A Case Of The Mondays: Vent Your Work Spleen Here

[auntlada]

That's nuts that they have to tell people what is appropriate dress for an interview. I believe it, but I still think it's nuts and sad that people don't have enough sense to dress up for a job interview.

I was once part of an interviewing team for a woman who wore jeans and a rather low-cut knit top to the interview. It wasn't an indecent top, but for a job interview, I thought it bordered on inappropriate. For anything else, it was fine, and it might have been OK if you had the job, but not for the interview. Granted, the job was a reporter at a small town newspaper, but reporters often have to go to places where people are dressed up -- really dressed up like at fancy fundraisers or business dressed up like in court. I liked reporters to know how to dress for the occasion, which means dressing similar to the people at the event, or at least in a way that makes you not stand out. (For instance, if you had to take photos at a gala fundraiser where people are wearing evening or cocktail wear, you don't have to wear a tux or evening gown, but if you're a guy, put on a tie and if you're a woman, wear a dress--black is always good--or nice slacks and a nice top. Something that says, "I'm here for business, but I'm not a slob.")

[Bastet]

57 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I read once that if one shows up 30 minutes early, it's bad.

Well, better 30 minutes early than 30 minutes late, certainly, but that's excessively early.  If you get to the building 30 minutes early (because you left a lot of extra time in case of problems and then wound up not having any), hang out for 15 minutes and then go in.

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Well, better 30 minutes early than 30 minutes late, certainly, but that's excessively early.  If you get to the building 30 minutes early (because you left a lot of extra time in case of problems and then wound up not having any), hang out for 15 minutes and then go in.

True. But the irony is, the one time I was that early, it turned out to be a good thing, as the team happened to be ready to speak with me. It wasn't until after this interview happened (years ago), that I'd found an article that stated one shouldn't arrive too early as it put a bad light on you.

[backformore]

I was once involved with interviewing candidates for internship at a mental health clinic.  We got feedback from the receptionist as to anyone who spoke rudely to her, or did anything inappropriate in the waiting room.  One guy sealed his fate by ignoring that there were patients checking in for appointments, thought he could bypass the line at the front desk by announcing he was there for an interview.   Not cool, dude.   We also got reports from HR on candidates' social media presence.  If your facebook account is all about how wasted you got on the weekend,  You're not getting the job. 

A funny thing I remember was a young woman interviewing who was wearing what I would describe as a nightclub version of a business suit.  Like a "sexy executive" costume - tight miniskirt, high heels, tight jacket over a low-cut blouse.  I think she was surprised when the interview was conducted by a group of women.  

[partofme]

I haven't been on an interview in a long time, though I'm always applying for and would give anything to get a new job or even an interview.  I was wondering, do female candidates still have to wear suits for an interview?  Can you wear a dress?   I was wondering cause my suits are all old and I might need to buy a new one that I wouldn't wear for any other purpose and my current job is really casual so I could get away with wearing a dress to work and then going on an interview, but if I'm wearing a suit I need to take the day off.

Edited April 12, 2018 by partofme

[bilgistic]

The last time I had an interview--probably close to a year ago--I changed into a suit in my car in the parking deck. I dressed pretty casually at work--chinos and knit tops with casual shoes--so it would've been obvious I was going to an interview if I came to work in a suit.

I've worn that suit exactly one time. When I get to the point where I'm interviewing again, I'll have to dust it off. It feels like a costume. I hate dressing up.

Edited April 12, 2018 by bilgistic

[emma675]

I've changed in the car, too, after an interview. My job was very casual and I managed to change from a pants suit into jeans in the front seat without anyone noticing. I then proceeded to laugh my head off hysterically at how ridiculous it was.

[partofme]

I live in nyc so for me needing to wear a suit means taking a day off from work(no car) for a job I may not get.  I've done it in the past and would do it again but I hate wasting days like that.

[emma675]

Could you run into a store restroom and change?

[partofme]

Changing in a store bathroom is an option but then I have to worry about where I'm gonna store my street clothes.   I do carry a large bag but I wouldn't want it to be obvious.     I probably would just take the day off for the right interview.   I could take a half day but that runs into all other issues.

