A reader writes:
The secretary in our office has been there for 35 years and likes to control "her" environment. A few of us have occupied a portable building for the past 5 years and recently we have all been temporarily moved back into the main building. It is very crowded and every single one of us is having to be inconvenienced in some degree and we are all dealing with it with a good attitude... except the secretary.
For starters, she is OCD (did not have a trash can in her house for 10 years, she would take every piece of trash out to the curb, cannot sleep if she knows there is ONE empty coat hanger in the closet because they belong in the laundry room). She cannot stand trash in her trash can under her desk. She either takes it out side or goes and puts it in someone else's trash can. She has to know where everyone is and when they left and when they are coming back, how late did someone come in, how many phone calls, etc.
My new temporary location is in an office adjoining her reception area. There is a door on each side of my office, one between her and me and one on the opposite wall. Until now this room was the "copy & file room" and because of the two doors was also used as a convenient pass-through to the other side of the building. There is a real hallway to the other offices and it is not at all necessary to use this pass through my office. In order to accommodate all the additional equipment and furniture that came into the main building with us, I have proposed closing and blocking the door between her area and mine with one of the copiers. This will also provide each of us with some privacy. She is throwing a shoe about this. She "says" she doesn't mind us keeping the door shut but doesn't want to put the copier in front of it. She doesn't have a real reason (that she will admit) but she has hinted that maybe it isn't safe or maybe for ADA reasons.
As I mentioned, she is the self appointed hall monitor and doesn't hesitate to report anything that she doesn't like. She is a regular busy body. She has also lied to me, saying that it was not her who had the problem with it but really our supervisor. I have two witnesses that heard otherwise on two different occasions. She has approached our Safety Point of Contact and asked him if he could get a ruling from someone at district office. He knows what's going on and doesn't want to touch it either. The real reason is just about control and she just plain does not deal well with any sort of changes.
Our supervisor does not like confrontations and does all he can to keep peace without upsetting anyone, to the point of riding the fence. I know he doesn't want to deal with this sort of petty issues and I agree. I do not want to even speak to him about it because it is so ridiculous, but someone needs to put her back on her chain. How do I stand my ground on this without getting into a cat fight? I don't want to bring myself to her level.
First, thank you for an entertaining letter and introducing me to the phrase "throwing a shoe," which I will be using in the future!
You have two options:
1. You can try just ignoring all this. You are clearly aggravated and I can understand why. But if you step back and look at her behavior, it's pretty minor. She's annoying, for sure, but ultimately none of this sounds truly harmful.
2. You can try standing up to her, calmly and rationally. Just move the copier against the door if you want to. If she complains to you, tell her it was the best solution to accommodate all the furniture. When she continues complaining about it, tell her that you have to focus on getting your work done and can't discuss it further. If she goes into busy body mode wanting to know where you or someone else has been, calmly tell her, "You don't need to keep track of where people are." You won't change her snooping, but she might learn not to talk to you about it, which will cut down on your aggravation. (For any of this, you want your tone to be pleasant but firm -- almost matter-of-fact; don't make it personal.)
However. It sounds like your company is full of people who don't want to deal with her and thus won't stand up to her. So if your supervisor ends up asking you to move the copier back to appease her, you'll have decide how committed you are to standing your ground. That would be a ridiculous request, but it sounds like you're working with people who are willing to accommodate her behavior at everyone else's expense, so I'd be prepared for the possibility.
The real problem here, of course, is whatever manager is permitting her to disrupt the environment in this way, rather than addressing her behavior with her head-on. So ultimately you can only control how you respond to it. Both options above limit how much you get drawn into her craziness, which is the main goal with this kind of person.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
should I tell my boss I'm leaving after my vacation?
A reader writes:
I have been with my employer for 1.5+ years, and at the start of this year I told them I was going to go to Europe in September. I booked my leave time, even though half of it is unpaid as I haven't accrued enough paid leave. This is all fine, and very nice of them to allow, but then I did give them 8 months notice!
In the last 6 months, however, I've become increasingly dissatisfied with my job. Eventually I made the decision that I wanted a new job, and about 3 months ago I put out some feelers about whether it was worth trying to find a new job, since I would need 8 weeks leave very quickly. A recruiter friend basically told me there was little point trying to find a new job since a new employer was unlikely to want to take me on with an 8 week holiday in the future.
So I put the issue to bed until after the holiday, but I'm feeling a bit guilty now. Essentially I intend to go on holidays (we leave in 7 weeks), and then come home and try to find a new job.
