: if you proactively lay that stuff out, that could be
Speaker 1: really helpful. Not guaranteed, I mean, some people are just
Speaker 1: terrible micro managers no matter what, but it could help.
Speaker 1: And if she's not a micro manager, it'll still be
Speaker 1: really useful to lay that kind of thing out. I mean,
Speaker 1: I would love it if I came into a job
Speaker 1: as a new manager and sat down with someone and
Speaker 1: they had all of that ready to go. But some
Speaker 1: of this is going to just be about waiting and
Speaker 1: seeing if you start getting pushed back on your schedule
Speaker 1: or you do start to feel micro managed. At that point,
Speaker 1: you'd sit down with her and have a conversation about it.
Speaker 1: But I wouldn't start from an aggressive posture on this.
Speaker 1: Do the f y I stuff about your schedule and
Speaker 1: be matter of fact about it, talk about the structures
Speaker 1: that you use for communication and for keeping her in
Speaker 1: the loop, and then give it some time to see
Speaker 1: how it goes. Let's do a short break here and
Speaker 1: we'll come back with more. Okay, next letter. The Place
Speaker 1: Unemployed with the as United Way. This is my first
Speaker 1: year working here. Every employee will have money deducted from
Speaker 1: their paycheck over the next year until next September. We
Speaker 1: have been challenged to bump it up a book and
Speaker 1: contribute more than a mandatory amount. We have to give
Speaker 1: minimum for dollars per week. At least it is automatically
Speaker 1: deducted from our pay with no exceptions. I don't want
Speaker 1: to give anything, and a pressure to give more than
Speaker 1: four dollars per week or an extra one time donation
Speaker 1: has been on. We were all told there was a
Speaker 1: condition of working here to support the cause. What do
Speaker 1: you recommend our do to speak up about not wanting
Speaker 1: to get anything, even a mandatory donation. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I'm going to rant here for a minute about pressure
Speaker 1: to donate money at work because I get so many
Speaker 1: letters from people whose employers put inappropriate pressure on them
Speaker 1: to donate money. And to be clear, charity is great.
Speaker 1: I believe everyone should donate to charity, but that is
Speaker 1: a private individual decision, and it's not appropriate for your
Speaker 1: lawyer to pressure you to donate through them. It's one
Speaker 1: thing to make the opportunity available to people to participate
Speaker 1: in a workplace giving program. That's great, but this kind
Speaker 1: of pressure from employers is bs. First of all, not
Speaker 1: everyone wants to donate through the United Way. Some people
Speaker 1: have legitimate concerns with their operating practices, or they prefer
Speaker 1: to donate directly to the charity of their choice without
Speaker 1: sending it through United Way. Other people prefer to keep
Speaker 1: their charitable giving private, which is very much their right
Speaker 1: to do. And sometimes people have already allocated their charitable
Speaker 1: budget for the year, don't have the money for more
Speaker 1: and shouldn't be forced to defend that. And in the
Speaker 1: scholar's case, the employer is saying that donating is mandatory,
Speaker 1: which is just ridiculous. You're at work to earn money,
Speaker 1: not to have it forcibly taken back from you. That said,
Speaker 1: your employer is legally allowed to do this as long
Speaker 1: as the mandatory detection does not take your pay below
Speaker 1: minimum wage. So the question for you is what to
Speaker 1: do about it. If you do really want to push
Speaker 1: back on it, you could try saying, unfortunately, my budget
Speaker 1: doesn't allow for this, and it's really not possible for
Speaker 1: me to contribute. I'm sorry about that, but how do
Speaker 1: I correct that with payroll so that it's not being
Speaker 1: automatically deducted from my check. You might get a lot
Speaker 1: of pushback on that, in part because a lot of
Speaker 1: companies that do United Way have pressure to get on participation.
Speaker 1: If that happens, you could try to compromise. You could say,
Speaker 1: I'm really not able to afford a regular, ongoing donation,
Speaker 1: but so that I'm able to participate, I could make
Speaker 1: a small one time donation at the end of the year.
Speaker 1: And if you do that, the donation can truly be small,
Speaker 1: like five or ten dollars. That said, context matters here.
Speaker 1: If you are in a very well paying job, it's
Speaker 1: going to come across strangely if you say that you
Speaker 1: can't afford four dollars of paycheck. We can argue about
Speaker 1: whether or not it should, and certainly even people who
Speaker 1: earn a lot of money can have very high expenses
Speaker 1: and debt and so forth. But the reality is, in
Speaker 1: the world that we live in, if you are well paid,
Speaker 1: you're going to come across oddly if you tell them
Speaker 1: that you can't afford four dollars. So if that is
Speaker 1: the case, the better move for you in the long
Speaker 1: run maybe to suck it up and consider this part
Speaker 1: of the price that you pay to work there. Um,
Speaker 1: I hate giving that advice, but I think it is
Speaker 1: is very much the reality of the situation. You might
Speaker 1: look at it as a business expense, like having to
Speaker 1: buy a suit or a briefcase. It's annoying, it's wrong
Speaker 1: in principle, but it might be that it's better for
Speaker 1: your career to do it. The other thing is that
Speaker 1: at some point it might make sense to consider getting
Speaker 1: a group of co workers to all push back on
Speaker 1: this as a group. Whether or not to do that
Speaker 1: depends on what kind of standing you have in your company.
Speaker 1: If you're pretty junior or pretty new, or you just
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of political capital to spend, this
Speaker 1: might not be a battle that makes sense for you
Speaker 1: to take on. But if you are senior and you
Speaker 1: do have some capital to spend, you have the option
Speaker 1: of addressing this from a more big picturing, getting some
Speaker 1: colleagues together to all push back as a group and say, hey,
Speaker 1: we're happy to have the company organizing charitable initiatives, but
Speaker 1: we really object to making it mandatory, and we're asking
Speaker 1: you to reconsider the amount of pressure that you're putting
Speaker 1: on people to participate. But again, that depends on how
Speaker 1: much standing you have and how much capital you have
Speaker 1: to burn. It's not going to always make sense for
Speaker 1: you to be the one who's fighting that battle. And really,
Speaker 1: companies that truly want to organize something for charity should
Speaker 1: foot the bill themselves, not stick their employees with it.
Speaker 1: This is a way of seeming to do something for
Speaker 1: charity while quite literally taking the money from their employees
Speaker 1: to fund it. I know it's really common, but I
Speaker 1: am not a fan. That is our show for today.
Speaker 1: If you would like to hear your question answered on
Speaker 1: a future episode, you can record it on the show
Speaker 1: voicemail by calling eight five five or two six work
Speaker 1: That is eighty five nine six seven five, Or if
Speaker 1: you have a longer question and you want to actually
Speaker 1: come on the show and talk with me, email it
Speaker 1: to you podcast at ask a manager dot org. That's
Speaker 1: it for today and I will be back next time
Speaker 1: with more questions. M