Do you remember that mistake you committed in your first corporate job that made you realize that in every office there are something called "unwritten rules"? Well, today is the day to go back to the memory lane and revival that stories.

In every office, there are some rules that everyone working there knows, but they are never said aloud. The only reason you discover them is because of a mistake you commit that causes you to learn the rule. I think that everyone who works on-site in an office knows exactly what I'm talking about. Especially if they are familiar with the office kitchen. What a place, full of gossip, mixed-up lunches, and loud people. That is the main space of the office, where the real unwritten rules are. Some of them are obvious, such as not touching anybody's food, don't eat something you didn't bring, and clean the utensils after you use them. 

But the real fun starts when you find the not-so-obvious ones, such as the table where you can't sit at 12 o'clock because some people of the marketing department have it "reserved", or that the microwave can't heat your food if the bathroom light is on. Those weird things that nobody realized when they started being like that but now everyone accepts as the truth. In the thread below they are a lot of examples of this second group, the weird, not-so-expected, unwritten rules. 

I remember when I worked at my first office job, I didn't know this was a thing. I sat where I wanted, took the salt from the shelf thinking it was communal, and used the utensils from the office kitchen without bringing ones from home. That last one may feel like normal. Well, little did I know that there was this kind of unwritten rule that some people in the office had priority over the utensils, as we were extremely low on forks, so hire-ups and managers expected new hires to bring their own utensils to have lunch. Not a good thing to find out when you took the last fork from the kitchen. But, well, to these kinds of rules, you have two ways of acting. Either you fight back, or you just comply. In my experience, complying is always better to avoid arguments when you have just been hired. 
 

The radar theory

I know I didn't invent this; it's common knowledge for some reason. Things do not become clichés randomly; it's because, over time, they happen over and over again, across countries, across cultures, across everything. This is one of them. I'm not afraid of stating it: EXES DO HAVE A RADAR THAT TELLS THEM WHEN YOU'RE DOING FINE. This has happened to me on various occasions, and it was not even caused by very obvious and tangible things like: I began posting more often; or somebody told them I was doing better. We have to stop underestimating people's capacity to detect very subtle subconscious clues. Phenomena like this might be along the lines of the butterfly effect; they might be in another country and have no contact with you, but they know- trust me, they KNOW.

I'm not trying to install some mystical idea here; I'm actually trying to be realistic and concrete. I don't think exes have this knowledge because they receive information from the astral plane; I think we communicate more things to the world than we are aware of, even if we post NOTHING or tell anybody anything.

It's time to RTO

It's hard to think it's all for the best when you just signed the lease on an apartment 45 minutes away from the office you now have to return to. Some things we can't predict, and sadly, we simply have to adjust to. I don't think the company was basing its decisions on what would be suitable for every employee, but more on what was more suitable for the company itself, obviously. That's what every company does. Not because they're inherently evil but because it's kinda impossible to be suitable for everybody. I don't know how big the company this employee is a part of is, but if it's small, he can very well have a chance to discuss things.

Why would you expect someone to do something for you if, in the moment, you could have done it for them, you decided not to do it?

If you had a friend that you even considered your BEST FRIEND, and when their wedding came, they not only did not pick you as their maid of honor, but they also started using you as one without inviting you to the bridal shower or anything. Would you still be friends with them? I don't think so. The story below has some sad parts, as every story about a falling out between friends, but I think that the most awful part was the fact that the friend who got married first decided to take advantage of the user telling the story. Which simply proves that she was never a good friend indeed. 

The first bride wasn't only a bad friend. She was also an entitled mean girl. She saw the opportunity to take advantage of multiple people at the same time to get what she wanted, and she took it. She used people she knew had money as her bridesmaids so they would organize and pay for a really expensive bridal shower. Then she used her best friend as some kind of servant that helped her organize the wedding without even inviting her to be one of the bridesmaids. 

What a good thing karma is. This annoying bride got exactly what she deserved. No bridal shower, nobody helping her out at the wedding planning, a stressful wedding party, and the loss of a really good friend. If she just asked her best friend to be her maid of honor, she would have had a great party before the wedding, some help with all the planning, and would have also been the maid of honor of her best friend during her wedding. Now she's not even invited to the wedding of her oldest friend. And she deserves it. I really love the stories where people get exactly what they deserved. She tried to use people and got payback instantly. Next time, try being a nice person, and maybe things won't turn out so bad. 
 

What does a workplace "red flag" look like to you? It turns out, they're difficult to decipher.

