An agreement to build a new fence along a shared boundary and split the bill deteriorated, just like the old fence, when the neighbors had the fence built with the "good" side entirely facing their property, not following the existing design.

When these homeowners were approached by their neighbors about splitting the cost of replacing an 85-foot long fence that ran between their sections, they had expected that the replacement fence would preserve the "Good Neigbor" design, which is when a fence alternates it's facing with each section so that both sides have an equal mix of "clean" fencing without any framing showing, and then sections where the framing is showing on their side. 

The carrot is always better than the stick.

Understanding how to motivate employees to give their best work is a key part of running a company, and it is something that many employers struggle to get right. In this era of quiet quitting and doing just enough to justify the paycheck, inspiring people to go above and beyond can seem like an impossible task.

As we know, it is honestly pretty justified to give the bare minimum in many places of work. Most of them will not be shy to leave you behind if you suddenly don't fit into the business plan, no matter how much effort you give. The issue is that a lot of workplaces don't even pretend to want to listen to the interests and anxieties of their employees. If they just focused a little more on improving their day-to-day experience, they may see better results.

While fearmongering can be a temporary motivator in desperate circumstances, it should not be the immediate fallback in times of workplace crisis. It makes it all the more likely that employees will start looking elsewhere for a job, and that will leave the company in an even more stressful situation than it was in before.

 

When does family financial contribution simply become a means of control?

I think a lot of us will expect to face a difficult reality with a business partner or employer where the numbers just don't line up and cause a rift in the relationship, where we might run into trouble because the money just isn't there.  The justification given at this point will probably be something along the lines of "It's just business," as your boss, business partner, or creditor turns the screws. But each of us has probably experienced our parents exercising some type of control over our lives through financial means; I don't think many of us would expect to face this callous and cold behavior from them. But that's what this 40-year-old woman alleged happened when her mother began blocking the sale of the family's home under the condition that she receive a return of the full $450k that she put into the purchase of the home. 

 

In this account of events, shared by a 40-year-old woman, she tells how her family bought a Florida home for the family with the help of a generous $450,000 "investment" from her wealthy mother into the property. This came with strings attached, and the mother insisted on being on the title of the home. After the woman's husband lost his federal job when a return-to-office mandate was implemented and the family began struggling to make their mortgage payments, they found themselves needing to sell the home—urgently. 

But a quick sale means a lower price, and her mother wasn't willing to accept any loss of money. So she is blocking that sale from happening, refusing to accept a lower price, which would mean a percentage loss in her "investment." Despite her daughter's pleading and promises to repay the portion later, even offering to sign legal documents stating as such, the mother is refusing to budge. This has been pushing the family deeper and deeper underwater as they fall further and further behind on payments. 

The story prompted all kinds of discussion on family finances, inheritance, and intergenerational family conflict.

When a certain thing happened in 2020, a lot changed, but I don't think we have gotten back to normal yet…

The events of 2020 were a roller coaster of emotions for everyone. All jobs that could be remote changed to that. All activities that could be remote also changed, and even the ones that weren't. During that time, I remember taking physical education class through a virtual meeting, having to play with my hockey stick and film it with the camera on my cellphone –of course, I almost broke my phone multiple times with the ball. I also remember having to take math classes at 7:30 a.m from my computer, which meant that I never turned my camera on and sometimes even slept through the whole class. It was a mess, but that mess didn't fix itself back to normal when things ended.

Almost every office job became completely remote during that time, and that, 6 years later, seems not to have changed for some. I think that part is one of the best changes that came during that time. Working from home or even from different countries is great, especially when there is no real reason for an employee to go to the office. But some other changes weren't that great. The community was severely affected by that time period. People stopped being friendly with neighbors and coworkers. We all stayed in some kind of bubble that hasn't even popped open, not even to this day. We are closed off to ourselves, making it impossible to make friendships out of everyday interactions.

It has been 6 years, and we still aren't the same we were before. Several things should have gotten back to normal, and others that we really appreciate having nowadays that wouldn't have been possible without the event of 2020. In u/Work, we take a perspective look into the past and present. We see the changes that have molded the workplace into a completely new place, and we value them among the great ones, and the ones we wish would go back to what they were. Maybe there is no going back, but if it were, what would you change back? 