[emma675]

Maybe it's just me, but I would rather carry an overly large bag with my change of clothes than waste a vacation day for a job interview.

[auntlada]

The last time I was looking for another job, I started occasionally dressing up for no reason at work. I'd wear a dress and then work there all day, taking no hours off during the day. My theory was that when I had an interview, people would be less suspicious. I don't know if it worked. I never asked. It wasn't like everyone didn't know that everyone else was trying to escape, too.

[theredhead77]

12 hours ago, partofme said:

I haven't been on an interview in a long time, though I'm always applying for and would give anything to get a new job or even an interview.  I was wondering, do female candidates still have to wear suits for an interview?  Can you wear a dress?   I was wondering cause my suits are all old and I might need to buy a new one that I wouldn't wear for any other purpose and my current job is really casual so I could get away with wearing a dress to work and then going on an interview, but if I'm wearing a suit I need to take the day off.

I suppose it depends on the type of job you are applying for. I've always worn a pants-suit (I am not a fan of skirts / dresses), sometimes changing in a restroom. Better to overdress than under dress and if you are in NYC applying for a corporate job you should probably wear some sort of suit.

[JTMacc99]

5 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

and if you are in NYC applying for a corporate job you should probably wear some sort of suit.

And in NYC, I would go with Black, Very, Very Dark Gray or maybe Navy. That's pretty much the uniform.

[GHScorpiosRule]

The last time I interviewed  when I had a full-time job I was thinking of leaving--the dress code was business casual. But it didn't look suspicious, if you will, when I would dress more professionally, since I would also go to The Hill to attend Senate Committee hearings, regularly.

And even before my last boss fired me, I was already interviewing, and he was hardly ever in the office, so he couldn't see what I was wearing. As there was no dress code.

And just recently, technically, I'm a free agent, since I'm a contract/temp worker, so I can interview without having to change my clothes or make excuses. But I have. Don't ask me why. But I would just tell my supervisor I "had a meeting." Technically true. But now that this upheaval and "moving in a new direction" bullshit ambush, I can openly say I'm interviewing if asked. And my supervisor did assure me, like I sated above, that it's not a reflection on my work.  So I'm glad I got proactive and just applied, applied, applied, and my GC will make sure there is no pay gap. Keep me on until I find something. She told the ones who did this that she wasn't going to give me a day's notice. Not after how they didn't give her notice what was coming down. I have to say, this is the first time in I don't know how long, where someone had my back; and I'm not even a full-time employee. I'm just getting more nervous, that nothing will pan out before it's my last day here.

[backformore]

Last time I was interviewing, about two years ago, I bought a designer sweater set in a bright blue. It was a sleeveless sweater and a cardigan. I wore it with black dress pants.  For some interviews, I wore a black knit dress (lands end) with black tights and boots, and wore the blue cardigan over it.

Many women interview in pants these days. A blazer or sweater makes it a bit more serious looking. 

I agree about colors. Black, navy, charcoal, possible a white blouse. A scarf or sweater in blue or burgundy tones adds a little personality. Stay away from pink, yellow, orange. Earrings, if you wear them, should be understated, not dangly. Don't do contour makeup, it can look weird under florescent lights.

[auntlada]

The sweater set sounds lovely. I want there to be a strand of pearls that you wore with it, although I'm not sure whether or not pearls are good for interviews. I suppose it depends on where you are interviewing.

Also, if you're going for a job interview, polish your shoes. You may think no one notices shoes, but someone will, particularly if they look bad.

Edited April 12, 2018 by auntlada

[theredhead77]

Food for thought: you and another candidate have the same experience, personalities that will mesh within the company, everything is literally equal what's the next thing HR or the hiring manager may go to? Appearance - were you dressed appropriately for the interview or did you dress down?

