I’m a recent graduate in the final rounds of a good traineeship where personal development and self-reflection are a big part of the program. The interview was with an HR person and a current trainee. They said at the start that it was a safe space to be open.

They kept asking “why” and asked me to go “a layer deeper.” I said I make careful choices because I want to do things well. When they asked where that comes from, and whether my family puts pressure on me, because I mentioned them as they are important to me. I got emotional and cried. I shared personal and emotional things about my background that I haven’t even told my friends.

After that I was a bit thrown off for the rest of the interview. They still told me about the next steps, and said I could reach out if I had other offers.

Now I feel embarrassed and exposed, and I’m not sure I can face them again. HR people: is this as bad as it feels? Does it hurt a candidate’s chances in a program like this?

I worked at a consulting/recruitment company for over 4 years and recently left. I never had a proper exit interview, but HR has now reached out to speak with me, more than two months after my last day.

I know this is not just a standard exit interview. Through former colleagues, I've learned that HR has already approached people and asked them to help build a case against my former manager. I understand they're trying to get her removed, although I don't know exactly what has been said or what stage the process is at.

For context, my experience at the company started out relatively positively, but over time, the negatives increasingly outweighed the positives. I had a difficult experience with this manager, particularly around communication, conflicting instructions, dismissive comments, and a perceived lack of recognition. I also felt there was a disconnect between management's recruiting expectations and the reality of the market, especially regarding salaries and candidates declining offers.

My concerns weren't limited to my own experience:

• I witnessed a colleague crying at work on several occasions.
• Another colleague would call me to review her emails because she was extremely anxious about writing something incorrectly or misunderstanding instructions.
• Other team members had tensions with management, and people regularly discussed leaving because of the work environment or compensation.
• One former colleague told me she felt undermined and constantly compared with others.
• I also witnessed management dominating client calls, sometimes leaving others barely any opportunity to introduce themselves.

There was also an incident where I called my manager a liar during a disagreement about information she had given a consultant. I acknowledged that my wording was inappropriate and apologized. I'm not pretending I handled every situation perfectly.

Now that I know HR is actively trying to build a case against her, I'm unsure how to approach the conversation. I do have genuine concerns about her management style and the impact it had on the team, but I don't want to feel like I'm being recruited to help get someone fired, either.

My questions are:

1. Would you participate and share your honest experiences, knowing HR is trying to build a case against your former manager?
2. Is there any real benefit to speaking up, or should I simply move on now that I've left?
3. Would you be concerned about your testimony being attributed to you or getting back to your former manager?
4. How would you approach the conversation so you can be honest and factual without appearing vindictive or as though you're trying to get her fired?

Part of me thinks HR should know what I experienced, especially given the broader issues within the team. Another part of me wonders whether there's any benefit to getting involved in a process that could become contentious, particularly when I've already moved on.

I'd appreciate honest advice, especially from people who've participated in HR investigations or given evidence about a former manager.

My sedgwick short term disability leave started October 1st and it is still in clinical review has anyone had this happen and how did your situation go? Thanks

this might be a little long so thank you in advance to anyone who reads all the way through.

I'm a night shift RN and I've been on my current unit for a year now. about 3 months after my internal transfer, an outside hire joined our team. everyone on the unit so far had either done their residency on that unit or transferred internally so we all worked well together.

there have been a handful of situations where patient safety has been a concern regarding this nurse. several of the OG floor staff have brought concerns to management. she's rubbed people wrong since day one and there was an outside altercation with a group of nurses who went out with this new hire. since then those nurses don't go out of their way to ignore or be mean to her but they don't go out of their way to make small talk.

a lot of us learned very early on that she doesn't accept constructive criticism well and immediately gets defensive. some examples being falsifying documentation, disregarding orders because she feels like they aren't important, ignoring and telling other to ignore patients because she didn't believe their complaints were real and the big one, charting under my name and filing it as if I were the one that had assessed the patient.

if she ever had a question I would answer. anything regarding work I had no issue speaking about. anytime I ask a question whether it's about one of her patients or if she needs some she in turn gets defensive and internalizes that as my judging her as a nurse.

