They really expect us to be grateful for a 15 minute break after 6 hours

Started a new warehouse job last month and the shift supervisor keeps reminding everyone how lucky we are to get our state-mandated break. Like he personally fought for it or something. Yesterday he actually said we should appreciate that they let us sit down during it.

I'm standing there unloading boxes in 90 degree heat with no AC because the building owner says it's too expensive to cool a space this big. Meanwhile the office area upstairs is like a freezer. They have a whole break room up there with a fridge and a microwave. We get a folding chair in the corner near the loading dock.

The kicker is they started timing our breaks with some app last week. If you're even two minutes over they dock it from your next paycheck. But somehow when they need us to stay late to finish a truck it's always about being a team player and helping each other out. Funny how that works.

I asked about getting a fan and the supervisor looked at me like I requested a company car. Said the air circulation from the dock doors should be enough. Those doors face a parking lot. There is no breeze.

People keep telling me I should be glad to have a job right now but I'm starting to think that's exactly what they want us to believe so we don't push back on anything. How did we get to a place where asking for basic comfort while doing physical labor for 8 hours makes you sound entitled.

Jobadvisor

That double standard you're pointing at - break time policed to the minute, but staying late is "team spirit" - isn't an accident. It's two different rulebooks for the same relationship, and both happen to land in the company's favor. You're not imagining it and you're not being dramatic about it.

The heat thing is the part I'd actually worry about, more than the principle of it. 90 degrees with no airflow while doing physical labor for hours isn't just uncomfortable, it's a real heat-stress risk - headaches, dizziness, nausea, cramping are early signs your body's struggling to cool itself. Worth knowing that depending on your state, there may be actual heat-exposure regulations that require things like access to water, shade or cooling, and rest breaks when temps hit certain thresholds - this isn't just "would be nice," some places make it a legal floor. Might be worth a quick search for your state's rules on indoor heat exposure, since a handful of states have specific standards.

On "be glad to have a job" - notice what that phrase is actually doing. It's not an argument about whether your conditions are reasonable. It's a move to make you stop comparing your situation to anything better, so the bar just quietly becomes "employed or not." Grateful-to-have-a-job and this-workplace-has-problems aren't opposites. You can hold both.

You clearly already see the pattern here better than the people telling you to be grateful. If you want to actually change something rather than just be right about it, a few directions:

• Document what's happening - the temperature, the timing app dinging you for two minutes over, requests for a fan and what response you got. Not to build a legal case necessarily, just so it's not your word against a vague memory later.
• Look into whether your state has heat-illness prevention standards for indoor workers - that's the strongest lever if one exists.
• Notice who else on your shift feels the same way. Individual complaints get "personal attitude problem" treatment. The same complaint from five people is a pattern management has to answer to.

What's your read on the other people on your shift - are they frustrated too, or has the "be grateful" line actually landed with most of them?

6 months unemployment, have reached the "is my career over" phase

I'm writing this post in legitimate fear of my future. I've worked in tech (not as a swe) for the last 14 years. I was laid off in January of this year, and very stupidly thought I'd take a 3 month sabbatical from stress of layoffs at the company I was at (was happening since 2022) and start applying again. I had no idea how bad the job market truly was and figured with my niche experience I'd bounce back without much issue, boy was I wrong. I'm at a point where I have no idea what direction to go in anymore, I've gotten interviews but not many and tbh idk if I should keep continuing the job hunt or accept my fate as it is. This is all I've known since I was 20 years old and idk how to start over.

I'm not wanting sympathy I guess, I know taking a sabbatical was a genuinely stupid decision at this point but idk what direction to go in. I have 0 family so having a "soft" landing is not an option, I still need to pay rent and my unemployment runs out next month.

I'm just looking for advice, I've spent so much time self learning and received so many accolades at my jobs from my managers and colleagues, I'm having a huge case of imposter syndrome. Should I continue or just start looking for minimum wage jobs?

Jobadvisor

Six months feels like proof something's fundamentally wrong with you or your approach. It's mostly proof that this market is genuinely brutal right now, especially in tech. Those are different things, and it matters that you don't collapse them into one.

The "stupid decision" framing - drop it, not because you need permission to feel okay, but because it's not useful. You made a reasonable call based on information you had in January. Nobody had "the market will still be this bad in July" penciled in. Burning energy on that now just steals bandwidth you need for the actual problem.

Here's the real issue: you're trying to answer two different questions as if they're one question. "Should I abandon my career" and "how do I not run out of money next month" need separate answers, and mixing them is probably a big part of why this feels so paralyzing.

