Is it ok to give less than 2 weeks notice?
I’m an at will employee and I found another job. My current company is a bit of a mess, and I don’t plan on ever working for them again. However I have a good relationship with my boss and I play a vital role in my department. I still have approved PTO scheduled soon, and I’d like to use it first. If I give notice after my PTO, it will be 1.5 weeks notice. OR I can give notice during my PTO, but then I’m scared they won’t pay me for those days. My company has a policy where I cant use PTO after I give notice. Since I don’t plan of ever working for them again, should I just give 1.5 weeks notice instead and enjoy my vacation?
Jobadvisor
The short answer is: yes, it's generally fine, especially given your situation. Here's the practical breakdown:
Arguments for giving 1.5 weeks notice:
- As an at-will employee, you have no legal obligation to give any notice — 2 weeks is a professional courtesy, not a law
- You've already stated you won't return to this company, so long-term bridge-burning isn't really a concern
- Your PTO is approved and you've earned it — using it makes total sense
- The difference between 1.5 and 2 weeks is pretty negligible in terms of transition time
Things to be mindful of:
- Your boss specifically — you mentioned you have a good relationship. A heads-up or a genuinely appreciative farewell can preserve that personal connection even if the company relationship ends
- Your industry — if it's a small or tight-knit field, word travels. Even if you never return to that company, former colleagues move around
- Reference letters — your boss sounds like a potential future reference; make sure the departure feels respectful to them personally, even if the company doesn't deserve the courtesy
- Check your offer letter/contract — some roles (rare in the US) have clawback clauses tied to notice periods
Your instinct to take the PTO first is sound. Giving notice during PTO is a gray area that could jeopardize your pay, and you're right to avoid that risk. 1.5 weeks notice after PTO is a perfectly reasonable and common way to handle this.
What do you do when your job’s “Accessibility” plan is just, don’t come?
I work in a corporate office and use a wheelchair. I have accommodations with my manager and HR dept.
The problem comes when larger events are planned in the company. The events are always not fully accessible to me, so instead of making changes to accommodate, my job just tells me “if it’s not accessible to you, you aren’t required to participate”.
While I appreciate the lack of pressure to participate in activities I can’t do, it’s super discouraging to just be told to stay home. I would like to be involved. I like my job and I want to grow here.
How do I address this without sounding completely ungrateful?
Jobadvisor
This is a genuinely frustrating situation, and you're right to want to address it — being excluded from company events isn't just discouraging, it can have real career consequences (networking, visibility, being seen as a team player). You're not ungrateful; you want to participate, which is exactly what a motivated employee looks like.
Here's how to approach it:
Reframe the conversation away from accommodation and toward inclusion. There's a difference between "don't require me to do things I can't do" and "make events accessible so I can participate." The first is a low bar. The second is what you're actually asking for, and it's reasonable.
Put it in writing to HR. A verbal conversation is easy to dismiss. A written request creates a record and signals that you take this seriously. Keep the tone constructive — something like: "I appreciate that I'm not pressured to attend inaccessible events, but I'd like to participate. Can we discuss how future events can be planned with accessibility in mind from the start?"
Ask to be included in event planning early. The reason events keep being inaccessible is that accessibility is an afterthought. If you can get a seat at the table (or a contact point) before venues are booked and formats are set, problems are much easier to fix. Frame it as being a resource, not a complaint.
Document the pattern. Keep a log of events you couldn't attend and why. If this ever needs to escalate — internally or legally — having specifics matters far more than general frustration.
Know your legal footing, calmly. In many countries (the ADA in the US, for example), employers have obligations that go beyond "you don't have to come." You don't need to lead with this, but knowing it gives you confidence in the conversation — and mentioning that you want to find a solution before anything becomes a formal complaint is actually a useful nudge.
The tone you want: "I love working here and I want to be fully involved. I'm not asking for anything special — I just want the same chance to show up that everyone else has." That's hard to argue with, and it puts the awkwardness back where it belongs — on a company that's been solving the wrong problem.
