Coffee Break: 10-Tier Shoe Rack
This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

As it is January, I've been bitten by the decluttering bug — whichever reader recommended Decluttering at the Speed of Life, THANK YOU! The book is filled with a lot of great gems — one of her big suggestions in the book is to deal with visible mess first, starting with when you walk in the front door.
I really, really like this approach — and in my ponderings about what's working and what isn't in Casa Griffin, my thoughts turned to the pile of shoes that inevitably grows at the door. I decided that the shoe system we had wasn't working.
We've had shoe organizers before with the teensy tiny cubbies that can barely fit one sneaker — we hate them. I also didn't want a system with doors (our existing system was drawers in cubbies, and that obviously wasn't working). I spent a lot of time looking for a tall tower with essentially open shelving that could fit shoes of multiple sizes.
Just as we were about to spend about $250 on a Closetmaid stacking combo, I found this shoe rack on Amazon for around $20. It was a much better price, obviously, and it looked like exactly what we wanted.
We pulled the trigger, figuring we could use the $20 tower elsewhere if we didn't like it and go back to the original plan… and I'm surprised to say how much I like it. It is definitely an “affordable” solution (the sides basically remind me of those connecting pipes my kids used to play with), but it's been exactly what we've needed, and it fits the space perfectly.
(We anchored it to the wall with one of those Ikea straps, which I definitely recommend doing.)
Anyway, if you're on the hunt, we've liked it — it also comes in an 8-tier version, as well as in black.
Sales of note for 2/7/25:
- Nordstrom – Winter Sale, up to 60% off! 7850 new markdowns for women
- Ann Taylor – Extra 25% off your $175+ purchase — and $30 of full-price pants and denim
- Banana Republic Factory – Up to 50% off everything + extra 15% off
- Boden – 15% off new season styles
- Eloquii – 60% off 100s of styles
- J.Crew – Extra 50% off all sale styles
- J.Crew Factory – 40% off everything including new arrivals + extra 20% off $125+
- Rothy's – Final Few: Up to 40% off last-chance styles
- Spanx – Lots of workwear on sale, some up to 70% off
- Talbots – 40% off one item + free shipping on $150+
Enjoying this post! I too have outgrown my current set-up. I wanted to see what other options people have used as I have a small three shelf bench top for my shoes. I am looking for something about 36-40ish inches high, with a solid surface shelf on top. I am looking for a closed sides version or open sides, but the wood surface top at that height it harder to find. So, I would consider the open sides if I liked the top. I have it near an oak cabinet kitchen and a modern blonde desk, so medium dark brown wood grain or black would be better. I am not close to an IKEA and would rather not buy from Amaz-n if other options are more what I want. Anyone have experiences with Wayfair?
I’ve purchased a bedframe, some stools, and a side table from Wayfair and been happy with all of them.
What about a deep bookshelf? You could probably even find one used, and add shelf liners to make it easier to clean.
I don’t even need a deep bookshelf (small feet), but they don’t work for shoes because they need to have at least 2X the normal number of shelves or there is so much wasted space (and I own lots of shoes so I need to be space-efficient.
For the Ikea bookcases, you used to be able to purchase extra shelves.
You still can!
Second hand solid wood, where I live that means FB marketplace.
You get what you pay for on Wayfair. If it’s cheap, it’s not because it’s an “amazing deal.” It’s because it’s cheaply made.
+1000000000
I find ikea to be better quality than Wayfair, and they do ship…. the Hemnes shoe racks have served me very well for tidy closed storage.
Not my experience at all. I’ve had very high quality furniture. Wayfair is just a distributor though—so it really is going to vary by MANUFACTURER. Like any furniture shopping, examine wood vs composite, type of wood, construction, etc. as well as reviews. The shipping time has been outstanding.
To be more precise, I’ll say furniture at IKEA’s price point. Assemble-yourself “wood” from Wayfair vendors (I know there are a ton of them) has been flimsier than IKEA’s versions.
That literally makes no sense. Are you saying composite wood vs composite wood or something? Otherwise, it’s like saying how do dish cloths compare. It depends on the exact dish cloth and fabric.
I’ve bought Coyuchi sheets from Wayfair. They sell the same sheets at Nordstrom. They are most definitely a better thread count than those at Ikea. But Wayfair also sells cheap sheets that probably aren’t as nice at those at Ikea. It’s a large distributor and nothing more (or less).
