Pet Peeves: Aka Things That Make You Go "Gah!"

[Sun-Bun]

On 8/10/2018 at 12:51 PM, riley702 said:

 

I don't think it sounds like she wants to go, but she's being wishy-washy.

 

Indeed—-or rather, she’s totally OBOing you, as in “other better offer.” Whenever I get a ‘maybe’ answer from someone for an invite, I assume that’s the case: I've been placed into Plan B or C territory.

I understand that we’re all busy and Facebook invites make it rather easy to commit to noncommiting via the “Maybe” option, but if I’m hosting a party/event, I at least need to know how to plan and about how many guests to expect for food/booze. Although the flakes who claim they can come and either don’t show up or cancel at the last minute bother me more than the “maybe” folks. 

Since we live in a world full of “maybe” folks these days, I no longer plan vacays or buy tickets to shows/events for people who can’t fully commit from the get-go. Unless you’re an on-call sort of worker or have babysitting issues with your kids, you should be able to agree to attend most any event if given ample notice.

And as for being punctual to social gatherings, I’ve always used the ‘15 minutes rule’ that college professors went by at my university((if the professor doesn’t show up within 15 minutes of a class’s start, you’re free to go!)). Therefore it’s always good to add an “ish” for that timeframe: party starts around 7ish. Usually within 15 minutes of starting is the most courteous timeframe in my head for a guest’s arrival.

Mind you, I don’t understand the folks who find it perfectly acceptable to come to a smaller social gathering an hour or more after it starts, especially without even texting/calling the host with an explanation/apology. I had a dinner party a few years ago, and one couple rolled in over an HOUR late!! Meanwhile, the rest of us had been waiting hungrily for these jerks to finally shuffle in so we could start dinner already(we were supposed to start eating at 7:15 and it was 8:30 by the time we got seated to eat; nibbles at cocktail hour aren’t supposed to last that long)—-we never invited that couple back here after that.

Ditto the couple who showed up to a work cocktail party I hosted who were over two hours late; instead of apologizing or explaining, the gal simply laughed and told me I needed to understand that she was on “black people time.” It took me everything not to counter that it was more like “rudeassed trash time.”

[ratgirlagogo]

1 hour ago, AgentRXS said:

10 hours ago, bilgistic said:

Because I reported the power outage, I had a text from Duke Power last night with the outage update. "Caused by trees." That makes me laugh. The trees are conspiring against us.

I like to think it's the trees exacting revenge for their fallen brethren that are getting mowed down daily due to overdevelopment.

Paging  Audrey Junior!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Shop_of_Horrors

[backformore]

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 10:54 AM, starri said:

Oh, look, the Pumpkin Spice Latte is coming earlier than ever this year.  Which means other companies will have to follow suit by having their pumpkin spice crap out sooner as well.  I'm hoping someone can top the pumpkin spice gouda cheese I found at the grocery store last year.  Or the pumpkin spice cough drops that CVS has.

It was cute when it was limited to coffee and beer.  Now the world has just gone mad.

yep -_ get irritated when people are SO EXCITED that the pumpkin spice latte is BACK!  Like they've been craving it all year.  You know, you can buy pumpkin spice mix at the grocery store, and put it in your coffee (or oatmeal, yogurt, ice cream, whatever)  and have it all year long if it's so important to you.   It bugs me when people call it "pumpkin flavor"  because it's not.  It doesn't taste like pumpkin - it tastes like all the spices (ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg)  that you ADD to pumpkin to make it taste good.  

But, personally, Starbucks has a chestnut praline flavor and a smoked butterscotch flavor that I prefer a thousand times over PSL.   I'm not a regular Starbucks customer, I normally go once a month or so.   Lately it's been weekly, but that's because my office is across the street from a Starbucks. 

[DeLurker]

Smoked butterscotch sounds pretty tasty - I'll have to give that a go!

[backformore]

New pet peeve.

My grocery store, Albertsons/Jewel has started something which just might push me to go elsewhere.  When stores have some item "2 for $5", normally you can buy ONE and pay $2.50.  NOT any more. So now all our favorite items, you have to buy in multiples of 2, 3,4, even 5, to get the sale price.  Sorry, my husband and I can't drink 3 large bottles of orange juice before the expiration date.  And we don't want 3 cases of sparkling water in the pantry , etc.  And it's not just a few items, everything that's on sale, practically, has a sale price that only applies when you buy multiples.

[PRgal]

2 minutes ago, backformore said:

New pet peeve.

