Found a post of my manager saying the n word and other racist things, what do I do
I don’t want to post a lot of detail but I just need help.
I came across a post of one of the managers from a different department and he said the n word multiple times and a lot of other racist things. It was still up but when I told hr they told him to delete it. They didn’t do anything else.he said he had a right to say what he wants and it’s his amendment. But he still deleted it. The post was a few years back
I don’t want to get fired or set a target on my back but I need to know what I can do.
This manager has also made weird remarks to me before.
Also this is a retail store similar to Lowe’s or target
Jobadvisor
This is a tough spot, and it makes sense you're worried about retaliation while also wanting to do the right thing. Here's a practical breakdown:
What HR did (and didn't do) matters
Telling him to "delete it" without any other action is a weak response, especially since he made "weird remarks" to you directly too. That combination — a documented pattern of racist statements plus behavior directed at you or others — is exactly the kind of thing HR is supposed to take seriously, not just quietly resolve.
About his "First Amendment" claim
That doesn't apply here. The First Amendment restricts government action against speech, not what a private employer can do. Employers can absolutely discipline or fire employees for this kind of conduct, especially a manager, and many have policies that explicitly cover off-duty social media conduct if it affects the workplace. He's wrong, and HR likely knows he's wrong — that's worth keeping in mind if you escalate.
Document everything now
- Save screenshots of the post if you still have them (or the fact that it existed, dates, wording as best you remember).
- Write down the date you reported it to HR, who you spoke to, and what they said (including the "amendment" comment).
- Write down the "weird remarks" he's made to you — dates, what was said, any witnesses.
- Keep this documentation somewhere not on a work device or work email (personal phone, personal cloud storage).
Your options going forward
- Escalate within the company — go above the HR person you spoke to, or to a regional HR/loss prevention contact if this is a larger retail chain. Frame it around pattern and risk to the company: a manager with documented racist statements and remarks toward employees is a liability issue, not just a "delete the post" issue.
- EEOC complaint — if this manager's remarks toward you or others create a hostile work environment, you can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This is a formal, protected route.
- Retaliation protections — under federal law (Title VII) and most state laws, it's illegal for your employer to retaliate against you for reporting discrimination or harassment in good faith. That protection exists specifically because companies want to bury this stuff. If anything happens to you after reporting, that itself becomes a further legal problem for them.
On not wanting a target on your back
That instinct is reasonable. You can request that your report be handled confidentially where possible, though HR usually can't guarantee full anonymity once an investigation starts. If you're nervous about going further internally, consulting an employment lawyer (many do free initial consultations) before you escalate can help you understand your specific protections and options without committing to anything yet.
Do you want help thinking through how to phrase an escalation to HR or corporate, or more about what an EEOC complaint process actually looks like?
I finally did it for the first time in a while. Wish I had the strength to do it more...
As an American who was born and raised in the propaganda, overcoming the immense feeling of guilt for not tipping is something that is very hard for me. Of course I understand that in the world today, tipping culture is not economically feasible. I despise tipping culture, but I often give into the guilt...
Well hopefully today is the start of a change! Me and my girlfriend went to Applebee's for an affordable meal. This is in a city location, very busy, but we were given coupons in the mail for this location so we went.
The service was absolutely horrible, as it often is in various locations in NYC... I am used to getting horrible service everywhere, because that's just how it is. These establishments are either too preoccupied/busy to understand and provide customer service, or the employees simply do not have it ingrained in them. Listen, I don't know what the reason is, but customer service is now the opposite of what it was when I was a kid. Service is not good anywhere, and if you think service is good in some places, we can still safely say that service isn't what it used to be.
Long story short, I tipped only $1.29, bringing the total bill to $35. It was satisfying to be served a meal each for 2 people, with a couple sodas, and only pay $35 in today's economy! Of course, it was nothing special at all, but $35 (and that's with the coupon) feels like a fair price for what we got. Remember the service was non-existent.
This subreddit gave me the strength to do what I did today! Thanks!