I guess I did make sense bc yes, exactly? Like for a compos-te wood desk, my husband and I both got similar styles, one from IKEA and one from Wayfair, poring over the Wayfair reviews to get the best quality for that price point that we could. Didn’t want a large wood piece as we live in a small house and weren’t even sure how long we’d need them (lol). The IKEA one was maybe $25 more. 5 years later the IKEA one is still feeling overall stable (as have our other pieces from IKEA) and the finish has held up; not so much for Wayfair. Maybe time for an upgrade at this point, ha.
+1 I love ikea for stuff like this. But my style is kind of Scandinavian so it works.
I’ve bought furniture for assembly from Wayfair, but for shoes, I recently bought a cabinet from Target that my brother-in-law put together for me. It’s terrific! Here is the link: https://www.target.com/p/yaheetech-4-tier-shoe-storage-cabinet-closed-shoes-rack-with-adjustable-shelves-black/-/A-89450268?preselect=89450268
It would be very easy to add a wood shelf on the top of a shoe rack. Go to Home Depot or similar, have a plank cut to size, stain it, and use a strong glue to glue it to the top. Done!
Several comments this morning left me really surprised. Didn’t realize readers here were so supportive and sympathetic to the regime.
On the flip side, every day I wake up rooting for old age to get him.
i dont. im more scared of the VP
intellectually, sure – but he doesn’t have the cult of personality that trump does and congressmen aren’t going to pee their pants if they cross him. no one’s going to storm the capital for eyeliner douche.
I laughed at eyeliner douche.
I know it doesn’t matter but the eyeliner is so distracting to me. Every time I see the man I wonder if his eyes are very extremely deep-set or am I just not used to eyeliner without other makeup? Something is off about it. Also is it possible it’s tattooed on? I feel like he would tone it down if he could, given how strange it looks.
Same. I think Vance is so much scarier.
I’ve encountered a lot of media efforts encouraging me to look on the bright side or embrace change this past week.
Massive eye roll! And I say this as a true blue dem. There was plenty of overreacting on the morning post, with some heavy doses of arrogant pretentiousness.
Same and same.
I don’t think there was any overreacting. Entire industries are on the brink of collapse
+1. IMO, they weren’t being alarmist. I’m trying to pace my outrage, but none of this is good.
+1 I work in clinical research and our research is all NIH grant funded. We’re all expecting to be laid off. I work at a major hospital system, not the government. The trickle down will be bad.
Also in the research realm, and it is breaking my heart. I think my job is safe, but the long-term impact of losing this sector of the workforce is going to be devastating. It might not be felt immediately, but the impact will be there.
Plus how terrible will be that this work will no longer be done!
It’s going to set us back generations
It is going to have devastating impacts on universities all over the US. I know tons of foreign faculty who are looking to go back to their home countries because there’s no more funding here. Such an unnecessary brain drain, and these are the “good” immigrants that even Republicans claim to want.
From a purely mercenary standpoint, every dollar NIH sends out ( and something like 80-90% of the tax dollars NIH receives go out across the country) generates between $2 and $10 in economic activity, depending on how you count it.
No research, no people in the lab, no jobs for the people who clean the labs, no jobs for the people who fix the autoclave, no business for small start up biotechs that provide equipment and reagents, no business for that coffee shop across the way from the lab (coffee is VERY necessary for research!). Never mind no new treatments or cures for many, many diseases. Pharma is not going to fund the basic research leading to new discoveries, and it especially is not going to fund prevention work.
I think people don’t get the way federal money stimulates the economy. It’s not just spent on federal employees sitting in offices.
+1
The indifference to the harm being caused to continuity in government on this site is a bit stunning. Nothing “arrogantly pretentious” about raising an alarm about the administration, for example, failing to disburse grants that Congress has appropriated. This is Head Start, food assistance, medical and scientific research, and more. It is NOT an overreaction to say that people will die, and all so grotesquely unnecessarily. The privilege of some commenters is disturbing. I guess the masks are truly off now. For shame.
Well, over half of the people voted for this, so I expect they are pretty much everywhere.
People are just saying the quiet part out loud. And once this is all over, they’ll be the people swearing up and down they never liked the guy.
A lot of his voters will say that now with no problem. They just didn’t see democrats as putting up a viable candidate. They’re wrong, but that’s what they say.
All over? What does that even mean? I say that as someone who wishes I would wake up from this nightmare, but it’s never going to be all over because a lot of things will be irrevocably changed.