I already know they aren't replacing me while I'm away, the owner of our business (in another branch) was too disorganized to hire + train someone new, so our little office will go from 2 to 1 (+ 2 in warehouse) while I'm gone. I know this stresses out my manager, as he will have to cope with everything alone while I'm gone.
Should I tell him I'm unhappy with my position and will be job hunting after my holiday? My fear is I will come back to no job entirely though!
(As a side note, I haven't told my manager I'm unhappy in my position, as there's only two of us. Essentially if I don't like my duties, I simply need to ship out, there's no way to reorganize them, and I don't hold it against him. It's just unfortunate that this job isn't the best fit it could be for me.)
I'm in Australia, have no contract exempt/non-exempt status or anything like that to consider. Its more that we're such a little team I don't want him to think I'm screwing him over.
This is tricky. A lot of it depends on your relationship with your employer and your knowledge of how willing they've been to work with other people in similar situations. If you were a very long-time employee, I'd say to go ahead and give them a heads-up now ... but at 1.5 years and a long vacation planned, I'd be more cautious.
If you talk to them now, you risk them either reneging on their agreement to let you take the long trip (because they have no more incentive to keep you happy) or replacing you before you're ready for it.
Regarding the ethics of it and the guilt you're feeling: It's true that I wouldn't be thrilled if I gave an employee special permission to take eight weeks off and she quit soon after returning. But these things happen; people move on to new jobs, and employers know that (well, the sensible ones do). The fact is, they approved your vacation time, and they didn't ask you for any sort of long-term commitment in exchange. So I don't think it's crazy to look at this as two entirely separate issues.
Additionally, you don't know how long the job search will take once you return; if the Australian job market is anything like the U.S.'s right now, you may end up staying there long enough that the vacation will become a non-issue anyway.
Ultimately, I think this illustrates the need for employers to make it safer for employees to be honest with them when they're thinking about leaving. The reason most employees aren't candid about it is because they have reason to think they'll be pushed out earlier than they wanted to leave (often because they've seen that happen to others). So it's in employers' best interests to create an environment where employees know they can safely talk about this sort of thing, but too few of them do, and they end up with employees who can't safely divulge their plans.
I have been with my employer for 1.5+ years, and at the start of this year I told them I was going to go to Europe in September. I booked my leave time, even though half of it is unpaid as I haven't accrued enough paid leave. This is all fine, and very nice of them to allow, but then I did give them 8 months notice!
In the last 6 months, however, I've become increasingly dissatisfied with my job. Eventually I made the decision that I wanted a new job, and about 3 months ago I put out some feelers about whether it was worth trying to find a new job, since I would need 8 weeks leave very quickly. A recruiter friend basically told me there was little point trying to find a new job since a new employer was unlikely to want to take me on with an 8 week holiday in the future.
So I put the issue to bed until after the holiday, but I'm feeling a bit guilty now. Essentially I intend to go on holidays (we leave in 7 weeks), and then come home and try to find a new job.
I already know they aren't replacing me while I'm away, the owner of our business (in another branch) was too disorganized to hire + train someone new, so our little office will go from 2 to 1 (+ 2 in warehouse) while I'm gone. I know this stresses out my manager, as he will have to cope with everything alone while I'm gone.
Should I tell him I'm unhappy with my position and will be job hunting after my holiday? My fear is I will come back to no job entirely though!
(As a side note, I haven't told my manager I'm unhappy in my position, as there's only two of us. Essentially if I don't like my duties, I simply need to ship out, there's no way to reorganize them, and I don't hold it against him. It's just unfortunate that this job isn't the best fit it could be for me.)
I'm in Australia, have no contract exempt/non-exempt status or anything like that to consider. Its more that we're such a little team I don't want him to think I'm screwing him over.
This is tricky. A lot of it depends on your relationship with your employer and your knowledge of how willing they've been to work with other people in similar situations. If you were a very long-time employee, I'd say to go ahead and give them a heads-up now ... but at 1.5 years and a long vacation planned, I'd be more cautious.
If you talk to them now, you risk them either reneging on their agreement to let you take the long trip (because they have no more incentive to keep you happy) or replacing you before you're ready for it.
Regarding the ethics of it and the guilt you're feeling: It's true that I wouldn't be thrilled if I gave an employee special permission to take eight weeks off and she quit soon after returning. But these things happen; people move on to new jobs, and employers know that (well, the sensible ones do). The fact is, they approved your vacation time, and they didn't ask you for any sort of long-term commitment in exchange. So I don't think it's crazy to look at this as two entirely separate issues.
