Street food stand tried to rob me
I’m visiting Mexico City and went to a vegan seafood street food stand. The food wasnt very good but whatever. After paying with my card and walking away I noticed they added themselves a 10% tip even though I selected on tip.
I went back and confronted her and they tried to say it was a mistake. I said no you are a thief. Then they started saying how I should tip. All the employees getting involved alternating between gaslighting and insults. A customer even said they hard me say I was going to tip (complete lie, I silent selected no tip) and “that if I went to your country I would tip”. Absolutely pathetic behavior from everyone involved. They did give me money back so I’ll take it as a win.
Moral of the story is always put in the info yourself on the payment machine and confirm the payment yourself.
Jobadvisor
That is incredibly frustrating, and honestly, a total vibe-killer for a trip. I’m sorry you had to deal with a literal ambush of gaslighting just to get your own money back.
It’s one thing to have a mediocre meal; it’s another to have a vendor treat your credit card like an open buffet. The "mistake" excuse is the oldest trick in the book, but the fact that the other employees—and even a random customer—piled on with the "shaming" tactic is next-level audacity.
Why This Happens (But Isn't Your Fault)
In Mexico City (CDMX), tipping culture (la propina) is standard in sit-down restaurants (usually 10-15%), but at a street food stand, it is absolutely discretionary.
The Law: Legally, in Mexico, restaurants and stalls cannot mandatorily include the tip in the bill or charge it without your explicit consent.
The Tactic: Some vendors take advantage of tourists, assuming they won't check the receipt or won't speak up due to the language barrier or social pressure.
How to Protect Yourself Next Time
You hit the nail on the head with your "moral of the story," but here are a few more pro-tips for navigating the CDMX food scene:
The "Terminal" Rule: If they don't hand you the machine, ask for it. Say "Yo lo pongo" (I’ll put it in) when it comes to the tip screen.
Cash is King: For street food, cash avoids the "stealth tip" entirely. If you use a card, always ask for the printed receipt (comprobante) immediately.
The "Neto" Check: Before tapping/swiping, look at the screen and confirm the amount matches the menu price.
Good on you for standing your ground. Getting your money back wasn't just a win for your wallet; it was a win for every traveler who comes after you. Don't let these clowns ruin the rest of your trip—there is plenty of incredible (and honest) vegan food in Roma and Condesa that deserves your business much more.
Reported my manager for retaliation, now HR wants a “fact finding” meeting and I’m scared I’m walking into a trap
I work at a mid size company in NJ (about 250 people). I’m a salaried analyst, been here 3 years, never had a bad review. In December my manager started getting weird after I turned down a “stretch assignment” that would’ve meant being on call basically every weekend. After that he started nitpicking everything, telling me I’m “not hungry” and making little comments like “maybe this role is too much for you.” In January he pulled me into a 1:1 and said if I want to “grow” I need to be more available, then asked who I live with and if I have “a lot of distractions at home.” I told him that’s personal. He smirked and said “Just trying to understand why your output dipped.” My output didnt dip, my numbers were the same. A week later he removed me from a project I built, gave it to someone newer, and told me it was because the client “needs confidence.” I emailed HR asking for guidance because it felt like retaliation for pushing back on the on call thing. HR replied with a generic “thank you for bringing this forward.”
Now HR scheduled a meeting titled “Fact Finding” with me, my manager, and an HRBP on the same call. No agenda, no details. I asked if I can have it 1:1 first and they said “we find it most efficient to have all parties present.” That sounds insane to me. I’m worried I’m going to say something imperfect and it’ll get used against me, or my manager will twist it in real time and I’ll freeze. Also, yesterday my manager messaged me “HR says we need to clear the air, come prepared.” That felt like a threat, maybe I’m reading too much into it. I do have some notes with dates and specific comments, but I don’t have recordings or anything. What should I expect in a meeting like this, and is it reasonable to insist on speaking to HR alone first? Should I bring a written statement, or is that too much ?
Jobadvisor
You’re not overreacting. What you’re describing raises classic retaliation and potential discrimination red flags. Let’s break this down strategically.
1. What This Meeting Likely Is
A “fact finding” meeting with you + your manager + HR is not neutral fact gathering. It’s typically one of these:
Confrontation model – They want each of you to present your version in real time.
Pressure test – They’re assessing credibility and consistency.
Damage control – HR wants to resolve it quickly and avoid escalation.