when I caught her charting under my name I asked her to delete it because that was falsifying documentation, instead of apologizing and taking accountability to the mistake she asked what the big deal was and why she couldn't just cosign? that was the nail in the coffin for me that she did it on purpose and she was incapable of learning. since the day she was hired she and I have never spoken about anything but work. there are several people on the floor that I'm close with and we hang out all the time outside of work.

we worked together last week in the same pod for two days. I felt as if my shifts went fine. I didn't feel awkward, or tension but I guess she did because she asked if we were good because the "vibes" were off. I said I'm fine and continued charting. if she truly had an issue she could have provided examples of why she thought we weren't because I was professional and cordial with her all night long. she asked a question, I answered. she needed help with a patient, I helped. I just didn't go out of my way to speak with her, but she hasn't done that either and it doesn't bother me that she doesn't. our personalities are very different and she's not someone I see myself being friends with had we met on the outside.

later that morning I get a call from my manager asking how I thought my night went and I told her fine because that's truly how a felt. our job is already so stressful that I don't have anymore mental energy to spend soothing someone ego. according to my manager there's a miscommunication on my end. I honestly don't see how because I speak to her the same way I speak to the rest of my coworkers. I show her support the same why I show support to everyone else. I don't go out of my way to treat her differently.

now we have a facilitated meeting taking place tomorrow and I was given a paper to fill out asking why I've done go contribute to the tension and what I've done to unintentionally cause tension. what I can do differently and how I could've handled things differently.

I went to my managers asking for guidance because I truly didn't feel tension. I understand that as long as we work professionally together not everyone is going to get along on a personal level. I mentioned that and my manager said "now, can't you see how that would make her feel when you don't make small talk with her but you will with other people?"

those other people haven't spoken to me so condescendingly, those people didn't chart under my name and not apologize, those people didn't call me the wrong name on purpose all night to be mean so because her feelings got hurt I now have to apologize for creating tension?

I'm just stumped because this is where they would rather focus their energy then on all of the other concerns regarding patient safety and holding her accountable.

I'm just looking for guidance on how to navigate this situation because I feel like I'm now walking on eggshells and if I don't ask her how her day was she's going to flip the script and saying I was bullying her and then I'll get fired.

This includes your resume, the reason you were rejected, etc.

I was laid off at my previous job and my official last day was yesterday, 10/26. I didn't receive my paycheck until this morning, 10/27, at 10:19 a.m.

I'm in California, so does this mean that I am owed a penalty because of the late paycheck?

I was fired from a job that I had no previous performance issues and only excellent reviews. I had found out a subordinate was in violation of a HR policy and reported it to my executive leadership. I have now come to understand company policy required me to go directly to HR. Because I followed the wrong reporting sequence, I was terminated for procedural policy violation. I’m terrified to apply to new jobs as I have no idea how to handle. My previous bosses and some coworkers have agreed to give me good references as they understood I tried to do the right thing and all my other positive impact I had. Any advice would be helpful!

I was given the option to 1. Be laid off October 30 or 2. Go on paid time off starting Nov 1.
My coworker (in the same boat)- not HR or the company, asked if an option 3 could be made available where we continue working past Oct 30 for minimal hours- like 4 per week.

HR said they’ll get back to us. Never did.

This morning my boss had my coworker tell me that they wanted to give us the option but since I am “now acting out of character” by sharing my files and saying if I am 100% on PTO I will not be working or available- that my company is going to take away my option of PTO and lay me off instead.

Is this retaliation? And why did they bring my “character” into this when they could have laid me off all along?

I had my daughter June 4th, had an extended disability period on SDI so instead of my disability ending July 16th it was extended an additional six weeks thus ended August 27th. So I started my baby bonding time the following day. My understanding is that bonding time lasts 12 weeks but I was forced to return to work after 8 weeks. My leave processor is saying that I have exhausted all leaves and am not job protected anymore. According to them my CFRA — is this the bonding time?— leave started 7/16 (while I was still on disability) and ended 10/7. I want to file an appeal through the leave processor but am I actually entitled to the last 4 weeks?

This is my first child and I’m very confused by this whole process! Also I’ve been at my job for 6 years full time. Thank you in advance!

Edit: thank you everyone for your insight! I will continue on the escalation process. You all have been wonderful <3

I am a state employee for Massachusetts, and started this position back in June. I’ve been doing very well in my position according to my boss and her boss.

