Remember the letter-writer last month whose employee chastised her about? Here s the update. Thank you for running my letter! It was very helpful to have your advice and the insight of some of your readers. I was almost positive that wasn t the case, but just to be sure, I spoke to a few trusted colleagues up and down the chain-of-command. I just wanted to make sure you know that it’s completely fine for you or anyone to have one-on-one lunches with others, whether married or not.
I’ve found lunches with colleagues to be a great networking tool and I’d hate for you to miss out on that. ” I absolutely loved the tone of it, which was very positive. The employee said that she doesn t believe socializing with the opposite sex was a requirement of her job. My response to that was, It isn t, but neither is policing the behavior of agency personnel.
This Is Water The New Yorker
I was a little concerned that you felt the need to address something that you considered morally wrong, but had no standing to correct. I need you to make sure that you re not allowing your personal beliefs to dictate how you handle those situations in the future. If someone s behavior is directly affecting your ability to work, I m happy to discuss it with you, and if necessary, address it on your behalf. It isn t, but neither is policing the behavior of agency personnel.
A++. Classy, right on point, and if this isn t effective, I can t think what would be. How in the world did she get having lunch with members of the opposite sex as a job requirement from your original statement of it’s completely fine for you or anyone to have one-on-one lunches with others, whether married or not. ”it’s completely fine for you or anyone to have one-on-one lunches with others, whether married or not.
Missing files secret loans and whistleblowers in BDO
”? ! Yeah, if she doesn t get it, it s because she s just too caught up in must-not-fraternize to even see the forest, let alone the trees. This sounds very well handled!
I m not sure people with strict moral rules for themselves can really appreciate the nuance of your response, but I appreciate the effort! Moral rules so strict you can t even have lunch with your own husband? I mean come on Well, the coworker didn t know it was her husband, so the strict rule I was referring to was unmarried men and women can t socialize together. Well it sounds like she didn t really back down much either after OP explained it was her husband.
Even if it s fine to have lunch with your husband, people may not know so you look like a hussy so I m in the right for correcting you is how it still comes across. Which is just ridiculous. This makes me think of an Internet video I saw once of a Christian rap song. It was called The Christian Side Hug, and seemed to imply that hugging someone the normal way was inappropriate, so why not do an awkward abdominal twist to make sure your chests don t touch?
OMG. I once encountered a young woman who was so deeply entrenched int he males and females can t touch thing that she actually wound up marrying a man she did NOT like, because he ACCIDENTALLY brushed against the side of her breast, and she believed she was no longer pure, and ruined forever, and that he was the only man she ever could marry, because he was the one who took her purity. WOW. I m amazed she didn t go through life in a Hazmat suit to avoid contamination. (Also, how did the guy agree to the marriage?