Tried to get me to tip on a takeout order

So I just picked up my order from a restaurant and the host who brought my order mentioned twice about the tip screen when they handed the tablet to me. I handed back the tablet and they had a subtle disappointed look lol. It’s ridiculous that they think I’m going to tip on a takeout order. This tipping culture is ridiculous.

Jobadvisor

Sounds like a frustrating experience. The iPad tip screen on takeout has become pretty common — it's mostly the payment processor's default setup rather than something the individual employee necessarily pushed for, though mentioning it twice is a bit much.

The tipping debate is genuinely complicated. Some people feel takeout tips make sense since staff do pack the order, handle modifications, and deal with any issues. Others draw a hard line at counter/takeout service, saving tips for sit-down where servers are actively attending to you. Both are reasonable positions.

Ultimately it's your call — tipping on takeout is optional, not an obligation.

Didn’t realize asking for 3 or 6 mo review with pay raise was a thing until after I started

I’m an HR of one and returned to this career a 4 years ago after raising my family. The healthcare facility I was working at closed permanently and started job hunting 2 months in advance. Landed a nice position closer to home at the same pay rate, which I am happy with. A handful of incoming hires negotiated a 3 or 6 month review with a pay raise if they’ve performed well. Had no idea this was a thing and am sort of kicking myself because, as I expected, I’m doing very well in the role. Was not in the recruiter/hiring area at my last job. Have I missed the only window of opportunity to get an increase beyond the standard annual %?

Jobadvisor

You haven't necessarily missed your chance! A few options worth considering:

Have a direct conversation with your manager. The 3/6-month review with raise isn't magic — it's just a negotiated checkpoint. You can still request a similar meeting, framed as a performance check-in. Something like: "I'd love to schedule a 30-minute conversation to discuss my performance and talk about growth opportunities in this role."

Use your accomplishments as leverage. Since you're doing well, document the specific wins you've had — processes you've improved, problems you've solved, things you've taken on beyond your original scope. Concrete examples make a much stronger case than tenure alone.

Timing matters. The best moments to raise compensation outside of annual cycles are usually:

• After completing a big project or solving a visible problem
• When your scope has expanded meaningfully
• Around the time annual budgets are being set (often fall, for Jan 1 increases)
• During any formal check-in your manager initiates

Reframe it in your head. Those new hires essentially pre-negotiated a raise to close a gap between what they wanted and what was offered. You came in satisfied with the rate — so you weren't leaving money on the table in the same way. You just have a different starting point for the same conversation.

The annual review isn't your only window, but it is the path of least resistance if you don't want to initiate the conversation cold. In the meantime, keep tracking your impact in writing — it'll serve you either way.

what do you have to tell your manager when you give notice?

I work for a state agency and my particular office has become incredibly toxic to the point where an hr investigation is being conducted against all 4 of my supervisors (As of yesterday, I am pretty sure 2 of them are not coming back).

It’s created a very uncomfortable setting to work in, multiple people are trying to leave and the remaining supervisor is the one who created the hostile work environment in the first place. She has threatened people that she isn’t afraid to get people fired, told all of us in a meeting that if we make any mistakes we are threatening her career and livelihood, told us our other supervisors call us liars and she cusses and belittles us. I have told the hr investigator all of this (her telling us that if we make a mistake we will be jeopardizing her livelihood and career happened yesterday and my meeting with HR was Thursday so they don’t know she said that) but she remains while the other 2 have been gone the entire month.

Understandably, I’ve been trying to find another job and have found one at another state agency. Normally, I would give two weeks notice because that is the proper thing to do, but with the way my supervisor has treated us and threatened us, I don’t feel she deserves my two weeks. New job said I can start May 26 or June 1. I want to leave asap.

When I give my notice, can I tell HR that I am transferring to another state agency, when and where so they can handle the leave etc? Do I have to tell my direct supervisor where I am transferring to? Will she ever see paperwork that states I am transferring to such and such other agency? I don’t feel like she needs to know any more personal information other than I am no longer going to be working for her and when I plan on leaving. I am honestly prepared that she wouldn’t accept two weeks notice if I gave it the way she has been talking to us and may just tell me to leave.

Thanks

Jobadvisor

What a stressful situation — you're handling it well by documenting everything with HR and making a smart move to get out. Here's a practical breakdown:

What you have to tell your manager

Legally and professionally, you only need to give the basics: your last day. You don't owe her your new employer's name, the agency, your salary, your role, or any other details. A simple "I'm resigning, my last day will be [date]" is entirely sufficient.

Going through HR instead

Yes — this is actually the smart move in your situation. Since an HR investigation is already active and you're transferring within state government, HR is the appropriate channel anyway. You can notify HR directly of your resignation, start date at the new agency, and any leave/benefits paperwork. They handle inter-agency transfers routinely. You can tell your supervisor your last day without sharing where you're going, and let HR handle the administrative back-end.

Will she see paperwork showing your new agency?