College is never easy, not for students, nor for teachers, but everybody gives their best to finally get their well-earned degree. Administrators and advisors play a fundamental role in all students' lives. They guide them and help them with all the tedious bureaucratic paperwork. They're there for us and keep the motors running. Without them, everything would be a lot more chaotic than it already is. 

Us students, value these helpers very much throughout our studious lifetime. That's why it's even more disappointing to see the educational institution, itself, work against its own students. Redditor u/mods-begone was not only underappreciated, but also overworked by his superiors. They diminished him, spoke ill of him right to his face, used him like a scapegoat, and so much more. And the red flags were there from the beginning!  The day he started working for that department, SIX PEOPLE had already resigned. 

It is more than justified for him to leave that place and find a position that is best suited for his character and abilities. One with bosses who are actually professionals and don't have the need to diminish the people who help them. One would think that, since they're all college-educated people, they would have better manners and be actually reasonable. However, as life makes sure to teach us, people oftentimes don't meet the minimum criteria for human decency and basic understanding of social rules. This Redditor realized he would never get out of that poor workplace with that kind of attitude. Plus, he still has his whole career ahead of him. 

It's silly that we call it a 'PTO request' when we shouldn't really ask for anyone's permission to use our much-earned time off.

We should all make it a habit to never ask for permission to take our vacation days. Instead, we should simply email our manager saying, "Hey, I will be gone in these days; please plan accordingly" and call it a day. They can say no as much as they want, but as long as you gave them enough of a heads-up, their inability to plan ahead should never be your problem.

Most jobs don't even require that much planning ahead anyway. You simply take the time off, and your work can wait the few days it will take for you to return. Unless it is a matter of saving lives, nothing will happen if you're gone, clearing your mind and ensuring you return with actual energy to do the job properly.

When your absence means that someone else has to cover for you, then it is your boss's responsibility to make sure there is someone to do that. As long as you gave them enough time to prepare, it is not your concern whether they succeed or not. You should be able to go on your PTO regardless of whether or not your boss finds a replacement for you in time. And if they don't, well, all it sounds like to us is that your boss is going to work a little bit extra while you're away.

But under no circumstances should you give in to your PTO request being "denied". You don't ask for permission; you provide a proper notice, and that's that. They can say no as many times as you want, but you will not be here to discuss it during your PTO time.

If that gets you in trouble once you're back, then that workplace might not be a place you should spend your time at…

You don't owe your family anything, especially if they don't even make the effort to know you or your children.

There is this belief that if it's family, then you must love and cherish them, just because family is stronger than anything else. Well, I'm here to break that dangerous social construction. Dangerous because it is common for family members to take benefit from that. Just because you are related to someone does not excuse them from mistreating you. It also doesn't make them forgivable for anything they do. A family member is just that, family, not someone special or a nice person. That depends solely on their way of behaving, not on the familiarity they have with you. 

The main problem with believing that just because someone is related to you, they are an excuse to do anything is that it makes us unhappy by forgiving every single bad thing they do. Also, if ones you decide to act on their behavior, for example, cutting ties with them, well, then it is probable that other family members start excluding you because you were not good to family. As if just because someone is family, they are entitled to do anything they want, and you have the unavoidable task of accepting it. 
 

In the story below, we encounter a grandad who doesn't really want to make an effort to have a good relationship with his daughter or grandkids. Then why is it the mom's responsibility to keep in touch? Why does she have to organize to go visit him? If he doesn't want to take time to know his family members, why should she make the effort for him? Just because it's family? Well, no. Family works both ways. If you stop making an effort to care for them, then they owe you nothing. Family IS conditioned on whether they are interested in forming a meaningful relationship or not. It's not only about being related. It's about taking an interest in family members, both ways. 
 

Is it the teacher's or the student's responsibility when the entire class performs poorly?

That is a difficult question to answer, and the response will depend on who you ask. Almost all members of my family are teachers, so I guess I might be a little biased. Still, one of the most important skills a teacher needs to have is the ability to do some self-reflection and evaluate their own methods. They are constantly learning, as much as the students, which is why that self-reflection is so important. Not all kids learn in the same way, and every class is different. 

I understand that it must be a huge hit to any teacher's ego when their students like another teacher better. It's really easy to always blame the kids for not studying, not being interested in school, or being too lazy. And don't get me wrong, that is one hundred percent possible and often true. But it is also true that some teachers have the ability to make the students feel more engaged. Then again, teachers have many responsibilities, and it is not humanly possible for them to cater individually to every single kid's interest; they have a program to stick to. It's a never-ending cycle and a never-ending debate. 

