Being a babysitter full-time is a full-time job like any other, and it should be paid accordingly. Childcare is already hard enough and dismissed enough. We don't need more people diminishing the amount of work it takes to be in charge of small children. 

Two friends got into an awkward situation about this. One of them offered to take care of her friend's 2 children, similar in age to her own kids, all under 5 years old, while their mother worked. She got paid $100 per day, being the part-time job that it was. The friend switched jobs and needed her to take care of her children full-time, but instead of maintaining that rate, she wanted to cut it in half because she couldn't afford it. Double the work for half the salary. Under any other circumstances, that would be one heck of a lawsuit and something HR can't allow. But since this wasn't in a corporate environment, there's not much that could be done. The friend insisted that she couldn't pay her the usual rate, that she was getting back on her feet, and that she had bills to pay. Newsflash, your friend, who willingly babysits your two toddlers, also has two children of her own and bills to pay. The friend was trying to get her to accept less than minimum wage for a full-time job that is also extremely demanding. 

The thing here is, anyone can get through a rough patch and needs help to get back on their feet. But there's a difference between needing help and taking advantage of your friends' time and resources. Just because her friend doesn't have an office job doesn't mean that she doesn't work. Childcare and motherhood are full-time occupations, and society looks down upon them as they are. She's basically telling her friend that her time and work are less valuable than hers, that her work is not worth being paid, and the worst part is that they're both mothers. Society will never change if the work of mothers keeps being diminished. She may have financial issues as we all do, but if she can't afford to pay her friend a respectable salary, she should consider other options. 

If they wanted actors, then they should hire actors or pay for the acting lessons!

I've seen variations of this play out time and time again. Whether it's upper management asking their employees to track how many hours their work actually takes, with the secret intention of making them prove they don't need to be paid as much because their work takes way fewer hours than the original contract said; or bosses favouring employees who look overworked over those who actually perform well.

If I had to pick my battles, I would definitely pick this one, but I would approach it not with feelings or emotions, but with receipts. Maybe this employee could send a report of his team's productivity with a message explaining that they perform that well because they approach their work by trying to reduce stress. Stress is minimized by focusing on tasks instead of schedules and rewarding results, not performative panic. As I'm writing this, I realize it might be a lost cause, but we're all free to choose the hill we stop our journey on.

If they don't understand it this way, they might have to learn it the hard way and lose their most objectively valuable workers to keep the ones who only look valuable, but that's honestly a loss for everyone involved.

I honestly think there is a way to approach this issue so the executives understand what's happening, but it would definitely take excellent communication skills and dedication.

They are the only ones who know if they're that interested in the company to invest all that energy into it.

They have another option: to act as if they were incredibly stressed while doing the same thing they were doing before. Maybe that's the way management wants them to go.

Most dares were never meant to be followed through

I guess that's what you get when you dare someone to do something serious, secretly expecting that they won't. Sometimes, I think, these people are so entitled they forget to question their actions, and they seriously think they've got nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

That's where the police come in to provide a little of an 'outside perspective,' to say the least. But a tenant has to do what it has to do.

There are only a few things more pleasurable than doing what's right, knowing you'll come out victorious. These are the advantages of knowing your rights. You can actually go to authorities, and they'll have your back.

This anecdote does more than prove the tenant was right all along; it also uncovers a lot of other things this landlord wasn't doing well or being fair about. And justice did its thing.

Divine justice like this doesn't happen every time, but when it does, we must enjoy every second it lasts.  The only downside is that things can get more tense with the landlord from now on, but if everyone is mature enough, it will just be a subyacent feeling and not an outward fight or even discussion.

Do you think this landlord knew what she was doing and was hiding it? Or was she handling things poorly, and stuff like that flew under the radar?

One thing I'm sure about is that she never thought she would be reported to the city, but well, it doesn't happen until it happens, and surely not for a good reason.

Landlords are well known for stunts like this, but I had never heard a story where justice had come to the rescue. Give it up for the tenant and the city!

Sometimes we shouldn't even wonder if we're being mean; just move on with our lives

Some people will take advantage of what we give to them. To accept a gift once is one thing, but to continue using and abusing the same thing over and over without ever asking again is a whole other story.

There is no way to justify it; it's obvious that this friend didn't mention his rooftop use openly because he knew it was wrong. This attitude only worked against him because if he had asked again, his friend would've probably said yes.

This is simply a disgusting attitude, and my advice is to never act this way, because if you already have a generous friend, it makes no sense to take advantage of him by secretly using his stuff. I suppose this was motivated by shame, because he likely was pretending to have a lifestyle he didn't have, but what a waste of time.