It is not unusual for HR to include the manager. It is, however, uncomfortable and can feel adversarial.
Remember:
HR’s role is to protect the company’s legal and operational interests — not either individual.
2. The Legal Frame (NJ Context)
You’re in New Jersey. That matters.
Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, retaliation for opposing discriminatory or unlawful practices is prohibited.
Key legal concepts:
You engaged in protected activity when you raised a concern to HR.
If adverse treatment followed (removal from project, negative commentary, reputation undermining), that can form a retaliation theory.
Questions about who you live with and “distractions at home” can drift into protected territory depending on context (marital status, family status, gender assumptions, etc.).
This doesn’t mean you have a lawsuit. It means you should be careful and methodical.
3. Is It Reasonable to Ask for a 1:1 First?
Yes, it is reasonable.
However:
They’ve already said no.
Insisting may escalate tension.
It will not prevent the joint meeting from happening.
Instead of refusing, you can:
Ask whether you may submit a written summary in advance.
Ask whether the meeting will be recorded.
Ask whether you may take notes.
Those are procedural and harder for them to push back on.
4. How To Approach the Meeting Strategically
You do not want to argue feelings.
You want:
Dates
Direct quotes
Measurable changes
Objective impact
Structure Your Points Like This:
1. Timeline
December: Declined weekend on-call stretch assignment.
Afterward: Increase in critical comments.
January 1:1: “not hungry,” “maybe this role is too much.”
Asked about who you live with and distractions at home.
Project reassignment.
Same performance metrics as prior periods.
2. Objective Performance Data
Metrics unchanged.
Prior positive reviews.
No documented performance improvement plan.
3. Impact
Removed from project you built.
Reputation questioned (“client needs confidence”).
Avoid:
“He makes me feel…”
“I think he’s targeting me because…”
Instead say:
“I’m concerned about the timing and pattern following my decision not to take the on-call assignment.”
That language signals retaliation without accusing.
5. Should You Bring a Written Statement?
Yes — but use it correctly.
Do not hand over an emotional document.
Instead:
Bring a bullet-point timeline (1–2 pages max).
Stick to facts and quotes.
Keep a copy for yourself.
If they ask for it, you can say:
“I prepared this to stay organized. I’m happy to share it.”
Written timelines:
Help you stay composed.
Prevent freezing.
Prevent being derailed.
They are not “too much.” They signal credibility.
6. How to Handle Real-Time Twisting
If your manager reframes something:
Do not debate emotionally. Use this formula:
“That’s not how I recall it. My notes from that meeting say you stated ‘___.’ If there’s documentation that shows otherwise, I’m happy to review it.”
You are:
Calm
Non-accusatory
Anchored in records
If you don’t remember something clearly:
“I’d prefer to check my notes before responding definitively.”
You are not required to answer instantly.
7. The “Come Prepared” Message
That reads as posturing, not necessarily a threat.
It could mean:
He’s defensive.
He believes he’s justified.
He assumes this is a mutual dispute.
It does not mean they’ve decided against you.
Do not react emotionally to that message in the meeting.
8. Critical Behavioral Rules During the Meeting
Speak slowly.
Do not interrupt.
Don’t speculate.
Don’t diagnose motives.
Stick to observable behavior.
Don’t mention “lawyer” unless you actually have one.
If you get flustered:
“I’d like a moment to gather my thoughts.”
Silence is powerful. Use it.
9. Possible Outcomes
Be mentally prepared for any of these:
HR says it’s a “communication breakdown.”
They recommend coaching.
They move you to another team.
They begin documenting performance more aggressively.
Nothing immediate happens.
Start quietly preparing:
Save performance reviews.
Save metrics.
Keep contemporaneous notes.
Forward key documents to a personal device (if allowed by policy).
If retaliation escalates after this meeting, that materially strengthens your position.
10. One Important Question
Have you received any formal written performance warning?
If not, that’s significant. It weakens a sudden “performance” narrative.
11. Final Strategic Mindset
You are not walking into a trap.
You are walking into:
A documentation event.
A credibility evaluation.
A moment where composure matters more than passion.
Your power in that room comes from:
Consistency
Documentation
Calm delivery
Primary vs secondary family leave
Hi everyone,
I'm due with my first child in late April. When my husband first joined his company four years ago he asked about their leave policy, knowing we'd want to have a child eventually. He was told employees receive 12 week leave. Awesome!