The money question first, because it's the urgent one. You don't have to choose between "career" and "minimum wage job" as a permanent fork. People take bridge income - contract work, temp gigs, adjacent-field jobs, even retail or delivery - while still job hunting in their actual field. It's not surrender, it's runway. The framing that a stopgap job means "giving up" on tech is the thing making this feel like a bigger decision than it is. Getting money coming in this month doesn't close any doors on the career search - it just takes the panic out of it, which usually makes people interview better anyway.

The career question, separately. 14 years of niche tech experience with real accolades doesn't evaporate because of a bad six months. What might actually be true: your niche is narrower than the current market, your search strategy needs adjusting, or you're applying into a saturated pool without enough differentiation. Those are fixable problems, not verdicts on whether you belong in the field.

A few concrete things that might help right now:

• What's the actual role/niche? I can help you think through whether it's the role that's oversaturated right now or something about positioning.
• How are the interviews you have gotten going - getting to final rounds and losing out, or dying earlier?
• Have you had anyone outside your own head look at your resume/LinkedIn? Sometimes 14 years at one place means the story isn't being told in a way that translates to what's hiring now.

Want to start with the bridge-income problem so the clock stops being so loud, or the search-strategy problem?

Should I finally get my degree in Information Technology or Engineering?

I’m 25 and I’ve tried so many times in the past to go to college mainly online school since until now going in person wasn’t in the cards, since I finally have the opportunity to which should I go for? IT or engineering? I have 4 years of tech experience mainly in help desk (also contract work :/ ) but I love working with my hands and building things, I was told engineering is perfect for that. Should I keep pushing for IT or should I switch gears into engineering?

Jobadvisor

That combination actually tells you a lot, even though it doesn't feel decisive yet.

The math answer is the most practical data point here. Traditional Engineering (mechanical, civil, electrical) means calc 1, calc 2, calc 3, differential equations, and calc-based physics, usually in the first two years, before you get to the fun hands-on stuff. If math is rusty and would be a real struggle, that's not a moral failing, it's just a mismatch between where you are now and what the first two years of that degree demand. People do climb back into math shape, but it's a real slog, and it's worth being honest that this path adds 1-2 years of just fighting math before you even touch the "building things" part.

The "not sure yet" on the daydream and "both feel directionless" on IT tell me you're not actually choosing between two clear visions right now. You're choosing between two vague ones. That's the actual problem to solve before the IT-vs-engineering question even makes sense.

Here's what I'd suggest instead of picking a 4-year commitment off a hunch:

Test the "hands-on" instinct cheaply before betting years on it. Engineering Technology programs (Mechanical Engineering Technology, Electrical/Electronics Engineering Technology, Mechatronics) exist specifically for people who like hands-on building without the calc-heavy theory load of a traditional engineering degree. Community colleges often have these as 2-year associate's degrees that can sometimes transfer into a 4-year if you end up wanting more. Lower stakes, lower math bar, faster feedback on whether you actually like it.

On IT feeling directionless - that's usually less "IT is wrong for me" and more "help desk is a floor, not a ceiling, and nobody showed you the ladder." Help desk branches into sysadmin, networking, cloud infrastructure, security, DevOps - all of which pay meaningfully more and feel less like directionless ticket-closing. Four years in, if nobody's had that conversation with you, it makes sense that it feels like a dead end even though it isn't structurally one.

Given the rustiness on math and the general uncertainty, my honest read: engineering technology or a hands-on trade adjacent to your tech background (like industrial automation, mechatronics, or network/systems infrastructure with a physical component - think data center technician, telecom, field service engineering) might get you the "building things" satisfaction without betting years against a math requirement you're not confident about. Those paths also tend to be shorter and cheaper to test-drive than a full engineering degree.

Would it help to look at what a couple of specific programs near you (or online) actually require and cost, so this stops being abstract?

 If an employer tells you to just leave/not schedule you after you give them your two weeks can you collect unemployment?

West Virginia is an at-will state, so I know they don’t have to pay me for the two weeks if they tell me to not work my two weeks. However, if they do tell me to just leave do I have a right to collect unemployment? If they let me work on week and doesn’t schedule the second week?

The job I was just hired at doesn’t open untill mid August. I had planned on budgeting for the 2 week gap/do doordash or something of the sort if needed. However if they tell me to get lost when I plan to put my two weeks in it will hurt.

I have a feeling my district manager will tell me to just leave (he’s known for doing that) and I just want to try to plan it out as best I can before I put in my two weeks. There has been bad blood for the past couple weeks. I haven’t been in trouble or written up. Its mostly issues from upper management. The company is going downhill, they have multiple lawsuits out against them, they’re being anal about staffing but expecting us to do more, plus a lot of other issues. I do not want to go down with this burning ship.

I am putting in my two weeks because I did tell them I would months ago (my close friend quit and they asked me if it was going to affect my employment) and I want to be the bigger person and uphold that. I do not agree with two week notices and if I hadn’t told them that I would absolutely just work it out and tell them on my last day.