He was also warned before being revoked accordingly, so his reaction doesn't make sense either. What irritated me most as a reader is that when things went down, he reacted angrily instead of being apologetic. That shows you a lot about someone's character and how entitled they think they are to someone else's property. It's insane if you think about it, but there are many people like this walking amongst us.

Either way, as I always say, the information OP gathered thanks to this incident is incredibly valuable to adjust the access some people have not only to his rooftop, but to his life, in my opinion, but you'll be the judge of that.

Do you think it would've been better if he talked to his friend more deeply before revoking access? Or did his attitude express everything he needed to know?

Being a renter can sometimes be horrible, but once in a while some good things happen. 

Being a landlord or being a renter can both be horrible or great. It really depends on the land, the house or apartment that's being rented, and who the renter is if you are the landlord, or who the landlord is if you are the renter. So basically, it has to do with the person that you have the agreement with, as with almost everything in life. Life is really for the ones with great social abilities, or at least the ones that advocate for themselves when it's needed. Being able to express your mind can save you from a lot of trouble. It doesn't matter what the situation is or what it involves. If you are able to speak for yourself and defend what you think is true and fair, life will be smoother for you.

In the story below, we find a renter who was living in horrible conditions due to the landlord's lack of help. This person was really trying to get the landlord to fix everything for herself. She gave her 3 months to fix the roof, you read me right, 3 MONTHS! And what did the landlord do? Absolutely nothing –oh, sorry, she did one thing: blame the renter for not being able to schedule, when the renter explained a million times that they weren't receiving an answer from the contractors she had hired. I do not know what this person expected this renter to do. Just live in awful conditions because it was cheaper for her than having to fix it? That is not how being a landlord works. There are laws, and you have to respect them. Not providing fixes for an apartment that is not in the correct condition is against the law.

Luckily enough, this story had a pretty happy ending. This renter was smart enough to advocate for themself. They got the city involved, and an inspector came to the apartment to check it out. They discovered a lot more things that were wrong with the apartment, so now this person will get to live in a place that is 100% up to code, all while getting it fixed by the annoying landlord. She should have just fixed the roof. It would have cost a lot less money. 

Who doesn't want a rotting, half-carved, terrifying-looking pumpkin in their backyard this fall? (With glasses and cinnamon flavor).

If you're passionate about handmade projects and get inspired each season to try the most impossible crafts the internet can possibly offer you. If you also think that you can nail them no problem, even when you have never touched a pair of scissors in your life, this message is for you: please, watch the complete tutorial before letting your wild creativity kick in. We love your out-of-the-box ideas, but we also love to sleep soundly at night without getting hunted by unexpectedly terrifying creatures. We really just want to walk by your garden without ending up with residual nightmare fuel.  

We know your intention wasn't to create a horrifying creature, perfect for Halloween night. We know that, deep down, you just wanted to be like that one influencer that pops up on your feed every single day, who can make wonderful and functional color lights out of some used paper, foil and hot glue. One day, perhaps, but for now, please stick to Spirit. Unless you're actually a DIY pro, in which case we deeply apologize for the disturbing images you're about to see. 

Fall is almost here, and failing at overly-creative decorative projects will be the number one activity very soon. To get your ideas going, we are hoping that we can inspire you to create the next new pumpkin monster horror protagonist of the season. So, we have dived into a collection of peculiar-looking fall pumpkins that might not be the most masterful, but are certainly the ones that have earned a little (not so crafty) place in our hearts. At the end of the day, the best Halloween ambience often comes from the most unexpected trendy DIY fall decoration videos out there. 

When your boss asks you to do something unpleasant, the least they can do is write it themselves. 

The world is full of cop-outs these days. The widespread use of AI means that if you don't want to try so hard, you don't have to. This can mean that we're treating things with less respect than they might deserve. Especially in professional interactions. It makes sense that you'd want to save time, but business is really all about relationships. If you're not treating that relationship with respect, then you're not going to go far. This includes using AI to communicate with your employees for you. It's hard to feel like anyone cares about you when they're using a robot to talk to you. That's what was happening in this story, though. 

Timeliness is important. Every job has different expectations about timing, and every job requires a different level of attentiveness in terms of timeline. Some jobs are fine with you strolling in past your start time and leisurely starting your day. Other jobs will ding you for every minute that you waste. It's your job to respond to the needs of your workplace and figure out your rhythm within it. The employee in this story was getting conflicting information from their employers regarding their start time. This is a pressing issue because lateness can have grave consequences in the workplace. 

