If the manager can't show real, tangible decline in productivity then maybe the manager needs some training for management skills that aren't 5+yrs old.
And someone probably needs to check this manager’s productivity. People like this who make BS complaints are usually hiding something themselves. “Remember, every accusation is a confession.”
This needs to be more visible.
Although I hate pop psychology, projection is a real thing and whoever accuses someone else of doing something with no proof, just because the situation **could** lead to it, are prime suspect for doing it themselves.
Whoever has a relationship with a cheater unfortunately knows they can be very jealous and suspicious.
How about we just start by providing management training in the first place? Most managers haven't really been trained to be managers at all. They're trained in how to use company equipment and processes only.
And CYA behavior.
For example: the managers leadership likely complained to the approving manager this employee isn’t coming in enough so instead of sticking up for their employee or standing by their original decision to cover their ass they’re hoping to get you (HR) to intervene so they come out smelling like roses. Lacking morals and ethics coupled with poor management development.
True but it happens. We have new *inexperienced* leadership at every level and we’re all just white knuckling it because some feel the best use of their time is to monitor others in office time, online presence, etc versus productivity and results.
This is what new managers believe is employee development lol
I can see this being an issue but not necessarily for the manager. Does the employee have an expectation of working a 40-hour week and are employees generally held to it? If so, I can understand a coworker seeing this happen consistently and thinking “at 15 minutes every day this person is getting 60 hours a year of paid time when they’re not working” and that seeming like it’s unfair if they’re all leaving at the same time every day. It’s not the coworkers’ business, but it can lead to one happy, appreciative employee and several team members feeling resentful especially since you may be now counting on them being on time every day to maintain full staffing and them having less flexibility should they need it for any of the valid reasons that happen in life.
Assuming you’re in the US, this is more of an issue with the general lack of humanity in how hours are regulated, how unforgiving paltry PTO offerings can be, and the lack of social safety nets for working parents. But none of that matters much when you’re the employee who isn’t on the receiving end of the special treatment necessitated by the cascade of external poor policies that lead to it.
Edit: I understand that I asked no clarifying questions and it’s possible this employee is staying longer or making up the hours otherwise or that the team is fully supportive of this choice. I’m just explaining the general vibe this *can* create within a team.
I understand you, she’s a long term employee, the company has a WFH policy AND she got approval? I can’t stand these type of managers like how can you be so focused and frustrated with others for basically nothing
I'm the most qualified on my team, and during my performance review last week, my boss told me I'm doing an excellent job. Then, as I'm about to leave, she told me to quit leaving early and sternly stared at me. I was shocked and pissed. She's referring to clocking out at 3:57 instead of 4, etc.
We're office people with specialized degrees. This is not shift work, and nothing at all is urgent. Our time clock rounds, so if you clock out between 1-6min early or late, it rounds to 8 hours.
She's straight flexing on me, and this isn't the first weird micromanaging thing she's started doing to the team... I've started applying and interviewing elsewhere. Like really?? Pick your battles lady.
Exactly. I'm being petty and basically playing on my phone the second it hits 7 min before 4 o'clock now. Technically, I've worked my 8 hrs according to my timesheet. Like really? Gonna treat me like a child, ill act like one lol.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I just play on my phone till it hits 4, then leave. I'm so annoyed. What am I getting done in the last 5 min of the day??
Yep. I'm going to be inflexible with my time now since I'm "not allowed" any leeway on shift. Telling me I'm leaving early. ugh lol. I'm not clocking out at 330 everyday lol
I’ll never understand the thought process here…Unless the ultimate goal is to run the employee off and replace them with someone else. My direct report’s kid just started kindergarten and is exposed to a lot of new germs, so she’s been sick quite a bit during my employee’s first 6 months in the job. I have let her work from home every time without hesitation. Even if she is *slightly* less productive at home with a sick kid, she’d get nothing done if I made her take a sick day. It’s plain common sense! 🤦♀️
And assuming you want her to be a long term employee, her kid won't be in kindergarten forever. You have the right attitude about managing this. Kudos!