It's not only the fact that you are using work time as you please, but also that you are making work harder for everyone else…

Being a bad coworker can be more impactful than you expected. When I say "bad," I mean the employee who is always looking for an opportunity to take advantage of somebody else. It can be the one who steals other people's lunch because he sees them in the fridge, or the one who is always playing "playful pranks" on everyone, even though they've told him multiple times that it makes everyone uncomfortable. Or, as in the story below, it can be when one employee thinks they deserve far more lunchtime than anyone else, so they take it, leaving their coworker with more tasks to manage without any help. No matter what exactly they do, if they are taking advantage of other employees, then they are doing their job incorrectly, and probably also being a bad person who doesn't take into account other people's feelings.

Why would somebody be so entitled that they think that whatever they do is excusable just because they wanted to do it? If you take a 2-hour lunch when you know that everyone else in the same job position as you takes 45 minutes, then you are not only using work time to do nothing, but you are also putting everyone else in an uncomfortable position where they are forced to do more work than they normally would have just because you think that you deserve better. Why would one employee get to enjoy all that free time and less workload while everyone else continues to work hard enough?

When we face a situation like this, it's normal not to want to involve management. I get it, you don't want to seem like a conflictive coworker or a snitch. But by not saying anything, you are making your own work-life harder. You are taking over tasks that aren't yours and seeing how somebody who doesn't deserve it gets benefits you will never enjoy, even though you are working harder and better. Firstly, confronting the coworker directly seems like a sensible idea, but if it doesn't work, don't feel bad about having to reach out to management to fix the issue. They have a job, and they need to do it correctly. Is better to be a snitch than to continue working like that. 

Do your coworkers even care about your birthday? 

Not once have I heard of coworkers planning a surprise birthday party at the office for each one of their colleagues. Mostly it's just a "Happy birthday!", maybe a small gift from the people who know you better, and in some cases, they give you the day off. But in some offices, things work differently, apparently… 

A new employee found out that at their office, every month each of the coworkers pitches in $27 to buy cake and a gift for whatever colleague is turning one year older. This time, a coworker named Emily declared that she didn't want that; she preferred that each of her coworkers spend the same amount of money to buy several individual gifts. The manager still thought it was necessary to buy cake and balloons to celebrate at the office, and she asked the new employee to organize it, even though she had already spent her $27 on the gift. She did it anyway, spending a total of $53. The best part? None of the other coworkers pitched in or paid her back, and Emily was mean to her and made her cry. 

This Emily sounds like a delight to work with… Please, if someone knows of another place that has the same custom of organizing celebrations every month for every employee, I need to know. And I would very much like to ask the manager: if they're always partying in that company, when do they actually work? 

Celebrating birthdays every month requires having the budget to do so, and maybe not everyone can actually afford it, especially when the celebration is for people who are not actually your friends, just your coworkers. What we're all hoping is that those coworkers pay the girl back; she deserves to have everything reimbursed for being nice enough to plan everything for someone who clearly doesn't value it. And next time, she'd better learn how to say no. Because obviously, you can't trust anyone in that office. 

Some decisions are supposed to be taken without thinking too much about them

I know this advice can sound strange, but sometimes intuition is pointing in the right direction. People who love us oftentimes try to help us make good decisions, but they have a limit to what they can know. They only have their experience and their lives as reference. And their lives, naturally, are very different from ours.

Redditors under /askreddit started sharing experiences where they made decisions based on a gut feeling, and then proceeded to succeed.

I'm not saying you shouldn't consider anything before making a major life decision; you definitely should. But intuition exists for a reason, and it's better to fail at doing something you love than failing at something you don't, or so they say. What I mean is, traditional paths are not secure either, so if your future is not going to be secure anyway, better take the chance.

My grandmother always told me that I could change paths any time I wanted to, and as many times as I wanted to, and I took that to heart. There is no age limit to change, and every circumstance, as hard as it might seem, has in itself the possibility to untangle it.

So, if by reading this post, you feel a calling, or you remember a moment in your life when you made a major life decision using only your intuition and don't regret it, share it because I want to read it. I think the AI revolution and the rapidness at which our societies are changing call for a more 'spiritual' experience as human beings. The world has started to change its old functioning, so I think we should do the same.

We all know at least one person who is incapable of admitting to their mistakes.

In their eyes, it doesn't matter what led to the mistake happening; everyone else is at fault but them. Even if you only imply that they should take responsibility for their own actions, they will act as if you wronged them and their entire family. It's impossible to win an argument with them.

The very least you can do is not give in to their demands. They can act like their mistakes are yours all they want, but that doesn't mean they will get what they are after. When it comes to the service industry, there are plenty of ways to teach people like this that they can't always get away with blaming other people for their faults.