What do hiring managers even want from job applicants anymore?

A lot of advice about looking for a job comes down to knowing how to play the game. An applicant learns how to tweak their resume to every job description, making it engaging enough for a person but also simple enough to be processed by AI; they coach themselves on common interview questions and do their research into the company so they can make some engaging questions of their own. They sink hours of their time into applying and networking and trying to land a new role, but often, they find no luck. It's rough out there.

It is not uncommon for somebody seeking work to feel like they are doing everything right, but not seeing any results for it. There always seems to be a better applicant, a company changes its mind, or maybe the job they were hoping to get didn't even exist in the first place. It is almost inevitable that they start to wonder if they have a problem.

While it is true that everyone has their flaws and they can prevent them from being hired, it is fair to say that some employers have standards that are ridiculous. They seem to chase an ideal candidate who doesn't really exist, and leave behind those who may not conform 100% to their strict criteria, but who would be a worthwhile employee. When they get so many applications, though, they don't want to broaden those horizons. It is just too much work.

This tenant, eager to follow up on their security deposit with a property manager who had ghosted them, logged into the online property management portal and discovered $6,000 in "charges" they had never been notified about. 

When they finally got a hold of the landlord and property manager, it was explained to them that these charges were in addition to the loss of their entire $3,200 security deposit. 

The reason given? A grass had given up and turned totally brow. The landlord argued the tenant was responsible even though the lawn wasn't in good shape when they moved in 5 years ago. And the heat of summer and lack of maintenance were more responsible for the state of the lawn than anything the tenant felt they had done.

We all understand that a benefit can be a little exaggerated in a job offer, but a straight-up lie is a little bit more complicated

I guess this bold statement the company made could be legally investigated, but this employee would have to invest quite a lot of energy for the investigation to go anywhere. It depends on whether he thinks he could benefit from it (if you know what I mean), and I believe he can.

Few things are worse than a passive-aggressive work environment. In this type of story, whether it's posted on Reddit, X, or even TikTok, people seem to react by commenting something along the lines of: 'Find another job' or 'Just quit; they don't deserve you', as if it were that simple.

Jobs are not easy to find in this economy. Imagine simply leaving your job and applying for new ones while rent is due and you're living off a credit card. Life is definitely not that simple. You have to evaluate a lot of variables when you try to get a new job: whether it pays enough, whether it's remote or not, whether it's freelance, whether it has other benefits; and, on top of all that, we'd have to be contacted at least for an interview. Sometimes it's easier to keep our job and try to make the best of it, even if it's not perfect.

If he considers the job worth keeping, he could take the petty route and use every paid time off that  doesn't collide with a blackout date, further complicating the relationship with his bosses, or he could start grieving the unlimited PTO he thought he was going to have. Or, well, if he has the resources, the time, and the energy, he could take this to court and make some money off it? I guess.

His car, his gas, his time… although it seems that all of this depends on his friend's decision.

I'm sure this story is going to feel personal for too many people out there who struggle with entitled friends who feel they can do whatever they want with their other's time. Every time the OP and his friends go out at night, he's the one driving everybody home afterward because he prefers it. That's fine: if this is an active decision, then there should be no problem. Well… let me tell you a bit more.

There's one person on this friend group who constantly adds more people to the ride… but not people they know: total strangers they meet during the night. Because he wants to look cool, he offers free rides from his friend. "Don't order an Uber, he's already driving…" kind of thing. One night was okay, since the people were already in the car and refusing felt bad. But the following weekend, when they went out, the issue happened again.

Instead, there were three ladies who were going to call an Uber, but the friend said that the OP was going to take them. And, in that moment, he refused and said that he was going straight home. His friend was playing along and insisted that he could drive… like it was nothing to him! The prior weekend, it took him 40 extra minutes to get home, and let's not even talk about the money and gas.

He stood his ground and luckily got away with the situation. But not with his friend's anger. Apparently, he had promised those girls a ride, and he made him look bad by saying no… But whose problem is that? From the person who owns the car and is the one who actually goes behind the wheel, or from the one who has a big mouth and wants to look cool? Please… let's be respectful of others' time and money. Friendships aren't based on favours, and being kind towards each other is key to having a good relationship. 

Companies across different industries and sectors are pushing layoffs. Justifying these job losses under the guise of AI improvements and efficiencies. 

But I keep returning to the same thought: 

I haven't seen AI actually take anyone's job yet. Have you?

Don't get me wrong. Jobs are vacant and disappearing. Everywhere is short-staffed, but I have yet to see evidence that an AI is actually doing that work. It has always just been pushed onto the remaining team members.