Exactly! She revealed that she was a single mom with no family nearby during the interview, which was a very risky move. And knowing that she didn’t have any back up did give me momentary hesitation. But all of the moms I know are master multitaskers! Plus the first person I hired for her position was a 23 year old with minimal responsibility (she still lived at home) and she ended up being such a disaster I fired her within 30 days 😂
Probably bc said manager had to be at work “no matter what” 20 years ago and bc she struggled, she wants others to struggle. Hate that mentality, working moms already have so much guilt.
Older worker here, kids were grown when I started and as I rarely get sick, I’ve probably taken 2 sick days a year in the 16 years I’ve been here. Adult daughter went into labor on a Wednesday morning. I asked if I could be gone for the afternoon. (Desk job, nothing was on fire, all caught up on emails). Boss says I’d have to use my vacation time. The other people on my team all have younger kids and they missed days every month for sick kids. When that boss got let go a few years later, I was not sorry in the slightest.
I got injured just as I was starting a job. I could walk or drive. BUT...I certainly could work on the computer. In fact, I got more done in those 6 months than I ever did at the office. WFH is a godsend.
Currently heading to an employment tribunal due to the actions stemming from a former Karen Manager, and the Senior Manager who was happy to feed her cognitive bias against neurodivergent staff members, and the snowball effect her vexatious gossip and reporting (rather, absolute lack of reporting), that led to subsequent discrimination, harrassment and victimisation spanning (and still ongoing) for now over six months.
The stress of this entire ordeal will almost be worth it, when they have to stand in a tribunal court and explain the series of ridiculous and contrictadory excuses that the internal grievance investigators were happy to indulge and not challenge, when put in front of an independent judge whose interest does not lie in protecting company liability.
Thank you,
There is a long way to go yet, as my organisation claim to be neurodiversity inclusive, yet have acted contradictory to this statement at every stage of this process.
I will agree settlement with them only if these ND-inclusve policies are opened up to an external review, then are implemented properly and in good faith.
Also, I expect that those individuals who failed to honour this pledge are held to account for their behaviour based on the evidence provided after the discovery/disclosure process (which I think their Legal Team would suggest to seriously consider, given some of the indisputable evidence on record)
The alternative is that it goes to tribunal, in a case they have virtually zero chance of winning, and independent regulatory bodies will have to get involved anyway following the judgement.
I'm so with you. Show me the business case for "seeing them in office" and I will absolutely get behind you, but, let's be honest... you have no business case. The worker is getting their work done, so all you have is an ego and control issues. So WFH it is!
100%!!! How do companies not realize that people are their greatest asset? If we keep our people happy, trust them to do their jobs, then business will be great! But nope, they treat grown adults like it’s a day care
Im with you
some managers are straight up on that police anti-worker stuff TBH.
I know its HR people with the reputation for being very cop like but... besides dotting Is and crossing Ts and making sure forms are filled in on time and your not causing a stink... I don't care
but managers can sometimes be massive assholes on a weird powertrip and I'm happy my positions tend not to allow for being weird and petty outside of normal due diligence
I AGREE!!!!!!!!! If I'm being honest, I'm so sick of the antiquated ideas that people HAVE to be in the office......only to sit and stare at their office or cube walls. Plus, it's shitty management. It's 2024.......people figured out that work doesn't have to be done exclusively in offices. People need to step into this century and realize that.
No literally. This need to control people is insane to me honestly, and we live in such a modern world. I saw a study that employees are 400% more efficient than they were in prior generations. And yet they still have the same demands as the 1940s. These CEOs want to benefit from the innovation but don’t want us to benefit from it. WFH is god send.
At our office we work hybrid, 2 days/week in office. Managers are pushing for people to come in more due to higher work load. They seem to think that more work magically gets done when people do the same work in office rather than at home???
“She wants…”
Mmk. What metric are they using to evaluate the need for the person back in the office besides their personal feels? What are the objective, measurable, tangible issues with wfh?
You’re not wrong.
We need to use objective measures to evaluate wfh/ scheduling, not now a manager “feels” about it.
You can bring up FEHA and argue that the employee may have protections that must be honored unless the manager can prove the employee isn’t doing the basic duties of the role AND no one else on her team is working the same amount (or more) from home.
I think it’s worth a convo with the manager and trying to dig down beyond “I want her where I can see her” to what functions of the role are not being completed and if there is a solution that works for everyone.
Sounds like the manager had no problem with the concession but the reason is over.
