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?

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!

Context: I just started a new job (I’m on my third week) and I’m a junior staff member. The company I work for isn’t big. I’m a Muslim Arab Hijabi.

During my call with my manager (white woman, 20s/30s), we were talking about work and she changed the conversation and asked me if I was Asian and I told her yes. She asked a couple of more times if I’m considered Asian (I’m middle eastern) and if people in the ME would consider themselves Asian. I reiterated that yes, since we’re in Asia. I was already starting to feel uncomfortable with this convo since she kept asking the same question after I answered but the convo continues to her telling me that she told her dad that she started managing me and let him know my family is from the a middle eastern country (not specifying which country).

Her dad asks her that there is a civil war happening there and she then asks me if im Sufi/shia and if my family identifies with any of the political parties that are involved in the war and how my family “ended up in America”. I tried moving past this by telling her that my family has been in America for 20+ years and not acknowledging the rest of her question. She does the same thing by asking me again why my family came to America MULTIPLE times, literally over and over again. I kept giving her the similar response of “my family has always been in America” and she kept asking if there was a specific reason or if I can pin point a moment where we decided to move (I told her we moved when I was a baby). Continues to ask me if I go back to my country often and if I’ll ever go back and I told her no since I don’t have any family there (which I already told her at the beginning, that my immediate and extended family has always been in America)

I’m still on good terms with my prev manager at my prev job (we both left) and she let me know that if I’m comfortable, I should report this to HR and request a new manager. She also said that the most important thing a manager can do is advocate for you when you’re not in the room and it seems like she won’t do that for me (consciously or subconsciously).

I’m not sure if I should report this to HR. My hesitation is that I just started this new job. I’m worried about any awkwardness if I get a new manager since she sits right across from me and also potentially risking my job security.

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.

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! 

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.

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?

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

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 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!

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

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’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 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?

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 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

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.

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.

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?

Hello HR folks, I am almost 5 months into my 6 month maternity leave, and I just was diagnosed with liposarcoma, a weird cancer. I’m hoping for help to determine how my recent leaves will affect any needed future leaves for radiation and surgery.

I am wondering what options there are for leave and disability. For background, I had to detail all of CAs maternity leave laws to my HR as there was a lot of turnover recently, so I’m expecting to need to be well versed in this as well when I go to them.

For maternity, I started leave at 36 weeks (per CA law) and my baby was born 11 days late. My union allows for 6 months of leave after birth, unpaid except for any state-covered leave and any sick/vacation time. They may require use of vacation/sick balances and I’ve been using those balances after my state payments stopped to keep getting paid.

My question is, am I able to be on disability or FMLA when I used them so recently? And what will happen if I need to use leave?

Thanks

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?

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?

[IL, company revenue over $250 million+ per year, employees 100-200, privately owned]

I was recruited by a friend for a position.

I was told I would receive base pay of $18/hour + tips from the tip pool. When I received my first paycheck, it was only for $15/hour and I was listed as temporary intern.

I was told this was a temporary position while the company restructured and I would be given a permanent position. That was 1.5 years ago. Every few months I get told there'll be a position opening up. There hasn't.

I was hired as a remote employee. The company refuses to provide any internet stipend. I asked about working in-office and was told its not an option. I pay for my own software (Creative Suite, Microsoft).

When I asked about hours, I was informed that its up to 40 hours a week but there's no set hours. I am literally on call all the time for things that truly can wait...like a bad Google review or sending an event CRM. I've been woken up at 3am. I've been called while on PTO. I've worked in some capacity nearly everyday for 1.5 years.

I stick around because my boss's boss is my best friend, the health insurance is really good, and the lack of a schedule means I can work another job.

I have a master's degree from a big ten university. I'm the only person in my division with a degree in the field, I'm also the only person to have worked in this field at other companies.

My other job pays $39/hour, however, its part-time so I do not qualify for health insurance. I love that job and have no intention of leaving unless I need health insurance.

My question: how big of a deal is everything I listed? I'm worried that if I make a fuss, they'll just fire me and fire my best friend. However, I'm tired of doing far more than what I'm paid to do and tired of the 24/7 schedule. As an intern, I lead teams and the company would be forced to replace me if I quit. At minimum, I'd like the intern dropped from my title.