There is a lot this customer refuses to come to terms with; his mistake is one among many things he decided to blame on the hotel that was unable to accept him as a guest. It all started when he arrived at the front desk and discovered his booking did not appear in the system. After some digging, the front desk clerk found that a booking had been made in the name of this guy, on the same date, but to a year ago.

Apparently, the guy did not notice the wrong date, but not only that, he didn't check his emails for confirmation, didn't notice the charge made when he failed to show up for the booking last year, and didn't think to check that his reservation still existed after he made it so long ago. Even though all of these were actions he failed to do, he still blamed the hotel for not informing him of the error.

Since the hotel was fully booked, they were unable to give the guy a room, which, after all of his claims and accusations, we're sure they didn't mind. The guy, who clearly had issues with taking responsibility, doesn't sound like the best customer to serve…

What happens when your mother-in-law is doing everything she can to sabotage your wedding?

The ideal reaction to behavior like this would be not to let it affect you, but that's very difficult when you are celebrating such an important event that fundamentally changes the nature of your relationship with your spouse and your outlook on the future.

This Redditor, who recently became a wife, shared her story, which, sadly, is all too common among wedding and relationship anecdotes. Some mothers-in-law think they have a say in how and when their sons should get married. The thing is, their precious sons are already full-grown adults, and they should decide that for themselves.

Sadly, not every family has this knowledge, and mothers-in-law still act as if their sons depend on them for their every move. It goes without saying that this is completely unacceptable behavior, and while the mother-in-law is allowed to disagree with her son's decisions in love and marriage, she should be the bigger person and not let that disagreement determine her attitude on the day of the ceremony her son chose to put together.

In my opinion, the fact that she encounters no boundaries when she displays this sort of attitude is an advantage for her, and she will continue to cross them every time she can if nobody puts an end to it, because she is consciously or subconsciously trying to sabotage her son's relationship. Of course, I believe the one who should be setting the boundaries is the son.

Some mothers need to understand that their sons have already grown up, and if they can't comprehend that on their own, they should definitely receive some help to achieve that realization.

How would you approach a MIL if she showed up like this the day of your wedding, would you simply ignore her?

She's doing you a favor. The least you can do is be grateful for it!

I hate when people deem a favor you do as something that you HAD to do. You offer to do something for someone because you appreciate them and want to help them out. But then you get hit with something that reminds you that they didn't deserve it at all and are ungrateful towards your hard work, and then you feel bad. You were doing something genuinely nice, and it got deemed as if it was nothing. That is not only completely unfair, but it also proves that the person didn't deserve it, as they are mean.

In the story below, we get one of those cases. We get a woman who git asked by her boyfriend to make a birthday cake for this man's daughter as he didn't have the money or the time to buy her one. This woman accepted it because she loved that girl and she had no problem helping out. She did it and took it to the party, but wasn't able to stay long as she had to go to work. During her time at the party, she was asked if she wanted something to eat by her boyfriend's family members. She kindly denied, as she needed to go. That, apparently, was taken as some kind of insult by that man's family. So, later that day, he confronted her and said that she should have just accepted the food.

Now, this woman made a birthday cake for free to this man's daughter just because it was on her kind heart to help out. But her boyfriend, instead of appreciating the gesture and the fact that she even made time to drop it off, just confronted her about not accepting food from his family. Do you get why this woman was mad, right? You have to be so dumb to pull something like this after someone made an effort for you because of how much they appreciate you. It's good that this woman broke up with someone who behaved like this. She deserved way better!

Sometimes you realize that a relationship is over because of the simplest things.

Sometimes we realize that a relationship needs to end because of the weirdest things. It could be a phrase, a gesture, a thought that escalates and makes you realize that it's done. It's a brief moment, like a light bulb that turns on inside your head, that makes everything you have been overthinking for a while tremendously obvious. I still don't fully understand how it works, but I know it happens. I think it has happened to the best of us. We are "fine" working to hold a relationship, and then something happens. It doesn't have to be a big deal, but it's enough to snap you out of it. Now you just want to end everything, and there is no turning back. The relationship is over. Maybe you haven't told the other person yet, but it ended in your mind, and that can't be outdone.

I remember when it happened to me. I don't remember exactly what I thought, but I do remember the realization of "this is completely over" hitting me. And the worst part is that I wasn't able to let it out. No matter how hard I tried, the moment it hit me, it stayed with me. I was free only when I verbalized it. Ending relationships is hard, but when you realize that they should be over, it's far worse to continue. If you don't want to be with someone anymore, the correct thing to do is end things, not pretend that everything is fine till you hate each other. That is mean and damaging. Being honest will always be the correct thing to do.