My grocery store, Albertsons/Jewel has started something which just might push me to go elsewhere.  When stores have some item "2 for $5", normally you can buy ONE and pay $2.50.  NOT any more. So now all our favorite items, you have to buy in multiples of 2, 3,4, even 5, to get the sale price.  Sorry, my husband and I can't drink 3 large bottles of orange juice before the expiration date.  And we don't want 3 cases of sparkling water in the pantry , etc.  And it's not just a few items, everything that's on sale, practically, has a sale price that only applies when you buy multiples.

Ask if someone else you know wants anything and then have them pay the difference?  Speaking of groceries, my closest large supermarket is Whole Foods.  This particular location is ALWAYS out of stock of SOMETHING.  One of my go-to chicken broths was missing from shelves for two months.  It wasn't that the product was discontinued, but it was never ordered.  Jeez, if we're going to pay an arm and a leg for stuff, please keep things on shelves.  I've complained and complained.  This has been a problem since it was acquired by Amazon.  And it's THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION ONLY. 

[JTMacc99]

14 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

wow, she drinks whiskey and burps and likes football so she must be a better person--or, excuse me, better girlfriend material

I dated one of these girls sans the burping. She had excellent manners. 

The sports fan part was fun, and it certainly served as an easy way for her to start hitting on me. She just struck up conversations about the latest Yankees addition, or hating the Cowboys. 

In the end, it didn't matter. And by the way, life lesson for anyone dating: If a person during your first date puts some of her cards on the table for the purposes of warning you that she's carrying a lot of baggage, HEED THAT WARNING. I'm just saying... You don't have to, but you probably should.

[Quof]

When someone shows you who they truly are, believe them the first time.

[theredhead77]

2 hours ago, backformore said:

New pet peeve.

My grocery store, Albertsons/Jewel has started something which just might push me to go elsewhere.  When stores have some item "2 for $5", normally you can buy ONE and pay $2.50.  NOT any more. So now all our favorite items, you have to buy in multiples of 2, 3,4, even 5, to get the sale price.  Sorry, my husband and I can't drink 3 large bottles of orange juice before the expiration date.  And we don't want 3 cases of sparkling water in the pantry , etc.  And it's not just a few items, everything that's on sale, practically, has a sale price that only applies when you buy multiples.

I always thought with 2/$5 sales one item is supposed to be $2.50 but BOGO doesn't have to offer one for half price based upon local consumer laws. I notice more and more stores are moving away from the 2/$5 to the 3/$10 or buy x and save $x model.

I haven't shopped at Albertsons in nearly 20 years. I prefer Ralph's / Kroger and Sprouts. I used to shop at Publix but their shenninigans in Florida  really put me off.

[JTMacc99]

49 minutes ago, Quof said:

When someone shows you who they truly are, believe them the first time.

Absolutely. But it's a lot harder when they don't show you, and instead you see behavior and actions that are perfectly acceptable if not attractive. If that person does you the favor of telling you that the following things happened in his or her life and he or she is working through the damage that has done, it's up to you to figure out what kind of behaviors are lurking behind what you've seen so far. 

It was a fair warning. I chose not to accept it. It's certainly a behavior that I'm recognizing more in myself, annoys me that I do it, and am actively working on not doing. 

38 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

When stores have some item "2 for $5", normally you can buy ONE and pay $2.50.  NOT any more. So now all our favorite items, you have to buy in multiples of 2, 3,4, even 5, to get the sale price.

My ShopRite makes is pretty clear when 2 for $5.00 is a Must Buy 2 and when it's just $2.50 each. 

I find that when it's the Keebler cookies, 2 for $5.00 is no minimum, but when it's $1.99 each, it comes with Must Buy 4.

I'm not really sure why the sales work both ways.  Maybe it's something from the manufacturer trying to get people to try more of their varieties?

[backformore]

3 hours ago, PRgal said:

Ask if someone else you know wants anything and then have them pay the difference?  

Who had time for that? We spend one hour doing grocery shopping for the week. I'm not going to buy the extra stuff and try to sell it 

1 hour ago, theredhead77 said:

I always thought with 2/$5 sales one item is supposed to be $2.50 but BOGO doesn't have to offer one for half price based upon local consumer laws. I notice more and more stores are moving away from the 2/$5 to the 3/$10 or buy x and save $x model.

 

That's what I thought. But suddenly, the last month or so, it's changed.  The tag on the shelf says 3 for$10, or $3.89 each.

[Zola]

On the subject of supermarkets: it really does my head in when a store decides to have a massive overhaul of their aisles, so that after getting used to where your usual stuff is, they decide to move all the dairy stuff to an aisles at the other end of the store; while bringing forward bakery stuff to where the dairy was; and moving a whole load of other things in-between. So you end up spending almost twice as long trying to scope out your regular stuff.