[GHScorpiosRule]

Guuuuuuys. I think I blew it yesterday.
Turns out I met with the WHOLE group, that means four extra people I didn't know about, so I couldn't do my due diligence and look up their profiles and read up on what part they play in the practice group. So I was flummoxed when I spoke to two of them. Especially since they kept asking the same question over and over again in different ways and I could only give the same answer. And one of them just LOOKED at me. And then the visitor's name tag fell off my suit jacket and one of them (not the silent LOOKER) told me it had, interrupting my answer and pretty much told me to retrieve it--and I had to duck under the table to get it, which threw me off my stride. All I could do at the end was tell the Partner that I was really excited about the position, how I want to work for the firm and was confident I'd be an asset.

He was frustrated because up till now, the PA office was communicating with me and PA office didn't let the DC HR know. He said DC HR would probably call about benefits, etc., but I informed him the first telephone interview I had, PA started with telling me all the benefits, when I wanted to know more about the position. So, either I will get a call about an offer, or that they're going to continue looking

[theredhead77]

Oy, that sounds super stressful! 

I'd strongly suggest getting your thank you email and snail-mail notes sent right away, focus on the good and how awesome you'd be, don't blow the negative. If you can figure out a better answer to the quesiton they kept asking keep it a simple line item as to how awesome you'd be at that issue.

[DeLurker]

51 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Turns out I met with the WHOLE group, that means four extra people I didn't know about, so I couldn't do my due diligence and look up their profiles and read up on what part they play in the practice group. So I was flummoxed when I spoke to two of them. Especially since they kept asking the same question over and over again in different ways and I could only give the same answer. And one of them just LOOKED at me.

This is a law firm or a legal department isn't it?  I've worked in close association with lawyers and some of the environments are extremely high stress.  Is it possible that they did not tell you that all the group would be there and some of them intentionally intimidating/confusing to gauge how well you handled the unexpected?

I've interviewed for a job where it was timed to overlap when the big cheeses from the East Coast HQ would be in town - they hadn't told me that when scheduling.  So they had me review a write up for a commercial real estate deal on the spot and wanted me to assess it for weaknesses and strengths.  I did and found a critical regulatory issue that had not been addressed.  The local team had considered it a non-issue, but I held firm that unless it was looked into they could not really gauge the strength of the transaction nor submit the required waiver for regulatory approval to do the deal.  The HQ big cheese knew I was correct.

I'd think you were considered a very strong candidate if they had that many people blocking off time to do the interview.

[emma675]

Ugh, GHScorpiosRule, I've had interviews like that when nothing seems to go right and you get so in your head about it. Definitely second getting your thank yous out soon, those go a long way. Did they say when they hope to make a decision?

Edited April 13, 2018 by emma675d

[GHScorpiosRule]

18 minutes ago, DeLurker said:

This is a law firm or a legal department isn't it?  I've worked in close association with lawyers and some of the environments are extremely high stress.  Is it possible that they did not tell you that all the group would be there and some of them intentionally intimidating/confusing to gauge how well you handled the unexpected?

Yes, it's a law firm; for the Energy Litigation practice group. It was the PA office that responded to my resume, and I've been dealing with their Liaison? This position is a new one for the DC office. The Partner I had the last telephone interview with thought the PA office had looped in the DC HR, so that they were all on the same page. But PA didn't. So I thought and was told I would be meeting with the Partner I spoke with on the phone and two key members. But Partner wanted me to meet the whole group. One of the key members was the LOOKER. He couldn't seem to grasp or understand (based on his repeating the same question), that although I've not worked in the Energy sector, the skills required to do research or cite checking (lawyers, legal secretaries, paralegals here will know what I'm talking about) don't change. And I emphasized the skills I'd gained and honed over the years would be to my advantage and I could use to do the research required with Regulatory agencies. It's not rocket science.

I hope I passed whatever test it was, if that's the case.

The other member I met, who I think is equal to the Partner, that went very well. She liked the questions I asked and Hallelujah! There is a "steep learning curve" meaning I'm not expected to be perfect or allowed to make mistakes. The last two attorneys I met with were associates, and that went well. I'm concerned about the third and fourth guys. Maybe it will come to a vote  where majority wins?

It's a good firm. It will keep me on my toes. I'm not afraid to ask questions--this is something ALL of them liked. A fellow paralegal that I know from my paralegal association used to work there; she's now at a different firm and moved up--she's a Paralegal Director. So I won't try to get all Debbie Downer.