After all, we must be conscious of not only our feelings but also the other person's. Lying and pretending are not only damaging to yourself, as you have to put so much effort into lying to yourself. But it also puts the other person in a horrible position. It's best to just express your true feelings and let the relationship follow the course that it wants to follow. If you want to read more examples of people realizing that a relationship was over because of something small, like a phrase, then check below some of the stories shared in u/AskReddit. 

You don't have to be a math wiz or statistician to know that 132% of a set whole amount is statistically impossible. But who needs real math anyway?

A statistics professor imposed a strict group-project rule stating that every member of the group must complete an equal share of the work. This was determined by a confidential self-report made by each member of the 4-person group at the end of the project, where each member reported the percentage they had completed. 

This was done under the threat that if the total of all 4 reports didn't "match up perfectly, " every member of the group would receive a 0 on the project. But when one slacking group member didn't do any work, and his 3 group members each claimed the 33% share of the work that they had fairly completed, the slacker went ahead and claimed another 33% "equal" portion anyway. While this technically followed the professor's rules, he called them out on the fact that the total did not equal 100%. Under threat of failing the project and the class, the group members were forced to think on their feet and make 132%=100%.

The intention was clear: solve the frequent problem with group projects where some members of the group don't pull their weight and ensure that everyone did an equal part of the project. But that's just not how it turned out. 

You know that stage of life when you date a manipulative and toxic guy? We recommend skipping it. 

A woman was worried about an argument she had with her boyfriend about enrolling in college. She had stopped studying, but wished to go back to finish her degree; she just hadn't had the chance. While she was looking for a job in the meantime to have something to keep herself busy with, she found that some jobs offered financial reimbursement for those wanting to study, and when she was asked about it, she said she was interested. She talked about it with her boyfriend, and he sounded supportive, so she eventually applied to an online college and got in. She got the student loans figured out, and her grades were great. All was well until her boyfriend apparently lost it for no reason, said he "allowed" her to be in college, like he was paying for it, and that she had only enrolled out of pettiness and payback for him saying once that she lacked motivation. He stated she should have told him she was applying, and that he needed to be aware of major life changes. She said she disagreed: applying isn't the same as enrolling. And yes, his saying that she lacked motivation was the kick she needed to go after what she wanted, but it wasn't petty or just a way of revenge. Mind you, she had wanted to go back to school for a long time. 

It definitely sounds like the boyfriend likes to put her down. First, he says she lacks motivation, and when she gets it and does something for herself, he accuses her of being petty and inconsiderate. That is classic manipulation, the kind of man who likes to put down his partner to make themselves feel better and more important. Our advice for this girl is: cut him off. He doesn't really love her, and she clearly doesn't need him. He's only going to try to guilt-trip her over this, and who knows over what else. Those are the kinds of relationships it's best to get out of on time.

Somewhere between "I can totally make this" and ordering takeout lies a kitchen full of questionable decisions, burnt dinners, and very valuable life lessons.

If you ever wonder whether there is an ulterior motive for a policy, all you have to do is take a look at whether or not it even makes sense.

An employer changed its flexible 2-day-a-week working policy to a mandatory return-to-office 4-day-a-week requirement. Except no one stopped to consider the fact that the office space was too small for everyone to work there at once. This created a situation where employees are now being forced to work from odd places, and even the cafeteria, just to have a place to sit.

When work from home hit full force because of certain events, many companies elected to downsize their offices—or did away with them entirely. That, or they have simply grown since everyone had to work in the office.

So what happens when your company adopts a trendy Return to Office (RTO) policy demanding that everyone work from the office from now on?

A 31-year-old employee became the top-performing member of his team after seven years of working for the same company. Normally, he expected to be promoted to a manager role when his current boss was moved to another department. 

However, things took a turn when they hired a woman that has no experience in the field, since they thought this was going to bring fresh air and more clear perspective. He not only felt betrayed but also realized there was no real possibility for growth in that company, so he quit and got a new offer nine days later.

What would you do if you were demoted with no warning? 

Startups can be interesting places to work because they tend to be the wild west. There is a different expectation about hours, benefits, and HR, because you all might be working to get something off the ground and build it together, rather than keep an institution going. There are positives to this, for sure. You might have a great sense of ownership of your work, and it might pay huge dividends in the long run. Think of the employees who got in on the ground floor of companies like Google. They probably had to sacrifice a lot in the beginning, but now they're made for life. But startup culture can also be difficult to navigate if you're looking for stability. And if egos and personalities start to clash, things can get heated very quickly. That's what happened to the employee in this story, who started a new job and didn't quite realize what they were in for. They shared their story to the r/work subreddit, airing their grievances and asking for advice.

