can I say no to attending a three-night retreat, can a company hold onto your property after they fire you, and more (2024)

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. Employee is unhappy that a coworker with an accent is “mispronouncing” her name

I supervise a small team in a large nonprofit. Our organization is very big on DEI and ensuring we have an inclusive environment. Using other people’s preferred names is a non-negotiable for employment at my agency.

I have a direct report, “Paula,” who works with another one of my direct reports, “Simon.” Simon is British and, just like the real Simon Cowell, adds an “r” to the end of many words that end in a, including Paula. This is his accent and short of intense accent coaching, which of course would be unreasonable, I know he can’t change it.

Paula came to me and said she is unhappy with the way Simon pronounces her name, specifically the added r. I told her that Simon is not doing it on purpose, that is just his accent. Paula said he should make an effort to pronounce it “correctly.” I said that is correct according to how it’s said in his part of the world.

Thus far I have not said anything to Simon, but should I? I just don’t think this is the same thing as someone purposely mispronouncing or using the wrong name for someone, although Paula is implying it is.

Paula is in the wrong. But I don’t think your framing of the reason she’s wrong (Simon is pronouncing her name according to how it’s said in his part of the world) is quite right. After all, if someone went by Jacinta with a J sound, it wouldn’t be okay for someone to insist on pronouncing it “Hacinta” just because that’s how it’s pronounced in Spanish-speaking countries.

The issue is that Simon is pronouncing Paula the way he does because he has an accent and this is how his mouth forms those particular sounds, just like how someone from Boston might say “pahk” instead of “park.” Paula needs to deal with the fact that accents and dialects exist. Address it with her, not with Simon.

2. Can I say no to attending a three-night retreat?

My boss is planning a four-day/three-night out-of-state retreat with our team and some of our clients. We’ll be at a mountain retreat center, with nowhere to go, I’m supposed to share a room with a coworker, and all of our meals and activities will be with our team and clients. My boss sees this as a fun event (hikes, socializing, etc.). I have family obligations, and being away this long is a huge inconvenience for me.

Would it be horrible for me to say that I can’t attend? Some of our clients have said they can’t come due to family obligations, so my reason would be the same. And, if I do attend, is it reasonable to expect that I’d be paid for 12-14-hour workdays? The days are packed with team-building, team socializing, shared meals, etc., and it’s out in the mountains so it’s not like I can go home or go off on my own in “down time.” In past years, my predecessor did attend this retreat every year and I think only got paid for a regular workday and of course travel/food expenses were paid, but that doesn’t seem right to me given that I’m at this place completely for my employer and dealing with a huge hassle in arranging overnight childcare for my family. I’m an hourly employee and the least senior of my coworkers.

Sometimes you can get out of this kind of thing and sometimes you can’t. Your chances are better since your job isn’t high level, so your presence might not be seen as being as crucial as others’. Assuming you weren’t told when you were hired that occasional overnight travel would be part of the job, it’s reasonable to at least give it a shot — and childcare commitments are often high on the list of persuasive reasons. So try saying, “I have childcare commitments at home and can’t do overnight travel.” You could add, “I’ve looked for ways to make this work, and it’s just not possible.”

They might come back and tell you it’s a job requirement, at which point you’ll have to decide if you’re willing to do it or not, but there’s a decent chance you’ll be able to get out of it. If you do go and you’re non-exempt, you’d need to be paid for all time spent working (but not downtime).

3. Can a company hold onto your belongings for a few days after they fire you?

I have a question from years back. I was let go from a grant writing position at a nonprofit after my 90-day probation period. It was my first job after grad school and getting fired truly sucked. But what made it so much worse was that I wasn’t allowed to clean out my desk — they brought me to a conference room in another part of the building and informed me of the date/time (when our office was closed) when I could come back to get my personal things under supervision from someone from HR.

This made me feel like a criminal, but more to the point: Is that legal? Can a company just … keep your stuff and refuse to let you have it till they’re ready?

Yes, it’s legal and not terribly uncommon for an employer not to allow you back to your desk to gather your things and instead to arrange a time for you to return for them, or in some cases they’ll box them up and mail them to you. However, they do need ensure you receive your property in the reasonably near future (not months from now) or you could sue for its return (although whether it would be worth doing that is a different question).

For the record, this is a bad policy in almost all cases; most people being let go don’t need to be treated like criminals. But it’s legal.