I guess I understand why they move things around: if you're a store regular you will know exactly where your stuff is while avoiding the stuff you never knew existed. But its just the manner in which they do it! Rather than just moving a few things over a period of time, it's all or nothing and they move the whole shebang and you're totally lost!

[Brookside]

2 hours ago, theredhead77 said:

I always thought with 2/$5 sales one item is supposed to be $2.50 but BOGO doesn't have to offer one for half price based upon local consumer laws.

Who's BOGO?

[PRgal]

2 minutes ago, Brookside said:

Who's BOGO?

Buy one, get one.

[Zola]

5 minutes ago, Brookside said:

Who's BOGO?

I know what BOGOF (buy one get one free) means, not sure what BOGO is though. Hmm

[2727]

I started using Walmart's grocery pickup service and my food expenditures have decreased by about $100/month, mainly by no longer stocking up on BOGO sales. I used to do a BOGO run every week, leaving my pantry and garage freezer overstuffed. It's how sales and coupons work, duh -- buy things you don't need in order to "save"!

5 minutes ago, Zola said:

On the subject of supermarkets: it really does my head in when a store decides to have a massive overhaul of their aisles ...

That gets me all turned around and feeling a little queasy. For the past few years I've been printing my grocery list using the Publix app because it has aisle numbers and I can start on one side and march through without backtracking. (Pickup is still lots better, though!)

[Wiendish Fitch]

19 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

Or some weird idea that girls who are "one of the guys" are somehow more desirable than "girly girls." It's a trope I've seen in TV shows and movies too (and heard in Taylor Swift songs, haha!)--like, wow, she drinks whiskey and burps and likes football so she must be a better person--or, excuse me, better girlfriend material--than a chick who doesn't do those those things. My sister likes to say that she's "like a guy" because she curses and jokes about sex or whatever. But no, she's like a girl who does those particular things like many other girls who also do those things. No one is all one or all the other, man!

 

I think that's why the "Cool Girl" rant from Gone Girl made such an impact. 

I hate sports, fart jokes, dumb comedies, and hard liquor. I love ballet, the colors pink and purple, knitting and embroidery*, and looking nice. I refuse to apologize or feel ashamed, and you know why? Because it takes all kinds, dammit. 

In any event, Mr. Fitch sure has no complaints! ;)

P.S.,

I hope no one interprets this as a proclamation of my superiority; not only am I not superior to anyone, but we're all complex creatures, and should try to respect each others' individuality. 

*P.P.S.

Hey, writers of YA fantasy? For the love of God, will you please stop with the whole "spunky, rebellious princess who hates needlework" trope??! It's old and wheezy as hell, it's a lame cliche at this point, and enjoying needlework doesn't make anyone any less of a feminist. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Wiendish Fitch

[Brookside]

14 minutes ago, Zola said:

I know what BOGOF (buy one get one free) means, not sure what BOGO is though. Hmm

Naturally we both know what BOGOFF means, it's a big part of our cultural linguistic heritage.   ;-)

[peacheslatour]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

Buy one, get one.

It used to mean that, now it means Buy One, Get One Half Off.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 8/12/2018 at 8:19 PM, AgentRXS said:

ETA: A peeve related to that is when people say I need to dress up/change my look etc in order to find a date. Why? I mean, yeah,if I'm going out for the night or something sure. But I'm not going to change my everyday look just to get a man because invariably I will revert back to my own style anyway.  I'd rather someone meet me and like me for me.

Heh--I've taken it further, and I look no different when I wake up in the morning than any other time of the day.  I don't see why men should be the only ones who can do that.

 

22 hours ago, 2727 said:

I started using Walmart's grocery pickup service and my food expenditures have decreased by about $100/month, mainly by no longer stocking up on BOGO sales. I used to do a BOGO run every week, leaving my pantry and garage freezer overstuffed. It's how sales and coupons work, duh -- buy things you don't need in order to "save"!

Were you throwing away the extra stuff, or eventually using it?  If you eventually use it, then you're just shifting when you paid for it, and it should catch up to you when you run out of inventory.

At some Walmart stores, people spend the night in the parking lot in their RVs.  Other people call them cheap for doing it, saying they should pay for a campground site.  They'll invariably respond that it actually cost them more to stay for free at the Walmart because of how much they spent in the store.  What they neglect to mention is that they still have the stuff they bought at Wamart, so it's not like the campground fee, where it's been completely consumed when they leave the next day.  So, no, your night at Walmart didn't cost you more than if you'd stayed in a campground.

[BookWoman56]

On 8/11/2018 at 5:55 AM, Zola said:

An ongoing peeve is folks who constantly interrupt me in mid-conversation!