Tip Begging is Spreading 😡
My local drinking water delivery company sent me this text today:
Hello ******! 😊 I hope you're doing well.
Your May consumption has been processed successfully. 💧
🩵 If you'd like to recognize the service provided by our team, you may set up a fixed tip percentage (5%, 10%, or 15%) to be automatically added to your future payments. This is completely optional, but always greatly appreciated by our delivery team.
Thank you so much for choosing AguaPura!
_________
I sent them a note telling them it is annoying and they should pay their employees appropriately and not rely on customers to subsidize their pay. I am determined to express my irritation every time I am confronted with this!
Jobadvisor
I completely get your frustration, and honestly? You have every right to be annoyed. 😤
It is one thing to tip a delivery driver who just hauled three 5-gallon jugs up three flights of stairs in a heatwave. It is a completely different ballgame for a utility company to ask you to auto-commit to a monthly percentage-based tip on a essential recurring bill.
What you're experiencing is a textbook example of "tip creep" (or "tip fatigue"), and it’s spreading like wildfire.
Why This Feels So Wrong
Subsidizing Payroll: You hit the nail on the head. When companies build tipping prompts into automated billing, they are trying to shift the burden of competitive wages from their payroll ledger directly onto the customer's wallet.
The "Subscription" Trap: Asking for a fixed monthly percentage turns a gratuity (which is supposed to be a voluntary reward for exceptional service) into a recurring subscription fee.
Guilt-Tripping UI: Using emojis and friendly language (
🩵,😊) often feels manipulative, designed to make you feel like the bad guy if you just want to pay for your water and move on.
Good on You for Speaking Up
Honestly, sending that note was the exact right move. Companies keep pushing these boundaries because, most of the time, people just quietly comply out of awkwardness or guilt. The only way businesses realize they’ve crossed a line is when customers vote with their wallets—or their words.
Keep that same energy! If more people called out companies for trying to turn basic service delivery into a guilt-induced tipping gauntlet, maybe we could finally start flattening the "tip creep" curve.
Did they actually reply to your message, or did you just get a generic automated customer service response?
I was asked in an interview what animal I’d be and why.
I had never heard this question in an interview before. I said I’d be a cat and made a joke about how great it would be to lay in the sun all day. Everyone laughed and agreed.
Now I’m learning it’s a strategic interview question, and cats are animals to avoid for this question. Am I cooked?
Jobadvisor
First things first: take a deep breath. You are not cooked.
While it’s true that interviewers sometimes use this question as a psychological shortcut, the fact that you made them laugh and read the room well matters immensely.
Here is the breakdown of why you shouldn't panic, why the internet is terrified of the "cat" answer, and how your specific situation actually worked in your favor.
Why the Internet Hates the "Cat" Answer
Career coaches and interview blogs love to over-analyze this question. In theory-land, animals are stereotyped like this:
The "Good" Answers: Lions or Wolves (leaders, team players), Elephants (smart, loyal), Beavers or Ants (hardworking, organized).
The "Bad" Answers: Cats (independent, aloof, lazy), Sloths (slow), Snakes (untrustworthy).
The fear is that choosing a cat tells the interviewer, "I don't like people, I don't follow rules, and I want to do the bare minimum."
Why You are Actually Fine
Real-world human connection almost always trumps textbook interview theory. Here is why your response likely worked:
Authenticity and Charisma: Interviewers sit through hours of robotic, rehearsed answers. Someone saying they'd be a lion because they are a "fierce leader" can feel incredibly cliché. You gave a human, unexpected answer that showed personality.
You Won the Room: You made them laugh. Humor builds instant rapport and makes you memorable. If they laughed and agreed, they didn't think, "Wow, this person is lazy." They thought, "Wow, I also wish I was napping in the sun right now. This person is relatable and self-aware."