4. My boss encouraged me to apply for a promotion but now keeps criticizing me

I’ve been at my company for several years and have earned a reputation as a reliable subject matter expert. Last year I moved into a related role. My manager started talking about a promotion at the end of last year. When the role above mine opened last month, I applied for it as I felt ready and my manager has been so supportive. When I told her I applied, she was visibly hesitant.

Over the last month, our relationship has spiraled down. Prior to my applying, she never had any feedback, even if I directly asked. Now, she has feedback on everything. From her feedback, some of this might be coming from senior leadership and she just never passed it along to me before and some of it is coming from her.

I applied in good faith based on her feedback and it’s been the biggest mistake. I feel like I look out of touch and naive. Is there a way to salvage my standing at work by withdrawing from consideration or should I just let it ride? I really like my company as a whole and would hate to leave but it’s starting to feel like the only option.

I suspect that now that she’s looking at you as a serious candidate for a specific promotion, she’s seeing areas where you need to grow and trying to make sure you get that feedback now. She could be doing that with an eye toward strengthening you as a candidate, not eliminating you as one. Or she might be trying to prepare you with all the reasons it’s not going to happen. (If so, that’s not okay! If she doesn’t think you’re right for this promotion, she should be up-front with you about that.)

Why not talk to her about it more openly? For example: “Last year you mentioned thinking I was ready for a promotion, and that was a big reason I applied for the X role last month. Since then I’ve gotten the sense that you might not think that role is the right fit for me, so I wanted to check back with you. Do you think I’m a plausible candidate, or are there things I’d need to do differently before being competitive for it? I want to make sure you and I are on the same page.”

5. I’m upset that my job changed me to non-exempt

Yesterday, two-thirds of my team had a meeting with HR letting us know that our FLSA status had changed and we were being moved from exempt to non-exempt status and would have to start clocking in and out for work and lunch.

I know I’ll get used to it and am overreacting a little, but I really don’t want to have to log in to a separate system four times per day and hit the clock. I haven’t done this in years and I enjoy the freedom of being trusted to do my job with a focus on productivity rather than accounting for hours worked. I don’t want to go back to punching in and having to notify my manager when the system doesn’t work or I forget to log in before I start working. My feelings on this are not neutral and are definitely driving some of my reaction here.

I asked for clarification, because I know the new rule regarding salary that you’ve written about doesn’t apply to us; we make more than the amount specified by that rule. The HR rep said that legal and HR management had determined our roles do not meet the administrative exemption of the job duties test.

I reviewed that criteria and I don’t think it’s right. We meet the first two criteria without question. The third, which involves exercising independent judgement, is the only one that I can see being equivocal. But the thing is, that would mean that my role is not one in which I can exercise independent judgement?

I do, every day. It’s literally written in my annual reviews by my managers that I exercise judgement in my day-to-day work. We’re trusted to make decisions up to a certain level without consulting our managers, and our managers rely on our judgement.In addition, I supervise a contractor who I interviewed and recommended hiring, trained, and supervise. I don’t see how my role doesn’t meet the admin exemption.

Would it be out of line to ask that my job description and role status be reviewed to reflect the work I actually do? Especially since it’s written in my reviews that I do work that appears to meet the test? If so, what materials should I put together to make my case, and how should I present it?

If they disagree, should I stop exercising independent judgement? After all, if I’m not supposed to be, I probably shouldn’t be? I don’t really want to tank the quality of my work, but if the company doesn’t think my role includes exercising independent judgement, should I just clock in and out and refer every question of judgment to my manager? I realize this probably sounds petty and overreacting, and I’m sure it is, but I’ve been doing this job at a high level for years and this feels like a slap in the face in some ways and it just doesn’t feel right.

Yeah, you’re overreacting and taking something personally that isn’t. The definition for exempt positions does include language about exercising independent judgment, but that doesn’t mean that non-exempt positions don’t or can’t. In fact, lots of non-exempt professional positions exercise independent judgment! Employers can expect that of you without it meaning your position is exempt. (So no, you definitely should not start declining to do so.)

More importantly, while there are restrictions on who can qualify as exempt, there are no restrictions on who employers can treat as non-exempt. They could treat 100% of their workforce, including the CEO, as non-exempt if they chose to! They generally don’t, because that would mean they’d have to pay everyone overtime, but they could if they wanted to.

That said, you can certainly ask for a review of your status. But before you do, I want to make a pitch for embracing non-exempt status! Yes, you have to track your hours, but it also means you get paid for every bit of time over 40 hours that you work in a week (at time and a half, no less) and you won’t find yourself ever working unpaid, unlike many exempt workers.

Related:
what the hell is all this talk of exempt and non-exempt about?
is being salaried a scam?