Tbf, among college educated women (which I assume most here are) it was more like 35% and probably substantially less among those who have advanced degrees.
The constant flaunting of advanced degrees feels so pretentious and highlights a bigger issue of elitism among liberals.
I graduated from the number one public university in the nation and made a deliberate choice to avoid saddling myself with unnecessary debt that came with an advanced degree. Without it I have still found success and purchased a home in a great neighborhood in my VHCOL state.
Yet, in the same breath, some of you brag about your degrees while complaining about the debt you took on and the requirement to have one for your federal position.
So, which is it? Are you smarter than everyone else or dumber?
Or how about you just come down from your perch passing judgment on those that don’t agree with you.
I’m not bragging about an advanced degree (I have one, but don’t use it at all and in my current career it’s kind of a sticking point that I “only” have a bachelor’s in the relevant field, so truthfully I don’t really think of myself as having one), just pointing out that the readership here isn’t at all typical of the American electorate. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some supporters among highly educated people but it’s nowhere near 50%. Not sure why that’s so controversial…
Some of us with advanced degrees went to school on scholarships and don’t have much debt. Don’t be jealous.
Thankfully not, once votes were fully counted he had about 48% of the popular vote. Harris got about 47%.
I think a fair amount of the pushback is just that people are tired of reading takes that are both dumb and reactionary, and we seem to have some prolific liberal posters who check both boxes on the reg. Then they get told that their take is dumb and/or reactionary, and they assume that the person responding to them is a secret Republican, rather than someone who just thinks that their comment was kind of … shallow internet bullshit.
We used to have more dumb/reactionary conservative posters, and they do still show up sometimes. But this conflation of “doesn’t share my very specific and dramatized worldview” with “must be on the Bad Team!” is tiresome.
I feel like I deal with this “doesn’t share my specific worldview = must be on the Bad Team” in just about all of the community organizations in my town. It’s great you take your kids to school in a picturesque motorized bike every morning, my in-office job is 20 miles away so I drive a car. I’m inured to the afterschool candy store selling…candy, I am not a pawn of Big Food. Why don’t you talk to my T-loving parents for 15 minutes and then reevaluate how much of a menace I am to The Liberal Cause ™?
This is my take as well. I am over the ad hominem attacks. They are effective for the in group, and for effectively identifying who is in the in group.
I am not an alarmist, but after following some of the EOs very closely, I do think if you’re not a very concerned, you’re not paying attention
I just really think it’s narcissistic to think “people who disagree with me lack either my intelligence or my information.” They may just evaluate risk and the probability of things actually happening differently than you do. They aren’t inherently dumber or less informed than you are just because they’re calmer about the situation.
If they’re wrong over and over and over again, I conclude that they have a strategy for staying calm no matter what happens, which is to predict that things won’t be as bad as people are saying, and then move goal posts when bad things happen in order to say that it’s still not that big of a deal.
Or they have better coping skills than you do and understand that “staying calm in crisis” is a good characteristic, not a bad one.
I feel it’s better to be able to stay calm in a crisis without dishonest mind tricks.
But a lot of people aren’t actually even readying the EOs or the information coming out. Most aren’t even reading news articles about it. They’re maybe glancing at headlines or seeing a post on social media or hearing something word of mouth.
I’ll happily discuss my risk analysis and concern with anyone paying attention to the primary sources, but most aren’t.
This. My mom is right of center and only follow local news. I called her in tears last week about the strong possibility of losing my job and she quote brusquely told me I’m overreacting, I won’t lose my job because they’re not cutting jobs but even if they are I won’t lose my job because I am good at it.
I had to inform her about the EO and other news. She still told me I was overreacting.
I had to hang up
Yeah but what about people who drink water? /s
Dang, I was coming here to make this joke! What if I want my Stanley’s snack bag to have it’s own keychain?
I don’t think it was so much sympathy for the regime as disgust at the OP’s desire to play victim Olympics and the premise that the job losses going on are more brutal than those who have hit folks in the the private sector or that most others are less driven by the mission of the work they do (I’ve worked for NFPs several times). The mistaken assumptions she made regarding severance options, attaining a graduate degree, and somehow being owed job security were galling to those of us who have ticked all those boxes on the private side and been without a job (I started my career as a newspaper reporter before the digital revolution, so I even identify with seeing your entire industry crumble quickly). For me, it wasn’t that I didn’t feel bad for OP (I do!) or even that I agree with the regime (so very much not!). It was that I am kind of baffled by a message asking for empathy from someone who clearly hasn’t had any for others who experience job loss and sort of demanding the world owe you a level of job security that it doesn’t for others.