I just received an email from HR asking to schedule a confidential meeting at my earliest convenience. Currently, it is set for 3pm tomorrow but I am quite nervous.

I’m still fairly new, and am the newest employee in my department. I’m probably overthinking, but I’m just stressed about this coming up. Any thoughts?

In the offer, I am asked if any failed course due to academic misconduct. I did fail a course due to the academic dishonesty, but it was not marked in my transcript. However, the offer states that I agree to allow them to contact my school if I accept the offer. I just want to know how a general background procedure looks like, and whether such a vague agreement usually leads to the legal reference to allow them to see my academic records (like misconduct) or just simply to confirm my degree/graduation date/transcript/etc.

If I answered no, will the background check finds out this record? If answer yes, how likely this impact my offer? I totally understand I am taking the risk to not disclose the whole situation but just want to make sure what is the best choice.

I’m doing a background check with Sterling/First Advantage, and I’ve never encountered questions like these before. It’s the preliminary phase before I can schedule a fingerprinting appointment. I’ve had a job where I needed to be fingerprinted before (working with children), but it never asked for this much information.

Is this normal?

Long time Redditor. The handle is new and is a throwaway. Names have been changed. The dates in the story have been pushed or pulled by 1-2 months.

I believe I have discovered a conflict of interest in my global company headquartered in the western world (such USA, UK, France, Canada) and want reddit’s opinion.

Is the following scenario considered a conflict of interest? Possibly called cross- nepotism, favoritism, management, or opportunity.

Todd and Alice are considered senior leaders with the ability to hire, manage pay raises/bonuses, assign opportunities, etc, for positions within their entire reporting structure, not just their immediate direct reports. These two manage their own teams that are considered “adjacent” in our organization.

Todd is married to Tess.

Alice is married to Aaron.

At this point, Todd, Alice and Aaron are already employees and Aaron is in Todd’s reporting line, three positions down.

In March 2025, Alice hired Tess and assigned her to a senior contributing role two positions down from Alice.

Then in September 2025, Todd possibly and very likely played a role in promoting Aaron one pay level.

Then in June 2026, Todd gave Alice an opportunity to do a lateral transfer to Todd’s team. On paper, it was the same pay level/title but it is not known if there were any pay adjustments (which Todd would have the power to do). Also, it is known that Alice received other benefits of this lateral transfer (mainly in the form of more days at home and less people to manage).

Things to note:

- Though Alice and Aaron are married and are now both in Todd’s reporting line, there is a structure there where Alice and Aaron do not conflict.

- The hiring of Tess into the role was considered odd and was questioned by other individuals in our organization. Tess had no experience at all in our subject matter (came from a completely separate industry) but was streamlined into a senior contributing role with heightened pay, whereas junior/entry level contributing roles were/are an option.

- Employee addition announcements are common/standard and, conveniently, no employee email introduction was done for Tess when she entered the senior role. This gave other individuals in the organization the impression that this was done to not bring attention to it. To compare - six months later, Aaron got a standardized promotion announcement highlighting the pay level increase.

- OP (me) is considered an equal to Tess (before Alice left, I was also two positions down, as a senior contributor) and will be competitive with Tess for pay raises, bonuses, opportunities, etc.

Edit: to add -Todd, Tess, Alice and Aaron do not share any of the same last names despite being two couples.

Hi everyone,

this is my first time posting here to please forgive any mistakes.

I got an email from asking to meet with me to discuss “workplace concerns” that were brought forward by a specific staff member. They said they want to meet with me because the staff member spoke with me about the concerns they brought forward to HR. I believe I am being viewed as a witness in this situation? HR did not explicitly state this, but they sent me a witness confidentiality form to sign. 

For context, I work in corporate support for a specific department and am primarily responsible for on-boarding staff working at properties under my department. I am NOT anyone’s supervisor, no one reports to me and I have no authority to hire or fire people. I train and provide support from there. 