18 minutes ago, DeLurker said:

I'd think you were considered a very strong candidate if they had that many people blocking off time to do the interview.

That's my thinking. Technically speaking, this was like the fourth interview!  The first being the screening; then another telephone with the Paralegal directors/supervisors; then the third call with the Partner a couple weeks ago. That call was going to determine whether we moved forward. I'm thankful this firm wasn't the only one I interviewed with, considering my contract is coming to an end where I'm at presently.

14 minutes ago, emma675 said:

Ugh, GHScorpiosRule, I've had interviews like that when nothing seems to go right and you get so in your head about it. Definitely second getting your thank yous out soon, those go a long way. Did they say when they hope to make a decision?

 

Yes, I'll be sending out my thank you emails later today.

The partner said within the next few days. He walked me out and asked if I was interviewing elsewhere, I said yes, and he said if I should hear from any of them, before this firm does, to let him know, and he'll push for a decision. Assuming they haven't made one already.

Edited April 13, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[theredhead77]

42 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

The partner said within the next few days. He walked me out and asked if I was interviewing elsewhere, I said yes, and he said if I should hear from any of them, before this firm does, to let him know, and he'll push for a decision. Assuming they haven't made one already.

This all sounds super promising!

[hoosier80]

Really annoyed.  Boss told Dip that she needed to cut down the OT.  Say what?  I have minimal OT, especially recently as we're in a bit of a lull.  

Well, it was announced yesterday that no OT over 2 hours per week unless approved.  So Dip gets in before 6 a.m. - which is ridiculous.  We have no inbound requests at that hour.  A newbie to the team followed suit.  BS.  We get a lot of OMG I need this type of stuff at  4pm or later.  None of us do official lunches, so working straight through, that means Dip has to leave around 2 to 2:30.  Means that I have to come in later to cover shit.  I am half tempted to come in at 8 and leave at 5.  See what happens with that.  I'm sure I'd get called or texted with the urgent shit.

Today sure enough, both left - around 2 pm.  There is stuff that has to be reviewed around 4:30 today, which means it's being dumped on me.

The cherries on my sundae of a day:

Person in charge of regulatory (tax and other filings) asking me how tax calculations (by state) work.  There's a whole freaking manual.  I just went through this with this person about a month ago, and they've been in this position for over 10 years.  We had a meeting the other day with actual SME's for regulatory (for our division) and they were dumbstruck by the stupid questions - shit that has been in place for a good 6 years or more - that are now being asked, and the same person acting like it's all new.  I told  co-worker, we're going to be fined and/or sued.

New setups - rush request coming up.  Dip is like Horseshack, saying ooh ooh ooh, I want to do one!  That will mean going over shit step by step, shit that the Dip should know, as they review all of the setups.  If you don't know this shit, how do you review it?  I may ask, just to hear the response.  Makes no sense to me.  So basically, if you don't know how to set up, how do you review the data to determine if correct?  Means, the review is crap. 

Then Dip went on and on with emails re: the required date for set up, first asking me what timeframe should be.  Ok, I did one this week, less than one day.  Oh, but that can't be the timeframe for Dip - I'm still learning.  It's been at least 4 years on this team, how long does the learning or training on basic shit go on?  Anyhow, back and forth, back and forth, with Dip being told by manager, yeah we said ok because major client.    But we need standards.  True, but if your major client says we need it NOW, you're not going to say oh sorry can't do it, when it can be done.  Such a dumbass.  We potentially have new business - which would be huge, coming our way.  Dip freaks out.  No, that is good news!  More business is good news.  Corporations are consolidating shit right and left, and if we have a bigger base, that can help prove our worth.  We're kind of small right now, and if we don't grow.....not good.  Dip was just concerned about having so much work.  Ok, most of the time Dip sits and gabs.  

Asked by another manager, can clients do this or that on an application?  Again, someone who's been around over 15 years.  They should have it written down, as their area is asked that at least 1x every quarter. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by hoosier80

[theredhead77]

I think I work with DIPs sister.