Jobadvisor
Sounds like you're glad you did this and looking for validation, so let me actually engage with the reasoning rather than just cheer it on.
The tipping-guilt thing is real for a lot of Americans, and it's fair to feel conflicted about a system where a huge chunk of someone's income depends on customer discretion rather than a stable wage. That's a legitimate structural criticism, and you're not wrong that the system is kind of broken.
Where I'd push back a little: tying your tip amount to "service isn't what it used to be anywhere" is a pretty broad justification for a specific server's paycheck. Servers in most states (including NY) still rely on tips to get anywhere near minimum wage — NY's tipped minimum cash wage is well below the standard minimum wage, with tips required to make up the difference. If the restaurant was slammed and understaffed, that's often more on management/staffing decisions than on the individual server's effort — and they're the one who eats the consequence of a $1.29 tip on a $35 tab, not the corporation.
If the service was genuinely bad — like actively neglectful, not just slow because they were slammed — that's a legitimate reason to tip less, and plenty of people would agree with you there. But "customer service everywhere is worse than it used to be" as a blanket rationale is a different thing than "this specific server did a bad job," and it's worth being honest with yourself about which one was actually driving the decision.
If you want to opt out of tipping culture on principle, the more consistent way to do that is to stop going to full-service restaurants that rely on the tipped-wage model, rather than going anyway and shifting the cost onto whoever served you that day. Otherwise you're kind of keeping the benefit of the system (cheaper posted menu prices subsidized by tips) while opting out of your part of it.
Longer Interview mean better chances of being hired?
Had an interview on Tuesday and expected to hear back either Friday (didn’t happen, believe she had another interview on Friday morning) or Monday morning. I believe the interview went really well, I received a lot of positive feedback and it felt more of a free flowing conversation than an interview. It was supposed to be an hour but ended up being an hour and 10 minutes but they didn’t seem to mind. They laid out the status that I would have as an independent contractor, asked me if I would be able to provide commitment for years, as the position requires, and answered my questions I had at length. Plus they shared how much it would pay as well and the schedule and everything related to the job. All of this caused it to go longer than hour but is this a good sign? The interviewer seemed impressed by my answers and background but I always feel like I’m such a bad judge at these things. Definitely a dream job in my field and the highest paying I’ve ever seen so I really really would like to have this one lol.
Jobadvisor
Honestly, everything you described lines up with the signs people usually point to as good ones: it ran over time and nobody rushed to cut it off, it felt conversational rather than like an interrogation, they got into practical details like pay, schedule, and long-term commitment expectations, and they answered your questions thoroughly instead of giving clipped answers to wrap things up. Interviewers generally don't spend extra time discussing logistics and compensation with someone they're not seriously considering — that stuff tends to come later in the process, or not at all, if they're not into a candidate.
That said, I'd hold the "longer = better" idea loosely as a rule in general. Sometimes interviews run long because the interviewer is being thorough with everyone, or because they like to talk, or because they're double-checking a concern by digging deeper. Length alone isn't a guarantee — it's the content of what got discussed (pay, schedule, commitment expectations) that's the stronger signal here, not just the extra 10 minutes.
On the "bad judge of these things" feeling — that's really common, especially when you want something badly. Wanting it this much can make you scrutinize every detail for meaning, in both directions. It doesn't mean your read is wrong, just that it's worth noticing you might be a little more anxious-attuned to signals right now than usual.
Since you didn't hear back Friday and were expecting Monday, is today Monday for you, or are you still waiting? That timeline detail might help figure out whether the silence so far is meaningful or just normal scheduling stuff.
Reference checks... via Zoom calls?
I recently made it to the final stage for a role and was asked to provide references. The hiring manager sent each reference a calendar link to schedule a 30-minute face-to-face Zoom call.
This happened during the week of July 4, so one of my references was traveling and unavailable. Another scheduled a meeting but said they never received the Zoom link. Both would have been able to handle a shorter phone call, but coordinating a 30-minute video meeting was more difficult.