Imagine returning home after being out of state helping your dad, and realizing your beloved motorcycle was not there…

So, we all hear those crazy neighbors' stories when one of them feels entitled to do whatever they want with other people's possessions… but this one just crosses the line. A man had to leave the state to go help his dad after a big procedure, and ended up being with him for six months. Meanwhile, he left his motorcycle parked in a special spot and had all the documentation that proves that he owns it (and that's not abandoned, basically).

When he returned home, he realized that the vehicle was no longer there, and thought it maybe got towed. But later, he found out through a neighbor that someone else took it to a friend's garage and sold it for $2,800… that's a bike that's worth at least $7k total. But the money is beside the point here; the problem is the neighbor's attitude and how he decided to take something that's not his and sell it!

Even writing those words makes me feel so weird. I wouldn't know how to react if I found out that my neighbor sold my vehicle just because I left home. I would even feel watched and monitored… Imagine the number of times he had to be looking at the bike to realize it was "abandoned" and that getting it towed and sold was the actual solution.

Anyways, I'm curious to see what the next step is… Is he able to recover the bike after it's been sold? Does the buyer have to give him more money, or maybe the neighbor is responsible for not only returning the vehicle, but also giving him the $7k? It's a complicated situation, to say the least.

Why are people so persecuted about literally anything?

Having some entitled guest wanting to check into a hotel and then making a scene with the front desk employee over anything is one of the most common stories I read. But we usually focus on the fact that they mistreat the employees that are trying to help them or the fact that they expect to get some exceptions after being mean towards the staff. But today I have a new thing to concentrate on. In the story below, we get a showcase of the people who are always prosecuted by themselves and their minds. These people think that everything is a scam or somebody trying to use them for something. It gets to a point when they start to doubt everything and everyone. As if everyone's main goal was to scam them.

Security deposits have been a thing forever. Almost every hotel will ask you for it to make sure that if something breaks or gets damage the customer can be made responsible for it. They are not going to let a guest into the room with that said deposit, as it is a liability for the hotel. Letting a guest in without that can cause the firing of the front desk employee that let them in and even legal problems. So when the employee of this story started to insist on it, it's obvious that they are doing it to avoid getting in trouble, not because they want to bother or scam the customer who wants to check into the hotel.

This customer decided to view the situation of giving his card for a security deposit as a scam. He started to think that by giving it, he was going to get charged for things he didn't agree to. This was a grown adult who I'm sure has stayed at a hotel before. Why would he think that of a security deposit? He is in a trusted environment that complies with the law. What about the hotel made him think that giving his card would get him scammed? I actually don't understand what was going through his mind. I get that with the rise of AI, people are starting to think that everything is fake. But this man was at a real hotel getting asked to do something he has probably already done before. Maybe we just all start to chill out a bit. Not everything is a scam. We need to think before creating a scene over something like this. 

What would you do if your family disowned you?

It's not an easy question to answer, since it doesn't happen often and most of us have somewhat stable relationships with our families, at least stable enough not to get disowned. But that doesn't seem to be the case for everybody. 

A Reddit user who goes by u/LopsidedEntry9376 shared an uncomfortable family situation regarding money and inheritance. Their father approached one day with brand-new information: he had made changes to his will. These changes mostly affected the user's brother, who will no longer be getting the part of the inheritance he expected. The father didn't give specific motives, and the sibling didn't see the actual will. The sibling is now conflicted because, even though it's his father's decision and he has the right to do it, they also know the brother was counting on receiving his inheritance and already making financial plans around it. 

The information we have about this case is scarce. We don't know why the father chose to leave his son out of the will, or why he decided it was a good idea to tell his other child about it. We don't know what plans the brother is making, or his current financial situation. What we do know is that, even if it sounds harsh, parents have the right to do as they please with what they leave behind. It doesn't sound like the father is unfair to his children regularly, but again, we don't have all the information. Most likely, the father knows something about his son that made him unfit to receive his inheritance, and he's just protecting his assets and the rest of the family's well-being. 

The son, on the other hand, sounds like a cold person. Who makes plans for an inheritance that you don't yet have? If your parents are still alive, why are you hoping for the time when they are no longer here? We can't be sure, but that sounds like a motive for the father to cut him off.