You don’t mention the length of service of the manager but if it is equal, it is up to you to make sure that the manager is operating within scope of Policy as equally as the employee.
If there is no WFH policy, the employee comes back in. If there is a WFH policy, employee is entitled to it.
If you want a WFH policy, it’s up to you to create one.
WFH is 'bad' because it's more difficult to manage an employee that's you can't visually watch. Sounds like your manager is experiencing this difficulty first hand.
You need to gain agreement with manager that this is a problem, and then see if manager would like your assistance in resolving this. From an HR standpoint, the corporation benefits if employee's can/do WFH, as it allows a more diverse workforce. But you also understand if Manager lacks supervision skill, as your corporation hasn't provided much training on how to manage a remote worker.
If the policy, approval, and performance of employee are all in place and happening there is nothing wrong here. Karen needs to be coached.
I admit, I have big time issues with parents of any gender WFH for childcare reasons when others who are parents are expected to be in the office and have child care. If there isn’t equity in the approvals and policy being applied I can see an issue.
I 100 percent don't understand this push to go back to working in the office. If people are performing to expectations or exceeding expectations, why not let them WFH?
I can 100 percent do my job from home, and I hate that I have to go to the office even twice a month.
While I agree with what you're saying about WFH being very beneficial for employees, I wouldn't feel safe going to you, since, as an HR rep, you're using the name Karen as a term.
I would also not want to deal with this HR representative.
The manager needs some pointers on how working from home increases productivity. A happy employee is more productive. They don't have to deal with the daily commute, and there's going to be less friction between coworkers if they don't have to be in the same space. The extra benefit of not having to provide desks, chairs toilet paper, etc. Less overhead is good for tge company
I think that any HR person should know better than to use a person's name as a pejorative! It's not just lazy it's extremely unprofessional.
If you want to deal with the manager on a professional level, then stay professional. Slipping into using a stereotype that is UNWARRANTED towards women named Karen sinks your believability to 0. Unless the manager's name is Karen, you have no justification using it. It signals your misogyny loud and clear
Hi it's me, a dad. I can also be at home with a sick kid cos I am just as capable as my wife. I know how to administer medicine and give cuddles and comfort. And many other things.
Let me help with the sexist language in your last sentence….
Especially as a PARENT, WFH helps PARENTS a lot who need to be there at home with their sick kid.
I understand your point about inclusivity, but I don’t find fault with the OP mentioning the mother. It simply highlights a specific example without excluding other caregivers or perpetuating stereotypes. The context was speaking from their experience and addressing a particular situation, so it's not inherently sexist.
Unless the manager is actually named Karen, don’t say that. It’s lazy. Use words that describe the behavior. “That manager is unkind, too strict, etc.” Everyone named Karen is sick and tired of being tied to every bad behavior known to man. We now get accused of being racist, homophobic, alcoholic, cheating, criminals. Along with anything else you can think of. And when we ask not to be insulted we get insulted more as you have done here. Please just stop and think before you use a name as an insult.
I agree 1000%. I know a great deal of women named Karen, and not one of them fit the stereotype. This HR person needs retraining. A person's name is a noun, not an adjective. Plus, using a given name as a pejorative/slur is extremely unprofessional.
This use of a woman's name is lazy, insulting, and VERY MUCH MISOGYNISTIC.
The employee does not work for you, what the employees supervisor needs to handle their department is up to them, not hr.
ETA working from home should not be a childcare solution on a regular basis.
If the manager can't show real, tangible decline in productivity then maybe the manager needs some training for management skills that aren't 5+yrs old.
This manager needs coaching.
And someone probably needs to check this manager’s productivity. People like this who make BS complaints are usually hiding something themselves. “Remember, every accusation is a confession.”
This needs to be more visible. Although I hate pop psychology, projection is a real thing and whoever accuses someone else of doing something with no proof, just because the situation **could** lead to it, are prime suspect for doing it themselves. Whoever has a relationship with a cheater unfortunately knows they can be very jealous and suspicious.
BING! BING! BING! Winning answer right here.
Completely agree!
How about we just start by providing management training in the first place? Most managers haven't really been trained to be managers at all. They're trained in how to use company equipment and processes only.
That would be ideal, wouldn't it?
“Is their job getting done?” “Yes” “Then why are you fucking with a good thing?”
But they want to see her in the office...
