Thursday’s Workwear Report: 365 High-Rise Pleated Trousers

329 Comments

1. I’m a fed in DC and feeling so on edge. I’m in regulatory compliance in the immigration space, so I think I’m safe for now but im trying to plan ahead and see where else I could work. I feel really dumb because I never considered that the gov would become a hostile place to work. I don’t wake up in the morning and think how can I make more money or increase profits, I think how can I serve my country and help people. And now that’s a bad thing. Am I even employable, can I still contribute to society? What kinds of private sector jobs involve regulatory compliance?

   1. Insurance, securities, pretty much any corporation has a compliance department.

      1. I am also in compliance, private sector. Compliance is all about government regulations. I honestly believe that these regulations help people and that the people who created the laws and enforce them have the best interests of everyone in the country at heart and provide a useful necessary service.

         I definitely feel like my entire industry is paralyzed and panicking and also yes trying to plan and move forward but really really scared and unsure

      2. If regulatory agencies are dismantled and regulations are abolished or not enforced, will there be compliance departments anymore?

         1. If the private entity exports to Europe, yes. They will still have to comply with reasonable regulations.

   2. Higher Ed does a ton of compliance work

      1. But also getting completely screwed over by the administration. There’s not going to be a lot of hiring there in the next few years. Compliance needs won’t go away completely, but if you stop funding research and cut back on other education funding, it will reduce them significantly.

      2. For better or for worse, that’s why college is so expensive. People have been sounding the alarm on administrative bloat for twenty years, and it has only gotten worse. I imagine that the new administration will likely be streamlining federal compliance requirements.

         1. How is that going to work if they’re also creating new ones? Reviewing every document with woke buzzwords like “women” in it is a bunch of work too.

         2. I work in higher ed (research) and actually agree with this, but unfortunately it seems like they only want more compliance requirements, not fewer. The first Trump administration did a lot to make research much more onerous and bureaucratic, and they’ve shown no signs of wanting to reduce red tape, just wanting to cut funding. Pretty much every scientist I know would be full of ideas for getting rid of administrative bloat, but Trump and Elon aren’t in the slightest bit interested in that. And as long as the government keeps putting out new rules that have to be complied with, universities are forced to spend more time and money on that instead of actual research.

            1. Yeah, the first step towards efficiency would be making grants.gov actually usable.

            2. This

            3. 💯

            4. amen

            5. Yup.

   3. I hate that this is where things are so much. And thank you so much for your work in this area. But as a private sector worker, I will say, the vast majority of us don’t wake up thinking “money money money”, we wake up and think about our small area of work and making an impact in that area. Most of us aren’t CEOs of big companies. You can be a good person and work in the private sector.

      1. +1

   4. Yep, still terrified. I moved at my own expense across the country for my fed job. I can’t afford to do it again and my job is the only one of its type in the area. Even if public service wasn’t my long term goal, I have a service requirement attached to my schooling, but alternative allowable jobs do not exist, so if laid off, I’m doubly hosed.

   5. Pharma

   6. I posted yesterday about being an auditor, which I do in the banking compliance space. Before government, I worked at banks for many years as an internal auditor to make sure they were following all kinds of banking laws and regulations. You might look there (banking pays well, too). I’m in the same boat as you so I am looking to either go back to banking or possibly go into healthcare as an internal auditor.

   7. Healthcare has a lot of compliance jobs, and I don’t see that going away even if we experience some deregulation. First, a lot of compliance in healthcare isn’t solely about meeting federal guidelines– it’s about patient safety. If a patient dies or has an adverse event, and the company wasn’t following the law, that would be an extremely expensive lawsuit for the company (in addition to having the bad patient outcome). Second, the areas of regulation that most healthcare providers hate involve billing (i.e., they keep the government from overpaying) and enforcing those regulations through lawsuits often leads to large recoveries for the government. (The government can often recover treble damages, so settlements, etc. tend to be fairly high.)

      1. Same. I’m in healthcare IT and we have lots of space for compliance people: people that work to make sure the org is in compliance (eg, product or operations people), the people that translate the regs for our business (in compliance or legal), and the people that work for auditing companies.

   8. Pharma and biotech.

      1. For all the people saying Pharma and biotech, it’s the worst employment market for those companies right now that it’s ever been. Many companies have gone bankrupt, so the market has already flooded with good candidates who have experience.

         1. Depends on what you actually do for work within biotech/pharma. There are shortages of particular functions. In my particular area, the recruiters won’t stop calling.

   9. Finance. Investment firms, the banking industry, lending organizations, mortgage companies.

   10. For immigration related, look at industries where there tends to be a lot of visa activity. Tech is one.

       For compliance, lots of industries are regulated in different ways! Banking. Insurance. Pharma. Energy. Aviation.

2. It feels like a lot of things are changing in the workforce, very quickly, yes for feds but also other industries as AI/climate change/etc take their toll. For those of us who are late 40s/early 50s – has it changed your thoughts about retirement?

   I was just talking with a friend and we were noting that it would be different/less comfortable if we had to retire early, but we could do it or just get a bridge job for health insurance until Medi-whatever kicks in like retail or something.

   1. I think bridge jobs are few and far between given the white collar recession and lack of living wage-paying work. Few retail or part time options provide adequate healthcare, and those that do are increasingly competitive, especially by college graduates not provided a path to their desired career. No advice, just commiseration about the situation .

   2. That’s assuming Med-whatever and ACA haven’t been gutted by the Republicans. Call your representatives!

      1. this. McCain’s not around anymore for another thumbs down drama

   3. Maybe an outlier but I’m at a career point where things like AI aren’t an issue for me because I’m not doing the junior analyst work. I’m at the top of my field and love what I do. Retirement will be nice but I can happily work for another 10+ years, I’m early 50s.

   4. What are these bridge jobs that offer health insurance? To my knowledge, most retail and other jobs, which I would have previously considered backup/bridge/retirement jobs have been stripped of benefits or even turned into gig or freelance work. So I’m curious. I’m not sure if you know something I don’t or if maybe a heads-up that insurance seems rare is helpful.

      1. My mom has one of these. She works at a local community hospital registering people when they come in for tests. It’s easy and has good benefits, no overtime etc…

   5. Good for you. Not all of us are in that position, including me. I would be looking at a far more drastic solution to not having an income to live on during those bridge years and beyond.

   6. Lol you think retail comes with good health insurance?

      1. fair point, I don’t know – I’d always heard Starbucks and Costco did, and I’d hoped bigger companies like Walmart/Home Depot did as well.

         1. I thought they often used scheduling apps to prevent giving most employees enough hours to even qualify for benefits in the first place (36 hrs = no benefits).

         2. Starbucks quit more than a decade ago. What you heard isn’t true anymore. Maybe you could turn up a few if you research, but they’re few and far between and therefore actually very difficult to get.

         3. again, I don’t know, but this 11/24 article from US News was probably fact checked and lists 15 companies including starbucks.
            https://money.usnews.com/careers/articles/companies-offering-health-insurance-to-part-time-workers

            1. I wonder if it’s regional or how that works out.

               I will say that high deductible + HSA isn’t “good insurance” for most people living on retail wages.

         4. My sibling worked at Home Depot for a few months after college graduation while looking for other work. They were regularly scheduled for a 4 hour shift at opening and a 4 hour shift at closing (with a 3+ hour break in between), and were given exactly 1-2 hours a week less than they needed to get health insurance. This was all done by software, by design to minimize having to pay for lunch breaks and benefits. They lived a 40 minute bus ride away from the store so it was brutal — like working a 12 hour day but getting paid for 8 hours of it.

            1. Wow that is awful and manipulative.

            2. Wow.

               Boy do we need unions and universal health insurance.

            3. Scheduling software has made life so hard for so many people who work retail and food service. They can carefully avoid paying benefits whatever the hours threshold may be, and they can keep people “on call” so they can’t make any commitments even on their days off.

            4. Responding super late so typing this into the void, but it’s not just retail that pulls that crap. Years ago, I interviewed for a job at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It required reading knowledge of two other languages and effectively a PhD and was part-time with just enough hours to be under the threshold for any benefits. And it was understood that you’d work more hours (unpaid).
               It was, not inaccurately, described as a trust-fund job.

            5. I believe you. Academia in general loves no benefits “part time” jobs. Sadly a lot of people who take lectureships on this basis do not have trust funds but are trying to make up the difference with another part time job(s) while continuing to apply for TT positions (and hoping they don’t get sick!).

   7. I really don’t understand your concept of “retiring” but then working another job. That’s not retiring. You can leave your field, dial it back to part time, etc., but if you are working another job, you aren’t retired. It’s disingenuous and insulting to people who live off their retail wages to pretend those roles are lightweight, easy, fluff jobs that just give benefits and allow people in them to skate by.

      1. she said “we could do it [retire] OR get a bridge job”

         I think the point is that you will not get a new career at 50+ and it will probably be very hard to get a new job at 50+ also. call it age discrimination or whatever but i think that’s the truth.

         1. Are you talking about the bridge job? Because as described here it entails 1) entering a new field, which will 2) also have age discrimination

      2. Yeah, I worked in retail for a while and people who claimed were just working there “for fun” or “extra money” because their husband, parents, investments REaLly supported them — well, they either very quickly failed out or it became apparent that they were just like the rest of us who really needed a job. Perhaps unfortunately, it’s very much a real job. People tell themselves they’re special because they don’t really NEED to be there but they do 😂.

         I also met a few “retirees” who thought they were working their way up the ladder in this new field and a corporate job was waiting for them after they paid their dues … sadly very unrealistic and out of touch with how retail works (only the young, trendy, attractive, and perhaps willing to be exploited, moved up and corporate was considered a whole different track from customer-facing).

   8. What concerns me is age discrimination if I’m laid off or need to leave my job.

   9. My bridge job is as a self employed consultant and it’s working out great, if you don’t count the extra (uncompensated) labor involved in all the admin of running your own business.

      I pay for my own health insurance on my state’s exchange (ACA) so I’m worried about what will happen to that but I can’t do anything about it, so. Here I am. Hopefully insured until Medicare age but who knows. I am utterly uninsurable as a stand alone applicant on the private market.

3. I’m a fed lawyer and given my agency and my role, I think it’s more likely than not I survive the incoming layoffs, but of course nothing is certain. My spouse is also a fed, so I thought it prudent to start looking for jobs. I have a phone interview for an in-house position next week. I’m also 6 months pregnant and had intended to use my 3-month parental leave plus an extra month of sick leave that I had saved up. I don’t want to leave immediately as I like my job and would like to stay at least long enough to see how things shake out at my agency. But I still want to keep the option to take this position if they offer it to me. What do I say in a phone interview if I’m asked about when I could start? I don’t want to disclose I’m pregnant.