I could be talking about anything, but one good example was last night when I was trying to explain why Microsoft Windows 10 is an extremely intrusive operating system. But I could barely get to the end of sentence when a colleague chipped in with a "..... I had that problem with Facebook. Have used it for years, and they're always updating their privacy statements. And you know, I had a similar experience with My Space. I don't know if you've heard of My Space, but it was around in the early 00s before Facebook blew it out of the water. But anyway, I used to use My Space, but I wasn't able to do much with the security settings because I was always getting trolls on my page. I hate trolls. They crop up everywhere. They do my head in. Something should be done. Let me tell you something......................"

And she waffled on for another 5 minutes taking the original topic of conversation from my Windows 10, to her <ultimately> having her dog micro chipped!

I really can't understand why people can't STFU when someone is talking! Perhaps its an attention span thing, but it really does my head in, and sometimes feel tempted to slap my interlocutor around the head when they constantly butt in and derail my topic of conversation.

My pet peeve is the corollary of yours: people who do not understand the concept of a dialogue, as in, having a dialogue or conversation does not mean you are free to run your mouth nonstop without seeing if anyone else can/needs to contribute to the discussion. I have a couple of colleagues who complain at times that others interrupt them. I try not to do that myself,  but am increasingly feeling the need to point out to them that they are getting interruptions because they never STFU and let other people make comments at what would be appropriate stopping points. As an example, colleague A will go over 10 different items all in the same discussion, without pausing to ask if people have questions or comments, and does this with barely an occasional split-second pause for breath. So at the end of this speech, then others are forced to say, "Okay, on item #2, that's not workable because of reasons A, B, and C, so therefore we need to adjust item #5, 7, and 8, and change the order in which the other items take place." So the group in the discussion has just wasted 10 minutes or so because colleague A doesn't do the polite and efficient thing of asking for comments as the conversation is going along. I'm not saying people need to stop every other word to see if there's any comments from others, but FFS, don't launch into a 15-minute monologue on something where input is needed, and disallow any input until the end. While my example is from a business setting, it also applies to personal conversations as well. Otherwise, you can get 15 minutes of Friend A bitching and moaning about a minor item such as store not having Brand DEF coffee, and when Friend A finally shuts up and allows someone else to speak, Friend B then quietly says, "Oh, earlier today I lost my job, found my spouse cheating on me, and got informed I have a terminal disease, but what's that compared to the horrors of the store not having my favorite brand of coffee?" 

[auntlada]

4 hours ago, BookWoman56 said:

My pet peeve is the corollary of yours: people who do not understand the concept of a dialogue, as in, having a dialogue or conversation does not mean you are free to run your mouth nonstop without seeing if anyone else can/needs to contribute to the discussion. I have a couple of colleagues who complain at times that others interrupt them. I try not to do that myself,  but am increasingly feeling the need to point out to them that they are getting interruptions because they never STFU and let other people make comments at what would be appropriate stopping points. As an example, colleague A will go over 10 different items all in the same discussion, without pausing to ask if people have questions or comments, and does this with barely an occasional split-second pause for breath. So at the end of this speech, then others are forced to say, "Okay, on item #2, that's not workable because of reasons A, B, and C, so therefore we need to adjust item #5, 7, and 8, and change the order in which the other items take place." So the group in the discussion has just wasted 10 minutes or so because colleague A doesn't do the polite and efficient thing of asking for comments as the conversation is going along. I'm not saying people need to stop every other word to see if there's any comments from others, but FFS, don't launch into a 15-minute monologue on something where input is needed, and disallow any input until the end. While my example is from a business setting, it also applies to personal conversations as well. Otherwise, you can get 15 minutes of Friend A bitching and moaning about a minor item such as store not having Brand DEF coffee, and when Friend A finally shuts up and allows someone else to speak, Friend B then quietly says, "Oh, earlier today I lost my job, found my spouse cheating on me, and got informed I have a terminal disease, but what's that compared to the horrors of the store not having my favorite brand of coffee?" 

And that's why in my father's family, you learn to interrupt if someone pauses even the slightest amount for breath, which then also leads to learning not to pause for breath so no one will interrupt you. You also learn not to make eye contact because if you make eye contact, people think you are listening to them.

[ratgirlagogo]

5 hours ago, auntlada said:

And that's why in my father's family, you learn to interrupt if someone pauses even the slightest amount for breath, which then also leads to learning not to pause for breath so no one will interrupt you. You also learn not to make eye contact because if you make eye contact, people think you are listening to them.

Families of two different people I dated were like this.   Yikes!   Explained a lot to me about the communication problems we were having. :(

[potatoradio]

On 8/13/2018 at 12:47 AM, backformore said:

But, personally, Starbucks has a chestnut praline flavor and a smoked butterscotch flavor that I prefer a thousand times over PSL.