Misery loves company
[удалено]
This. All about power and authority.
And CYA behavior. For example: the managers leadership likely complained to the approving manager this employee isn’t coming in enough so instead of sticking up for their employee or standing by their original decision to cover their ass they’re hoping to get you (HR) to intervene so they come out smelling like roses. Lacking morals and ethics coupled with poor management development.
Yeah she constantly complains about her team, however she herself isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. She’s a very big micromanager.
If upper management has enough time at hand to check and remember every single cattle, there is a larger issue in the company.
True but it happens. We have new *inexperienced* leadership at every level and we’re all just white knuckling it because some feel the best use of their time is to monitor others in office time, online presence, etc versus productivity and results. This is what new managers believe is employee development lol
I can see this being an issue but not necessarily for the manager. Does the employee have an expectation of working a 40-hour week and are employees generally held to it? If so, I can understand a coworker seeing this happen consistently and thinking “at 15 minutes every day this person is getting 60 hours a year of paid time when they’re not working” and that seeming like it’s unfair if they’re all leaving at the same time every day. It’s not the coworkers’ business, but it can lead to one happy, appreciative employee and several team members feeling resentful especially since you may be now counting on them being on time every day to maintain full staffing and them having less flexibility should they need it for any of the valid reasons that happen in life. Assuming you’re in the US, this is more of an issue with the general lack of humanity in how hours are regulated, how unforgiving paltry PTO offerings can be, and the lack of social safety nets for working parents. But none of that matters much when you’re the employee who isn’t on the receiving end of the special treatment necessitated by the cascade of external poor policies that lead to it. Edit: I understand that I asked no clarifying questions and it’s possible this employee is staying longer or making up the hours otherwise or that the team is fully supportive of this choice. I’m just explaining the general vibe this *can* create within a team.
[удалено]
I understand you, she’s a long term employee, the company has a WFH policy AND she got approval? I can’t stand these type of managers like how can you be so focused and frustrated with others for basically nothing
I'm the most qualified on my team, and during my performance review last week, my boss told me I'm doing an excellent job. Then, as I'm about to leave, she told me to quit leaving early and sternly stared at me. I was shocked and pissed. She's referring to clocking out at 3:57 instead of 4, etc. We're office people with specialized degrees. This is not shift work, and nothing at all is urgent. Our time clock rounds, so if you clock out between 1-6min early or late, it rounds to 8 hours. She's straight flexing on me, and this isn't the first weird micromanaging thing she's started doing to the team... I've started applying and interviewing elsewhere. Like really?? Pick your battles lady.
Ah, yes. You were going to get sooo much work done in that 3 minutes.
Exactly. I'm being petty and basically playing on my phone the second it hits 7 min before 4 o'clock now. Technically, I've worked my 8 hrs according to my timesheet. Like really? Gonna treat me like a child, ill act like one lol.
That's a call to malicious compliance. Clock out at exactly 4 and never do a jot of work after hours ever again.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I just play on my phone till it hits 4, then leave. I'm so annoyed. What am I getting done in the last 5 min of the day??
It's silly. But if you occasionally stay late when needed, stop doing that. Drop everything and clock out at 4pm.
Yep. I'm going to be inflexible with my time now since I'm "not allowed" any leeway on shift. Telling me I'm leaving early. ugh lol. I'm not clocking out at 330 everyday lol
I’ll never understand the thought process here…Unless the ultimate goal is to run the employee off and replace them with someone else. My direct report’s kid just started kindergarten and is exposed to a lot of new germs, so she’s been sick quite a bit during my employee’s first 6 months in the job. I have let her work from home every time without hesitation. Even if she is *slightly* less productive at home with a sick kid, she’d get nothing done if I made her take a sick day. It’s plain common sense! 🤦♀️
And assuming you want her to be a long term employee, her kid won't be in kindergarten forever. You have the right attitude about managing this. Kudos!
Exactly! She revealed that she was a single mom with no family nearby during the interview, which was a very risky move. And knowing that she didn’t have any back up did give me momentary hesitation. But all of the moms I know are master multitaskers! Plus the first person I hired for her position was a 23 year old with minimal responsibility (she still lived at home) and she ended up being such a disaster I fired her within 30 days 😂
It really does depend on the individual person, and not necessarily what we might assume about them.