Possibly, eventually — state government HR systems often share transfer records between agencies for things like pension continuity, leave balance transfers, and benefits. However, there's typically a lag, and practically speaking, once you're gone it won't matter. If you're genuinely concerned, you can ask HR how that process works and whether she has access to transfer documentation. They may be able to tell you the timeline.

On the two weeks notice question

You're not legally required to give two weeks — it's a professional norm, not a law. Given the active HR investigation, documented hostile behavior, and the fact that she has already threatened staff, shortening your notice is completely reasonable. Starting May 26 would give you roughly a week and a half of notice from now, which under these circumstances is more than fair. Some things worth weighing:

• State government sometimes has rules about notice periods in employee handbooks or union contracts — worth a quick check so you don't lose any accrued leave payout you might be owed
• If she tells you to leave early after you give notice, you want to make sure that doesn't count against you — HR can clarify how that would be handled
• Since you have new information (her comments yesterday about her "livelihood") that HR doesn't have yet, it might be worth a quick follow-up email to the investigator before you resign, just to get it on the record while you're still employed there

What to actually say to her (if you say anything)

You can keep it to one sentence: "I'm resigning. My last day will be [date]." That's it. You don't owe her an explanation, a reason, or a destination.

Good luck — it sounds like you're making the right call getting out of there.

Normal startup culture or concerning expectation?

Looking for a reality check on a recent expectation announced at work.

Leadership recently communicated that on in-office days, employees are expected to work a “full” day in the office (roughly 8–5). For the majority of the company, in-office expectations are ~2 days/week, but for some departments it’s 3–4 days/week.

The company works heavily with Asia, so some teams regularly have evening calls between ~5–7pm (sometimes later). These calls are expected regardless of whether it’s an in-office or work-from-home day. However, on in-office days, employees are now expected to remain in the office for those calls. Leaving early to take them from home or commuting during them is not viewed as acceptable because leadership feels people are not fully engaged while commuting and there is a perception that when employees leave they’re “not working”.

In practice, this means some employees are expected to be physically in-office from roughly 8am–7pm multiple days per week. During the conversation, leadership acknowledged this may mean missing dinner with family/kids on those days and framed it as part of working in this type of environment. It was also framed as something employees should be willing to do because of the potential upside if the company IPOs in the future.

I’m trying to calibrate whether my expectations are off here. I understand startups can require long hours and flexibility, but I’m struggling to determine whether this feels fairly normal or more like a cultural red flag.

A few questions:
- Does this sound normal for startup/high-growth tech?
- Would you view this as a reasonable expectation or a warning sign?
- For those who’ve worked in similar environments, how sustainable was it?
- From an HR/employment perspective, are there any concerns with recurring evening work expectations for salaried/exempt employees when there’s little scheduling flexibility?

Jobadvisor

This is a genuinely mixed picture — some elements are normal startup culture, others are real red flags. Let me break it down honestly.

What's fairly normal

Evening calls with Asia-based teams are a legitimate operational reality. Hybrid attendance policies with defined in-office hours are standard. Startups genuinely do require more flexibility than established companies, and IPO upside is a real (if uncertain) form of compensation.

What's a legitimate red flag

The specific policy of requiring people to stay in the office for evening calls — rather than take them from home — is where this crosses from "demanding" into something more concerning. The justification reveals the real issue: leadership doesn't fully trust that remote employees are working. That's a cultural signal, not a logistics solution. A healthy organization solves "are people engaged on calls?" by addressing engagement, not by controlling physical location until 7pm.

The "missing dinner with family" acknowledgment is also telling. Leadership is aware this is a significant imposition and is essentially asking you to pre-accept it as the cost of doing business here. That's honest, at least — but it's not a small ask.

On sustainability

Anecdotally, 8am–7pm in-office days multiple times per week is exhausting in a way that compounds quickly. People can sprint through it for a few months, but at 3–4 days/week, it tends to hollow out the people who have the most outside-work obligations (parents, caregivers, long commutes). The people who stay are often those with fewer constraints, which shapes the culture over time.

On the HR/legal dimension

For salaried exempt employees in the US, there's no overtime obligation under federal law — but a few things are worth noting:

• Some states have additional protections or precedents around constructive hours requirements.
• If the expectation isn't clearly reflected in offer letters or job descriptions, there's a legitimate question about whether this is a material change to working conditions.
• "Framed as optional but clearly not optional" policies create quiet attrition risk and sometimes, in aggregate, discrimination exposure (e.g., if parents or caregivers disproportionately can't comply).

None of this is necessarily illegal, but it's the kind of policy that employment attorneys notice.

The bottom line

Your gut reaction is calibrated correctly. This isn't "startups are hard" normal — it's "leadership is solving a trust problem with a presence policy" normal, which is a different and more concerning thing. The IPO framing is also worth scrutinizing: it's a real carrot, but it's being used to justify a specific working condition that exists now, regardless of whether an IPO ever happens.

The question to ask yourself isn't whether this is technically acceptable — it's whether you'd want to work in a culture where this is how leadership thinks about the work/life tradeoff. That answer is personal, but the policy itself is a reasonably clear window into that culture.