I ultimately didn’t get the job, and the company hired the other finalist. It seems like the reference-check stage may have played a meaningful role in choosing between us.
Is it normal for a hiring manager to require scheduled video calls with references? Has anyone else experienced references being used as the deciding factor between two final candidates?
Jobadvisor
Video reference calls aren't the norm, but they're not unheard of either — most reference checks are still a quick phone call or even an email questionnaire, precisely because it's easier to coordinate. A scheduled 30-minute Zoom call for each reference is a heavier lift than most companies bother with, so it's reasonable to read that as a sign this hiring manager was being unusually thorough, possibly because it came down to two closely matched finalists and they wanted more signal to differentiate.
To your actual question — yes, references absolutely can be the deciding factor between two similar finalists. When a hiring manager can't distinguish candidates well enough based on interviews alone, references are one of the few remaining data points, and logistics friction can genuinely hurt you there: a reference who seems hard to reach, gives a shorter or less enthusiastic call, or has to reschedule can come across as weaker than one who was smooth and readily available, even if the substance would've been similar. It's not fair, but it happens.
That said, a few things worth keeping in perspective:
- You don't actually know reference checks were the deciding factor — it's a plausible theory given the timing, but hiring decisions between two strong finalists usually involve multiple factors (team fit impressions, a slightly stronger answer in one interview, internal preference, budget/leveling, etc.). Attributing it fully to the July 4th scheduling snag might be giving yourself a more concrete, controllable explanation than the reality actually offers.
- The timing (week of July 4th) is genuinely bad luck — that's a rough week to expect smooth scheduling from anyone, and a reasonable hiring manager should account for that. If they didn't, that's more on their process than on you.
- The missed Zoom link for your second reference is an execution failure on the company's side, not yours — worth remembering if you're inclined to blame yourself here.
If it would help, next time you're in a final-stage process, you could ask upfront whether references can do a phone call instead of video if scheduling is tight, or give your references a heads-up to flag issues (like a missing link) to you or the recruiter right away rather than just trying to work around it quietly.
management vs accounting
Hi! I am a senior is high school and I am really debating what I wanna major in. Right now I am between these three paths:
Undergrad: Management/Masters: Accounting
Undergrad: Accounting/Masters: Management
Undergrad: Management/Masters: Human Resource
tbh i just want money so i can travel and go to concerts but also im kinda poop at math so idk what to do
Jobadvisor
That's actually really useful to know — it means you shouldn't rule out accounting based on a fear that might not even be real. A lot of people who think they're "bad at math" just haven't hit the classes that click for them, or they've only been graded on speed/memorization instead of logical, rule-based thinking — which is what accounting actually rewards.
Here's what I'd suggest given that:
Don't self-select out of accounting yet. Undergrad accounting math is mostly arithmetic, ratios, and following structured rules (think: more like a puzzle/checklist than abstract math). If you haven't taken pre-calc, calc, or stats and struggled, you genuinely don't have data on whether accounting math will be hard for you.
A low-risk way to test it: most high schools or community colleges offer an intro accounting or intro business math class. Even watching a few free "Accounting Basics" YouTube series (like Accounting Stuff or Edspira) for an hour will tell you a lot — either it clicks or it makes your brain shut down. That's a much better signal than guessing.
Given that, here's my refined ranking for you:
- Accounting undergrad → Management master's — still my top pick if the test above goes okay. Best long-term earning ceiling, CPA-eligible, most flexible (you can pivot to leadership, finance, consulting, whatever).
- Management undergrad → Accounting master's — good backup if you try intro accounting and find it rough at first, since it gives you more time to build up the skill before committing hard.
- Management → HR master's — I'd still deprioritize this one for pure earning potential. It's a fine field, just not the money-maximizing choice among your three.
If you want, I can help you find a specific free intro accounting resource to "test drive" it before senior year decisions lock in — want that?
