my team has an all-male soccer betting pool, employer asks new hires to list all their prescriptions, and more

This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. My team has an all-male soccer betting pool

My team includes two women (including me) and five men, three of whom are huge soccer fans. A few months ago, the three of them decided to form a betting pool on a large soccer event. They invited the other two men on the team (who are not huge soccer fans) to join the pool, but did not invite the two women.

The first pool was a success, so the five of them did another betting pool for a subsequent soccer event, and then another one for the Olympics. It has become quite a public office event that is widely discussed throughout the day, and it often culminates in outings where the five of them go to watch the games they’ve bet on together after work.

It seems likely to me and the other woman on the team that the men did not intentionally mean to exclude the women from this pool, as they are all quite nice guys with whom we get along well with. However, we could not help but notice the optics of the decision not to ask us. It seems blatantly sexist and we feel like, principally, it is bad for the office to have so much of work chat centered around an activity that only the men were invited to join.

We have been going back and forth, however, about whether we should do something to address this. I imagine that if we spoke up and outright asked to join the betting pool, they would allow us in. The thing is that neither of us are particularly interested in soccer, so we don’t actually have a strong desire to participate in this betting pool. Is it worth bringing to the rest of our team’s attention that there’s a very visible gendered dynamic to this group they’ve formed, or should we let it go since, in this case, the organizers happen to have correctly guessed that the two women wouldn’t be interested?

I’d leave it alone. Could it have been handled better, by originally inviting everyone to participate even if you declined? Sure. Is it outrageous that they didn’t think to do that initially? Not really if they correctly knew you wouldn’t be interested, and especially because it sounds like originally it was just going to be for a single event. Now that it’s turned into something more long-running, you’re not wrong that it’s not great to have so much work socialization be single-gender … but from a practical perspective, I don’t think there’s a lot to gain by addressing it when you don’t actually want to participate (and when the Olympics just ended anyway, and perhaps this activity with it).

That said, I’m curious about the gender dynamics in your office. If you’re already dealing with sexist dynamics on your team, I can see why this would especially grate. If it’s not something that normally rears its head as a problem, I’d be extra inclined to leave this alone.

Tto be clear, the circumstances matter here. This is different from, for example, this company that sponsored annual golf trips that women never participated in (in that it’s not company-sponsored and is smaller, less formal, and likely shorter-running). It would also be different if any of the woman asked to participate and were rebuffed.

2. Employer asks new hires to list all their prescription medications

This is a question about an organization that I left, but still bothers me. After some turnover at my last job in a mid-sized nonprofit, new employees were being asked to list the prescriptions they used on their new hire paperwork. Some of the new employees refused to list this information, and our director of facilities — who did not process our new hire paperwork but did perform required background checks on new staff — would inform the new employee’s manager and the two would pressure the new hire to list what prescriptions they used.

I found this to be deeply upsetting since some prescriptions can identify key aspects of one’s identity, including some protected classes of individuals. Some prescriptions have stigmas attached to them, and some might be banned in the future (for example, birth control). Can employers require staff to declare any and all prescriptions they use? Can staff simply lie about these prescriptions if they do not want to out themselves?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions (including about medications) unless it’s job-related and consistent with business necessity. For an employer to legally ask about prescriptions, the employee must be in a safety-sensitive position (like if you were a bus driver using a medication that could cause drowsiness). For the vast majority of jobs, this inquiry would be illegal — but whether it was illegal in your organization depends on the nature of the jobs.

Related:
my office is requiring us to disclose all medications we take

3. Is my employer gaslighting me?

I’ve been working in the nonprofit sector for the last ten years. It’s a small organization, less than 20, and I’m on an even smaller team and we are fully distributed. My question is about feeling gaslighted (gaslit?) and what, if anything, can be done.

Over the years, many micro-instances of this have occurred; I’m only flagging the most consequential ones. I’ve watched new hires come (and go) at much higher pay or with less experience and immediately move up the ranks. Others have been given training opportunities to advance or been given a voice in their career trajectory. There is a long history of nepotism at this org too. Below are two instances that bother me the most and enforce the narrative in my head that I don’t deserve better.

My manager is retiring, and at one point, I was to inherit that role as the two of us have worked together closely the entire time. A few years ago, they decided I was not the one for that role, and a good friend of management was hired to inherit that position. I was talked at when they made this decision and asked if I was okay with it (as if I had a choice or a say) and told it’s because I’m so good at bringing in the money, they don’t want me doing anything else. (It’s true that the millions in revenue I’ve brought into the org have directly contributed to making it through the pandemic.) It still felt crummy. I took it like a champ, but it stung.