Oh. *blink* *blink* I've never had a kind thing to say about the six-month assault of pumpkin spice, but if it means I discover drool-worthy possibilities like these ^^^^?? I'm in -I mean, I'm off the Starbucks. This drip brew woman has been missing OUT....

[backformore]

20 hours ago, BookWoman56 said:

My pet peeve is the corollary of yours: people who do not understand the concept of a dialogue, as in, having a dialogue or conversation does not mean you are free to run your mouth nonstop without seeing if anyone else can/needs to contribute to the discussion. I have a couple of colleagues who complain at times that others interrupt them. I try not to do that myself,  but am increasingly feeling the need to point out to them that they are getting interruptions because they never STFU and let other people make comments at what would be appropriate stopping points. As an example, colleague A will go over 10 different items all in the same discussion, without pausing to ask if people have questions or comments, and does this with barely an occasional split-second pause for breath. 

This cracked me up, reminded me of a previous job where I taught junior high kids with Asperger's how to have conversations. They would practice the rule of "make two statements, then ask a question."  

[Stenbeck]

I'm peeved at some "friends" with whom I've recently worked with on joint projects. 

We agree to split the earnings 50/50, even though I end up doing 80% of the work because they're too busy tied up with their kids, family life, etc. Fine. I understand and don't really have an issue with this.

YET

When payment comes through I'm expected to relinquish part of MY SHARE since "you don't have kids and don't really need the money as much".

ARE --- YOU--- FUCKING--- KIDDING---- ME?!  

[peacheslatour]

13 minutes ago, Stenbeck said:

I'm peeved at some "friends" with whom I've recently worked with on joint projects. 

We agree to split the earnings 50/50, even though I end up doing 80% of the work because they're too busy tied up with their kids, family life, etc. Fine. I understand and don't really have an issue with this.

YET

When payment comes through I'm expected to relinquish part of MY SHARE since "you don't have kids and don't really need the money as much".

ARE --- YOU--- FUCKING--- KIDDING---- ME?!  

That is utter, unmitigated bullshit. Get a lawyer.

[BookWoman56]

1 hour ago, Stenbeck said:

I'm peeved at some "friends" with whom I've recently worked with on joint projects. 

We agree to split the earnings 50/50, even though I end up doing 80% of the work because they're too busy tied up with their kids, family life, etc. Fine. I understand and don't really have an issue with this.

YET

When payment comes through I'm expected to relinquish part of MY SHARE since "you don't have kids and don't really need the money as much".

ARE --- YOU--- FUCKING--- KIDDING---- ME?!  

Oh, hell to the no on the suggestion you relinquish part of your pay. I have been a single parent who received not a dime for child support for a good portion of my adult life, and understand all too well the money it takes to support a child. But work is not paid for according to one's family status. It's paid for according to a previously agreed-upon rate or division of profits or whatever. Your so-called friends are full of shit, and need to be called out on it. Do not cave in to the demand/expectation they have regarding some retroactive redistribution of the earnings. You did more than your share of the work; if anything, they should be the ones agreeing to give you a larger share. And while it may not be worth it financially to hire a lawyer, as @peacheslatour suggested, if they persist in this demand, make a counter demand of your own, that since you did 80% of the work, you are then entitled to 80% of the earnings. Doing so may cost you their friendship, but FFS, these people are crappy friends for pulling this kind of stunt. 

[Bastet]

I can't decide whether to be aghast they actually said it out loud - it's clear some parents feel that way, that those with kids to support are thus more entitled to pay, benefits, time off, etc. than those who didn't procreate, but not many say it directly to the person they're trying to screw over and ask that person to hand over money (!) - or "well, at least now you know who they are" relieved.  I think I'll go with both.

[BooksRule]