Back in November me and my counterpart go visit a call center where I hosted a training for both teams and then we met with our respective groups for a few hours.

Since I'm local to the call center I go there monthly to meet with my team and answer any questions. That turned into everyone coming to me for everything so last month my boss had all my counterparts out to meet with their teams. 

I hosted the presentation (since I designed it) and made it crystal clear that while I was hosting the training I was not their primary point of contact, so-and-so is. So this one person who was also in the group that trained in November keeps coming to me and I keep redirecting her.

The first time, she asked who it was (uh, what?!)

Today she did it again, and when I redirected her I CCed her manager, so her manager can clarify anything (I do this for eveyrone who comes to me erroniously - it is critical people understand their contact path) and she replied back asking me to not copy her manager, it seems like I'm throwing her under the bus (no, lady, just trying to get you assistance) and she did reach out to her contact but he said he didn't know how to get the info (he does). I replied back, included her contact, asked him to help her and then I told her that I always include managers to ensure their teams know who to contact. Her reply was soooo snarky "I assumed you were over the entire program, that is the only reason I asked you.  I assumed wrong, and will ONLY contact xxx from here on."
Wheter or not she remembered, she KNEW I was not over her region, the entire thing nor am I her contact. She copied her manager on the reply. Too bad!

Also: if she thought it through she could get the answer to her own questions

Edited April 13, 2018 by theredhead77

[GHScorpiosRule]

I just spent over an hour sending out six separate thank you emails to FOUR partners and the two Associates I interviewed with yesterday. Tailoring and editing each so they didn't sound and read the exact same. 

Got a response from the main Partner, who thanked me and informed me he would be in touch as soon as a decision was made, and wished me to have a great weekend. 

Which I totally will; Weather is going to be glorious, and I'm going to the Tidal Basin to enjoy the Cherry Blossoms and take lotsa pictures!

[BookWoman56]

I really wish people would get out of the habit of scheduling work meetings around what would normally be lunchtime for most of the team. I work with two geographically dispersed teams, so I understand that there are time differences. But because I work with two different teams, when team A schedules a meeting at 1:00 ET, with the assumption that the ET people will grab lunch before the meeting, then it doesn't help that team B schedules a meeting at noon ET, with the assumption that the ET people will grab lunch either before or after the meeting. The upshot for me, in central time, is that I frequently have meetings booked beginning at 10:30 my time through 2:00 my time. I need an actual lunch break away from the computer to help me recharge my batteries, so I'm not going to do that nonsense of eating lunch at my work desk while I'm also attending/participating in a meeting. The thing is, the 2-3 people who schedule most of these meetings could easily have them earlier in the day, except for the fact that they don't bother to get to their office until 9:30 or 10 ET, so that often I am online in central time before they are in eastern time. So I am frequently stuck either declining meetings or having a super early or super late lunch break, or in extreme cases, dialing in to a meeting, putting myself on mute, and then switching to my non-work desk to have lunch while having the meeting on speaker and halfway listening to it. 

[Moose135]

Can you try a little preemptive scheduling, putting a 30 minute "meeting" on your calendar around lunch time?  Not that people will always check/respect your other appointments, but it may help - I've been known to do that.  Related to that is people who schedule a meeting when you have something else on your calendar - and since we used Outlook, you can see when other people have something on their calendar, then say "Sorry, it was the only time everyone was available." No, it was when you were available, and you clearly didn't care about what anyone else had scheduled.

[emma675]

That's what I did at a previous job, blocked my calendar every day from noon to 1pm. I was in CT and the ET team always conveniently "forgot" that was my lunch hour. I snapped one day, declined a noon meeting and blocked my calendar after that.