   1. If they offered you a job, presumably you would give notice at your current job and then be available as soon as you’d worked out your notice period? So that would be your answer.

      (Unless, of course, the interview/hiring process takes 3 months, in which case they would be hiring someone who is heading out on parental leave, and isn’t available for ____ months.)

      1. I guess what I’m trying to get it as I don’t want to give notice until I have a better idea of what’s going to happen in my agency and that time period may push me up to my mat leave. So i’m not sure what to say if they ask me about availability.

         1. I think it’s two separate pieces – what do you say about wanting time to see how things play out at your agency, and the second is what do you say about mat leave.

            For the first – you really just say 2 weeks from accepting the offer. You can’t really go an interview and say “I don’t know if I want to leave my current job”, which is what your situation boils down to. However, people interview when they’re not sure they really want to leave all the time! Often the hiring process is slow so you might easily have 3 months of time to wait and see anyway, or you learn more about the role that makes your decision easier; worst case, you get an offer and you have to decide earlier than you’d hoped whether to accept it or not.

            For the mat leave part, I’d do some quiet research into their parental leave policies. I would stick with “2 weeks after accepting an offer” in initial interviews, especially an HR screener and only bring it up later on, directly with the hiring manager and preferably after they want to hire you.

            1. This.

            2. +1. You can’t act like you want to keep your current job during an interview with a new company.

   2. In-house moves slowly, usually taking at least 6-8 weeks to complete all of the rounds. I think you don’t need to address your start date until you have an offer in hand, but you should be aware that in-person interviews are the norm for the later rounds of interviews.

      1. That’s good to know even if it’s not in my favor. If I’m asked next week what my start availability is, do you have suggestions for a script about how to respond?

         1. When I’ve had this come up early on in the interview process, it was because they had a strict start date in mind and they told me that rather than ask me when I was available. In my case, I was interviewing in early December with a mid March start date. I got the offer in early January.

         2. Maybe “I’ll be available to start with 2 weeks’ notice, and I’ll be ready to hit the ground running. I may need some personal time in the first six months though, but I hope your company has a flexible leave policy so I won’t lose momentum.” ? I don’t know. You’d want to make it clear that any leave would be easily manageable on both sides. How much leave parental leave are you hoping / planning for?

            1. I don’t think that you can honestly say “may” and “need some leave in the first six months” when it is “will” and “need 1-2+ months in the first six months.” I think that this is where we can run aground with phone interviews. If you were like staff and took / got only 6 weeks, you’d probably not raise eyebrows, but you don’t want a reputation for actively concealing something material as an attorney.

               Before offer: I can discuss start dates if we make it to the offer stage. At this point, it would be difficult to say.

               After: “This is where zoom is awkward, because I’m in my third trimester. I was planning to take leave of X in my current job and would need that should I take your offer, which I am very excited about.”

            2. I think Anon at 10:04am suggests is perfect, in my opinion.

      2. This on the timeline. 6-8 weeks is a short time frame, and it’s how long it took for me when it was a flat out approach from the company with an offer.

   3. I was forced with contemplating a work move while pregnant and I wouldn’ t have been eligible for leave without working at the new place for a year. And some places start benefits like insurance after a 90-day probationary period (like where the rank-and-file workers have high turnover, but this can be a uniform policy that captures all workers, like where people also have to wear company apparel and wear name badges).

      1. +1 – I asked HR about leave after being offered a job and it turned out I wouldn’t have been eligible for any leave beyond 12wks of FMLA in the first 6 months. In my role at the time I was able to take 6mos off fully paid (and workers past their first 6 months also got 6 months fully paid) so definitely something to be sure of.

   4. One factor to consider is that if you take the parental leave at your government job, you have to stay for 12 weeks after you return from the leave. If you don’t, you would have to pay it back. So, that means you wouldn’t be able to start for at least 24 weeks after you give birth (or longer, if you take the sick leave). As a practical matter, that would basically require you to start a new job when pregnant and only take whatever leave they will agree too because I can’t image that anyone would be ok waiting 6 months or more for you to start. Personally, I would put off the job search until you are on leave.

      1. Agree but you should take the interview to get practice, make connections and just in case this is the unicorn where they really want you and are ok with your leave situation.

      2. I’ve thought about that payback period. I figured if I’m RIF’d while on leave than I won’t have to pay it back. Or alternatively, I could use my month of sick leave first and then use mat leave (and cut it short) so that if I do take another job while out, I’d have to pay less back. We’re lucky in that if I really had to pay back, we could afford to do so.

   5. I would not say anything during the phone interview and if they ask about your availability, turn the question back on them and ask if they have specific expectations for that.

   6. Nothing. Some fluff nonsense. Get an offer then discuss

      1. +1.

   7. I don’t think you can 3D Chess your way out of this, the right answer is: “I would prefer to do 1 month notice so that I can use my accrued vacation time and have some time to decompress before starting, but for a competitive offer, I could provide 2 weeks notice.” Then depending on when the offer was issued, and for how much, you can decide if it’s worth forgoing your government leave. At that point, if it’s worth it, and you want to say yes, you disclose the pregnancy and go from there.

      1. Love this!

   8. I feel confused as this reads to me like you want to start 6 months or a year from now, which I don’t think any employer would think is a reasonable time frame?

   9. to be frank, if you’re not even sure you’ll be able to decide if you want this job for another 3-4 months, it is a waste of time to be interviewing. In-house hiring isn’t typically setting land speed records, but people generally start within 2-4 weeks of receiving an offer.

      Companies work around due dates for new hires. If they don’t, consider what that means about how supportive they are about flexibility for employees.

      1. I don’t agree with this. Sometimes it takes time to fill an open role, and after weeks of negotiating the first choice candidate may not accept, and employees go back to the drawing board. I’ve seen roles go off the market due to some shifting priorities or manager turnover, and then come back on months later.

         So definitely interview, as it will give you a chance to practice, provide some job market insights and a couple new contacts.

         1. Employers, not employees.

4. I really think that RFK Jr and MAHA are threats that the left hasn’t taken seriously enough over the years. The “crunchy to alt right pipeline” is a real sleeper issue that’s only becoming more prominent. I’m not sure how we (the left) respond but I think ignoring it or loosely complaining about RFK without an action plan isn’t working. Levels of trust in the health-related government agencies are lower than ever.

   1. I think this might be a self correcting problem when we start to get preventable disease outbreaks as is already happening with TB and measles.

      1. Agree. This will be one part of a cycle that has probably existed longer than we care to acknowledge.

      2. I really doubt it. How many people mask to prevent outbreaks of influenza or RSV during flu season currently? A lot of people prefer disease outbreaks to taking precautions. Some people can’t stand masks, other people can’t stand shots. There are probably people out there who won’t wash their hands still.

         1. Masking to prevent non-deadly for the vast majority of healthy people viruses is not the same as taking vaccines to prevent truly debilitating diseases. This is apples and oranges and the failure to appreciate the difference is one of the reasons all this vaccine skepticism is able to take root. I do not mask and I make my family has all their recommended immunizations. I don’t think one has anything to do with each other unless you’re immunocompromised or living with someone who is.

            1. But vaccine preventable illnesses are often non-deadly for the vast majority of healthy people too? We vaccinate because we don’t want to draw the short straw, because not everyone is healthy, and because we don’t want to spend a lot of time being sick even if we’re one of the majority who doesn’t suffer lasting consequences.

               The point is that many people simply don’t go out of their way to avoid being sick even when it’s an option. They just take sick days and accept the risks.

            2. Anon @ 11:04 – I don’t think I agree. Not talking about the flu shot. But measles, polio, etc., can have life long consequences. Even chicken pox is now known to cause problems later in life with shingles.

            3. I think people just downplay the lasting consequences of the diseases they’re more willing to take risks with? It’s not controversial that polio is non-deadly for the vast majority of healthy people. It’s not controversial that COVID leaves some healthy people disabled at least for years. With influenza I think risk factors matter more, and I think measles is harder on a larger percentage of young people. We’ve learned a lot these past few years about how much preventable illness people are willing to endure and whether they change their minds when others around them are the unlucky ones. Unfortunately we’re probably going to learn more.

            4. I’m sorry but WTAF are you saying about polio? You’re OK with people having a lifetime of a limb (or two or three) not working very well because most people who get it are fine? You like using tax dollars to pay for decades of physical therapy? Are you into iron lungs?

            5. 11:40, polio should not be deadly for anyone since we can prevent it so easily. And have you ever met a survivor with post-polio syndrome? Most of those people are now gone, so our collective memory has faded.

            6. No, I’m not okay with any of this! But it’s very clear that a lot of people really are okay with diseases that are debilitating only to a small minority of people.

      3. “it’ll be a self-correcting problem” — sure sure so i nominate your parents or baby to get the diseases

         by the time it’s obvious it will be too late. and we’ll still have idiots claiming it’s the deep state.

         1. Don’t be a j e r k. The commenter wasn’t defending anything, just acknowledging the reality of our future. Did commenters forget how to analyze language for nuance and meaning?

      4. Unfortunately, I’ve been a parent long enough to know that most of the crunchy mommies are OK with alternative medicine right up until their kid is actually in mortal danger, then they run full speed into ER and the Children’s Hospital and go Super-Karen on every medical professional they can find for all the tests and all the treatments.

         1. This. It takes a special kind of selfish person to be an anti-vaxxer, because you are relying on everyone around you to protect your child by having their children vaccinated.

         2. Yep. Except I’d argue it’s no where near “mortal danger”. My antivaxxers still love their unnecessary strep tests and antibiotics.

            1. I’m so sorry! That sucks. My hypothesis is that they are deeply bored so they choose treatments based on the amount of time it takes and/or how much it harms other people (measles outbreaks, antibiotic resistance).

            2. Those are the ones you are still seeing. In my world they’re at home experimenting with colloidal silver, arnica, and ivermectin.

            3. Anon at 1:53 Totally agree! That’s part of why I still see antivaxxers. If they’re willing to see me, I’m willing to see them

            4. Thank you, genuinely!

            5. The comment about unnecessary strep tests is worrying to me. I have a kid who gets all the strep symptoms a lot. The only way to know whether it’s strep is to have her tested, but I worry that the pediatrician is judging me for bringing her in every time she has a high fever and a sore throat and a tummyache. The consequences of untreated strep are severe. My husband had scarlet fever as a small child, and we don’t want to put our kid through that. This comment confirms that we are being judged for our caution, though. (For the record, our child is fully vaccinated.)

            6. I would worry less about being judged and more about whether being sick so often is a concern.

   2. I was telling someone who does research on misinformation about the motherhood to vaccine scepticism pipeline and she was shocked (she doesn’t have kids). I remember I watched videos on youtube about how to use a specific baby sling, and then got suggested baby led weaning, and from there, alternative vaccine schedules. And this was in 2017, I’m sure it’s gotten worse.