I know exactly what they want to talk about. Without giving too many details the situation is a conflict a staff member has with their direct supervisor. The staff member asked to meet with me yesterday and spent about 45 minutes ranting to me about a situation with their supervisor that upset them that occurred over the weekend. I validated their feelings as they were crying and expressed they were confused, but I also let them know that the manager wasn’t totally in the wrong and that it sounded like a miscommunication to me. The staff member told me they had a conversation scheduled with the manager for the following day (today) and contacted HR. I told them those were the right steps to take to resolve a conflict in the workplace and told them to refer to and follow company policies and they should be okay. 

I’ve never had a meeting with HR before so I’m really anxious about this. 

Anyone who works in HR - what is the role of a witness in this type of situation? Could I end up being reprimanded for something even though the conflict appears to be between two staff members and not myself?? The employee did tell me they didn’t feel much better after talking to me because in some way, I did side with the supervisor so I fell a little uncertain. 

Honestly any advice ahead of my meeting or insight would be so helpful. 

Thank you! 

Hi!

I sent my PFL notification and paperwork in to my HR department 3 weeks ago. They confirmed receipt of my paperwork and said they submitted it “to NY State”

They never sent me back all the completed forms even though I’ve requested them.

They say they have “no response” from the state.

I have just requested they send me the completed paperwork again AND the name of the company’s insurance carrier to hopefully move things forward myself because I’m pretty sure they’re supposed to notify insurance and not the state of NY.

The company is based in Wisconsin and has hundreds of employees across the country. The employee handbook specifically singles out NY for allowing more PFL than what the organization offers to other states.

In your opinions, is this probably incompetence or something more nefarious?

I recently received a job offer from a company that wants to hire me through Rivermate (I'm based in Greece). I've seen mixed reviews about EOR services in general, and I'm a bit concerned about how payroll, contracts, and employee support work in practice. If something goes wrong, would I be dealing directly with Rivermate or would I have to go through my employer to get things sorted? The offer is pretty tempting, so I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who's been employed through Rivermate. How has your experience been so far? Thanks

I've been employed at a publicly traded tech company in Ontario for approximately 13 months in a non-technical role. I'm in my late 20s, earning a six-figure base salary. Location: Ontario, Canada

This week, HR presented me with two options: enter a 30-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) or accept a mutual separation package.

Separation offer:

• 7 weeks of base salary
• No bonus (annual bonus scheduled for early next year)
• No unvested equity (next vesting date is approaching)
• No benefits continuation
• No additional vacation payout mentioned

HR has also stated that they will not provide a written separation agreement until I explicitly choose the separation option over the PIP. If I don't choose separation, the PIP begins automatically.

Additional context:

• My role has changed significantly since I was hired, including the introduction of sales targets that were not originally part of my responsibilities.
• I have documentation of shifting performance expectations during my coaching plan, unequal portfolio distribution compared to peers, and positive performance reviews throughout my employment.
• The company conducted layoffs earlier this year, and I've heard that affected employees received more generous packages, although this is unverified.

Employment agreement:

My contract contains a termination clause limiting my entitlements to the minimum requirements under Ontario's Employment Standards Act (ESA), including a waiver of common-law reasonable notice.

My questions:

1. Is 7 weeks a reasonable separation package for someone with 13 months of service, or is there a basis to negotiate more?
2. How enforceable are ESA-only termination clauses in Ontario, particularly those explicitly waiving common-law reasonable notice?
3. Does HR's characterization of this as a "mutual separation" affect my legal rights or potential EI eligibility?
4. Is it standard practice for HR to require me to choose separation before providing the written agreement?
5. Would the documented changes to my role and performance expectations have any relevance to negotiating a better package?

I plan to consult an Ontario employment lawyer before signing anything, but would appreciate any perspectives from this community.

I recently was hired for a job but need to complete a background check. It is my first “real job”. I have a variety of retail experience including my current position. On my resume, I have listed myself as associate/lead, although my official payroll title is associate. This is not a lie, as I have taken up more supervisory duties. If I fill Sterling with the accurate title “associate” will it create issues? Everything else is fine including dates.

I’m going back and forth with HR and a legal council on whether my company qualifies for FMLA. Ignoring the individual employee requirements of needing to work 12 months and 1250 hours, here is where we get hung up:

The company is small and employs a total of 63 people. Only about 26 are within 75 miles of HQ, however all 63 employees report to HQ. There are no other offices to report to.