[BookWoman56]

If these were one-on-one meetings, I would go ahead and block out some time for lunch.  But these are typically meetings with a dozen or so people, and so the meeting organizer isn't going to care if my time is blocked out while everyone else is free. For the most part, these are standing meetings that occur on the same day and same time weekly, but because they are for different purposes, it ends up being that I have meetings around lunchtime four days a week. Occasionally there's overlap of the meetings, so I am invited to two or more meetings at the same time. In those cases, I have to decline one or the other of the meetings, and so occasionally if I need an actual break, I will just ping the meeting organizer and explain I have a conflict and won't be attending. Never mind that the conflict isn't because I have another meeting but is instead because if I don't take a break for some food and mental relaxation, I will be increasingly pissed off and less productive for the rest of the day.  Some of the meetings are more important than others, depending on what's on the agenda for that day, and so I can generally figure out which meetings I absolutely need to attend and which ones I can skip and ask for a debrief later. I just resent the assumption that it's perfectly okay to schedule meetings on an ongoing basis in the lunchtime period, when almost every time there are slots earlier in the day or later in the afternoon when all the meeting attendees are free. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well. I didn't get the job at the law firm. But the point guy said they have a couple other positions open and will circulate my resume to them. I hope the interview process won't be so agonizing with the next group, if anyone decides to pass me through.

[auntlada]

I'm sorry you didn't get it. I hope one of your other options comes through.

[GHScorpiosRule]

15 minutes ago, auntlada said:

I'm sorry you didn't get it. I hope one of your other options comes through.

On one hand, I'm disappointed, because I really believe I could have been an asset. The DC office needs a paralegal, and they don't have one for this group. On the other hand, with the way that one partner just LOOKED at me, maybe it's a blessing. BUT I do see a couple other litigation positions on their site, Maybe another will bite.

It's back to the grinding board. And oh hey, once of the attorneys who reviewed contracts is leaving next month, and they're going to need someone to fill the void-since I worked with her exclusively, they'll need someone to remain as legal support; because the new person who came on board, is only taking one aspect-organization of contracts/in the database, not the rest. So maybe I still have some breathing room until I get something.

Sigh...

[emma675]

Ugh, GHScorpiosRule, that stinks. Hopefully something even better comes along quickly.

[theredhead77]

I'm sorry @GHScorpiosRule. How disappointing. Hopefully something else that is a perfect fit comes along.

[theredhead77]

The Director of HR sent out a notice with guidelines for wearing scents at work. People are having a fit. I am one of those who gets insta-headaches from certain scents and there are some people I cannot walk near, so I'm pretty excited about it.

I've never seen an HR Dept send out something like this before.

[Quof]

I shouldn't smell you unless I am nuzzling your neck. 

[SuprSuprElevated]

19 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

The Director of HR sent out a notice with guidelines for wearing scents at work. People are having a fit. I am one of those who gets insta-headaches from certain scents and there are some people I cannot walk near, so I'm pretty excited about it.

I've never seen an HR Dept send out something like this before.

Either someone on a high rung has developed a fragrance allergy, or someone on a lower rung is giving HR a run for their money.

[backformore]

14 hours ago, theredhead77 said:

The Director of HR sent out a notice with guidelines for wearing scents at work. People are having a fit. I am one of those who gets insta-headaches from certain scents and there are some people I cannot walk near, so I'm pretty excited about it.

I've never seen an HR Dept send out something like this before.

I love wearing a scent.  But I wear it for myself, not for everyone else.  I imagine people might catch a whiff of it once in a while, though.   I usually stick to light, clean scents, and use very little.  these days my only scent is a lotion from Soap & Glory, and it smells like lemon and kiwi.

When people wear heavy musk-dominated scents, it grosses me out.   Way back in the 70's, Jovan musk oil was what you were supposed to wear to exude sexiness and mystery. It was supposed to drive men wild with desire.  to me, it always smelled vaguely like body odor covered up with flowers.  There are still perfumes that smell like that, with that heavy musk that makes me feel sick. And some people use way to much of it.  If I can smell your perfume from 10 feet away, you're overdoing it.  

I like that your HR department is doing something about the problem, even if it's just one person who is experiencing it.  It only takes one or two heavy perfume users to make a workplace intolerable for some people.

[SuprSuprElevated]

It's rare that I'm bothered by someone who bathed in fragrance, but it happens.  In my experience, it's almost always what I would call an "old lady" scent...usually a heavy floral.  I'm more bothered by cleaning products and cooking food in offices.  That pine scented and orange scented crap makes me crazy.  Cooking popcorn in an employee microwave?  Just say 'no'.