I get so ticked at colleagues and people who might be department heads, but aren't my direct supervisor constantly reminding me about projects, deadlines, meetings, etc. when I'm perfectly capable of handling it myself.  I work with a department head who always manages to send me an e-mail right before I planned on taking care of something that reminds me to do it.  If I plan a workshop, then it's customary to send out a reminder to all involved a week before the event.  So, I will have a note on my calendar reminding me to do it first thing that morning.  Well, she'll send out an e-mail the night before (she's in the office or working from home at all hours) or extremely early the next morning that says something like 'Are you planning on sending out a reminder....?' or 'Don't forget that the workshop is next week.'  I always answer with 'yes, I have a reminder on my calendar (a calendar that she can see, BTW) to take care of it this morning'.  However, I know full well that she is convinced that I forgot and that she was right in reminding forgetful me.  And my direct supervisor is always wanting updates on projects unreasonably early.  Recently I was on a search committee for a new staff person.  We had a deadline for applications.  The day of the deadline he asked me if my committee had met to choose our finalists.  I said that today was the deadline, so no.  Then he asked if we were meeting that day to decide.  I said, well since the deadline is at the end of today, then no.  Then he got frustrated when I said that we would not meet until early the next week.  Why?  Because the next day was Friday and half the committee had the day off (which he had approved), there was a weekend and then Monday was a holiday.  We wouldn't be open again until Tuesday.  Sorry that we don't work fast enough for him, but I don't make the university calendar.  I realized this morning (after about three e-mails from the department head correcting something that I had sent out (with nitpicky things that didn't really change the content/purpose of the message), that I was exhausting myself trying to keep one step ahead of both of them.  I am going to try to start scheduling deadlines for myself one day earlier than I have before (which might work until she catches on), but other than that, I'm going to just ignore the messages when I can and politely (and as briefly as possible) answer the ones I have to answer.  Life's too short.

[backformore]

12 hours ago, Stenbeck said:

I'm peeved at some "friends" with whom I've recently worked with on joint projects. 

We agree to split the earnings 50/50, even though I end up doing 80% of the work because they're too busy tied up with their kids, family life, etc. Fine. I understand and don't really have an issue with this.

YET

When payment comes through I'm expected to relinquish part of MY SHARE since "you don't have kids and don't really need the money as much".

ARE --- YOU--- FUCKING--- KIDDING---- ME?!  

In a similar vein, I worked at a place where many of us saw that one person was getting assigned the higher paying clients, instead of the work being assigned more equally. Then it turned out she was actually helping in making the assignments, so she was giving HERSELF the better work.

When it was brought up, she said, "you guys all have husbands, I'm single. I need the money to pay bills.". Yes, she actually defended it by the view that married women didn't actually NEED the income.

I work for myself now.

[theredhead77]

On the coupled vs single (me) front - it drives me crazy when couples try and split the bill or whatnot as a 'couple' instead of per person. If we're sharing an Uber or something communal cost should be split per person, not where I get stuck with 50% of the bill as a solo and they end up with 25% each (50% as a couple).

[Katy M]

22 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

On the coupled vs single (me) front - it drives me crazy when couples try and split the bill or whatnot as a 'couple' instead of per person. If we're sharing an Uber or something communal cost should be split per person, not where I get stuck with 50% of the bill as a solo and they end up with 25% each (50% as a couple).

Hmm.  I don't know.  As a single person, I think I might agree with paying half in a cab/uber situation.  They're one, you're one.  Not for meals, as they would be eating twice as much food, or an apartment, twice as much utilities.  But, I think if I were sharing an apartment with a couple, I would expect to pay a bit more than 1//3, assuming semi-even bedroom size, as I get one room to myself and they are sharing.  Tickets to anything would, of course, be per person. 

[theredhead77]

29 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, I think if I were sharing an apartment with a couple, I would expect to pay a bit more than 1//3, assuming semi-even bedroom size, as I get one room to myself and they are sharing

To me that's different - they are sharing a room but I would expect them to be paying more for utilities. That's a moot point to me though, I'll never have a roommate again.

All three of us are sharing an Uber - they are not a single entity, they are 2 people.

[backformore]

1 hour ago, theredhead77 said:

On the coupled vs single (me) front - it drives me crazy when couples try and split the bill or whatnot as a 'couple' instead of per person. If we're sharing an Uber or something communal cost should be split per person, not where I get stuck with 50% of the bill as a solo and they end up with 25% each (50% as a couple).

As a married person, I agree with you 100%.  

It's logical -   If you, I and another unrelated person shared an Uber - we each pay 1/3.   IF that unrelated person happens to be married to one of us - we still each pay 1/3.  It's three people, marital status doesn't mean anything.  

[MargeGunderson]

18 hours ago, Stenbeck said:

I'm peeved at some "friends" with whom I've recently worked with on joint projects. 

We agree to split the earnings 50/50, even though I end up doing 80% of the work because they're too busy tied up with their kids, family life, etc. Fine. I understand and don't really have an issue with this.

YET

When payment comes through I'm expected to relinquish part of MY SHARE since "you don't have kids and don't really need the money as much".

ARE --- YOU--- FUCKING--- KIDDING---- ME?!  

Ironically, that’s the same argument that has been used to pay women less than men. 

Those “friends” can go suck eggs.

Edited August 16, 2018 by MargeGunderson

[backformore]

8 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

Ironically, that’s the same argument that has been used to pay women less than men. 