Engineering or medicine 🧐🧐
Hi, I'm a recent IB graduate (total points 39/45) and already got accepted into an aerospace engineering course at a top 100 uni in Europe. However I'm still not 100% sure abt it
My HLs in the IB were biology, chemistry and maths Al and I ended up getting a low 6 in bio and chem and a high 6 in maths (if I hadn't bombed p2 it would be an easy 7). During my time in the IB I started to love learning maths and spent months and countless hours on my lA (independent research paper type thing).
However the last time I had taken physics was back in the IGCSE programme 2 years ago. I did pretty well in it, I was never particularly passionate about it but I felt like it was just fine and when I was applying to my IB programme my teacher back then told me to reconsider not taking physics. In fact I ended up doing biology hl just by random chance (I just didn't wanna take business hl lol).
Okay that already seems like a lot but I'll do my best to describe my current situation. When I was going into the IB I was unsure of what I'd wanna study later on and I was still thinking between economics/ finance/ business or something scientific hence my hl choices.
Now I know I don't wanna do biz/finance as my primary path in uni etc. now when it comes to the two sciences none of them really fascinated me not to mention biology which was absolutely dreadful for me. Of course I did study it a bit and did the assignments I had to but oh god I just hated it.
And yes I am aware that my engineering course may be vastly different from what I did up until now but that's kinda the point of it since nothing I studied up to date has fascinated me in particular maybe apart from maths which I could study for hours on end during my IB diploma.
My main reason for being interesting in the degree is that it appears to be an excellent gateway into the aviation and space industries which are both connected with two industries I'm very interested in and would love to work in either of them in the future!
If you've read it this far - thank you so much! Please Share your thoughts and opinions if u wish! Everything will be sooo appreciated!!!
Jobadvisor
Thanks for laying all that out — though I'll flag: your title says "engineering or medicine" but literally nothing in your post mentions medicine or a med school path. Given everything you wrote is about doubting the aerospace engineering offer, I'm going to assume that's actually the question (let me know if I'm wrong and you're genuinely weighing med school too, since that's a completely different calculus given you'd need way more chemistry/bio commitment, which you say you hated).
So, aerospace engineering — here's my honest read on your situation:
The signals pointing toward "yes, go for it":
- You loved maths enough to sink months into an IA voluntarily. That's not nothing — genuine intrinsic interest in a subject you'll use heavily in engineering is a real predictor of success and enjoyment.
- You're clear that biology was actively dreadful for you, and chemistry wasn't much better. That's useful data — it rules out most science/med paths pretty decisively.
- You have a real, specific pull toward aviation/space as industries, not just "engineering sounds cool." That's a better foundation than most 18-year-olds start with.
The actual risk, and it's a real one:
- You haven't touched physics in 2 years, and you weren't passionate about it even in IGCSE. Aerospace engineering is physics-heavy — mechanics, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, structures. Loving maths doesn't automatically mean you'll love applying it to physical systems. Some people who love pure/abstract maths find engineering physics frustrating because it's messier and more approximate than math is.
- Your reasoning is partly "nothing else fascinated me either, so why not this" — that's a fine tiebreaker, but it's worth being honest that it's a different thing than "I'm confident this will click for me."
What I'd actually do before你 finalize: Don't try to solve this by introspecting more — test it cheaply. Before term starts:
- Work through a free intro to classical mechanics course (Khan Academy or an MIT OCW 8.01-style course) — a few hours. See if it feels like "oh this is maths I like, applied," or if it feels like a slog.
- Look at your specific course's year 1 syllabus (most unis publish it) and see how much is pure physics/mechanics vs. maths-heavy vs. design/CAD work — aerospace programs vary a lot in this balance.
If the mechanics preview feels good, I think you have a legitimate shot at liking this a lot more than you liked IB sciences, because university engineering is applied and problem-solving-focused in a way IB bio/chem often isn't. If it feels like pulling teeth, that's worth knowing now rather than after enrolling.
Want help finding your specific course's year 1 module breakdown, or a good short physics primer to test-drive first?