A wedding is the one time in our lives when we're allowed to go absolutely crazy and drag our family into that loophole

I'm just kidding, but apparently, this is the unspoken rule of weddings lately. Or have they always been like this? They seem to be the focal point of any family issue that was going on prior to the ceremony.

Maybe these types of rituals are good in a counterintuitive way. They bring what's hidden to the surface and we get to deal with it and move on.

Maybe my opinion is too frivolous, but why avoid drama that is not ours? Isn't drama entertaining when you're not at the center of it? If I were her, I would totally attend this wedding with the sole purpose of watching everything unfold.

I mean, you get to enjoy free food, free drinks, fun music, and an amazing live performance. Will it be a tragedy? A comedy? Who knows! You have to attend to find out.

I'm feeling philosophical today, but we're only on this earth for a limited amount of time; why not do our best to seize every minute of it?

If you really, really can't enjoy the wedding and the drama it will likely unfold in, you can always bail out! You can go out for drinks that night with your best friends. You can tell your family you're sick. Nobody will find out, and you'll protect your peace.

In the end, what matters most is what makes you the happiest. But if it were for me, I would pay to see that WHITE DRESS WITH GIANT SKY BLUE FLOWERS ON IT in action. Seriously, What could go wrong?

Oh, so paying your print shop to make copies of your artwork gives them the right to reproduce and sell it? Cool, cool, cool.

But it obviously doesn't. 

Life and law are sometimes pretty straightforward, even when it comes to messy, complex stuff like IP, because a written order for twenty-five prints on heavy paper means twenty-five prints. It doesn't mean the shop can crop out the signature, hang the image by the register, and treat it like inventory.

That's true for Massachusetts print and also pretty much any state and any shop.

Should the perks of the job apply to an employee's social circle?

For all the complaints about the working world, it does occasionally come with some benefits. Those companies that aren't too stingy acknowledge that a few perks can make their employees happier and maybe even more inclined to do a better job for them. If it's in the budget, it should be a no-brainer.

That being said, these kinds of arrangements have to operate with a certain level of trust. Somebody who exploits them unfairly could end up ruining it for everyone, or at the very least, getting in trouble themselves. Of course, employees are going to try to use their benefits to the maximum of their ability, but it is sensible to have some limits. Not only can employers be fickle, but other people can be inclined to use the worker so that they can make the most of their perks, too. It is yet another scenario where it is necessary to have firm boundaries and be careful who you share your goodwill with. There will always be a person who wants to take things too far and turn it into a bad thing instead.

I've talked about corporate jargon before, but this takes it to a completely different level

What makes remarks like this so disrespectful is that you know they hold a much deeper, personal meaning, but they are expressed in such a dry, professional, and seemingly assertive way that you are forced to smile while, at the same time, you're being openly insulted.

Executive presence is nothing more than a value judgment based on the way you present yourself or speak. They are basically telling you that you don't look the part, and that they won't give you roles that fit that part.

Maybe it is something you can improve; maybe it isn't.

Of course management has the right to decide who'll occupy those roles, but it stings nonetheless.
If one wants to be successful in corporate, one has to find the right, HR-approved ways of saying "I hate you", "I'm going to succeed at this regardless", and "When I get there, you'll be the first person I'll fire if you're not already gone by then".

I think we've all been told something that later turned out not to be true. Or we were told that we weren't fit for a role we were totally fit for. Not everybody has the vision, and you can't blame it. To me, you've got to go with what feels right for you. One should never reject an opportunity to learn and should always remain humble, but nobody can tell you that you lack something and that you will lack it forever. They simply can't know that.

What do you think this word salad actually meant? Do you think this employee still has a chance of escalating within this company, or should he start looking for another job that gives him the opportunity to learn some 'Executive presence'?
 

Sometimes the dumbest thing can be the reason for your firing.

You can get hired for a job position without being the most intelligent one. But you can get fired without being the dumbest one as well. Getting fired can even be easier than getting hired even was. To get hired, you have to send your resume, get approved, get called into an interview, ace it, and maybe go through even more interviews. Then, finally, after all that effort, you get the job. On the other hand, to get fired, you just need one dumb thing, and that can be reason enough for your job to no longer be yours.

So, if getting fired is that easy, does that mean that everyone could lose their job over one mistake? Well, it depends, but mainly, yes. Especially if the mistake is actually harmful to either the company or your superiors. You have to remember that, as an employee, you are just one more person who works in favor of the company. Your job description also includes being useful, being important for the company, not the reason that damages it. So, if by any means you dumb act or bad day, it's actually harmful to the company, its production, or any of the hired people who work for said company, then you can count on the fact that you will, in fact, get fired. And, unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about it, as it is justified.