Long ago, in grad school, (1980's)  I witnessed a conversation about which grad student was going to get a funded position.  Students were all adults, some were married.  Of one woman, part of the discussion was that because she was married, she probably didn't need the funding as much as other students.   Of one man, it was said that because he was married,  he was probably MORE in need of funding.  Yes, because having a wife was a liability, but having a husband was an asset. 

[Bastet]

3 hours ago, theredhead77 said:

All three of us are sharing an Uber - they are not a single entity, they are 2 people.

Exactly; they're not one, they're two.  If three of you are sharing a ride, the cost gets divided three ways.  Instead of paying 1/3, you're expected to pay 1/2 and they each only pay 1/4?  Hell, no.  If they've opted to make all their finances joint, so that on their end it really isn't separate, that's on them; you don't have to pay more than you would had you hopped in a car with two unmarried friends.

I've thankfully never had a couple try to pull that on me; cab fare, restaurant tabs, etc. get divided up by number of people, regardless of anyone's marital status.

[riley702]

17 hours ago, BooksRule said:

I get so ticked at colleagues and people who might be department heads, but aren't my direct supervisor constantly reminding me about projects, deadlines, meetings, etc. when I'm perfectly capable of handling it myself.  I work with a department head who always manages to send me an e-mail right before I planned on taking care of something that reminds me to do it.  If I plan a workshop, then it's customary to send out a reminder to all involved a week before the event.  So, I will have a note on my calendar reminding me to do it first thing that morning.  Well, she'll send out an e-mail the night before (she's in the office or working from home at all hours) or extremely early the next morning that says something like 'Are you planning on sending out a reminder....?' or 'Don't forget that the workshop is next week.'  I always answer with 'yes, I have a reminder on my calendar (a calendar that she can see, BTW) to take care of it this morning'.  However, I know full well that she is convinced that I forgot and that she was right in reminding forgetful me.  And my direct supervisor is always wanting updates on projects unreasonably early.  Recently I was on a search committee for a new staff person.  We had a deadline for applications.  The day of the deadline he asked me if my committee had met to choose our finalists.  I said that today was the deadline, so no.  Then he asked if we were meeting that day to decide.  I said, well since the deadline is at the end of today, then no.  Then he got frustrated when I said that we would not meet until early the next week.  Why?  Because the next day was Friday and half the committee had the day off (which he had approved), there was a weekend and then Monday was a holiday.  We wouldn't be open again until Tuesday.  Sorry that we don't work fast enough for him, but I don't make the university calendar.  I realized this morning (after about three e-mails from the department head correcting something that I had sent out (with nitpicky things that didn't really change the content/purpose of the message), that I was exhausting myself trying to keep one step ahead of both of them.  I am going to try to start scheduling deadlines for myself one day earlier than I have before (which might work until she catches on), but other than that, I'm going to just ignore the messages when I can and politely (and as briefly as possible) answer the ones I have to answer.  Life's too short.

Can you ask your actual supervisor to get your self-imposed supervisor to back off? She's affecting your sanity and efficiency.

[Brookside]

21 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Exactly; they're not one, they're two.  If three of you are sharing a ride, the cost gets divided three ways.  Instead of paying 1/3, you're expected to pay 1/2 and they each only pay 1/4?  Hell, no.  If they've opted to make all their finances joint, so that on their end it really isn't separate, that's on them; you don't have to pay more than you would had you hopped in a car with two unmarried friends.

I've thankfully never had a couple try to pull that on me; cab fare, restaurant tabs, etc. get divided up by number of people, regardless of anyone's marital status.

This is an interesting one, and thanks for making me exercise my brain a little.

For restaurants, I definitely agree it should be split by the number of people.  But for a cab ride I'm not sure - probably half.  If you (single) and friends (couple) got to talking and decided to share a vacation house, what would you do?  If I were the singleton I'd assume I was paying half.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Brookside

[theredhead77]

47 minutes ago, Brookside said:

f you (single) and friends (couple) got to talking and decided to share a vacation house, what would you do?  If I were the singleton I'd assume I was paying half.

If it's by bedroom I'd expect the bedrooms to be divided up equally. If the house has 5 bedrooms and is $500 for the weekend then I'd expect to pay $100 for the bedroom. If there were only 3 of us going and the house had more space than we needed I'd expect it to be divided by 3. If we were kicking in for food I'd expect that to be divided up per person. The vacation house brings me to another peeve - I'm single, so I can sleep on the couch or in the living room. If I'm doing that I'm not going to pay the same as someone who gets a private space. I may be single but I'm too old and broken to be sleeping on a couch or crummy sofa bed.

Thankfully the Uber situation hasn't arose in a long time. My friends and I operate with a very 'everything works itself out' attitude. You get this Uber, I get that one, someone else gets the next one (even if it's another night). You got the Uber, let me grab you a beer. Basically there is no sleep lost over anything costing less than an expensive beer but we're all in similar financial situations. 