For Redditor u/Being-Wordy-2000, it was a bit of both. Their division was usually problematic, and that didn't change, but they met a math teacher who made them feel interested in the subject. So much so that they outperformed other divisions during exam week. That was suspicious to another teacher, who ended up accusing them of cheating.

Both the students' and the teacher's sides are understandable. If the teacher already knew how they usually performed and behaved, it could be suspicious to suddenly see them act so differently. And the students must have felt frustrated by the accusation, since they were doing exactly what all teachers expect from other classes. The issue is not the distrust itself, but the motives behind it. The teacher was motivated by jealousy and a crushed ego, and students should never have to take the blame for some adult's inner insecurities.

Shrek WHAT?

I can't believe this is an actual concept, but we are living in a strange era. What is the world coming to? Lol. Of course, she is not overreacting; this could very well be the modern version of Carrie, except the protagonist in this story doesn't have telekinetic powers (that we know of). The mindset behind this trend is so bizarre I can't even begin to comprehend. It's like he wants to date prettier girls, but according to him, those same pretty girls ask for too much (maybe they're asking to be treated as human, god forbid), so he is lowering his standards. But also, what does he get in exchange for lowering his standards if, in the end, he gets the attention of a girl he doesn't care about? Is it all about power and control? It's honestly kind of psychopathic, and I don't understand the logic around it, perhaps because I'm not a monster lol. Anyways, shout out to this girl who got up and left. I'm worried she still wonders if she overreacted, though.

Some bosses are really awful leaders.

As a manager, you aren't only a boss. You are a team leader, which means not only managing employees but also helping them succeed in their careers in the internal ladder of the company. This is not something that many bosses know. They usually believe they just have to boss around and control them, but it is far more than that. A good boss would actually make an effort to make sure their employees are actually exceeding their expectations and capabilities, that they are doing their 100% for the company. 

Instead of that, it seems as if some managers were jealous of their employees. Afraid they are going to exceed them, be better than they are, take their place. But the truth is, if you are actually a good boss, you aren't afraid that the people you are in charge of are going to upstage you. In this Reddit story, the boss felt threatened by the new employee with great qualifications, and instead of putting in a bigger effort herself, she decided to just make it seem as if the new employee was less than they expected. Why put so much effort into making somebody else look bad instead of trying to be better yourself? Wasn't it easier to just improve yourself? 

This is the thing with bosses. You can't really go over their requests without getting fired. So, with all this scheme that this manager put up, it became impossible for the employee to show his value and skills. He just got stuck in a role that wasn't what he was hired for. Leaving him with no real purpose or even a reason to stay in a company that was simply lowering him more and more every day. The boss may have looked like a better fit for the role, but for that, she had to demean a good employee who was going to bring real value to the company. 
 

Is it worth it to put your job on the line because you think you know better?

In some cases, people don't know when to put their heads down. In life, it's hard to determine whether something is worth fighting over or if it's just better to let it go completely. In the workplace, the same thing can happen, but as a general rule, it's usually easier to yield to what your bosses are asking from you. 

Reddito says in  r/TalesFromRetail that a vendor from the store he worked at got herself in trouble for not following company rules. She was so sure she knew better and refused to follow instructions that eventually the company decided to retaliate against her for being problematic. 

Sometimes ego can get in the way and be an issue. The way someone behaves at work will depend on whether or not they need to keep a job or have other options. And if they think they are irreplaceable, that might lead them to act arrogantly and do more harm than good. 

If you ask us, the goal should always be keeping the peace and the job. No one wants to make it more difficult for themselves or their coworkers. On the contrary, ideally, everybody does their best to contribute to the company and function properly and without any incidents. Some people might not have that kind of consideration towards others, but that doesn't mean that kind of behavior should be considered the standard. All actions have consequences, inside and outside of the workplace. 

Whatever decision someone makes, they must be willing to pay the price for it, for better or for worse. If they actively choose to ignore instructions and do what they want, it is to be expected that management will notice and take action. Sometimes it will be a write-up; in others, to fire the employee on the spot. The way someone reacts to being called out will be tied to their intention to stay or leave.

Sometimes we can't speak at the right time

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about when it's the right time to express ourselves. Sometimes, a problem arises, and we speak too quickly, at a time when everyone involved is defensive and nobody understands what's really going on. Other times, we decide to speak when it's too late, and we hurt someone for a long time with our silence. I think this is what happened to this Redditor, whom I believe didn't have the courage to speak in the moment and let everything be, under a false pretense of an ability to let go that actually covered cowardice. What do you think? Should we let everything be, always? Or should we make an effort to repair when we think our relationships are suffering?