The who effing point of working in government is that trade off for more security.
Well, maybe it shouldn’t be. I’m all for competitive compensation for government employees to eliminate this sense that it’s a place where you’re protected even if your skills no longer align with the mission.
The thing is though people whose skills do align with the mission, doing critical work, with excellent performance reviews are still poised to lose their jobs.
I don’t know how to get that through people’s heads.
The whole point is that the mission has changed to prioritize a smaller government footprint. I don’t agree with that, but my candidate lost, and that is the policy position of the candidate who won.
People with excellent performance reviews lose their jobs all the time though—all it takes is a cost cutting or shift in direction. I stand by that it’s victim Olympics. Comments like that only make you appear more sheltered.
No, this is POINTLESS shutting down of government operations, in a sudden, and likely illegal manner. It is NOT a routine downsizing with layoffs. It is NOT a “realignment of the mission.” It is a major emergency that is cratering the functioning of government services that NOBODY ASKED FOR and that will affect everyone in the United States, adversely. Good luck trying to renew a passport in the coming months, among other things. No more rollout of rural fiber optic internet connections. All thos bridges and tunnels that were in desperate need of repair? Not happening anymore. Our food supply is in danger, not to mention the safety of our drug supplies, and more. The heartlessness and indifference on this site is quite dismaying.
Government jobs might come with more security than private sector roles, but that doesn’t mean they guarantee lifelong tenure no matter what. Budgets change, missions shift, and priorities evolve—it’s just not realistic to think any job can be untouchable forever.
The idea of lifelong tenure leads to inefficiency and complacency. If you’re not accountable to anyone, who are you really serving? Yourself.
Yeah, the part that didn’t make sense to me was the dichotomy between “this sucks, and I am worried/scared/feel awful, and need empathy” (100%!) and a whole post of /Reasons This Shouldn’t Happen To Feds/, that seemed like “and you should THINK it’s crazy too”. Empathy doesn’t mean agreeing with that POV
I hope people who don’t think federal job security is important never need critical federal services, which often come as a result of lots of sacrifice from the feds who provide them.
How much extra would you need to be paid to lose the martyr complex? Because that would be a great use of my tax dollars.
This reminds me when someone posted here complaining about her Ex’s schedule as an EMT and their custody arrangement. People piled on the Ex. Hope you or a loved one never needs an EMT!!!
This reminds me of when a police officer murders a civilian and you all say things like “if you don’t like it, don’t call them!”
This.
I agree with this. Have all the empathy in the world for that op. I think what’s happening is awful. But man there were times in my life I had some resentment for public employees. Job security, pensions, humane hours, decent healthcare and a boss whose bank account isn’t impacted when your paycheck clears? They all seemed like a dream to me and it was a kick in the teeth to think I’d never get those things but my taxes went to people that did. The ops points are taken and she makes fed works seem like nothing but extreme sacrifice. Maybe it is, I don’t know. Still, I can’t help but remember that everyone I grew up with wanted a government job so badly. Fire dept test, sanitation, police jobs and teachers are good jobs where I live. Heck the local meter maid dude makes more than I do, with a pension and he didn’t need to go to law school. I’m ok if he doesn’t have better job security too.
I mean yes I have all those perks and they are awesome (state government employee) but I’ve been an attorney 15 years and have yet to see half of what a big law first year makes. It’s totally available, but most people don’t want to make that trade off.
30 years as an attorney working for government and I’m now equivalent to average start h salary for my random not fabulous public university law school. The people who are being spiteful about government positions can go take a long walk on a short pier.
But what’s stopping you from applying to a government job?
I applied for years and ended up with a private sector gig that has a relaxed culture. There are still way more people who want these gigs than get them.
Right? You don’t have to wait for an owl from Hogwarts!
I’m a local here, and I have very little of that.
Job security: We thought we had this, but people I work with got laid off during COVID. An entire department I worked with regularly got axed, and they weren’t the only ones. Everyone else who is non-union (any white collar worker, some blue collar workers) got 5% paycuts during COVID. 5% isn’t a ton, but on a 50k salary anything hurts.