      1. Hard agree. That crowd will move on to healing crystals (I see you, Asheville).

         They also speak about having autistic children in way that is profoundly offensive. I wonder what RFK Jr. would have done about his poor Aunt Rosemary.

         1. That subject is a tough one. I think some factions on the left (perhaps on the right too – not sure) go too far into “autism is my superpower!” and don’t acknowledge the real hardships kids and their families face, or really grapple with the reality that parents really fear autism for their kids. Telling them it’s just a matter of not having enough acceptance feels dismissive.

            1. I get that. I have a kid with autism, but where she (yes, girls have autism and underserved relative to their numbers) is on the spectrum at a place where she likely just would have been quirky decades ago. Even still, many schools in our city would not admit her based on that Dx alone because the stigma is that every kid with autism is a high-support-needs-non-potty-trained-will-bang-head kid. The reality is very hard for kids and parents and families where one kid is severely disabled (hard = at least one parent gives up working, parents may split up due to stress, other kids are impacted, and they may be evicted for various reasons). But if causation were linear (and had zero comorbidities, which isn’t often the case), we would have found that out by now, no? Instead, we can identify more people at the high end of the spectrum where people are verbal and may be able to aid themselves in research that benefits everyone on the spectrum.

            2. But… but the Wakefield study showing the link between vaccines and autism was completely debunked. As it was based on willful fraud. Yes, people fear autism (I have 3 kids on the spectrum who are now young adults; 2 severely impaired, and it 100% sucks). But vaccines were not the cause of any of my kids’ autism.

            3. I am still blaming Jenny McCarthy for all this (and now she is claiming that her kid isn’t even autistic).

         2. yes, totally — i would rather have my child get measles or polio and die rather than have a child with autism

            my son is on the spectrum. it’s not the vaccines, it’s just the vaccine schedule seems to align when the delays start showing up with missed milestones for communication. Wakefield was literally trying to sell his own vaccines or vaccine preservative or something so he completely fabricated the study.

            1. (i mean – i agree that the way they speak about autism is profoundly offensive because they are saying “i would rather have my child get measles rather than have a child with autism” – realize that was unclear)

            2. Well, and for the subset of ASD patients with medical comorbidities, there’s probably also a higher rate of uncomfortable side effects, which autistic patients are naturally going to express autistically? The CDC has long acknowledged that serious neuroimmune conditions can increase the risk of side effects.

               But the Wakefield set never cared about the comfort and well being of people who were already autistic.

      2. My friend (a liberal working in the DEI space in NYC) got talked into an alternative vaccine schedule by her pediatrician. This resulted in her kid missing one vaccine, her not realizing (bc who manually tracks those??) getting the disease and ending up in the hospital for a month. It’s SO EASY for new parents who are terrified of everything to fall for these things.

         1. Talked into it by a ped is crazy. Something like 98% of doctors in the US favor vaccinating on schedule. Everyone I know who’s done delayed vaccines (without a medical reason) did so over the strong opposition of their doctor.

      3. But an alternative schedule is hardly the same thing as not getting them at all. That seems to me a prime example of where some compromise could help the entire debate.

         1. But why? What I don’t get is the reasoning for a “delayed” or “alternative” schedule except that people think it’s “too many.” That’s not a real reason. So it becomes a slippery slope to you know better than people who study these things. And it leads to shots being missed (see above).

            1. Others will know more than I do in this area (new parent here), but from what I’ve seen so far, people seem concerned about aluminum toxicity in too many vaccines at once. I’ve also heard a few locals reference the “EU vaccine schedule,” which is more spaced out.

               Also, one of my baby’s doctors let slip that part of the reason for a lot of vaccines at each appointment is because some parents will never come back again due to SES challenges or life circumstances. I really don’t know if that’s a factor in the recommended schedule, but if it is, I could see how conscientious parents who don’t miss appointments might bristle.

            2. The “aluminum toxicity” has been debunked. Massive eyeroll. I hate it here.

            3. Exactly that. And it’s a reasonable position to take. Look, I don’t have kids so I don’t have a dog in this fight other than watching people get crucified for their decisions doesn’t seem to lead to the progress and preservation of rights that people think it does. A little compromise and less extremism would go a long way.

            4. People are all like “I don’t want to put bad stuff in my boooooddddy” but they get botox, fillers, eat cra@p, and use questionable hair and beauty products. The crunchy people also use questionable products with no regulation (which is what everything will be now). It doesn’t compute.

            5. When I had two in diapers and a butt-in-seat city job and city daycare, a ped visit meant half a day off work and /or interrupted naptime, both toxic to me. If something could be done at one doctor visit or spread out over 2, it got done at that visit. More working mom trips to the doctor with a well kid is nonsense.

            6. Europeans are more skeptical of vaccines because of the enduring effects of N@zi anti-vax propoganda. N@zis were anti-vax and also thought that diseases eliminated weak members of a population to the benefit of the overall population.

               They also have much much longer maternity and paternal leaves which means lots of time for free medical visits. Any alternative schedules are just about trying to get as much uptake as possible.

               For example, My SIL is a doctor and wouldn’t vax their kids for covid. They don’t have the recommend tick borne encephalitis vax either. France has an enduring measles problem because of low vax levels.

               The availability of free public healthcare also makes it different as well. People are much more likely to go and get treatment for even minor aliments which makes contagious disease more likely to be caught early which limits spread.

            7. 10:06, there’s a big difference between what an adult does and what you give a baby. It’s not unreasonable to consider something different for an infant.

            8. Agreed. Please don’t just accept the view of someone who isn’t properly educated about vaccines and vaccine safety. For example, the amount of aluminum in the vaccines is miniscule. Your baby is exposed to more aluminum daily through either breast milk or formula. Yes, the mechanism for entering the body is different (injection vs by mouth), but researchers have studied how the body processes these exposures and it is removed pretty quickly by the baby’s kidneys and is not a concern. As for the EU Vaccine schedule being more spaced out, it varies by country, but I read up on at least one country (maybe Switzerland?) and the schedule is largely the same. The main difference is that they bundle different vaccines into one shot than we do, so I believe it results in fewer shots, but not an overall slower schedule. Some vaccines they receive earlier, some later, but almost all of the same vaccines are covered over roughly the same time frame (I don’t have the info in front of me right now). But someone who wants to convince you not to follow the typical schedule will tell you they get fewer vaccines and they are more spaced out (because they have more vaccines per shot) and its safer, when really that’s not the case at all. Please, do your homework (and not just by relying on an influencer or even a friend)!

            9. The EU doesn’t do a lot of important vaccines, including chicken pox. I wouldn’t look to them as a model on vaccine science. As the previous poster said there is enduring anti-vax sentiment from the time of WWII.

         2. I’ve never seen a list of benefits of delayed/alternative vaccination schedule.

            1. I think it’s mostly about parents’ feeling that they are in control.

         3. I agree with this. I am very “crunchy” by many measures and had some skepticism about the necessity of following the schedule (e.g. why does my newborn need to be vaccinated for Hepatitis B? I understand that is important for babies born to mothers with hepatitis B, but *I* don’t have it and my newborn isn’t injecting illegal drugs or having sex).

            Our pediatrician was sympathetic to my concerns and helped us plan a delayed/alternative schedule so that our kids still ended up fully vaccinated by age three, before they started preschool. Without his support and willingness to walk us through optimal spacing for each vaccine, we might have just skipped a lot of the vaccines or looked for an alternative provider who was anti-vax.

            1. So this is the ultimate in the “I’m too good for this” thinking. It’s fine for uneducated or minorities to follow the plan, but I, a white upper-class woman (I’m assuming but I’ll bet I’m right) can do what I think is best because I know better. Eyeroll.

            2. We traveled a lot with our kids while their seats were still free under age 2 and also to visit family. No way I would have stayed home and held off on vaccination protection for 6 years until my youngest was 3. Would have been way too stressful to worry about Hep B if going to hospitals outside the country if they were hurt or injured.

            3. I am very crunchy. For example, I avoid processed foods as much as practical, store all food in glass or stainless. But I do those things because I follow science and know that those are safer, not because “I just don’t see the point.” I understand you got all the vaccines before major exposure to others (yay! and thank you!), but – honest question – what made you comfortable that the vaccine schedule you chose was safe without research or the experiences of thousands of kids showing it was (like the traditional schedule)?

            4. It doesn’t actually take IV drugs or sex – you can get it via bodily fluids like saliva which toddlers definitely share, although the risk of spread that way is low.

               I also feel an obligation to the community to vaccinate. Sure the risks to my particular kid from skipping Hep B are low, but on a population level it’s important. Anti-vax positions feel very selfish to me for that reason – you’re looking only at your kid’s needs, not the community.

            5. My pediatrician would let people delay certain vaccines if their kid wasn’t in preschool or daycare, which rarely applied to my kids as they started both pretty young. But the nurse would usually ask.

               Also living in a big city, I always assumed that the person next to me at a cafe or the grocery store could have been in a country with a measles outbreak hours before we coughed on one another. So I wanted all the shots for both kids ASAP.

         4. but it takes time the pediatricians don’t have and puts the onus on the mothers to go in and get shots and remember what shots their kid did not get. spoiler alert: kids hate shots. it’s a PITA to give them shots. my kids are fully vaxxed including latest covid but we do flu/covid at the same time to reduce the number of meltdowns about the shots.

            i suppose one thing that could be done is an established alternative schedule that is widely followed and schools know about, instead of each doctor reinventing the wheel.

         5. Alternative schedules result in getting vaccines later and having less protection when babies are at their most vulnerable (18 mos-3 yrs: kids literally have no immune system at this age).

      4. Yep. I have been following the 1000 Hours Outside project and podcast for years now. It’s gaining a lot of momentum, and is a great concept – spend more time outside with your kids and every little bit counts. The founder has always been crunchy, but in the last year or so she’s veered alt right. She even attended the senate hearing and is a full supporter of RFK and the current admin. Her guests have been getting more and more loopy (a recent episode was on how eating the right foods for your type of cancer will cure you).

         1. Ugh, are you serious? I thought that challenge sounded like a great idea when a friend told me about it.

            1. I still heartily recommend doing the challenge on your own! We didn’t hit 1000 hours, but it definitely pushed us outside more, even in little 15 min bursts when I previously would have just stayed inside because it didn’t seem “worth it”. And she had amazing podcast guests in the past whom I’ve learned a lot from. (I’m pretty crunchy too, but a full participant in modern medicine!)

               But now I can’t support her with the clicks anymore…or certainly any purchases, which I made from her shop in the past.

   3. I agree. Katelyn Jetelina and Peter Sandman have each done some very good writing on how the scientific establishment lost trust over the years.