Landlords as a species have developed a very specific skill: treating "I hold the lease" as if it also grants access to your Tuesday afternoon, your shower schedule, and your general vibe. Ownership of drywall is somehow rebranded as ownership of a whole human being's peace of mind, which is a serious piece of "value-add" nobody signed up for

Is it ever appropriate for a manager to yell at their employees?

Even though we share a lot of stories about bad bosses and entitled managers, we don't come across many stories where a boss actively raises their voice at their employees. Not only is it really extreme to even get to a point where raised voices are required, but managers who do that don't generally get depicted as good at their jobs.

We don't know about you, but we would feel much worse from a disappointed look or a stern conversation than we would from a yelling match. It's not professional, it's not beneficial, and it definitely wouldn't make us respect our manager any longer. Yelling simply seems like the worst way to handle any situation, especially in a workplace.

The fact that there was no valid reason for this manager to yell at her employee makes it even harder to accept and proves even further that yelling truly doesn't help.

It all started when a customer came up to the register and pointed out that the price that was marked on the sticker was lower than the price showing up on the register screen. We've all been there, and we all know that the store is required to commit to a price if it is clearly marked on an item, so the cash register employee knew they had to fix it. However, they didn't have the authority to change the price on the register, so they had to call the manager. The manager, apparently, didn't know how to make it happen, so the employee simply took the supervisor card themselves and pressed the buttons necessary for the price change.

After the customer left, the manager decided she had to yell at the employee for "making her look stupid" in front of customers. She claimed that the employee was throwing her under the bus to make themselves look good, and proceeded to publicly shame the employee for basically doing the right thing.

Not only did the manager yell, but she did it without any acceptable reason other than to protect her own ego… Luckily, the employee didn't stay quiet after the yelling fest ended.

To have a guilty conscience

The most ridiculous part of this story is that the supposedly betrayed part is not even angry. The only one who's freaking out is the one who has a guilty conscience. It's sad how you can find out, years later, that not all of your friends have the capacity to have an honest, heart-to-heart conversation. Maybe you used to keep them in your life because you thought they could; maybe it was because they were never put to the test. This friend was apparently put to the test and failed it miserably. The sad part is that no one was going to attack him if he were upfront about what he was doing; the only thing against him in this situation was his own mind. Would you have had the courage to confront this situation?

Going through an extensive interview process just to get rejected after all. That sounds like poor planning on the company's recruitment team's part. 

Interviews can be awful and stressful, but the complete interview process, well, that's just lunacy. You're going to 3 or 4 rounds of interviews with different recruiters that expect different things from you. You take tests, start to study your future job, spend weeks, all just to discover they end up hiring someone internally. How is that possible? Does the recruitment team just like to torture unemployed people seeking a stable job? Is the company trying to justify the salary of the recruiters? Are they just pretending they are hiring so the company seems to be growing? I just think it proves that these people don't care at all about their candidates or future employees. 

Everything was easier before, without job-looking platforms and elevated tests. Before, you just went directly to the company to leave your resume, or just checked which companies were hiring from the newspaper. One interview or even none, and they call you to tell you that you got the job or not, easy peasy. When I read stories like this one with people being so frustrated about the job market, I think that maybe the industry is wrong. There is some big change we need to be doing, going a little bit back to the basics. Not forcing unemployed people onto a several-week trial. 

Maybe there is a reason for things to work like this, but, from my perspective, this doesn't seem fair. It seems like a manipulative scheme that makes you believe that you got a job when you didn't. Is unfair, and it dehumanizes the candidates who are putting so much effort just to get a chance to get a job position.

 

Should future renters have to pay before they are allowed to read a lease?

A couple found a beautiful townhouse they wanted to rent, and immediately contacted the landlord. The man asked to be paid in advance the $600 security deposit fee, as well as $300 for a pet fee, before sending them the lease. When the couple got the paperwork, they backed out since the lease was full of red flags and strange things. The landlord, however, is refusing to return the deposit since the property was taken off the market, and the money was to make up for the lost time.

Now, we all know every state is different, and some things change when it comes to renting a property. However, nothing sounds as strange as this fake security deposit that's not refundable because the house was taken off the market when the couple showed interest. In most cases, the money is sent once people can read the lease and agree to it. Not the other way around.

The thing that I found to be the weirdest is that the landlord states that keeping that amount of money "is common practice" when renting properties, a thing that the renters never heard about. Also, they had to pay to read the lease and didn't sign a thing that could lead them to lose that money. They followed the instructions that the landlord said, and found themselves in this crazy situation.