Pension: The pension in my city is a joke. I did the math, and I stand to make between $600 (if I leave now) and $1100 (if I stay 40 years / retire at 65) a month. I pay into my pension (I forget how much, but it’s noticeable). We have a 401k, equivalent, which I also pay into but there’s no match.
Humane hours: I work in a division with mandatory 24/7 coverage. I work night shift (6PM – 6AM) 3 months a year. I also work every other holiday, and 1-2 weekends a month. We also have mandatory OT, and while yes it’s nice to make OT, it’s not so nice to be forced to work more than 40 hours.
Healthcare: This one I’ll give you, I pay $50/mo for coverage for myself. Coverage is decent – it’s not as comprehensive as it was at an old job, but it’s cheaper.
I also enjoy having a separate sick bank from my time off – I get 12 sick days a year and 13 vacation days. But, I also need to bank those sick days because I only get 4 weeks maternity leave, so I’ll need to use a lot of sick time then.
Oh wah. Your taxes are going to the military and prisons. Very little goes to your peers who work for the government.
So I’m a former fed and a current city employee. Almost everyone in my family is in public service.
One thing I’ve learned is how little the general public knows or understands about how public service works and why. There’s been a lot of hot takes all over the internet over the past few days that are wrong.
Contrary to popular belief, people do lose their jobs for cause which includes not doing a job well.
Fed pay is generally decent (not as good as industry, but in most areas livable ). Working for the city I work for it’s not – people do indeed need some benefit to keep working here because if I wasn’t married, I couldn’t afford rent (any safe 1BR or studio – not just where I live now). My city requires that employees live in the city – moving further out isn’t an option.
Way more positions require overnights / weekends / holidays than people think. Way more federal jobs involve deployments than people think. Some state and local jobs also require deployments.
Depending on the role and the situation, mandatory overtime is common. Working in public health I spent over a year working 80-90 hour weeks. I made 55k at the time in a H/MCOL. yes, I got overtime, but it in no way made the hours worth it. I’m 24/7 on call, unless I take vacation I’m expected to always answer the phone (was once chewed out for missing a call while showering).
There are absolutely no perks whatsoever. Benefits are good, pay sucks, but water in my building isn’t potable, they don’t provide hand soap or paper towels in the bathrooms, and there is mold and asbestos in my building. Theres no fridge or microwave or anything for lunch. There’s no place to pump, so mothers have to use a bathroom stall. Only my director has an office, there’s no place for a private conversation, and I literally share a desk with a colleague (at the same time. We work from the office 5 days a week).
I’d be HAPPY to trade places with some of y’all for a week and hear your thoughts on public service.
A city requiring people who work there to live in the city is pretty nuts! I’ve never heard of that and I have several friend and family members who work for city government. Our city is actually sort of the opposite – if you work for the city you get a waiver to attend (desirable) city schools without paying the fees that other out of distinct people have to pay, and your kids have a guaranteed place in the schools.
A city having desirable schools is wild to me!
It’s more of a college town than a big city. ~100k population in the city limits. The suburban schools aren’t bad by any means but the city schools have the professors’ kids and are highly coveted by some.
I know Philly and Wilmington, DE require their employees to live in the city and I believe many positions in NYC require it too. I also think Chicago has a residency requirement.
To me it makes sense – you want your employees to be invested in the city they’re serving, no?
That being said, I used to work for Philly and the salaries are low, the schools are terrible, and in Philly your two options for neighborhoods are expensive* or dangerous, which makes it hard. I worked for Philly in my early 20s and I would have to be able to save money on my I think 48k (this was 2017) salary living at home, but my parents lived 1.5 miles out of city limits, so I couldn’t live with them and had to pay rent.
* Not everything is as expensive as the actually expensive areas – you can obviously find cheaper rent if you’re not in Rittenhouse, but even group houses in Manayunk or Point Breeze are getting expensive these days!! Rent prices have gone up way more than salaries have here!
Boston requires it too. Many big cities do.
If you’re at the point of writing four paragraphs about how much you dislike your working conditions (and no paragraphs about why you’re doing it), it’s very much okay to quit.
No one is putting a gun to your head to do this work. It’s your choice and your free will. So spare the martyr act.
It’s not a “martyr complex,” it’s that you are accusing government workers of basically being on welfare. It’s an honest living, not a charity, and the way this administration is deliberately targeting federal workers, and deliberately mistreating them in an effort to get them to resign is monstrous and completely unlike a private sector layoff situation and unprecedented in modern times for government. It’s fundamentally wrong, counter-productive, destructive to the nation, and is exactly what the enemies of the United States would dream of. Try not to project your own private sector experience onto what is happening to the federal government right now — that is being insulated.