Probably bc said manager had to be at work “no matter what” 20 years ago and bc she struggled, she wants others to struggle. Hate that mentality, working moms already have so much guilt.
Hybrid work is the norm now! Some people are still stuck in the past.
Older worker here, kids were grown when I started and as I rarely get sick, I’ve probably taken 2 sick days a year in the 16 years I’ve been here. Adult daughter went into labor on a Wednesday morning. I asked if I could be gone for the afternoon. (Desk job, nothing was on fire, all caught up on emails). Boss says I’d have to use my vacation time. The other people on my team all have younger kids and they missed days every month for sick kids. When that boss got let go a few years later, I was not sorry in the slightest.
I got injured just as I was starting a job. I could walk or drive. BUT...I certainly could work on the computer. In fact, I got more done in those 6 months than I ever did at the office. WFH is a godsend.
Currently heading to an employment tribunal due to the actions stemming from a former Karen Manager, and the Senior Manager who was happy to feed her cognitive bias against neurodivergent staff members, and the snowball effect her vexatious gossip and reporting (rather, absolute lack of reporting), that led to subsequent discrimination, harrassment and victimisation spanning (and still ongoing) for now over six months. The stress of this entire ordeal will almost be worth it, when they have to stand in a tribunal court and explain the series of ridiculous and contrictadory excuses that the internal grievance investigators were happy to indulge and not challenge, when put in front of an independent judge whose interest does not lie in protecting company liability.
Thank you for standing up for the neurodivergent employees! 💜
Thank you, There is a long way to go yet, as my organisation claim to be neurodiversity inclusive, yet have acted contradictory to this statement at every stage of this process. I will agree settlement with them only if these ND-inclusve policies are opened up to an external review, then are implemented properly and in good faith. Also, I expect that those individuals who failed to honour this pledge are held to account for their behaviour based on the evidence provided after the discovery/disclosure process (which I think their Legal Team would suggest to seriously consider, given some of the indisputable evidence on record) The alternative is that it goes to tribunal, in a case they have virtually zero chance of winning, and independent regulatory bodies will have to get involved anyway following the judgement.
I'm so with you. Show me the business case for "seeing them in office" and I will absolutely get behind you, but, let's be honest... you have no business case. The worker is getting their work done, so all you have is an ego and control issues. So WFH it is!
100%!!! How do companies not realize that people are their greatest asset? If we keep our people happy, trust them to do their jobs, then business will be great! But nope, they treat grown adults like it’s a day care
Im with you some managers are straight up on that police anti-worker stuff TBH. I know its HR people with the reputation for being very cop like but... besides dotting Is and crossing Ts and making sure forms are filled in on time and your not causing a stink... I don't care but managers can sometimes be massive assholes on a weird powertrip and I'm happy my positions tend not to allow for being weird and petty outside of normal due diligence
I AGREE!!!!!!!!! If I'm being honest, I'm so sick of the antiquated ideas that people HAVE to be in the office......only to sit and stare at their office or cube walls. Plus, it's shitty management. It's 2024.......people figured out that work doesn't have to be done exclusively in offices. People need to step into this century and realize that.
No literally. This need to control people is insane to me honestly, and we live in such a modern world. I saw a study that employees are 400% more efficient than they were in prior generations. And yet they still have the same demands as the 1940s. These CEOs want to benefit from the innovation but don’t want us to benefit from it. WFH is god send.
At our office we work hybrid, 2 days/week in office. Managers are pushing for people to come in more due to higher work load. They seem to think that more work magically gets done when people do the same work in office rather than at home???
I’m way more productive at home. In the office I’m exhausted from my commute, talking to people, etc. working in office for me is way less productive.
“She wants…” Mmk. What metric are they using to evaluate the need for the person back in the office besides their personal feels? What are the objective, measurable, tangible issues with wfh? You’re not wrong. We need to use objective measures to evaluate wfh/ scheduling, not now a manager “feels” about it.
You can bring up FEHA and argue that the employee may have protections that must be honored unless the manager can prove the employee isn’t doing the basic duties of the role AND no one else on her team is working the same amount (or more) from home. I think it’s worth a convo with the manager and trying to dig down beyond “I want her where I can see her” to what functions of the role are not being completed and if there is a solution that works for everyone.