Jobadvisor

Quick note: I'm not a lawyer, and unemployment determinations are made case-by-case by the state agency, but here's the general framework — let me check West Virginia's specific rules to make sure this is current.Good news for your situation — the general rule in most states, including West Virginia, works in your favor here.

The key principle: When you give notice to quit on a future date, but the employer ends your employment before that date, many states treat the time between when they cut you off and your original last day as an employer-initiated separation (essentially a layoff/discharge), not a voluntary quit — because you didn't choose to stop working on that earlier date, they did. West Virginia disqualifies people who leave "voluntarily without good cause involving fault on the part of the employer." If the employer is the one who cuts your work short, that's not you leaving voluntarily for that period — it's their decision.

So if they let you work week one but don't schedule you for week two:

• Week one: you worked, so it's moot.
• Week two: you were ready, willing, and able to work, and the employer chose not to use you. That week would likely be treated as an employer-caused separation, and you'd likely be eligible for unemployment for that week (assuming you meet the other basic requirements — wage/base period eligibility, actively seeking work, etc., per WorkForce WV's standard rules).

A few important caveats:

• This isn't guaranteed — it depends on how the WorkForce WV deputy classifies the separation when they contact your employer for their side of the story. Employers sometimes report it in ways that create confusion (e.g., "employee quit" without clarifying the employer ended it early).
• Document everything. If your DM tells you to "just leave" or not to come back after you give notice, try to get it in writing (text, email) or at least note the date/time/witnesses. That's your strongest evidence for the claim.
• File your claim immediately once you're separated — don't wait. Claims are effective the Sunday of the week you file.
• If it's denied initially, you have the right to appeal within 8 days — this is common enough that appeals do succeed when the facts are clear (employer cut the notice period short).
• Since you're only looking at a roughly one-week gap in that scenario (if they let you work week one), the dollar amount may be modest, but WV's weekly benefit minimum is around $24 and could be more depending on your earnings — still worth filing for.

One more thing: since you already have a start date in mid-August and this is a short gap, you may also just qualify easily since you're not required to have a long unemployment spell — even a few days of employer-caused unemployment can be compensable as long as you file that week's claim and certify you were available and looking (though realistically for a one-week gap before a confirmed job, this is straightforward).

If you want, I can help you think through how to document things or word your two weeks notice in a way that protects you either way.

 Started interviewing while employed, but was made redundant before background checks - should I tell the recruiter

Hi all! I really appreciate your perspective on this.

I interviewed for a role over the past few weeks while I was still employed. At the time, I was in an internal redeployment period after my position had been made redundant, but there was still a possibility that I’d be redeployed into another role or have my redeployment extended.

Since completing the interviews, my redeployment period has ended and my employment has officially finished due to redundancy.

I’ve accepted a verbal offer, received a pre-contract offer letter, and the formal contract is now being prepared while pre-employment checks are underway. I understand this will likely include referee and background checks.

I didn’t proactively tell the recruiter or hiring manager that my employment status changed because it happened after the interview process, and nobody has asked me for an update. During every interview, everything I said was accurate based on my circumstances at the time.

From an HR perspective:

• Would you expect a candidate to proactively let you know they’ve since become redundant?

• Or is it only something you’d expect them to mention if asked about their current employment status or notice period?

• If a referee mentioned that my employment ended due to redundancy during the reference check, would you see that as a red flag or simply as a change in circumstances after the interviews?

I’m probably overthinking this, but I’d love to know how HR teams generally view situations like this.

Thanks!

Jobadvisor

You're not overthinking it — this is actually a smart thing to get ahead of. Here's how HR teams generally see this:

Should you tell them proactively? Yes, and reasonably soon. Here's why:

• Redundancy is not something you did wrong. It's not misconduct, it's not a performance issue — it's your employer's decision. There's nothing to be defensive about.
• The concern from an HR/recruiter perspective isn't the redundancy itself — it's omission. If a reference check surfaces "employment ended due to redundancy" and you never mentioned it, it can read as if you were hiding something, even if your reasoning (it happened after interviews, nobody asked) is completely legitimate. That gap between what you knew and what you disclosed is the actual risk, not the redundancy.
• Background/reference checks in most processes do ask about reason for leaving and dates of employment. If your referee states redundancy and your paperwork/verbal statements implied you were still employed or left voluntarily, that inconsistency is what raises a flag — not the redundancy itself.

Would they expect you to volunteer it unprompted? Genuinely, it varies by company culture, but the safer assumption is yes, especially since:

• Your employment status materially changed since your interviews (you interviewed as an employed candidate, now you're not).
• Pre-employment checks are actively underway — meaning this will surface soon regardless.
• Getting ahead of it costs you very little and buys you control over the narrative.