What’s happening is not normal layoffs, the new regime is intentionally working to make federal employees miserable. Per a ProPublica article, “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so.
https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-vought-center-renewing-america-maga
Please post this again tomorrow. I don’t think people understand THIS is why the feds are upset.
I was a bit surprised that the concept of continuity of government is so poorly appreciated here. I hope our government doesn’t fall.
For those of you who can’t bring yourselves to read the news too much these days — but still recognize these are dark, dangerous days and we should be on high alert — what are you doing? I feel like I want someone trusted to tell me one thing to write sternly worded letters to each week and I can do that, but otherwise it’s like drinking from the firehose. Which of course is the point, but still.
There’s a website called 5calls.org where you can enter your zip code and it will give you the phone numbers for your congresspeople, and also scripts to use when calling about particular issues. I have heard that calling is better than email because calls are logged in a way that emails are not.
Join League of Women Voters.
They’ll suggest stuff to you once a week in their emails. Click on them when you feel frustrated or lost or stressed. Do as much or as little as you want. At home, via Zoom or in person there are ways to get involved.
People need to get out and do something. Not just worry, or gripe.
So, it’s too much for you to pay attention to it all so you’ll make your friends do that for you instead?
huh? no i meant like one of the bazillion “resistance” commentators and newsletters and websites
lol some of you are on some WILD shit today.
This is a completely fine strategy. There are people who will do this no matter what, so why not rely on them?
yes i feel like i’m living in a dystopian universe. my country talking about rounding people up and raids. disabling websites (kudos to the skimm for purchasing one of them!). watching hostages released (it’s about time!) being paraded in front of fancy looking signs and given souvenirs while people watch and cheer. restrictions of women’s rights in afghanistan. wild fires in california, but ya know, climate change isn’t real. it feels like as a society we are moving one step forward and a thousand steps back. also, why is the government that is so focused on ‘natural’ health, want to keep PFAS in water? i have many friends who are doctors, on the verge of loan forgiveness, but worried it will be taken away and they will literally be in debt forever. i realize it is a privilege to be able to do, but I am significantly limiting my news intake and have unfollowed many instagram accounts, and am basically reading the headlines emailed to me daily and that is all. for some reason, and i am not sure why, i feel less anxious this time around. maybe because some of it is so ridiculous it seems surreal. or, he did win the popular vote, this is what people wanted, so i have very little sympathy for those who voted for him and will then be disappointed when bread doesn’t become cheaper at the grocery store
1. Picking one or two areas to pay attention to. For me, I’m doing things in my field. I’m hyper aware of that and only vaguely aware of the rest.
2. Voting with my wallet and only shopping places that haven’t bent the knee.
3. Emailing my electeds.
4. Looking out for my people. Community is so important so I am doubling down.
Thats it for now, but I want to get more involved.
#1 is me right now.
I have decided not to wring my hands about choices voters who are opposite of me have made. I think they will feel the consequences worse than I will, so I wait and kind of halfway watch.
I’m being kind to my neighbors, volunteering in person at our local food bank, and trying to identify other ways to support indigent populations in my area.
In no particular order:
1. Paying attention to what is happening at the state and local level. Emailing my state senator about issues I care deeply about.
2. I can’t fight everything, so I will be choosing 1-2 issues to focus on. If everyone did that, it would be much less overwhelming than fighting everything.
3. Taking care of myself and my people.
4. Actively building and nurturing the community I live in.
5. Limiting myself to 15-20 minutes of news each day. After that, it becomes drinking from a firehose. It is not normal to have this much information coming at us.
6. As a corollary to this: focusing on what I can actually control at work. I am not a fed, but my job and org are affected by changes at the agency level. It’s infuriating on a personal level, but I am choosing to do what makes sense within the parameters of my own position.
Don’t tune out completely. Pace yourself, but keep up the good fight.
I’m being even more careful to make sure what I’m reading (or have read) is accurate. For example, ICE did a raid in Colorado this weekend. The immediate press and social media reaction was ICE! ICE raids.
The facts are it was a DEA raid, with ICE and the ATF involved. They raided an unofficial nightclub, arrested 50 people many who are here illegally, are connected to the Venezuelan gang TdA, and drugs, guns, and cash were confiscated. In that scenario, DEA, ICE, and ATF deserve our support for doing their jobs.