      1. Do you have any recommended links?

         1. Katlyn was just talking about poor communication and paywalls in her substack: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/why-should-you-care-about-an-indirect

            Peter has put a lot of resources on his website, but here’s one specifically on “noble lies”: https://www.psandman.com/col/Corona64.htm

         2. Links in mod, but the Local Epidemiologist Substack and the “Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website” are where they put their writing online.

   4. +100 – I am pretty active in cancer groups and the number of people who are suddenly eschewing chemo, or really even more often maintenance meds, in favor of ivermectin, fenben (and I can’t even figure out what this is), and high dose vitamin C infusions is staggering. I am truly baffled by this idea that doctors and pharma have been hiding the “cure” for cancer for years to keep people sick.

      1. I get that if you have stage 4 pancreatic cancer, are >80, and are opting for palliative care for your time left. This ain’t that. I read The Emperor of All Maladies (highly, highly recommend) and many cancers are detectable early and treatable in ways that are either time-limited misery or not as awful as when I was a kid in the 80s.

      2. Delayed diagnoses and years of genuine medical gaslighting in a context where providers have often been forced to spend more time on the bureaucratic requirements of the ACA than on actual patient care while being bullied by insurer austerity have eroded trust a lot. Dusenbery’s Doing Harm just scratches the surface of how pervasive an issue this is. It is common for a real underlying diagnosis to be missed while doctors trivialize symptoms or try treating them with meds that only make things worse, counting on patients to self-advocate if something is “really” wrong.

         The irony is that if someone has a cancer diagnosis, none of this applies to them now! They have a diagnosis, and it’s one that the healthcare system actually reimburses doctors for staying on top of and treating. Their specialists will be knowledgeable and up to date. It’s the exact time to start trusting the healthcare system instead of second guessing it.

         1. Aren’t we conflating the for profit insurance system and the scientific establishment here? There is a financial incentive that forces doctors to rush and not investigate issues thoroughly, but it has nothing to do with best practices informed by medical science.

            1. Yes. But it gets conflated by patients (especially if they’re scolded for wanting further workup) and too often by physicians (who fall for insurer propaganda about “evidence based medicine” being better than scientific medicine, or who follow professional guidelines that aren’t always either).

            2. The problem with medicine is that the standard of care is not based on science, it’s based on folklore. What the majority of doctors do = the standard of care, whether or not it’s the best thing to do in general or in a specific case.

      3. That is so baffling to me, especially now when therapies for a lot of cancers have improved so, so much. Some of the immunotherapies available today are straight up miracles to me–people with cancer diagnoses that would have killed them in 6 months if they’d been diagnosed 20 years ago can now live for years and years in good shape.

      4. This is such a silly argument. Pharma HAS cured many other diseases — and if it’s a cure, they can charge more money for it than they would for a chronic treatment! It just doesn’t make sense.

         1. I 99% agree. At the same time, you would not believe how many drugs I was offered for the symptoms of what turned out to be a vitamin deficiency that has been much cheaper to treat.

            1. I’m talking about fatal genetic diseases like SMA, not primary care conditions.

            2. The point was that cures that don’t make anyone a lot of money sometimes get forgotten about in the existing system whereas medications seem to be what doctors think of first.

               I’m not honestly sure how pricing and access of cures for genetic conditions are going to work out going forward; it’s going to come up because a lot of genetic conditions have varying degrees of severity (so imagine if it’s not SMA; imagine if it’s CMT). I’m glad the research is being done and lives are already being saved.

            3. The research involved in treating genetic conditions is amazing. The benefits of possibly treating (curing?) things like duchenne’s muscular dystrophy and more single gene disorders is exciting. But it is heart stoppingly expensive. Millions of dollars per patient for some of these diseases.

               Similarly, treating cancer patients with these exciting more targeted chemotherapies and Immunotherapies is also very expensive, particularly if we are turning the cancer into essentially a chronic disease, to be quelled.

               Add to that ….. soon half the population will be on pricey semiglut medications for life, treating everything from diabetes to weight preferences/obesity to alcoholism to gambling addiction (on the rise with internet gambling) and more….

               And then our exploding elderly population with Alzheimer’s will be treated with expensive antibodies that show a benefit so low they were initially refused coverage by Medicare, and also are very very expensive and require expensive follow-up testing.

               No wonder our healthcare costs will continue to be exponential.

               Someone will have to draw the line soon, as our healthcare industry approaches a crash.

            4. I have a genetic condition that has a treatment, but I’m struggling to access treatment because of costs. I keep hoping the price will come down.

            5. I disagree that someone will have to draw the line soon. Yes we should change some things in the economy so that effective medical care is more widely accessible and so that more people can be employed doing this kind of meaningful work. But this is the whole point of civilization really!

            6. Well, Medicaid is being cut next, so I really doubt poor people and the disabled will be benefiting from these expensive innovations.

               We really do have to decide soon as a society what life is worth. We already do this. We just can’t afford it anymore so things will change.

   5. I completely agree. As someone whose seen several family members radicalized through the crunchy to alt right pipeline, I think the elitism on the left has really accelerated it. The women I know who have been radicalized did so after being dismissed by doctors on multiple occasions or had financial impacts due to paying out of pocket for care that didn’t help them much.

      Even though these alt practitioners and unregulated supplements may not help, at least someone will listen to you and won’t tell you the problem is all in your head. The immediate embrace of science and whatever doctors say isn’t doing Democrats any favors; there are plenty of instances where practice changes later as the science evolves. HRT is a perfect example.

      1. Completely – I read somewhere recently that saying “trust the science, people!” as a conversation-ender is actually very anti-science. Evidence and knowledge evolve and answers are never settled. We have to find another way to talk honestly about what the evidence shows, what the risks are with any treatment or lack of treatment, and what might be best for individual situations. Yes, it’s a lot to cram into a 12-minute specialist visit.

         1. Huh? The burden is on the anti-vaxxers to show that vaccines/the vaccine schedule is unsafe. Not the other way around. There is no (current or otherwise) legitimate research showing that vaccines or the vaccine schedule are unsafe, or that vaccines cause autism. The problem is that these people don’t remember (and can’t be bothered to learn about) what life was like before we could prevent awful diseases with a simple injection.

         2. That discussion should be part of informed consent, but it never is.

      2. OMG what are pediatricians supposed to do? spend an hour with every “I’ll do my own research” mommy or daddy to go over scientific literature with them? at some point people need to be held accountable for their stupidity and ignorance.

         1. When I want high-test doctor time for something individualized, it’s for my kid’s actual conditions (T1D) or why my body is doing funky things in perimenopause and not for effing vaccines, which are vanilla and should stay vanilla because the scheduling makes sense with the background of how our culture, maternity leave, and health insurance works. Wanting a bespoke schedule? You should go get and pay for concierge infant care (nah — there should be a crunchy FAFO schedule off the shelf and they people can STFU and be done with their nonsense). Debate whether they should have to flag themselves as such the way we query people re guns in the home or unsecured narcotics left over from surgery or having the bar cart too handy. Safety is safety is safety.

         2. +1

         3. +10000

            I hate that telling people facts is now seen as “elitist.”

            No doubt some MDs and RNs, etc., have bad bedside manner, but that doesn’t change the facts. Honestly, I believe we are where we are as a country because we’ve been too permissive about treating people’s opinions and whackadoo nonsense as just as legitimate as real facts.

      3. Often the alt providers actually do help, just not for the reasons given. Vitamins and a GF diet will help you a ton if you have undiagnosed Celiac. And last time the CDC did stats, 80% of Celiac was going undiagnosed by the US healthcare system, often because of unscientific beliefs (for example, that Celiac patients will always present as underweight, or will always have GI symptoms as a primary complaint, or that the labwork will be sensitive and accurate even if someone is already avoiding dietary gluten). That’s just one example of many.

         People deserve accurate diagnoses, but when chronic illness can take up to seven years and multiple specialist referrals to diagnose, people are desperate for symptom relief in the meantime. What maddens me is when the alt providers advertise themselves as focusing on the “root cause” when they’re doing the exact opposite.

      4. I find it interesting how the far left and far right are both so anti-authoritarian that they end up at the same place of believing that health recommendations are a conspiracy.

         I was ‘crunchy adjacent’ – lots of baby wearing, baby led weaning, EBF etc and it was amazing how many people are like ‘doctors just say that for profit’ but never thought to check the public health recommendations in countries without for profit health care.

         The internet has definitely worsened the Dunning-Kruger effect for sure.

         1. Yah, not to derail the convo but the Venn diagram of arguments for abortion rights vs arguments against masks/vax is close to a circle. My body, my choice and all that. But everyone is so dug in that they can see the validity of their argument perfectly, while completely discrediting the other side.

            (And before someone brings it up, I know that argument for masks and vax is to keep other people safe, but that argument can also be made for carrying a baby to term. The discrepancy is finding the line when your own bodily rights supersede that of others, and both sides are SO convinced that their interpretation is the only correct one.)

            1. Yes — some people are so far to the West that they wind up in the East. Very strange bedfellows sometimes.

            2. Nobody carries a “baby” to term. A fetus parasitizes a woman’s body to survive. Some argue that the fetus has more rights to control the woman’s body than the woman herself, but it’s disingenuous to argue that being forced to wear a mask is equivalent to being forced to complete pregnancy and childbirth. Survival without parasitizing a person’s body is where the line is.

            3. This is awesome. When my teens get nasty and snarly and have hormonal rage, I will just tell them that they are ex-parasites and stop expecting better. Mother of 2 ex-parasites! Not as cool as Mother of Dragons, but works better with mammals.

         2. I get that it’s my personal bugaboo, but the pressure to EBF and have a “natural” birth when I had my first baby felt so socially regressive. When I brought that up, everyone argued. Sure the dad shouldn’t feed the baby for at least a year but he’ll bring the baby to you! You’ll feel great after a completely unmediated birth and everyone will respect that you had no pain killers! I didn’t have the term “trad wife” at the time but the idea was that for the sake of health women should suffer and sacrifice without limit and eschew safe alternatives to that sacrifice. It makes perfect sense that these people are anti science anti women maga crazies.

            1. The pressure is a problem, absolutely. But I’ve been made to feel like a freak for having four non-medicated births and breastfeeding past age 2! Every person I encountered socially and medically started with the assumption that sane people get epidurals.

               I DID feel great directly post labor (though labor felt horrid at the end). And my two sisters, mom and best friend all had awful experiences when they had epidurals (3 hours of pushing, vacuum deliveries, bad tearing, hard recoveries across the board). So that is not the “obvious” solution for maternal wellbeing, either!

               Honestly, I am a passionate advocate for non-medicated birth, because of my experiences. But I don’t get hostile or lecture-y about it, and don’t plaster my unsolicited opinion all over the place.

            2. I hope it goes without saying that i support your personal choices. My point was that the pressure to eschew personal comfort and shared parenting responsibilities ( from the perspective of someone who didn’t want a natural birth or ebf experience) felt socially regressive. I still feel it is socially regressive and it’s not because women like you make different choices.

