Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless you signed something, why would it be against an ethics code, especially if it’s done outside of work?
OMFG. Again. Older male in a higher position giving younger female subordinate money outside of work. You don't see a problem with that? That is MeToo city waiting to happen.
.
So don't make it money. It occurs all the time. The direct report I told you about had a 2nd job, ate on the run, so knowing she had it tough, I'd opt to take an earlier lunch than her some days and come back with a sandwich for her that I knew she liked. My way of keeping her net pay for other needs she and her son had.
If you want to help her, being a bit creative overcomes the issues you mentioned. Where there is a will, there is a way, be it a lent rv or colleagues who let her couch surf, and they did not get "Me Too" treatment, did they?
Nope, helping someone pay their bills happens everyday. Folks even take up collections at work.
You’re pointing out a serious problem but are doing nothing about it, and are making excuses for why you won’t.
Amen. I once worked at a company where the owners paid utility bills, medical bills, past due rents, and other expenses of retired and simply some ex employees in need, using a different contractual employee as the go between, so their benevolence was not recognized. He had worked at the company, but they wanted him off the books, out of sight of staff, to do these tasks.
They would find out what was needed for such bills where trouble was likely, cut the employee making the actual payments a check. He would be instructed to cash it, pay the bills, and get a set amount for his time. This went on for years.
I met him years later when I had moved on, and we both adored the family, and he and his gf told me what his tasks had been, and how long he had been doing it, knowing I was leaving the region, and the secret would be safe.
I know those helped assumed it was this family, but they would never be able to prove it, and I know the family, and they would have denied doing it.
So don't make it money. It occurs all the time. The direct report I told you about had a 2nd job, ate on the run, so knowing she had it tough, I'd opt to take an earlier lunch than her some days and come back with a sandwich for her that I knew she liked. My way of keeping her net pay for other needs she and her son had.
If you want to help her, being a bit creative overcomes the issues you mentioned. Where there is a will, there is a way, be it a lent rv or colleagues who let her couch surf, and they did not get "Me Too" treatment, did they?
I do what I can and already do things like bring coffee or lunch. If she makes it till Christmas I can do a nice gift then, but this is just a particular circumstance of a larger problem.
Maybe I can help her, and given the dearth of rectuitment I would rather spend my own money to keep her because I'm not positive at all we'll get good results if she leaves to go live with her parents and I have to rehire that position.
But what I can't fix is the general problem. We need more affordable units in the area or the entire workplace needs about a 30% raise. They are building lots of units but none afffordable; they're going to get bought by yuppie California Zoom workers who have a million dollars to spend.
If nothing happens this problem will just happen again and again. We're already having an increasing problem with professional recruits backing out, and not even getting applications for lower end hourly positions like groundskeeper, maintenance, etc... (like everywhere else).
It's gotten so absurd that I've been in conversations with other workplaces, public and private, and have had discussions about using land we have and sharing the cost to build townhomes that would be exclusively for our mutual workers to live in, especially younger early career ones. Like company housing. That's how bad it is,
And the problem is not unique to my work, it's the whole region, so it needs a public policy response.
Last edited by redguard57; 06-18-2021 at 09:41 PM..
What I can't fix is the general problem. We need more affordable units in the area or the entire workplace needs about a 30% raise. They are buildikg lots of units but none afffordable. If nothing happens this problem will just happen again and again. We're already having an increasing problem with professional recruits backing out, and not even getting applications for lower end hourly positions (like everywhere else).
.
What about an extra 20-30 miles away? Is it cheaper?
Ct's Gold Coast rents are very high, but if one moves 25 miles north, it is often $500 a month less.
And no the cost of gas, wear and tear, an extra say 10,000 miles annually (20 *2*250 days) does not come close to the $6,000/year cost of housing gap in Connecticut.
I work at a NYC based corp, remote, where young colleagues live 3 to an apartment, often in less desirable parts of Queens or Brooklyn, or they live in NJ, 2-3 to an apartment.
In short, staff at lower level positions cannot expect salary levels that allow them to live 10 minutes away when the corp is in a pricey region.
What about an extra 20-30 miles away? Is it cheaper?
Ct's Gold Coast rents are very high, but if one moves 25 miles north, it is often $500 a month less.
And no the cost of gas, wear and tear, an extra say 10,000 miles annually (20 *2*250 days) does not come close to the $6,000/year cost of housing gap in Connecticut.
I work at a NYC based corp, remote, where young colleagues live 3 to an apartment, often in less desirable parts of Queens or Brooklyn, or they live in NJ, 2-3 to an apartment.
In short, staff at lower level positions cannot expect salary levels that allow them to live 10 minutes away when the corp is in a pricey region.
Nothing wrong with making do.
No. We're more isolated. There are two outlying towns 30 and 45 minutes away and they are cheaper but not that much cheaper. Not 500 cheaper. And their inventory is near zero. There is one more town 55 minutes out that is somewhat cheaper but small. It's only just starting to ramp up development so it will be 2 years before it makes much of a difference.
Next metro areas are 2 hours away, beyond commute distance and across a mountain range.
And honestly the problem is statewide. Towns that have always been affordable all of a sudden became not affordable. Those same towns never had a homeless problem to speak of and now have big homeless camps of their own. It's shocking to the residents who can't believe what they're seeing, and that it all happened in a single year.
Until we solve that problem, yes, the moratorium should continue.
Well, we're really talking 2 moratoriums - one for renters and one for owners/borrowers.
If the problem is "inflated home values", then every single owner/borrower is in no problem at all - they can just sell for at/near the inflated value. As noted, not only are only about 10% of the borrowers (neighborhood of 440K) in danger of not being whole, but again - most Banks are perfectly willing to work with whatever portion had and have a "permanent" loss of income. That is, those who were employed at $$ sufficient to qualify for and pay the mortgage, but currently have not regained that income.
But you gotta put a number on that.
The renter eviction moratorium - much the same holds true for them. But "inflated home values" has nothing to do with it, because few if any of the properties they live in have SOLD for these "inflated home values" in the last 16 months. They qualified for and were paying the rent on their lease.
And landlords do not set the rent rate. The renters do - by what they as a group can afford to pay. If a landlord was getting $1,000/mo and "wants to" get $1,500/mo - be that by some odd "wish" or by what the current rental market rate is ... if they can't find a qualified renter at $1,500 then they're not getting $1,500.
I presume you're aware of the tenant/landlord program that will actually PAY the landlord a large portion of the rent owed, if they'll forgive the rest. It just requires a renter willing to work with the landlord, and a landlord who understands a large % is better than $0.
There are problems with inflated prices everywhere right now, there is no reason this should all come down on the landlords.
As someone posted how is this even constitutional for the government to involve itself in the fully legal contracts between private parties.
Almost everyone got assistance and more, but landlords are told to suck it up. It is not okay that they should have to take what they can get, the tenant contracted to pay a certain amount knowing they can and will be evicted if they don't pay the amount they agreed to on the lease.
We have complex problems in society right now, let's not scapegoat anyone painting with a broad brush. Landlords holding up their end of the bargain did nothing wrong and do not deserve to be punished.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