I feel completely helpless about almost all of it. Even contacting my elected officials seems futile because they are, for the most part, doing everything they can. Basically I’m over here baking sourdough bread and throwing myself into local fire recovery efforts.
That honestly seems like the best thing you can do, in terms of both your own mental health and helping others.
has anyone’s employer changed or rolled back their dei programs? obviously it’s all over the news with big retailers & big tech bending the knee, curious if anyone in other industries is seeing it happen as well?
(not looking to debate anyone on the validity of these programs. I’m glad that so far, anyway, my f500 employer has not changed theirs)
I don’t think the relevant corporate budgeting and planning cycles have elapsed yet. Ask this q again in 6-12 months and you’ll get more realistic answers.
My employer is keeping our DEI initiatives in place and I am so happy. Our CEO was asked in a public forum last week and his answer was so immediate and unbothered. The question was asked anonymously and I couldn’t tell whether it was a genuine question or a challenge, but CEO handled it beautifully.
The state university I work at had to close all DEI offices and programs. It was not directly due to the federal govt; it was an executive order of our state government (which has been R for decades but is newly right wing and emboldened). A good friend lost her job.
I work for a federal contractor so yea we got an email today that said don’t forget!!! We hire and promote on merit.
We have to do something or we are in violation of some of our contracts – they are rebranding it but I am not 100% sure how yet. I can assure you that our DEI team is not going to be the DEI team anymore though.
same at my federal contractor workplace. The orders are beginning to trickle down into specific guidance. Ironically, hiring on merit alone is what we’ve been trying to do this whole time.
Costco shareholders rejected an anti-DEI proposal last week. I think a few others did too. They all come out of the same think Tank.
Because I need to just focus on something of no consequence to me . . .
Can someone explain the Blake Lively / Justin Baldoni series of lawsuits (IIRC there are now 4)? I totally think he did what he is accused of, but I do not understand why she was able to take steps in the moment to fix the (severe) problems on set and then promoted the movie (and do some tie-ins to her brand) and yet is suing him now. IMO she is a more powerful figure than he is, but I don’t get the public lawsuit because the dirt now being flung makes them both seem difficult to work with / toxic / jerks. [And who would have made this movie even — domestic violence as a love story? and there is a sequel?] And then he sues her back (vs countersuing)? This is like a civ pro exam gone sideways. How much $ do they have to pay lawyers, because that is the only side with an upside here it seems.
I’m totally on team both are bad people. As my 75 yr old mother would say, a pox on both their houses!
Actually, I’m on Team Lawyers. At least somebody is having fun?
Oh yeah, as an employment lawyer, this would be my dream.
Yeah ESH
I don’t necessarily believe her. I think she didn’t like her experience, rightly or wrongly, and is going scorched earth because of it. Bringing in her husband is almost too much—as far as my own personal view from the court of public opinion.
I haven’t seen anything to say she was victimized so much as her co-star, boss, was creepy and borderline inappropriate.
Which she handled as best she could in the circumstances
I believe the lawsuit is more because he hired a PR firm to fill the Internet forums and social media and tabloid blogs with stories against BL during the film promotion, when they promoted the film separately. When that came up in interview questions, BL shrugged and said “artistic differences”. But JB’s team made her look crazy controlling, which she says ruins her potential for future jobs.
BL basically leaked all the discovery to the New York Times. So then JB counter-sued about that, and released more documents or footage about him being right.
Please correct me if I’m wrong
But also JB is very much known for publicly promoting women’s equality, theoretically. This shows he may be more towards the hypocritical and yea creepy ends of the spectrum vs. the ally side
I feel like BL kind of proves him or his toadies right.
You’re leaving out the part where she released only partial info that conveniently left out context and instances of him being decent in the conversations. That’s where she lost me. That and the interviews PRIOR to the film where she is treating pre-approved interviewers like garbage (I’m former media–and what she did was such gross use of power).
Can someone share what DEI offices do at big agencies or corporations? At my 3,000 person org it’s 4 people. They go to job fairs, host speakers, do some events. It seems so innocuous to me. Are other agencies that dramatically different? I’d be interested in actual experiences – all this hang wringing and vitriol and this idea that minorities or women are getting an “unfair advantage” is nothing I have experienced first hand
At the university I work at, they’re focused on recruitment and retention – encouraging minority and under-represented students apply and making sure they stay once they’re here and don’t drop out of. My university no longer really does any affirmative action, but when they did it was all through the admissions office not DEI offices. There’s certainly an argument that higher ed staffs are too bloated and should have fewer people and DEI isn’t immune from that, but I don’t think it makes sense to eliminate DEI entirely.