            3. What I found funny was that when I gave birth there was intense pressure from the medical establishment to submit to unnecessary interventions solely for the convenience of the doctor (my doctor literally made derogatory comments about the fact that I chose to “Lamaze it,” even though I had a nice quick and easy labor and the idea of a needle in my spine was much scarier to me than the idea of medicated childbirth), and then to EBF because “it’s best for the baby.” None of it was about science. It was all about denying the personhood of mothers.

            4. I remember people looking at me like I had three heads when I pointed out that Dr. Sears was a conservative Republican and “attachment parenting” seemed kind of regressive since wearing your baby in a sling 23.5 hours a day wasn’t feasible for most jobs. My kind, actually-a-trained-psychologist therapist gently pointed out to me that the accepted definition of attachment was a long, long way from the fundamentalism of Dr. Sears and his acolytes.

            5. Meanwhile, to 11:52 AM – I had one epidural and one unmedicated birth. I felt great after the epidural birth and was able to bond with the baby and it’s one of the best moments of my life. With my unmedicated birth, I was in so much pain after the birth that all I remember is lying on the table, weeping because it hurt so much. I don’t even remember the moment with the baby. Every one is different.

   6. State and County level politicians are really important here. Can you find people to support who will be sensible about disease prevention?

   7. I come from people who apparently don’t bother to read expiration dates, so a little vaccine just seems to us like what urban people do when we can’t be Jenner’s milkmaids and get cowpox but miss smallpox the way g-d intended.

      Besides, RFK Jr seems to be a person who lives better by chemistry when it suits him. Maybe that’s just the heroin talking though.

   8. Crunchy to alt right pipeline is an interesting idea i hadn’t really considered. I always kinda assumed it was the other way around…you started out immersed in alt right propaganda, and that manifested itself in all kinds of weird anti-scientific ideas. Like, someone I know to be pretty MAGA-y tried to tell me last summer that sunscreen gives you skin cancer, and if you just don’t wear it, your skin naturally produces sun protection. He learned it on the Internet, but the mainstream media doesn’t want us to know because of the sunscreen lobby.

      (I’m still going to wear a hat and spf 30 on my British Isles-pale skin though.)

      1. I see what living in CA has done to the skin of people I knew in my teens. The sunshine is pretty, but it does horrible things to your skin, basically tanning it into wrinkly leather (putting the cancer to the side for the moment).

      2. There’s also an element of people not wanting to face the fact that health care is expensive. So they readily buy into the idea that it’s not necessary. Like you deal with a chemo co-pay you can’t afford is to convince yourself that you don’t need chemo anyway.

      3. I’ll use myself as a personal example: I’m crunchy, attachment parent-y, and politically moderate. My kids are all vaxxed (even Covid) and I’ve been giving them fluoride drops because we are on well water.

         After listening to a very compelling interview with a pediatric dentist about how fluoride is a horrific neurotoxin and a huge long term study just came out with no evidence in favor of fluoride, I freaked out a bit and stopped the drops for my kids, even though their own dentist and ped recommended them.

         We still use fluoride toothpaste and get topical treatments at the dentist, but the ingesting of drops has now become a bridge too far for me.

         Maybe I’m being crazy, but I see how it can be a slippery slope. Especially since so many on the alt right are good, charismatic speakers.

      4. It’s real. Hippie type people want to be self-reliant and are skeptical that we’ve overall improved on traditional ways of living.

         FDA used to warn against sunscreens that weren’t broad spectrum because they could prevent sunburn a lot better than preventing skin cancer, so people were spending more time in the sun than they otherwise would have, thinking they were protected.

         Now it’s rare to find a product that isn’t broad spectrum, but the anxiety remains and has gotten confused over time.

         I’m actually not sure if widespread sunblock use has successfully lowered cancer rates at the population level? But I’m still going to wear it since I’ve lost family to melanoma.

         1. “It’s real. Hippie type people want to be self-reliant and are skeptical that we’ve overall improved on traditional ways of living.”

            Right. And I’m sure someone smarter than me has made the argument that “hippies” as a politically left group are probably an anomaly historically, even if from our perspective they seem to jibe with the liberal ideas of the 1960s.

            What I mean is, most of this back to nature ideology is more suited to the American political right. Think: Pastoral agrarian ideals; urban centers as inherently corrupt or corrupting; distrust of institutions, science, modernity. I think it’s a bit short sighted to say “oh it’s a horseshoe or a circle.” More likely the cultural impact of the “hippie” in the context of the Vietnam war era counterculture has tied these ideas to the left in a way that doesn’t endure in other contexts. Back to the land idealists may or may not be countercultural but they’re always more naturally aligned to the political right in my opinion.

   9. Absolutely. I have also thought that the “Do your own research” message is also regressive to working women. If I did my own research on everything and couldn’t trust my pediatrician or… anyone really, I would not be able to do my job because I would be researching and doing all of these things myself.

      1. I had a joke with a friend about this. “Am I conducting clinical trials? Should they be double blind? Really that seems like a lot….Oh you mean I should google the stuff you googled:…”

      2. OP here and it’s really challenging. I’ll give a personal example – my baby has silent reflux and the major medical guidelines/associations from both the U.S. and the EU do NOT typically recommend antacids because of the risk of long-term side effects, including loss of bone density and resultant fractures and a higher risk of development of allergies and asthma. In addition, the antacids are generally not considered efficacious. Despite that, two of my baby’s doctors (one the pediatrician, one the GI specialist) instantly recommended Pepcid and when I asked about the professional guidelines advising otherwise, they said “don’t worry, it’s very safe” and nothing more. What is a reasonably educated parent supposed to do in that case? The available research says one thing, I’m very aware that doctors are not always up to date on the latest guidelines, and yet the two doctors who have seen my child say to go ahead with the drug.

         1. This won’t be the last time something like this comes up. Sometimes the guidelines are right; sometimes the doctor is right. The doctor needs to give their reasoning or you won’t be in a position to even understand. If they don’t have a reason, then it’s probably just a tradition, and it’s okay to go by the up to date research instead.

         2. But in your child’s case this is likely a very temporary treatment, and the risks you are talking about are actually very small risks over a long period of time of use and not relevant for the vast majority. The risk of silent reflux is pretty bad actually, especially if it is going into the lungs. Your doctors should have described this rationale and the plan for tapering the med in the future.

5. PSA – Word is that https://covidtests.gov/ is going offline very soon. If you haven’t requested your latest 4 free covid tests, do it asap.

   1. Thank you! Might as well get what I can before the government completely ceases to function as we know it.

   2. Thank you SO much for the reminder. Just did it.

   3. I get why this existed during COVID when you couldn’t get out or couldn’t find tests (unless you played for the Brooklyn Nets). But I am surprised that it still exists. Not what I need government for, really, more like pls staff air traffic controls and make sure that the bridges and overpasses don’t collapse on federal highways and pls make sure we inspect the meat supply, etc.

      1. Might not be what you need govt for but cost of purchasing a test is a barrier to testing for many people. I’d rather people have free tests and stay home when sick vs have them decide the cost isn’t worth it and just hope it’s not covid.

      2. I think it’s just their way of persuading people that COVID is not a major issue currently. The rapid tests have a high false negative rate, and most people ration them instead of testing several times over several days the way they’re designed to be used. A percentage of people will test positive and maybe they’ll get some Paxlovid. The rest will gain false reassurance, and the economy won’t take as big a hit as if they stayed home.

         1. This is a really weird take. Do you have receipts supporting it?

            1. Here’s a short discussion of how high the false negative rate on the rapid tests can be if someone tests on the first day of symptoms without retesting: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/06/24/think-you-might-have-covid-wait-2-days-test

               As for intentions, I can’t prove what any individual is thinking, but of course there has been a lot of discussion about getting the economy going by getting people back into offices, eating at restaurants, shopping in stores, and working instead of taking sick days.

            2. I’m not referring to the reliability of tests, but your idea that the results are somehow so reliably falsely negative that the government is pushing people to take them in hopes that they will think they are okay even if symptomatically ill and just keep living their best life in support of the economy. That’s the weird part.

   4. As someone who understands that we are still in a pandemic, I didn’t get what the point of an at-home covid test is anymore. Whether it’s covid or not, I’m staying home until I’m well and masking if I ever do have to go out. I don’t see how knowing whether it’s covid or the flu matters at this point.

      1. If I kept my kids home every time they coughed or sneezed, I’d have to quit my job and homeschool them. Home test absolutely have a role in determining if a kid should go to school or see a vulnerable grandparent.

      2. Because colds exist and it’s good to know if you have Covid or probably just the common cold? You still take precautions, buts it’s important info in terms of your own personal disease trajectory and also planning for reentering society. I’m not keeping my kids home for a week with a cold (though I will for the 1-2 worst days), but I would plan to do that for Covid or the flu.

         I like having information. Whether the government needs to keep this program running is a different question.

      3. I mean, why set up a government thing to mail you free stuff (surely the postage cost is very high)? Why not just put a voucher in the mail and people can go to their local CVS or grocery store or Amazon to use it? We don’t do this for food stamp recipient, and food is essential in a way that COVID tests are not. Or have test block-granted to local health departments to hand out to people who are too poor to pay retail for COVID tests? Public health already serves those populations. Not sure why I should get free COVID tests for all these years.

         1. It’s a lot easier to fill out a form to request mailed tests than to fill out a form to receive a voucher, then go to the store to redeem the voucher. And at many points tests have been out of stock in local stores.

         2. It reduces barriers by removing a step.

            And food is more readily available than covid tests.

      4. Yeah, as others said colds vs Covid are very different risk profiles, especially for the elderly. My parents are well-vaccinated against Covid but still significantly more likely to die from that than the common cold, so we home test to determine if my kids should see them.

   5. I hate Trump and RFK, but I don’t disagree with this move.

      1. Same.

   6. Thank you! Ordered!

6. For Fed employees but really anyone here who has worked in industries with layoffs hanging over you – tips for coping with the highs and lows emotionally?

   FWIW I was laid off before in the private sector but I was younger then and had the mindset of taking any job – that’s how I ended up a Fed. Now mid 40s, I’m really feeling that there are a few things I want to do in my career and I need to at least try for those – even if unemployed for a while, having to take steps back etc because if I don’t try, I’ll wonder, I’ll suddenly be 55 and maybe it’ll be too late then because no one will take a chance on me. So I have these days of high highs – this is an opportunity, I’m working on a certification or my resume. Then low lows where I send a networking email and person ignores me or even if nothing happens all I want to do is lay in bed or eat cookies and pizza or cry because I can’t believe I’m going thru career turmoil again. Tips for even kneel? Does it sound dumb to try to pivot out of law – everyone around me is saying yeah it’s dumb just take any offer you get at age 46 and be grateful?