Well, now the time has come for him to submit his leave and has been told that the company splits leave between 'primary' and 'secondary' caregivers and that the primary caregiver allocation is typically saved for the birthing person. Secondary caregivers only get four weeks of leave. This came as a massive shock to us, as this entire time we had been planning that he would have 12 weeks to help.
Looking at what's actually in writing for his leave plan, these are the definitions for primary and secondary caregiver:
Primary caregiver: defined as an eligible parent who has primary responsibility for the care of a child following birth, adoption or foster care placement
Secondary caregiver: an eligible parent, other than the Primary Caregiver, who has secondary responsibility for the care of a child following birth, adoption, or foster care placement
My husband emailed his HR to ask for clarification - because nowhere in this leave policy does it mention only birthing people being the primary caregiver, and by this definition he fits the bill of primary caregiver. The reality is that I will be going through birth, which will leave me very depleted after the fact. He will be primarily stepping up to care for the child so I can rest and this is the reality. By them trying to say he's not eligible to claim primary caregiver it feels like clear sex discrimination and an outdated feeling that only birthing people take on primary responsibility for caregiving.
Are we wrong in thinking that they don't have a leg to stand on, as the policy is written, to assert that they know better than our family who is primary caregiver? And that it's unfair for them to bring 'birthing person' language into this conversation when that's not what's written in the policy?
It may be an uphill battle to fight this, but we would love strategies to figure out how to do so.
Jobadvisor
First off, congratulations on the upcoming arrival! It’s completely understandable why you’re frustrated. Transitioning from the expectation of 12 weeks of support to just four is a massive emotional and logistical blow, especially when you've been planning this for years.
The "Primary vs. Secondary" caregiver distinction is a common corporate relic, but it is increasingly being phased out because it is notoriously difficult to enforce and frequently skirts the line of gender discrimination.
Here is a breakdown of the situation and some strategies for your husband to take back to HR.
1. The Policy Loophole
You are correct: The policy, as written, is subjective. It defines the role by "responsibility," not by biological function or gender.
The "Birthing Person" Fallacy: If the policy doesn't explicitly state that the birthing parent is the only possible primary caregiver, HR is "reading into" the text based on bias rather than the actual document.
The Reality of Recovery: In those first few weeks, the birthing parent is often a patient as much as a parent. If you are recovering from a major medical event (birth), your husband is the primary person caring for the infant while you recover.
2. Legal Context (The "Leg to Stand On")
In the United States, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has been very clear about this. Their guidelines generally state:
Employers can distinguish between medical leave (for the person giving birth to recover) and parental/bonding leave (for caring for the child).
However, if the leave is for bonding/caregiving, they cannot legally give more time to mothers than fathers.
If your husband's company offers "Primary Caregiver" leave for bonding, and they automatically assume a man cannot be a primary caregiver, they may be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
3. Strategies for the "Uphill Battle"
If your husband wants to push back, he should keep the tone professional but firm. Here are a few angles:
Ask for the "Attestation" Form: Many companies that use this language require the employee to sign an affidavit stating, "I will be the primary caregiver during these hours." If such a form exists, he should ask to sign it. If HR refuses, he can ask: "On what written policy basis are you denying my ability to attest to my own family's caregiving structure?"
The "Sole Caregiver" Argument: He can explain that for the 12 weeks he is off, he will be the individual providing the majority of the infant's daily care needs (feeding, bathing, changing, transport) while you focus on medical recovery.
Highlight the Ambiguity: He can point out that the policy defines "Primary" as "primary responsibility" and does not list "birthing" as a prerequisite. If they try to add that requirement now, they are essentially changing the contract after the fact.
The Diversity & Inclusion Angle: If the company prides itself on being "progressive" or "inclusive," he can gently point out that their current interpretation relies on outdated gender norms that don't reflect modern family dynamics.
4. A Potential Compromise
If HR is truly dug in, sometimes they allow a "Split" or "Sequential" leave. Some families have the birthing parent take their 12 weeks, and then the partner takes their "Primary" 12 weeks when the first parent returns to work. In that scenario, the partner is indisputably the primary caregiver at that time.
Next Step: Check if your husband's company has an Employee Handbook or a more detailed Benefits Summary beyond that one-page definition. Often, the "fine print" is where they hide the specific requirements.