In the case of remote workers or workers whose job site is in another state but their orders come from HQ (such as in-field workers on construction sites) would they count toward the 50 employee count, or would the company NEED 50 people physically within 75 miles?

I am currently working (it’s only been a few months) and just found a better job. In interview they asked me multiple times if it will be my first job out of college- I lied and said yes (because I didn’t want to reveal myself as a flight risk, having only worked a few months). Now I am at the background check stage… pretty stressed. Will my current job come up on background check? Or only the companies that I list (I have old internships). US based

My boss has been telling me that I need to get on my laptop and check my Teams at least two times a night, typically around 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Only issue with that is that I am an hourly employee. My hours are 8-5. I have a meeting with HR today because I have only worked at this company for 45 days and they want to do a check in, should I let HR know my boss wants me to work off the clock?

I’ve been looking through job postings lately, and something I keep noticing is how many employers require a bachelor’s degree but don’t specify a particular field of study.

I understand requiring a degree in engineering, accounting, computer science, or another specialized field when it’s relevant to the position.

What I don’t understand is requiring any bachelor’s degree for a position that doesn’t involve specialized academic knowledge.

If someone has 10–15 years of relevant professional experience, including management, leadership, and measurable results, why would they be considered less qualified than someone with an unrelated bachelor’s degree and significantly less experience?
I’m genuinely curious what employers believe a generic four-year degree demonstrates that substantial professional experience doesn’t.

For anyone working in HR, recruiting, or hiring management:
Is this primarily a way to narrow down applicant pools?
Does having any bachelor’s degree genuinely predict better job performance?
Are these requirements established by HR or individual hiring managers?
How often do companies reject otherwise qualified candidates simply because they lack a degree?
I’m not arguing that higher education has no value. I’m questioning why the existence of a degree sometimes seems more important than its relevance to the job or an applicant’s actual experience.
I’d especially appreciate hearing from people directly involved in making these hiring decisions.

How is this ok?

An employee applies for and accepts a leadership role that requires being on call 24/7. This role oversees 2 small but important departments that run 24 hours a day. If someone calls in sick, this leader is responsible to try to find coverage, offer incentive (time and a half), or worst case scenario the leader will need to come in to assist or at the very least cover bathroom breaks/food/water breaks. On the bright side, the job pays really well because of the unpredictable on call, AND the manager has the flexibility to work non standard hours- for example if they have to come in on a Saturday evening for a few hours they can then come in late on Monday or leave early on Monday or however they wish to balance that. It is salaried.

This employee after a month declares "oh hey so my doctor told me I should only work 8 hours a day, but I thought I should go ahead and try this job because I thought I'd be able to handle it. Oh, and the doctor says I should not work weekends either, because the human body totally knows the difference between days of the week. Totally."

Now, HR says "no problem! You just work M-F, 8 hours a day, and after 4pm you don't have to answer calls or deal with staffing issues, you can just clock out and go live your best life, and your boss will just have to absorb all your duties and responsibilities outside your little 8 hours a day."

To emphasize, this job requires being on call, and is paid accordingly.

There is no budget to hire an additional leader for weekends and the 16 hours a weekday that this employee is magically unavailable.

Doesn't this constitute fraud, or misrepresentation? Employee understood and agreed to the requirements of the job (and also negotiated a higher pay at that time than was offered) and now one month later is Cinderella and turns into a pumpkin at 4pm. How is it moral/ethical/legal to let this employee hold a position they are not willing to meet the requirements of?

Hi everyone! Just to give you a bit of context, I recently attended a career fair organized by an NGO specifically for recent graduates. I got to speak with recruiters from several companies and asked for their LinkedIn profiles so I could connect with them afterward.

During the event, there were also recruiters giving us career advice, so I asked them when they would recommend sending follow-up messages to companies where the conversation went well. I got two different answers: one told me to reach out the following week, while another said I should send a message the very next day.

For context, I’m planning to send a short LinkedIn message thanking them for their time, mentioning something we discussed, and expressing my interest in staying in touch.

So, I wanted to ask the recruiters and HR professionals here: When do you think it’s best to follow up after a career fair? Should I message them the next day while they still remember the conversation or wait until the following week? Does following up actually make a difference when considering candidates for future openings?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and what you would recommend!