   1. I guess it depends on where you’re trying to pivot into, but yes, I would say in this job market taking what you can get is prudent for people who aren’t independently wealthy. I also think we’ll see with the rise of AI screening for job applications less and less ability to pivot industries with cold applying – because the AI is looking for relevancy and exact matches. It doesn’t understand transferrable skills. That plus a glut of extremely qualified candidates makes it harder for a hiring manager to take a risk on someone versus taking a hire that’s already demonstrated success in the industry.

7. I recently found out my husband doesn’t like to eat meals with me and has been avoiding family dinners as a result. Apparently over the last few years he’s noticed how off-putting it is and has been quietly phasing himself out of dinnertime, and I didn’t notice because I was chalking it up to the hectic infant/toddler-raising phase. I’m so embarrassed and a little heartbroken since I always thought as our kid got older, we’d try to prioritize sitting down for a meal together. No one else has ever said I’m gross when I eat, so it’s really been a shock to me and I’m having trouble getting over it. We have an open floor plan and now I’m super self-conscious about eating in the dining room if he’s in the kitchen. I don’t want to hang out with friends if we’re expected to eat together, and date nights at restaurants are obviously out. Am I just getting too much in my head? Have other people dealt with something similar in their relationships?

   1. This is a him problem, not a you problem (unless you are actively chewing with your mouth open, spilling food all over, eating your hair as you shovel food in, etc.). Is it the sound of chewing? That’s totally a him issue. He needs to figure out how to get over this. Family dinners are so important.

      1. OP’s husband did something in an unkind way, so boo on him.

         During COVID, I realized that my BF is an open mouth chewer of chips (but just chips), so I can go to a nice dinner with him, where he does not do that, but if he is watching sportsball with a bag of chips, I have to leave the room. I haven’t yet said anything.

         1. My husband is the same, hates when I eat crunchy snacks. We eat all our normal meals together but sometimes he will excuse himself as chomp away on the crunchies.

   2. He should see someone about his misophonia.

   3. Sounds like an excuse for avoiding family time and not a you problem. Does he eat with the kids? or does he use this as an excuse. We sat down for dinner together even if DH and I were just having a snack and ate the main meal later. Most times we ate the same thing as the kids. We just took out the kids portions and chopped them up before adding extra spice.

      In our house, I’m the one with the better table manners but if I have an issue, I’ll talk about it with DH. Like when I wanted to work on getting the kids to learn to put napkins in their laps or use a salad fork and I want him to be modeling that behavior as well.

      If it was a manners issue, he should provide specific feedback. Like a request to work on chewing with your mouth closed. Not just cancel family dinner time.

      1. Maybe he’s made those requests over the years and OP hasn’t bothered to care until now.

   4. You are not giving us nearly enough information. What exactly did he say and do you think there is any truth in it? Or is he making an excuse to avoid sitting down at a table with you? Three different issues (you really do have bad table manners, which you can fix; he has some weird hang-up about eating, which you cannot fix; and he is avoiding you and coming up with stupid reasons, which means you should be talking to a lawyer).

      1. +1

      2. +2

      3. +3!

      4. +4

      5. +5

      6. To answer some questions:

         He says that I chew with my mouth open and make gross sounds. I did try to covertly ask some friends about it and they hadn’t noticed, so it’s possible it’s a him problem, or I could be sloppier when I’m at home and eating casually. Or maybe it’s one of those things that is only annoying when you’re around me all the time.

         I don’t think it was meant unkindly. It came up after I jokingly invited him to sit down to dinner with me and our toddler, and I really doesn’t seem like he would have said anything if I hadn’t brought it up. I can definitely try to eat tidier if it would help but right now I don’t want to eat around him at all. If he’s noticed I’m not eating around him he hasn’t said anything.

         He’s always been more of a casual “eat standing up in the kitchen” kind of a person, which is partly why I hadn’t noticed him pulling away from mealtimes. It’s hard to remember back years, but it feels like lately he only sits down for meals when it’s socially demanded (like, date nights, dinners with his parents, eating at restaurants). He’s never mentioned finding other people gross when they eat.

         And I didn’t mention this in my comment earlier, but as some people have guessed, yes, he is very much struggling with depression.

         1. I despise eating sounds. My partner can be a loud eater. We typically watch shows when we eat dinner which mitigates the issue for me much of the time. There have been times, though, when I’ve wanted to scream and run away. I wish I didn’t have that reaction, but I just do. I can’t help how I feel, only how I handle it. I have asked him if he could try to be more cognizant, especially of things that are easier to control like scraping plates/bowls. But I try to be kind about it as I know it would hurt to hear a reaction like your husband’s. When I hear the occasional sound, I try as hard as I can to keep it in and not mention it, and know that it will pass. I’ve noticed that I’m particularly sensitive to it when I’m irritated or stressed or upset with him for some reason. Anything that drains my patience/capacity to cope. So I try to be mindful of that as well.

            1. I’m a lot like this, too.

            2. How does this work at restaurants? Work dinners? When you were growing up? If you lived with roommates in the past? Just that this can’t be the only situation it’s been a problem in.

            3. When I was growing up, my dad would eat loudly when he was drunk. Hated it. Quiet house because everyone was upset/scared, only sound was him eating and intermittently complaining.

               Definitely not the only situation, but, blessedly, it’s not as common as you’d think. Most people actually eat fairly quietly. As long as I’m not right next to you, I’m probably not going to hear something that grosses me out. One errant mouth sound that’s over and done in a second is not the same as being next to a loud eater for the length of a whole meal. (And on top of that, meal after meal. For your whole life.) No problems at restaurants or in settings where there’s background noise.

         2. “Babe, it really hurts my feelings that you called how I eat gross and don’t want to eat with me. I’m happy to try and close my mouth more. But I’m concerned this is part of a bigger problem and I’m going to ask, again, that you get on top of your depression. Because this is hurting our marriage.”

            1. I don’t think it’s fair to blame this on the husband if she truly is a gross eater. I have a family member who has terrible table manners and I truly cannot stand to be around him when he is eating, even though I do not have misophonia or depression. This person leans over his plate, holds his utensils in a fist and shovels food in without swallowing the previous bite, chews with his mouth open, talks with his mouth full, gets food in his beard, and makes all manner of noises. It is truly revolting.

               Another possibility: OP, are you a fast eater? My husband has good table manners but eats so rapidly that it stresses me out and makes me eat faster too. He is extremely goal-oriented about finishing, whereas I prefer to enjoy my meal. It’s not fun eating with him, but I do it.

         3. You asked him a question. He answered that question honestly and not unkindly but in a way that was critical of you. I understand that hurts but withdrawing from him in response is counterproductive. You two need to be able to have honest conversations.

            This is a lot to parse, but I see two potential issues (1) you eat with your mouth open and make objectionable (to him) noises and (2) he is depressed and potentially (?) looking for excuses to withdraw. The first is within your control and the second is not.

            As to the first, I would not count on your friends to be honest with you for the simple reason you have identified in your response to your husband’s answer to your question. They do not want to hurt your feelings and make you self-conscious. I know several adults with genuinely terrible table manners, and I would never tell them that. Good manners and respect for the people you are dining with would demand that you at least try to avoid annoying them unnecessarily (although full disclosure – I am the daughter of a woman who finds the noise of someone’s teeth scraping against a fork incredibly annoying so this might be my early education speaking). So my suggestion would be that you try, tell him you are trying, and see if that makes a difference. If your best efforts do not help, then this is likely not a “you” problem.

            The second issue is that, whether because of depression or personal preference, your husband does not want to sit down for family meals on a regular basis. For that, I can only suggest that you talk to him about the importance of family meals to you and ask that he commit to a certain number of dinners per week in return for your commitment to work on the things he finds annoying. Maybe every Friday and Sunday? And then give him a pass for the rest. He was honest with you; it is time for you to be honest with him in response.

            I am not trying to be harsh, and I know it probably sounds like I am. It is entirely possible that he is being overly sensitive and that your table manners are fine. But unless you want to just not eat together except when socially demanded, you are going to have to find a solution since you are the one to whom family meals are important.

            1. Noisy eating is sometimes within someone’s control. The people I know who eat really noisily unfortunately have out of their control factors contributing.

      7. +6

   5. Is there something specific he takes issue with? Chewing with your mouth open, shoveling your food in quickly, getting crumbs or spills on the table, excessive slurping or smacking…? Those are fixable issues and part of good table manners. But it’s concerning that he held this in for years and thought avoiding you was a good solution.

      If he just said “You look gross when you eat” that isn’t an acceptable way to communicate with your spouse. Either way I’d want to be in couples counseling to figure out why he felt the need to hide this and avoid you.

      1. Maybe he didn’t hold it in . . .

   6. I’m super confused. What is off-putting? I’m not clear what his actual issue is.

   7. Why doesn’t he want to eat with you, according to him? Is it having to spend time with you? Or is it about the act of you eating? Some other reason?

   8. This is very timely for me because last weekend, my husband and I got into an argument and he said I was a miserable person and he didn’t like hanging out with me. He has apologized but I am still so hurt. He had been drinking at the time so maybe he didn’t really mean it but part of me feels like there must be some truth to it. It is really hard to think about it rationally (I know I am not perfect and can improve on things) without feeling so hurt.

      1. I truly don’t mean to pile on but I have both said something similar/had my husband say something similar to me. It was rephrased/said in a much nicer way once we calmed down but it boiled down to we were both depressed/anxious at that point. It was the kick in the pants to start meds/therapy for both of us and things got so, so much better.

      2. I’m really sorry. I’ve been here, I was a miserable person, and didn’t realize how fed up my significant other was. Space, my own activities, helped in my case.

         1. Or he’s projecting. We can’t know from the outside.

            My husband commented recently, it was nice to see you smile. It made me a little sad because I guess I haven’t been very good company lately. I think this is a really tough time of year because there’s not much going on socially, and it’s so dark and cold that I feel like hibernating (and I’m 16 weeks pg so my energy level isn’t exactly high). In past years, we’ve leaned heavily on board games at this time of year but I’m just so tired. Looking forward to better weather and more things to do.

   9. This could be so many things. If you’ve never had anyone comment on your eating before then it is almost certainly not you.

      My abusive ex used to complain that I chew too loudly. I also used too much TP, ate too much, cost too much. Basically my entire existence was horrible as far as he was concerned. I’m not saying your husband is abusive but perhaps you can think about other patterns of behavior too.

      Could also be depression. Irritability is a prime depression symptom.

      1. My ex didn’t like the way I swept the floor or put stamps on envelopes! It seems funny now.

   10. My husband can be a disgusting eater whose parents apparently never taught him table manners and I’m embarrassed sometimes when we eat out together. It’s not a me problem, it’s a him problem. I don’t know what OP’s husband’s issue is, but I’m not going to be so quick to jump to saying she’s blameless.