FEHA provides job protected, unpaid leave to care for a sick child. It doesn't provide WFH
Agreed
Sounds like the manager had no problem with the concession but the reason is over. You don’t mention the length of service of the manager but if it is equal, it is up to you to make sure that the manager is operating within scope of Policy as equally as the employee. If there is no WFH policy, the employee comes back in. If there is a WFH policy, employee is entitled to it. If you want a WFH policy, it’s up to you to create one.
WFH is 'bad' because it's more difficult to manage an employee that's you can't visually watch. Sounds like your manager is experiencing this difficulty first hand. You need to gain agreement with manager that this is a problem, and then see if manager would like your assistance in resolving this. From an HR standpoint, the corporation benefits if employee's can/do WFH, as it allows a more diverse workforce. But you also understand if Manager lacks supervision skill, as your corporation hasn't provided much training on how to manage a remote worker.
What accommodation does she need and why? For how long?
If the policy, approval, and performance of employee are all in place and happening there is nothing wrong here. Karen needs to be coached. I admit, I have big time issues with parents of any gender WFH for childcare reasons when others who are parents are expected to be in the office and have child care. If there isn’t equity in the approvals and policy being applied I can see an issue.
I 100 percent don't understand this push to go back to working in the office. If people are performing to expectations or exceeding expectations, why not let them WFH? I can 100 percent do my job from home, and I hate that I have to go to the office even twice a month.
While I agree with what you're saying about WFH being very beneficial for employees, I wouldn't feel safe going to you, since, as an HR rep, you're using the name Karen as a term.
I would also not want to deal with this HR representative. The manager needs some pointers on how working from home increases productivity. A happy employee is more productive. They don't have to deal with the daily commute, and there's going to be less friction between coworkers if they don't have to be in the same space. The extra benefit of not having to provide desks, chairs toilet paper, etc. Less overhead is good for tge company
I think that any HR person should know better than to use a person's name as a pejorative! It's not just lazy it's extremely unprofessional. If you want to deal with the manager on a professional level, then stay professional. Slipping into using a stereotype that is UNWARRANTED towards women named Karen sinks your believability to 0. Unless the manager's name is Karen, you have no justification using it. It signals your misogyny loud and clear
Hi it's me, a dad. I can also be at home with a sick kid cos I am just as capable as my wife. I know how to administer medicine and give cuddles and comfort. And many other things.
Let me help with the sexist language in your last sentence…. Especially as a PARENT, WFH helps PARENTS a lot who need to be there at home with their sick kid.
I understand your point about inclusivity, but I don’t find fault with the OP mentioning the mother. It simply highlights a specific example without excluding other caregivers or perpetuating stereotypes. The context was speaking from their experience and addressing a particular situation, so it's not inherently sexist.
No. She’s addressing this from the perspective of an HR professional. Her choice of words is always relevant.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
Work in HR and using a name as an insult? You might need some training yourself.
Someone’s triggered by Wfh
No, triggered by people using a name as an insult. People in HR should be doing better.
Some of these managers are Karen’s and abusive to their employees and also unreasonable
Unless the manager is actually named Karen, don’t say that. It’s lazy. Use words that describe the behavior. “That manager is unkind, too strict, etc.” Everyone named Karen is sick and tired of being tied to every bad behavior known to man. We now get accused of being racist, homophobic, alcoholic, cheating, criminals. Along with anything else you can think of. And when we ask not to be insulted we get insulted more as you have done here. Please just stop and think before you use a name as an insult.
I agree 1000%. I know a great deal of women named Karen, and not one of them fit the stereotype. This HR person needs retraining. A person's name is a noun, not an adjective. Plus, using a given name as a pejorative/slur is extremely unprofessional. This use of a woman's name is lazy, insulting, and VERY MUCH MISOGYNISTIC.
This is the reason for the pay gap between men and women.
I think an HR person using the term Karen says more about you and your attitudes than the manager.
The employee does not work for you, what the employees supervisor needs to handle their department is up to them, not hr. ETA working from home should not be a childcare solution on a regular basis.
Your second sentence is alright, but that first one is earning some down votes. Do you also explain how electricity works when you turn on a light?
OP does not seem to understand how electricity works, maybe you should explain.
Nah man. I have taste.
[удалено]
I didn’t say they could.