The community in r/Renters was helpful and gave the couple some good information on how to proceed. Most of them confirmed they should go ahead and contact a lawyer to have this situation legally reviewed since there's nothing that could prevent them from recovering the money. Scroll down and find out what happened.

Corporate America has found a new way to fire people without technically firing them: math. Not real math, obviously. The kind of math where the answer is predetermined, and the numbers are just there for flavor, like parsley on a cafeteria tray

Fortune 500 companies are rarely ever the good guys in any story, and naming names is really my thing, so let's just get into it inc.

Here's the plot in its purest form. You take a job where you talk to strangers on the phone, strangers who are, by definition, calling because something already went wrong in their day. Then you tell those strangers to grade you on a scale of 1 to 10, except secretly it's a scale of 1 to 2, because anything below a 9 counts as a personal betrayal. It's like a restaurant handing out comment cards that say "rate your meal 1-10" but quietly shredding every card that isn't a 9 or 10, then telling the chef he's fired because people "hated" the food, using data that's mostly confetti.

The genius of this system is that it doesn't measure whether you're good at your job. It measures whether a random assortment of humans, some of whom are having the worst day of their month, felt sufficiently delighted by a phone call to leave a rave review. It's the same energy as expecting a five-star Yelp review from someone whose car just got towed, except the tow truck is also somehow your fault now.

And the real punchline is the sample size problem. One cranky customer, one dropped call, one guy who apparently couldn't tell a man's voice from a woman's, and suddenly you need to go collect dozens of flawless report cards just to break even. It's less "customer service metric" and more "escape room designed by someone who hates you," where the exit door requires forty consecutive strangers to unanimously agree you're a delight, on a day when your hours got cut in half.

Why would someone explicitly say to their current boss that they are actively seeking a new position elsewhere? That would just get you fired.

If you were to hate the current place you work at, what would you do? Probably seek another job, right? And once you got that new position, you would most likely resign as soon as you possibly can, right? You probably are thinking that all this is obvious. Well, it is, for anyone with common sense. The problem is that, as we have seen in multiple of these Reddit stories, common sense is not really a quality most bosses have. They usually think that everything is some kind of attack. 

Instead of looking at it as a great opportunity that a colleague got, they see it as the employee trying to ruin them. As if they weren't leaving a toxic company that didn't value their efforts and didn't even pay accordingly, and instead they were just trying to ruin their boss's career by leaving without much notice. I don't really understand how they take it so personal, is obvious that if the employee isn't valued, they are going to leave someday. Especially in this story, where the manager knew that they had asked for a raise and that was "still being processed" after months. 

And what is all this drama even for? They are going to leave anyway. Unless the company offered an amazing salary increase (and maybe even that wouldn't work), the employee is not going to stay somewhere she isn't valued. So let it be. As a manager, don't take it personally. Try to look for a solution to your own problem and let the employee leave with a good image of yourself, where you don't seem like a dramatic boss that can't understand the idea of bettering yourself. 

Accept it and move on! Somebody else is going to take that position soon, and everything will be fixed. For a moment, you just need to congratulate your colleague for their good work and say bye nicely. 
 

Is it accidental, or are they using weaponized incompetence?

Having new hires to train can be a pain in the neck (just ask my bosses lol), especially if they seem not to care much about learning their tasks and the rhythm of the company. It's one thing if they make mistakes because they are new and still don't have the hang of it, and a very different thing if they are simply irresponsible. 

Anyone can make mistakes when they are confused, but skipping work hours, lying about something you said before, and being generally not trustworthy are not innocent mistakes. Reddit user u/amethystkitten420 is a hotel receptionist who had a new coworker doing just that during the first two weeks of working there. 

When these things happen, it makes you wonder whether they are doing it on purpose, if they are actively trying to get fired, or if they are simply not cut out for that job. All of these options are equally possible, but depending on the person, it gets easier or harder to realize which one it is. Even so, it would make no sense for someone who was hired two weeks ago to be underperforming intentionally. The logical explanation is that she's not good at her job, or maybe she enjoys making other people's work lives miserable. Not a very good attitude to have, but definitely a realistic option. 

Having a bad coworker can drive you mad and make your job all the more complicated, so it's better to stay as far away from them as possible. We're not saying they deserve to get fired; they can still learn, and their performance can meet expectations. Still, they're going to need help from management and to receive the right warnings for their inappropriate behavior. Eventually, they will get better, or, worst-case scenario, the managers will have to make some tough decisions.