   11. I just read a novel (by Abby Jiminez) where the woman’s previous partner had told her she was smelly — in hindsight for the character it was abuse and gaslighting. ask your friends or others you trust. take a video of yourself eating. i’ll bet there is no truth to it.

       that said I think every longterm relationship hits a point where you can’t stand the way your partner eats soup or chews or something, but if he’s let it become a big issue this is a much, much bigger problem.

       1. You can’t conclude that OP’s husband is gaslighting her without seeing her eat.

   12. Oof, I’m sorry but all these comments are wild to me. If your wife’s chewing bothers you, you say “honey, can you please try to chew quieter?” and try sitting further away or playing music etc. You don’t abandon your wife and toddler during meal time.

       Similarly, you don’t get drunk and tell your spouse they’re a miserable person.

       Both of these are incredibly unkind and hurtful things! The posters are well within their rights to be hurt! I’m sorry you’re both going through this.

       1. Thank you – I am not the OP but the miserable Anon lol. Appreciate your kind comment.

   13. Start playing music during dinner in the background.

       Watch yourself in a mirror while you eat.

       Talk to him about misophonia.

       He needs to treat his depression/anxiety, which is making his ability to deal with misophonia worse.

       I’m sorry OP. You guys need a real talk.

8. Where are 30 and 40 something women who have had kids and therefore don’t have a flat stomach buying wedding guest dresses? Everything is either 20 something or mother of the bride. Preferably <$250.

   And related, any thoughts on JJs House? I found them through a google search and they have a few dresses that seem okay. Not amazing, but cheap and okay.

   1. I ordered several flower girl dresses from JJs House. The quality is not bad and they photograph well, but I personally wouldn’t buy any of them to be a guest. They are very much wedding party dresses. I would only shop there if I were in the wedding.

   2. Bloomingdale’s

   3. Anthropologie.

   4. What the heck?! So if I never had kids, I have to have a flat stomach? Bc I don’t have kids and have never had a flat stomach–not even as a teen. I know you weren’t trying to be rude OP, but these kinds of throw away comments can really sting sometimes. It’s ok to not have a flat stomach regardless of origin.

      1. She didn’t say anything about you or people who haven’t had kids? There are certain types of changes that can happen to your body after kids irrespective of your pre-baby body shape.

      2. “Almost everyone in Group X has this problem” doesn’t mean that the problem is exclusive to Group X.

      3. I’m sorry, I truly didn’t mean to offend. I didn’t have a flat stomach pre-kids either, but after a c section its very very different than it used to be and visibly juts out in a way that I haven’t seen on women who haven’t had kids or gone through menopause. Again, sorry to offend you.

         1. Just wanted to say, thank you for the apology! I figured it wasn’t meant that way but wanted to put it out there not just for OP, but for others as well. OP, thanks for being so gracious about it–you rock and I hope you find a great dress!

      4. I did the same double take. I’m early 40s, have kids, and have a flat stomach. It’s not because I’m some sort of saint or health fanatic, it’s just genetics. I also hate it when people say “people who have a butt” — my size 2 butt does in fact exist, thank you.

      5. I honestly thought never having kids was a huge risk factor for getting sizeable fibroids.

         1. Is it really? I had a small fibroid before I got pg and now it’s become a giant fibroid. It’s outside the uterus so they’re not concerned but I’m definitely going to check on it after I’ve delivered. They said that pregnancy hormones can make fibroids grow faster.

      6. This is centering yourself in a conversation that is not about you.

   5. I like the Bloomingdale’s house brands of dresses. Also I feel like brands like Adriana Pappell work well for my body.

   6. Tuckernuck. My style mantra is: I don’t have a waist so my dresses don’t either. I love a short voluminous number but anything that doesn’t have a defined waist is good. Good luck!

   7. This is such a weird way to phrase this question. I’m sure you weren’t thinking

   8. My go to used to be coast, which was good until 2015 if you are buying on eBay.

      Phase 8, sezane, boden, Karen millen and LK Bennet have good dresses in this price range. LK Bennet is $250 on sale in the US but if you buy from the UK it’s considerably cheaper.

      For people complaining about this request, it’s a perfectly normal thing that a woman’s stomach changes after birth and clothes fit very differently. The area below the belly button doesn’t go back to being flat for the vast majority of women without considerable exercise and liposuction. After having children my lower stomach section is horrendous because one child was huge and stretched the skin. I’m a size 2/4 and tall but I have to pick styles that work with this part of my body or I’m very uncomfortable or get a yeast infection from the excess skin fold.

   9. I’m a 40 year old woman with no kids and a belly and I buy dresses at Anthro Bloomingdales and Nordstrom.

      1. As do I, as a 40-something mom with a flat belly.

   10. I’m also searching for a formal dress, and I’m nearing my drop dead date to purchase. TJ Maxx and Marshall’s have a nice selection on their websites, believe it or not. I’ve also been checking ebay, gilt, poshmark, and the department stores. Ebay has introduced me to a lot of UK brands I hadn’t heard of before that I now really like (Monsoon comes to mind).

   11. I am in my 50s, mother of three but not a mother of any brides and not wanting to look like one. I get wedding guest dresses from Rent the Runway. It is pretty easy to filter for styles you know will fit your body.

   12. I get an Ulla Johnson dress every few years. They’re flattering and all silk and can fit a lot of different occasions depending on how you accessorize.

9. Has anyone bought anything from Libby London? It looks like a slightly less expensive version of the Fold, similar to Hobbs but I’d appreciate first hand intel on quality/fit.

10. I’m loving high waist pants like these but I’m struggling with fit. I my waist to hips to thigh ratios mean that pants all “whisker” around the lap. I’ve tried pleated, I’ve tried flat front, I’ve tried sizing up and getting the waist tailored. Stretchy fabrics like scuba whisker less but I’m trying to upgrade my wardrobe to more polished materials. Even skirts and dresses get whiskers in the lap from sitting. I just have very ample thighs made for hiking the alps, not looking polished in office wear. Does anyone have any tips?

    1. Flat front, size up more and get a good tailor. I have the same problem and really the answer is that you need to size up until it fits your thighs and backside and the tailor will fix the rest. I remember years ago nearly having a meltdown when the sales associate brought me pants THREE sizes bigger than I thought I needed, told me to trust her, and then brought the tailor over. Forever grateful for that lesson, and still wear those pants.

    2. Everybody’s pants get wrinkled when they sit. Drag lines from fit issues are one thing, but if you’re trying to completely eliminate wrinkles I think you’re SOL.

       1. Agreed. Have you tried one of those spray wrinkle release products? Not sure if they work. Some influencer I follow sprays hairspray on her clothes to keep them from wrinkling, I have no clue if it actually works.

    3. Evaluate whether the whiskers you refer to are just wrinkles from the fabric bunching on your body when you sit, or if they are drag lines due to a poor fit.

       For the former, ironing will help you start out fresh and get rid of them at the end of the day, lined garments might do it less, but it’s otherwise just a normal part of wearing clothes.

       If the latter, though, that’s a sign that you need to do some combo of sizing up, having the waist taken in so the rest of the garment fits your widest point without pulling, and finding brands or cuts that work well with your particular body shape.

    4. The material the pants are made from will make a huge difference in how wrinkled clothes will get during the day. I realize its not popular around here, but having a high fraction of synthetic in the material will usually be much more wrinkle resistant than natural fibers.

       Polyester will wrinkle the least. Wool should also be pretty resistant.

       Cotton or Rayon will wrinkle quite a bit. Linen will be the worst.

       When you are shopping for clothes, try scrunching the fabric hard in your hand and you can see if it will hold wrinkles.

11. I’m frustrated with an associate in my office, and he’s frustrated with me too. He feels I don’t give him adequate direction, especially about deadlines. I feel he doesn’t take any initiative so I have to micromanage him or nothing gets done. He’s a third year.

    I acknowledge there’s something to his complaints about my management style. I’m accustomed to working with a team who are all rowing in the same direction. It makes me uncomfortable to set strict internal deadlines because I trust people to get stuff done as promptly as possible, I don’t want to overwhelm people unnecessarily. But that’s not happening with this guy, he works to his deadline and if there’s no deadline then he doesn’t do it. His hours are low so there’s no reason he should be operating this way, in my mind. But, I’ve been giving him fake deadlines so he understands expectations.

    I’m frustrated with the amount of handholding he evidently needs. If opposing counsel emails or calls him, he won’t respond (or send me a draft response — which would be fine) unless I tell him to. If I give him a non-urgent assignment with no real deadline, I’ll check in 2 months later and he hasn’t started it, even though he’s had multiple near-zero billable hour days (that’s when I realized I need to set fake deadlines even for nonurgent things). He doesn’t do “standing tasks” unless prompted every single time, ie, always send filings to co-counsel ASAP, make sure the staff calendars deadlines the same day we get them. He won’t follow up with people to move the ball forward, ie, we need to call chambers with opposing counsel to get hearing dates please coordinate with counsel and call — he’ll email once and if they don’t respond he won’t follow up until I specifically tell him to, I’ll tell him to follow up every other day, but 3 days later I’ll ask if it’s done and no he hasn’t followed up again. He never offers to help; if he drafted a complaint and they move to dismiss, he won’t offer to write the answering brief. The quality of his work is usually good when I can get him to do it.

    Overall it seems to me that he doesn’t care. Other partners have had the same experience, but the partnership overall is divided between people who think he doesn’t GAF and people who think we’re too tough/are bad managers. Thoughts on how to navigate this?

    1. He literally doesn’t start work until months later even though he has zero billable days? If that’s too tough then I don’t know what you tell you. I can’t believe this guy still has a job.

    2. Ok, you need to get over your discomfort of telling people what to do. It’s way more overwhelming to not have a clear idea of what is expected from you than to never be told deadlines because your boss thinks it’s mean.

       He also sounds like a bad employee, but I think you have a lot more control over yourself than you do him and the other people you supervise will benefit if you improve.

       1. I agree with this, and for the past year+ I’ve been giving him deadlines. Now the issue is he works to the last second of the deadline.

          For example, we handle a lot of confidential court filings. There are deadlines for getting comments from other parties and then submitting a public version to the court. Sometimes we don’t get comments until the last minute, and that is what it is. But sometimes everyone is on the ball. He’ll have all comments from all parties before the deadline but he’ll wait until the last minute to file. I’ve told him over and over again, you cannot wait until the last minute, you are stressing out our staff and creating unnecessary roadblocks for other urgent work. It’s a big problem if we have a brief to file but he can’t help — and he’s bugging the paralegal — because he’s focused on something that could’ve been done the day before or in the morning. I expect him to have the judgement to get things off his plate when he can especially when he knows we have other things to do later.