[theredhead77]

5 hours ago, backformore said:

these days my only scent is a lotion from Soap & Glory

I LOVE Soap & Glory! 

I can't deal with floral scents, vanilla, jasmine, lavender or any 'relaxing' scents. Thanks to Sephora Play I did discover a few perfumes that don't give me an insta-headache but since I know how terrible insta-headaches are I try to just avoid scents in general.
IMHO perfume doesn't belong in the workplace. , regardless of how light of a scent it is. Take a shower, use deodorant and save the scents for after work.

This is the notice:

Quote

Spoiler

 

Some employees have reported sensitivities to various scented products in the [location redacted]  (i.e. scented lotions, perfume, etc.). We ask for everyone's cooperation in our efforts to accommodate their health concerns, by being mindful of others around you and toning down the amount of fragrances used in the workplace. The best action to take is to simply avoid wearing scented products to work all together.

In response to these health concerns, this email serves as official notice to all employees in the [location redacted]. Scented products such as hair spray, perfume, lotions, and deodorant can trigger reactions such as respiratory distress, headaches, nausea and dizziness. All [location redacted] employees and visitors are asked to not use these products when reporting to work. If you are approached by management about your scented personal product, please do not take offense. The safety and well-being of our employees are important to us and we take all health concerns very seriously.

HELPFUL TIPS:

• Keep it subtle: If you choose to wear scents in workplaces, less is more. If someone tells you that you're wearing too much fragrance, you are. Our ability to smell our own scents is diminished even while they might be screaming out to those around us.
• Apply it in private: Like all aspects of human personal grooming, perfume application should be applied with discretion.
• Use the two-foot rule: Your signature scent should not linger beyond the confines of your desk.
• Don't in close quarters: A scent will be distracting in meetings, interviews, training or traveling.
• Refrain from reapplying: One spritz in the morning should be sufficient.

Again, please tone down the fragrances in the workplace. You are encourage to limit or discontinue use of these products effective immediately. Remember, Managers and Supervisors, you are required to address these issues directly.

 

 

The bolded part tells me this was brought to some managers attention and it's not being addressed, or the notice is going to be used to address the worst offenders.

[BookWoman56]

@theredhead77,  so per that memo management is asking employees not to use deodorant before coming to work? I realize the intention is to limit the use of scented deodorant, along with perfumes and such, but I couldn't help laughing at the idea that if people interpreted this memo to mean they should not use any deodorant at all, then the smells that employees encounter in the workplace might be much worse than perfume. 

In other work-related drama, the new hire that I previously mentioned provides fresh evidence of her incompetence and cluelessness almost every day. Two meetings in a row, she showed up with the wrong version of a document for the entire group to review. She then convinced herself somehow that I could persuade our manager to reclassify her PM position to a tech writer position, and sent me some work samples to show off her writing skills. One of the writing samples said that it was proprietary information and was not to be reproduced.  Anyway, I've talked to our manager to explain the request that new hire made of me and noted I could not in good conscience recommend new hire for a tech writing role similar to mine. Turns out that after new hire had met with me to go over the idea of her doing the same thing I do, she went to our manager and claimed that I had told her I was very nervous about the upcoming work load and desperately needed help, so the manager should just go ahead and assign new hire to help me. Bitch, please. Do not put words in my mouth. My manager laughed about it when she told me what new hire had said,  and that she had known new hire was twisting my words or just totally fabricating the comments when she heard new hire claim that I had said I was "very nervous." Anyone who has worked with me for more than a couple of weeks knows I don't do nervous; colleagues have mentioned numerous times that they appreciate my ability to remain calm even when they have to tell me, oops, we have a major change in something and need you to revise a couple of hundred pages of text in the next 24 hours. 

What astonishes me the most about this situation is the total audacity of an employee who's been on the job for only 3 months, who has flatly stated both to  me and to our manager that she hates her job and sucks at it, to demand that her position be reclassified. I sympathize to some extent with her situation, but the appropriate response to finding yourself in a job that you hate and are performing terribly is to step up your game as much as you can and start looking for another job that is a better fit.  