More recently, we hired another person who will be on the same team as me and who, once again, is being elevated and given the opportunity, agency, and voice. At least they are not related to anyone on staff, but they look and sound a lot like my soon-to-be-retired manager, so perhaps nepo-by-osmosis is happening.

Just last week, our executive director said in a team meeting that this new person would get to do X, Y, and Z and that I would feel left out, and they asked me if that was okay. I was flabbergasted but said, “I don’t have any say in this, so yes.” But I am crushed, burned out, and tired of feeling worthless. I am the lowest-paid teammate (and have the heavy/heaviest workload) and am soon to be the longest tenured on this team.

When you add these instances up over the course of many years, I feel like I’ve lost my compass, so I’m reaching out to an outside voice. Am I being gaslit, or is this normal for an organization? I would like to have more agency and opportunity and to be seen and treated like a valuable colleague. And of course, I want to be paid what I’m worth. But each time that opportunity presents itself, the gaslighting happens.

I don’t know if you’re being gaslit or not (that would involve a deliberate intent to mess with your head, so it’s unlikely but who knows), but it doesn’t really matter. What we know for sure is that you’re not getting the advancement or recognition that you want in this job, and that’s been the pattern over a number of years. That on its own is reason to look outside the organization for a different job.

You don’t need to sort out whether this is gaslighting or normal or anything else. You’re unhappy and burned out and there is a pattern of not getting what you want in this org, even as others do. Their reasons for that could be entirely understandable each time it’s happened, but it doesn’t matter because this job isn’t meeting your needs, and hasn’t been for a long time. You get to leave for that reason alone!

4. Company wants a verbal acceptance before sending an offer letter

My husband just received a verbal job offer for a higher-seniority position from a small company in the private sector. He requested a written offer with details of the compensation, and HR sent an email with only a salary, annual bonus percentage, and “total compensation” value, with an attached booklet on medical and retirement plans available.

The thing that really got me about this was the following line: “If this fits within your scope, we’ll draft up an offer letter. We can discuss the start date after a verbal offer acceptance.”

Am I misunderstanding this, or does it seem like they want him to verbally (or by email) accept their offer before giving him an actual offer letter? That sounds bananapants to me! The process up until now makes it seem like a very inexperienced HR person. The legal mind in me says this is not a great procedure, but a verbal agreement is not necessarily binding. What say you?

This isn’t uncommon. They’ve sent him the details of the offer and they’ll formalize it once he decided if he wants to accept (and presumably after any negotiation has occurred so the details are finalized). The only part that’s weird is that they don’t want to discuss start date yet, but he could just introduce that into whatever negotiation or discussion of the offer he’s going to have — for example, if it’s important to him to have a start date that’s between X and Y weeks out, he can say that now. If there’s any other info he needs before making a decision, he can ask for that now too. Basically, this company is opening negotiations and sees the offer letter as simply memorializing whatever details are hammered out by the end of that process.

I think you’re balking because it feels weird that they’re not making it formal now. But he has an offer. If it changes when the formal letter shows up, he’s not obligated to stick to an earlier yes.

5. I announced a new job — how do I now share that I’m taking a different one instead?

In May, I accepted a job offer that I was reasonably excited about, so I announced the new job on both LinkedIn and my personal social media. I am taking the bar exam this summer, so I was not scheduled to start this new job until September.

However, a few weeks after I accepted the job, I was offered another position that was better for me in pretty much every way — better salary, much more in line with my career goals, easier commute, the works. I accepted that position and gracefully extricated myself from the first job and am on good terms with them (and I even referred someone to them that they ended up hiring in my place).

However, how do I handle publicizing that change to my personal and professional network? At the time, I quietly took down the posts announcing my acceptance of the first position and did not say anything about the second position, particularly since I won’t start there until September either. Do I acknowledge that I had previously announced that I would be working one place but have since accepted another position — and if so, how do I explain that change without denigrating the first job or making it seem like they let me go? Do I just quietly update my LinkedIn status with my new job when I start it in September and just explain what happened if anyone asks? To what extent do I need to explain the change?

Nah, just go ahead and announce the new job when you start it or just before, if that’s something you want to do. You don’t need to acknowledge that this is a change. Lots of people won’t even remember, so there’s no need to draw attention to it. If anyone asks, you can simply say, “I ended up being offered a different role that was an even better fit.” But you don’t need to get into the details; most people won’t care that much (unless they’re close to you, in which case they’re likely to already know anyway).