    3. I have had paralegals like this– I work with them on a task list, and then every day or every other day, you spend 5 minutes or so going through the list with them. The work generally gets done.

       The type of person that needs this type of management though absolutely will hate this. You will also hate it. Generally, the person will eventually leave on their own… which sounds like it may be your goal here.

       *I work at a company where it is extremely difficult, for better or worse, to fire people. You are at a law firm and can fire this person… unless you don’t want to?

    4. You’ve just described me when my depression is bad.

    5. I’ve worked with people like this and they weren’t a good fit for me because I tend to be a hands off manager also. For the time remaining while you’re working together, a) everything has a deadline. You can tell him it can be changed if he’s got a lot of work or to come to you if he’s having problems prioritizing, but give him a deadline. B) Consider that he’s getting “stuck” on initial steps of the task and doesn’t know how to do it and won’t ask. You might want to consider chunking the task for him so there are earlier points for discussion.

    6. Fire him. Idk why you haven’t already.

       1. I don’t have firing power alone. As I mentioned, the partners are split about whether it’s a him issue or a managerial issue.

          1. Can he work for the people who want to keep him and you can get a different associate?

          2. This is tough and in my experience law firms are not great at making decisions on performance issues like this. For the partners who think this is a management issue, could you try to get the associate moved to their cases and you work with a different associate? If those partners see for themselves the level of hand-holding involved, they may realize he isn’t a good fit for the job. Or, who knows, maybe he will surprise everyone and thrive under a different management style/personality.

          3. Stop giving him work and tell everyone you won’t work with him and think he should be fired.

          4. is there something bigger at play here that you don’t know about? like is this dude engaged to a client’s kid?

             1. Doubtful, I think it’s just institutional laziness. The partners who are pushing back are in no danger of ever having to work with him and they don’t want to pay to hire someone else. We’re staffed very leanly; if I ask for other help the powers that be say no because this guy has such low hours.

                There are good things about this firm which that it’s a good fit for now. But the red tape is definitely a problem for the long term.

    7. I would take everything you’ve said here, including the examples of what you want to see and put it in writing in an email to him and then set a meeting to discuss expectations. I don’t think one at a time bits of feedback are as easy to understand the whole picture as seeing it as one picture. If that doesn’t work, move to fire him. But approach it with the spirit of helping him improve even if the feedback seems harsh all at once.

       1. This is actually the opposite of what management research finds: people can really only process one thing to work on at a time, so feedback should be broken into pieces which are discussed one at a time.

       2. I agree with this – but also, the issue is not that he’s missing deadlines. The issue is that he is not proactively managing his work and his calendar, which results in nearly missing deadlines or causing problems for others. You need to frame the expectation as independently managing timelines with an understanding of his impact on others in the organization. That also makes it easier to point to where he’s not meeting expectations, even if he squeaks a finished product in under the wire.

12. The pettiest of complaints: what is going on with Valentine’s Day? Both of my kids are supposed to have non food “treats” for all the other kids at school. It’s just a plastic junk exchange. If we’re skipping the candy can we just do cards? I rebelled with the older one and just sent cards but caved on the younger one. Hot wheels and heart stickers for everyone. Yay?

    1. What about pencils, erasers, that kind of thing? I definitely would not be on board with my kid getting 20+ plastic things. What a nightmare.

       1. Most erasers are petroleum based too, and I’ve also had pencils without any wood in them.

          1. Okay but at least those things are useful.

       2. I wasn’t being fair. My junk drawer is also filled with dozens of random holiday themed pencils and erasers. It’s probably better but they’re all probably going in the trash anyway.

          1. Don’t trash them, give them away on NextDoor or your Local Buy Nothing group. There are kids in my neighborhood who never get holiday-themed stuff, ever, and it’s heartbreaking.

    2. +100 – I am totally fine with the exchange being small candy items, but I get that schools are wary of this because of allergies and junk food in general. But then the move should be back to just doing cards. I am over the tiny slimes and plastic junk.

    3. I don’t have kids, but this feels like something I would actually send a note about – to the teacher and appropriate administration. Times are hard. This kind of exchange is adding unnecessary hardship in multiple ways. In fact, a prohibition against anything other than cards feels more helpful and appropriate in every way.

    4. The card boxes usually come with treats these days. I just buy the Minecraft cards that come with Minecraft pencils in the box (or Paw Patrol erasers or whatever).

       Pencils, erasers and fake tattoos and stickers always get used in our house so I try to stick with those items for treats as well.

    5. Is there not someone you can appeal to? Maybe not for Valentine’s Day now, but St. Pat’s or whatever nonsense comes next? In all your spare time, could you get together a parent petition? If your school is at all economically mixed, this (and the 9,000 other things parents are asked to do every other day) is grossly insensitive to poor families.

    6. carp I totally forgot to do the valentine’s thing with my kids and i had dorky little cards and everything. sigh.

    7. Our school district no longer celebrates Valentine’s Day or Halloween in schools apart from some educational activities (e.g. measure the circumference of a pumpkin). I love celebrating these holidays at home with my kid but agree that kids don’t need to exchange valentines or have Valentine’s Day parties at school.

       1. I’m not a parent yet and I went to catholic school, but I’m surprised that secular schools celebrate Valentine’s Day. I know it’s been a bit co-opted by Hallmark but it’s a saint’s holiday. What do they tell kids about the origin of the holiday? Or is that not part of the curriculum? I feel like our school holiday celebrations always leaned heavily on the so-called origins of the holiday, even though those origins are mostly myths at this point.

          1. That’s fine. Our district banned valentines so we do nothing but before that we did things like pencils, or maybe those scratch off valentines.

          2. Our public schools celebrate “Friendship Day” on February 14, no mention of Saints or anything.

          3. IME, they tell kids nothing. Same for Saint Patrick’s Day, which is robustly celebrated at the elementary school level and involves leprechaun traps at my kids’ old school. It’s so irritating.

             1. This seems annoying enough to Catholics, atheists, and people of every non-Catholic religion that I can’t imagine who it is supposed to please besides stores that sell holiday junk.

    8. Both our K and 1st grade teachers encouraged us to just send cards. About half the kids brought something else, but many kids just did a card.

13. There was a poster yesterday or the day before looking for wallpaper with hidden creatures in it. Not hidden, but search for “safari soiree.” Waltzing zebra!

    1. Not that poster, but this wallpaper is adorable! Thanks for sharing

    2. Oh my goodness! Not what I was expecting but SO CUTE!

    3. Excuse me, I think that zebra is doing the cancan! ;)

14. Company announced their “return to office” mandate today. “No secret motivations, just because we know this is how we do our best work” my butt. We’re federal contractors and you’re bowing to the wannabe overlord. Doesn’t affect me (I’m almost entirely in office except for my ADA protected WFH sick days) but I feel bad for my coworkers who are affected – almost all of them had modified schedules to accommodate childcare.

    1. can’t they still have modified schedules? Like it’s a strict 8-5 mandate?

       1. Got rid of the 4-10s schedule that a lot of employees used so that their partner could work weekends and they wouldn’t need to use daycare. There’s still a 9-80 schedule, but I don’t know any daycare that’ll take a kid once every two weeks, so it’s still completely wrecking their childcare schedule.

15. Help! I am taking a sort of licensure exam for work and I am almost 40 and have completely forgotten how to retain detailed information. I was a straight A student and used to have excellent study strategies, but now I have two children and lots of other information to keep in my brain…

    1. How are you studying? Just doing practice tests? Or re-reading materials?

       Take notes while reading. By hand. With a pen/pencil on paper. You need to retrain your brain how to focus/consolidate information, which will help you retain it.

       If doing practice tests, keep re-reading the questions you get wrong until you get them all right. And take a few notes on the key concepts of these, by hand.

    2. What’s the format of the exam? If you have multiple choice questions, I would just buy a large question bank and learn from that. Testing as a form of teaching/learning works really well for me. I retain information better than with straight reading/note taking.

       I would take notes on each question and understand why each answer choice was placed there, and why it’s incorrect or correct. By the time I know a question bank inside out, I’m usually pretty good on my review.

16. I would appreciate any and all opinions on my situation. I have a job that is fine, the work is boring but I have a great boss and I have a ton of flexibility. I was reached out to by my old company for a position that is one title higher and the pay is much better ($105k currently vs $150k in the other role). It would be 3 days in office per week with a 30 minute commute each way. The work is harder and more time consuming but more interesting. I also really like the hiring manager.

    I have a one year old and part of me loves where I am right now because it affords me a ton of time with her and I never feel guilty if I have to juggle a sick day with work. The other part of me misses the challenge and would love the bump in prestige and money. It would be a good time to change jobs so I have time to get established before trying to another kid. On the other hand, we’re doing fine financially and I feel guilty about considering a job that would give me less time with my daughter.

    What would you do/ have you done?

    1. I’d take the new job. It’s more interesting, you’re moving up in terms of prestige, position, and money, and those little moves have a way of compounding over time. And like you said it’s a good time for family planning purposes. You can always move again if you end up hating it.

    2. I stayed in the boring job, but I don’t think that’s right for everyone. It really just depends on what you want. I will say that I think you’ll appreciate the flexibility more once your kid starts kindergarten. Daycare years are in many ways the easiest years of working parenthood, although I realize little kids tax you physically in a way that older kids don’t.
       I’d also do careful math on the $45k pay raise. A significant portion of that is going to be eaten up by taxes, increased commuting costs and maybe increased childcare expenses, so figure out how much more money you’ll actually be bringing home.

    3. some missing information – what is your current commute? is there a reason to think that even if your old company requires 3 days per week in office, that there is no flexibility if you or a child is sick? what is your childcare situation? will longer commute/in office time require more spending on childcare? you say you are doing fine financially…if you have a second child, will this remain true? how much less time will you actually have with your daughter? there is no one right answer. everyone’s values and family circumstances are different. i personally don’t tend to feel a lot of guilt for amount of time spent with my daughters (maybe that’s because i do a lot of solo parenting), so that wouldn’t really be a consideration for me personally. i value prestige a lot less than i used to and idk that 45k would change our family’s life, but % wise that is a pretty significant raise for you. do you have a spouse? what is their job situation? level of flexibility? how stable are your jobs right now?

    4. Take the new job. No brainer. That’s a very easy commute and easy more money and probably more upward mobility. Plus you know the manager and what you’re going into. Can’t imagine not taking this.

    5. Commenting late but hope you see this. I took a similar bump (and transition from fully remote to 3x in office but less travel) when my kid was 14 months. Also planning for more kids and I’ve found this young toddler age to be a great time to lean in. You know the company culture where you’re going back–will you have ample sick time, ability to WFH when kid is sick, etc. as you do now? If so, I wouldn’t hesitate. That’s a big salary bump that will position you really well in the future.

Comments are closed.