I'm sure that every employee who has worked for a while at a company knows at least one story about a person who got fired from the job due to a dumb mistake. Sometimes is something extremely dumb that can even be not able to be understood by other people. And everyone just thinks, "Why did they do that?" But well, those things happen, and we have to just deal with it. If you want to know more about this kind of story, I would suggest checking the thread below. 

Maybe the office fundraiser needs a better strategy instead of trying to stop an employee from handing out treats. 

A free candy bowl should be harmless. The owner of the candy bowl is an employee who posted in the Reddit AITA subreddit under the username GrotiusandPufendorf. He explains that he keeps candy stocked for everyone to help themselves, spending about $40 every two or three months on treats. He is happy to do this and doesn't expect anything in return. People occasionally contribute a few dollars or bring more candy, but there is no price list or expectation attached. The bowl has become a small part of the office's workday, bringing a nice gesture meant to make people a little happier at work.

The conflict began when the office committee started selling snacks from a shelf in the lobby. They use the profit to pay for happy hours, holiday decorations, and occasional office lunches. That system exists separately from the candy bowl. The candy bowl had been available for years before the committee was formed. 

Anyway, the members of the committee dared to ask the employee to charge for his snacks and even accused him of not being a team player, as he was cutting into the committee's snack sales. The employee naturally refused to charge for his candy. Coworkers remain free to support the fundraiser if they want lunch and social events, but they are also free to take a piece of candy that a colleague purchased to share. The fundraiser can't depend on controlling or eliminating every other free alternative. They have to find another way of raising money.

Moving in with a roommate sometimes is the only way to pay for all the bills and live in a somewhat comfortable place, but living with a stranger is always a risk.

These two girls have been living together for a few months now, and mostly they get along just fine without major issues. But recently, they faced a situation that strained the relationship. One of them came back after a long shift at work and found that half of her closet was missing. At first, she thought she had misplaced some items, but they were nowhere to be found. She asked her roommate, and she said she'd been cleaning up and had taken her clothes to a donation center. Without asking first. Just because she thought those clothes were up for donation. Mind you, the clothes were inside the closet. The first girl asked her to get her things back, but she wasn't able to do it, and they only gave her $60 for everything. The thing is, there was valuable stuff among those clothes that was worth far more than that, especially a jacket that she had received as a gift from her brother. A few days later, the electric bill came, and she refused to pay it until she was reimbursed for all her stuff. 

You know what? That's completely fair. The other girl left her with half a closet empty (clothes are not exactly cheap), got into her room, and went to her things without asking. She basically stole from her. She didn't respect her roommate's space and boundaries, and if she's not willing to pay her for everything she made her lose, she might as well take care of the bills as a way of reparation until the cost of the items is covered. She can always just pay her what she's owed for all the clothes, but we all know she most likely won't want to do it. This is what 'a risk' means. Not everybody understands boundaries in the same way, and even if they help you pay the bill, they can make your life more complicated. Let's hope she's learned to be respectful of other people's space and belongings. 

Why do bosses keep forgetting that employment is a two-way street?

The first three months of a new hire's in a workplace are often referred to as the employee's "probation period", and it is exactly what it sounds like. These three probationary months are there for the employee to prove that they were the right hire for the job. During these 90 days, new hires are expected to bring in their A-game, work as hard as they can to show their worth, and prove to management that they are worth keeping, without a single doubt. 

An employee who fails to do so by the time the probation period ends will most likely be let go, without the company having to provide a severance package, a notice period, or anything else a long-term employee is eligible for.

However, most employers forget that this probation period is also there for the workplace to prove it's worth it to the new hire. The new employee also gets these three months to test and judge the workplace to see if it fits their expectations. Everything that applies to the employee also applies to the employer, including the end result: if the employee isn't satisfied with the workplace, they can leave immediately, no questions asked.

So, when the boss featured in this post on Reddit's r/antiwork decided to extend a new employee's probation period by another 90 days, he was doing so on both ends. If the workplace isn't yet sure about the new hire's value to the company, extending the probation period means that both parties can still cut ties at any point. 

That is exactly what the employee did. Being told that she still didn't prove her worth in the company was a key sign for her that this was not a job she should keep, and luckily, she already had another offer at hand. When she sent her boss a resignation letter without any notice, he threatened to report her for breaking their contract. A contract that doesn't apply since he decided to extend the probation period…

Basically, he has no leg to stand on.