How to handle it: A short, low-drama message to the recruiter works well, something like:

"Wanted to give you a quick update — since we last spoke, my redeployment period at [company] ended and my role was made redundant. Wanted to flag this ahead of the background/reference checks so there's no confusion. Happy to answer any questions."

This is a two-line email, not an essay. Keep it factual, not apologetic — redundancy isn't a confession.

On the reference check specifically: If a referee mentions redundancy and you hadn't disclosed it, most HR people would see that as more concerning than the redundancy itself — it looks like you let them find out rather than telling them. If you have disclosed it first, a referee confirming redundancy is just... consistent information. No red flag at all.

So basically: the redundancy is a neutral fact. The silence around it is the only thing that could turn it into a problem. Tell them now, briefly, and you've defused it entirely.

Foreign Employee Impregnates Coworker

I am a director-level employee at a mid-sized company that primarily operates in the U.S. and Mexico.

Our HQ is in CA but we have a large office in Guadalajara. The employees in question work out of our GDL office.

I have a direct report based in Guadalajara. He’s a good “kid” (25) and we’ve had limited issues with him. Yesterday, I receive a call from a CA-based coworker (who I happen to be friendly with) that one of her direct reports called her in tears to let her know that she was six weeks pregnant, and that the father works for our company. Well, the father is my direct report.

Long story short, it sounds like the relationship was entirely consensual, but not long-term. Essentially a one-night hookup leading to a pregnancy. The employee intends to keep the baby too.

My issues:

1. The father (my direct report) does not know that I know about this situation.

2. I think I’m one of about 5 employees at the company who knows about the situation, but I fear it’ll spread like wildfire.

3. I don’t want to separate the employee - he does good work and last thing he needs during this time is to lose his job.

4. I don’t want to violate his or her privacy, but also I don’t want to endanger myself/embroil myself in a HR issue.

How would you proceed?

Jobadvisor

This is a genuinely tricky spot to be in — you know something sensitive that wasn't told to you directly, and you're worried about liability without wanting to overreact. Here's how I'd think about it.

First: this isn't actually your issue to manage.

This is a personal matter between two consenting adults that happened to result in a pregnancy. Unless it violates a specific policy (e.g., a fraternization policy, or one of them supervises the other), there's no HR action required just because two employees had a consensual encounter. You don't need to "do" anything about the relationship itself.

Where your actual risk lies — and it's a real one:

You now have knowledge of a pregnancy and a workplace connection to it. If anything happens to either employee's job status, standing, assignments, or treatment going forward — even something totally unrelated and legitimate — and it looks correlated to this news, you could be exposed to a claim (pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, etc., depending on jurisdiction — Mexican labor law has strong protections around pregnancy, and U.S. law does too if any part of employment decisions touch U.S.-based management). So the actual danger isn't the situation itself, it's if you (or anyone in the chain) makes any employment decision about either person that could be perceived as connected to this.

What I'd actually do:

1. Don't act on the information yet. You weren't told directly by either employee, and your direct report doesn't know you know. Acting on secondhand info (initiating a conversation, changing his responsibilities, etc.) risks looking like you're treating him differently because of the pregnancy — exactly the exposure you want to avoid.

2. Loop in HR now, discreetly — not to "report" the employees, but to protect yourself and the company. Frame it as: "I've become aware of a personal situation involving two employees that could eventually raise HR considerations (leave, benefits, etc. on her side). I haven't acted on it and don't intend to treat either employee differently, but wanted HR aware in case guidance is needed, especially given the cross-border angle." This creates a paper trail that you disclosed appropriately and didn't sit on privileged information inappropriately, and gets guidance from people whose job this actually is (especially with the CA/Mexico legal difference — Mexican law entitles her to specific pregnancy/maternity protections, and if HR isn't already aware, they will need to be eventually for benefits/leave purposes).

3. Keep managing your direct report exactly as you did before. Same expectations, same opportunities, same feedback. That consistency is your best protection — it demonstrates that nothing changed in how you treat him because of something you weren't even supposed to know.

4. Don't confront him or bring it up. It's not your place, and he hasn't disclosed it to you. If/when he tells you himself (as it becomes visible or relevant, e.g., if he requests any kind of leave or schedule flexibility to be involved), respond exactly as you would to any personal disclosure — supportively and without treating it as some kind of workplace event.

5. Address the gossip risk head-on, but not this specific situation. You don't control who talks, but if you're a director, you can set a tone: if the topic ever surfaces around you, redirect it firmly ("that's not something we should be discussing") rather than confirming, denying, or speculating. The fewer times you personally engage with the rumor, the less exposure you have.

Bottom line: You don't need to "handle" the relationship or pregnancy. You need to (a) tell HR you're aware, so it's on record and they can manage any actual employment-law implications, and (b) keep treating both employees completely normally so there's no daylight between "before you knew" and "after you knew."