Well no, that’s not what our DEI office does. They don’t help anyone get a fair advantage. Office politics do that plenty well enough on their own!
Our DEI office runs trainings, manages our employee resource groups, makes sure that we fill out all the surveys that the shareholders like to see (top 100 lists, DEI rankings, Disability:IN, etc.), and when those surveys show gaps, they work to help close them, they truly try to identify areas where the company can improve inclusivity and then work to get leadership across the enterprise (35k people in the US) to buy in and want to throw money at it (a hard job), they focus on wellness initiatives (for better or worse), etc.
What they aren’t: HR and talent acquisition.
I can’t speak to the internal facing DEI, but we do a lot of DEI work to make sure we’re being equitable in our programming for the public – is our communication at a reading level or comprehension level for the community we serve? Are we including ASL or Spanish or other languages in our communications? Are we being culturally sensitive to the immigrant community? How is our physical access – both in terms of access to the building (ramps) and also can people get here via public transit if they don’t have cars? Can we reimburse public transit for those who can take it but can’t afford it? Are we being equitable to all neighborhoods and not just focusing on the richer neighborhood that can organize a meeting with us to complain about XYZ?
The big thing I saw corporate DEI have an impact on was, if the company had a booth or recruited at the PWI in my city, that they also recruited at the HBCU in the same city. That’s only become the case fairly recently. The companies’ talent pools are deeper and students from both schools have the opportunity to apply in person and get face time with recruiters.
I’m in SF, working for a big tech company. I would say that our DEI office has done some excellent things, mundane things, and some performative things.
Excellent things include making sure there’s a private place for nursing mothers. It includes nice chairs and a fridge and special keycard access for only the mothers who should have access. I’m not a mother, so I have no idea about scheduling, but there’s plenty of space for everyone. They’ve worked with a vendor to make our job descriptions gender-neutral in terms of the language and helped put in place a “balanced slate” approach with recruiting to make sure hiring managers see a diverse set of candidates. They also bring up lesser-known issues around accessibility, for example, and probably fought to have accessibility as a focus in our offices, policies, and products (which is also a legal issue, so this is not a fluffy Be kiNd to EVeryOnE situation).
Mundane things like influencing the annual harassment training, partnering with internal ERG groups, building relationships with local orgs with a focus on underrepresented candidates, collecting data on the demographics of our workforce to make sure there’s no discrimination, partnering with the legal team to make sure there’s no bias in performance reviews and compensation, etc. Standard HR stuff, but with a more focused lens.
Performative things include changing a bunch of the signage to remove men/women from the bathrooms and instead include pictures of the types of toilets available in each restroom. Trying to force everyone to default to including pronouns in their email signature, Slack profile, Zoom names. Trying to get everyone to celebrate every holiday for every culture with office parties and social media posts and solidarity posts (we have an unlimited vacation policy, so there’s no issue with taking time off for celebrations).
A private place for nursing mothers is the law. I wouldn’t call a DEI office doing that a good thing. Not that the room itself isn’t a good thing, but they were just doing what was legally required of them! And it shouldn’t take DEI to follow the law.
So for example, a large employer near me has a budget line item for “diversity in engineering” and if you hire a woman or non-White/non-Asian man, part of their salary is covered by the diversity budget rather than your depts. No one is going out and hiring unqualified people, but it’s definitely something people use if. eg your department leadership isn’t quite willing to prioritize your headcount approval over all the other needs
I’ve definitely been in meetings where someone will say “should we add John Smith to the panel? no, we need a woman”, etc. or “I’m not comfortable with a white man in abc role” Again, the women or POCs chosen in the end are qualified too — and net, I think these programs are needed and worth it (because I have ALSO been in meetings where the just-happened-to-all-be-white-men in charge say things like “wow you hired ANOTHER woman?? I like to just hire the best person for the job rather than focus on gender” (His team was all men. Yeah buddy, I hire the best candidate I find too).1
Like most things, it’s not 100% either of the extremes you read about online (and maybe better funded, more rigorous DEI initiatives would mitigate some of the errors described above)