Editing - Upon thinking about it, my issue with all this is with couples who act like they are a single entity and only need to pay what one person is paying regardless if the situation is one where that would be appropriate.

Edited August 16, 2018 by theredhead77

[ALenore]

1 hour ago, MargeGunderson said:

Ironically, that’s the same argument that has been used to pay women less than men. 

Those “friends” can go suck eggs.

I remember having a discussion like this when I was in junior high school in the early 70's. One of the kids in class says it was fine for men to be paid more than women, because a man would "have a family to support."  I pointed out that they didn't pay a man who had three kids more than a man who had two, or more than a bachelor. Of course, these differences are addressed somewhat through income tax deductions, but salaries should absolutely not be based on how many dependents one has.  

[Katy M]

5 minutes ago, ALenore said:

I remember having a discussion like this when I was in junior high school in the early 70's. One of the kids in class says it was fine for men to be paid more than women, because a man would "have a family to support."  I pointed out that they didn't pay a man who had three kids more than a man who had two, or more than a bachelor. Of course, these differences are addressed somewhat through income tax deductions, but salaries should absolutely not be based on how many dependents one has.  

Except that now there is a push that companies pay what people need to live on instead of what the work is worth to the company (I'm not saying employers should be Sroogey little buggers).  So, if payment changes to employees' needs as opposed to value to employer, then salary would be at least partly based on number of dependents.

[Brookside]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

Except that now there is a push that companies pay what people need to live on instead of what the work is worth to the company (I'm not saying employers should be Sroogey little buggers).  So, if payment changes to employees' needs as opposed to value to employer, then salary would be at least partly based on number of dependents.

Is this seriously a thing?  Can you link a source discussing it?

[backformore]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

Except that now there is a push that companies pay what people need to live on instead of what the work is worth to the company (I'm not saying employers should be Sroogey little buggers).  So, if payment changes to employees' needs as opposed to value to employer, then salary would be at least partly based on number of dependents.

Wait, what?  We are communist now?

Karl Marx, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." It's the cornerstone of communism.

I would be PISSED if I made less because I had 2 kids, and another worker got more because they had 6. Or if a company told me, "your son grew up and moved out? Great. Guess you won't be needing as much money.". I'm not seeing this. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by backformore

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, Brookside said:

Is this seriously a thing?  Can you link a source discussing it?

I don't think I explained myself well.  I'm talking about how people complain that all minimum jobs should pay a "living wage."  Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that corporations and other employers should be riding on top of their employees' backs. I'm just saying that when you demand employer's pay living wages for jobs that just don't generate that much income for the employer, then you'll have to adjust living wages so that they can employ teenagers at the price that would actually merit that pay or, for other jobs single people, etc,, etc.  

[Brookside]

47 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I don't think I explained myself well.  I'm talking about how people complain that all minimum jobs should pay a "living wage."  Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that corporations and other employers should be riding on top of their employees' backs. I'm just saying that when you demand employer's pay living wages for jobs that just don't generate that much income for the employer, then you'll have to adjust living wages so that they can employ teenagers at the price that would actually merit that pay or, for other jobs single people, etc,, etc.  

Does anyone have an emoji for jaw dropping?  (Could be the same one as for "my mouth is wide open like a little bird because I can't make enough money for food.")

[theredhead77]

There should be equal pay for equal work / experience. Personal circumstances shouldn't come into play. The topic of minimum wage being a living wage comes from 'back in the day', when people could make a comfortable life on a minimum wage job but the topic is way more complex, and political for a peeve thread (or message board, IMHO).

[Mindthinkr]

Sorry to change the subject but what would you do if you were in a high end ($$$$) resort and after three days (multiple asks for items...unheard) and you can’t get fresh towels or more toiletries? They said that they are down a person but I’ve never been in a 4 Star place with no service before. Mind you they want a tip if you make eye contact. Had I known I would have brought shampoo and lotion. Didn’t have enough room in my suitcase to bring washcloths and towels. 

My complaints are unnoticed. 

[Katy M]

My pet peeve is people who don't make sure they can clear an intersection before entering it.  One time I had to wait three light cycles to turn left just because the Main Street traffic kept proceeding through the intersection when they knew they didn't have a chance in Siberia of getting through before the light changed.  Today I was luckier.  I was able to squeak through at the end of the light.  Although, the last car that was trying to go through was sitting on the stop line and he still decided to go when the traffic cleared instead of letting us go.  Really?  Dude, your light is red.  The fact that you immediately behind someone who moved to clear the intersection does not mean you get to go, too.