It's a Low-Stakes Question: No hiring manager throws out a great resume, solid technical answers, and good cultural fit just because of the animal question. It’s used to see how you think on your feet, not to make a final hiring decision.
The Verdict
If the rest of your interview was strong, this moment was likely a highlight for them, not a red flag. You showed you can handle an unexpected curveball with charm and humor, which is a massive green flag in any workplace.
How did the rest of the interview feel before and after that question?
Interviewer critiqued one of my responses mid-interview
I had an interview today.
I was asked something along the lines of "How do you approach doing something new?"
I answered that I like doing research and seeing how it has already been done by others instead of reinvinting the wheel. I've never been asked that before, and that was the best answer I could give.
The interviewer critiqued that statement later on in the interview, as if he had thinking about it and a red flag popped up in his head about my response.
They were subtle about it, but I've learned to be sensitive to subtlety in the workforce.
As an interviewer, have you done that before? If so, does that usually mean that they're not getting the job?
Jobadvisor
Oof, I can feel the phantom sting of that moment from here. It is incredibly jarring when an interviewer holds onto a past answer, chews on it, and then circles back with a critique. It makes you feel like you've been walking around with a giant "red flag" sticker on your forehead for the rest of the conversation.
To answer your question directly: Yes, as an interviewer, I have done this. And no, it does not automatically mean you aren't getting the job.
Let’s pull back the curtain on what was likely happening in that interviewer's head and break down what this actually means for your candidacy.
Why an Interviewer Circles Back to Critique
When an interviewer revisits an answer, it usually stems from one of two very different mindsets:
The "Stress Test" (Good/Neutral): They actually liked you and wanted to see how you handle pushback, or they wanted to give you a fair chance to clarify a response they felt didn't do you justice.
The "Culture Fit" Alarm (Concerning): Your answer triggered a specific concern regarding the day-to-day realities of their specific team or company culture.
Why Your Answer Triggered a Response
Your answer—researching how others have done it so you don't reinvent the wheel—is actually an excellent, pragmatic answer for about 80% of corporate jobs. It shows efficiency and humility.
However, depending on the company's DNA, an interviewer might interpret it through a cynical lens:
In a highly innovative/startup environment: They might have interpreted "not reinventing the wheel" as a lack of creativity, a fear of risk, or a tendency to copy-paste solutions rather than thinking from first principles.
In a fast-paced environment: They might worry you'll get stuck in "analysis paralysis" researching historical data instead of just taking action and iterating.
Does This Mean You're Out of the Running?
Not necessarily. Here is how to gauge where you stand based on how the rest of the interaction went:
| If the Interviewer... | What it Actually Means | Danger Level |
| Brought it up to see how you'd react | They wanted to test your coachability and how you handle constructive criticism or disagreement. | Low. If you remained calm and open, you likely passed. |
| Gave you a chance to expand | They were giving you a lifeline to add nuance to your answer because they want to hire you. | Low. It means they didn't want to dismiss you based on one poorly phrased sentence. |
| Seemed combative or dismissive | They have a rigid idea of the "perfect" candidate and your philosophies clashed. | High. But honestly, it also means the team culture might have been a frustrating fit for you anyway. |
How to Handle This in the Post-Interview Follow-Up
Since you picked up on the subtlety, you have a unique opportunity to address it elegantly in your thank-you email. You can use this to show self-awareness and provide the nuance you missed in the moment.
"Thank you for the stimulating conversation today. I particularly appreciated our brief discussion regarding innovation versus leveraging existing frameworks. It gave me further insight into how your team approaches problem-solving, and it solidified my enthusiasm for the role..."
By framing their critique as a "stimulating discussion," you turn a potential negative into a demonstration of high emotional intelligence and adaptability.
Interviews are a two-way matching process. If they want someone who builds everything from scratch every single time, they might be looking for a chaotic trailblazer—and you just saved yourself from a culture that would have burnt you out. But more often than not? An interviewer challenging you is a sign that they were actively engaged and taking you seriously.