[theredhead77]

59 minutes ago, BookWoman56 said:

so per that memo management is asking employees not to use deodorant before coming to work? I realize the intention is to limit the use of scented deodorant, along with perfumes and such, but I couldn't help laughing at the idea that if people interpreted this memo to mean they should not use any deodorant at all, then the smells that employees encounter in the workplace might be much worse than perfume. 

Yea, that was a bit over the top. Please, for the love of dog, wear deoderant! Maybe someone was takinga bath in Axe?

What is your boss going to do about that employee?

 

[Bastet]

Quote

The best action to take is to simply avoid wearing scented products to work all together.

... Scented products such as hair spray, perfume, lotions, and deodorant ...

... All [location redacted] employees and visitors are asked to not use these products when reporting to work.

So employees are not just supposed to skip the perfume, but also go hunt down unscented hair spray, lotions, and deodorant and buy all new toiletries?  And visitors will be sniffed before being granted entry?  I don't think so.  They went on to keep it reasonable, but that part of the memo was just plain dumb.

[bilgistic]

I've heard of the "one-foot rule", not two-foot. If you can smell someone beyond a foot away from them, they have on too much of whatever. You shouldn't be able to smell deodorant unless you are sniffing an armpit. That's how it works.

And as for perfume/cologne, Queer Eye taught me years ago to "spray, delay and walk away" (spray the fragrance into the air, wait a second, then walk through the mist). That's all you "need".

[BookWoman56]

For privacy reasons, my manager can't discuss with me what she's going to do with that specific employee, but I'm sure she is documenting the performance issues, along with some emails from other teams complaining about this employee. I suspect the next step is to tell the employee, even though usually you have to be in your position for a  year before applying for other internal jobs, that the manager will agree to let her go ahead and post for other internal positions. At this point, there might as well be flashing neon signs telling this employee that she's going to be fired for incompetence at the earliest possibility. I mean, when you yourself say to your manager, "I hate my job and I suck at it," what else can you expect? She apparently came across very well in the interview, but she's turned out to be one of those people who claimed to have experience doing a lot of things that she didn't actually do, or else she may have been involved in those projects but at a very junior level. It would be like me stating in interviews that I had written many user manuals or similar documents of over 400 pages, using various functions in Word for creating a table of contents, list of figures, etc., and then coming into the job and having to ask for help on a 25-page document because I can't figure out how to auto-generate the table of contents.

[emma675]

theredhead77, that memo kind of contradicts itself, doesn't it? It asks all employees to refrain from scented products then goes on to explain how they should be applied. And how on earth do you enforce those rules with visitors?

[SuprSuprElevated]

Better hope that people never develop an aversion/allergy to the smell of coffee.  I'd almost love to see that memo.

[GHScorpiosRule]

And it's back to square one again.

The other firm that said they couldn't afford me, hired someone else that they could afford. But no worries, they'll keep my resume on file if another position opens up.

And then I got the call from RHL, saying "upper management" wants to interview more candidates. That doesn't sound good, and the person who reached out to me to apply/consider this position, says to keep looking, and it will be another month, and if I don't hear from him by next week, to call...keep in touch...blah, blah, Fishcakes. I know a rejection when I hear it.

They say bad news comes in threes, and boy did it come in threes for me.

The only silver lining is that lazy ass recruiter is finally getting off his butt to look for permanent placement for me now. And I'm continuing to apply until my fingers cramp.

Another lining is that I may get to stay on longer at my current place, as it turns out the legal administrator that was brought on isn't going to take over ALL my duties; just a portion. And HALF of my duties is dealing with Telemarketing Licenses, and the attorney that deals with that and who I assist, is leaving next month; which will leave a HUGE HOLE. And my supervisor said they should have made me permanent months ago; but due to some things, which I can't reveal, they are now on a hiring freeze, so can't even hire me if they wanted to--and my supervisor does. 

I'm on tenterhooks, because I don't know when my last day will be. It could be Monday, for all I know.