Additionally, you don't know how long the job search will take once you return; if the Australian job market is anything like the U.S.'s right now, you may end up staying there long enough that the vacation will become a non-issue anyway.
Ultimately, I think this illustrates the need for employers to make it safer for employees to be honest with them when they're thinking about leaving. The reason most employees aren't candid about it is because they have reason to think they'll be pushed out earlier than they wanted to leave (often because they've seen that happen to others). So it's in employers' best interests to create an environment where employees know they can safely talk about this sort of thing, but too few of them do, and they end up with employees who can't safely divulge their plans.
old employer torpedoing new job offer
A reader writes:
My brother in-law, Ryan, has worked for his now-former company for a couple of years now. He began looking at changing careers and was recently offered a new job. This new job would be as a product representative for a company that is utilized by the same company he had been working for. He accepted his new offer and was very excited to start. However, the new job required that he start immediately, so he was unable to give notice to the former and he had to leave abruptly, not by his choice, but because he wanted the new job and it seemed a necessary evil.
His immediate supervisor wished him luck and understood the situation. The district manager, however, after hearing Ryan was leaving, took it upon himself to call Ryan's new employer to tell them he would not be welcome in the stores as a product rep, simply because he was upset that no notice was given. This was not a reference check, nor did the new company instigate contact. It was simply the district manager's attempt to submarine Ryan's new career. Upon hearing this, the job offer is in danger of being rescinded, post-acceptance, because "if he is not welcome in-store, he is of no use." Now, Ryan cannot go back and may effectively be unemployed because his former district manager decided to keep him from succeeding at his new job.
My question is whether this is legal or not, and what options he may have going forward as he will also have to explain this situation to every prospective employer should he not get this job, and his professional reputation may be tainted. Can you help?
Ugh, what a horrible situation. Yes, it's probably legal. Really jerky though.
If I were Ryan, I'd appeal to the immediate supervisor and ask him to intervene. Ryan should ask him to plead his case to the district manager and see if the damage can be undone. He should also speak with the new employer, explain that he gave no notice at their request, and ask them to work with him on finding a way to fix the situation.
I know it's of no help now, but always, always give notice. A company that refuses to understand that you need to give notice to your current employer is a company that is likely to be unreasonable in other ways too (as we're seeing now).
Update: A reader wrote to suggest that Ryan might have a legal case under tortious interference, which is a legal violation related to intentionally damaging someone's business relationships. My own reading (and I am not a lawyer) was that it doesn't apply here, because the old employer is within his rights to say that they won't deal with Ryan as a product rep because of the way his employment ended (again, a jerk, but within his rights). But I'm not a lawyer and if he's seriously interested in potential legal action, he should talk to one who specializes in employment law.
My brother in-law, Ryan, has worked for his now-former company for a couple of years now. He began looking at changing careers and was recently offered a new job. This new job would be as a product representative for a company that is utilized by the same company he had been working for. He accepted his new offer and was very excited to start. However, the new job required that he start immediately, so he was unable to give notice to the former and he had to leave abruptly, not by his choice, but because he wanted the new job and it seemed a necessary evil.
His immediate supervisor wished him luck and understood the situation. The district manager, however, after hearing Ryan was leaving, took it upon himself to call Ryan's new employer to tell them he would not be welcome in the stores as a product rep, simply because he was upset that no notice was given. This was not a reference check, nor did the new company instigate contact. It was simply the district manager's attempt to submarine Ryan's new career. Upon hearing this, the job offer is in danger of being rescinded, post-acceptance, because "if he is not welcome in-store, he is of no use." Now, Ryan cannot go back and may effectively be unemployed because his former district manager decided to keep him from succeeding at his new job.
My question is whether this is legal or not, and what options he may have going forward as he will also have to explain this situation to every prospective employer should he not get this job, and his professional reputation may be tainted. Can you help?
Ugh, what a horrible situation. Yes, it's probably legal. Really jerky though.
If I were Ryan, I'd appeal to the immediate supervisor and ask him to intervene. Ryan should ask him to plead his case to the district manager and see if the damage can be undone. He should also speak with the new employer, explain that he gave no notice at their request, and ask them to work with him on finding a way to fix the situation.
I know it's of no help now, but always, always give notice. A company that refuses to understand that you need to give notice to your current employer is a company that is likely to be unreasonable in other ways too (as we're seeing now).
Update: A reader wrote to suggest that Ryan might have a legal case under tortious interference, which is a legal violation related to intentionally damaging someone's business relationships. My own reading (and I am not a lawyer) was that it doesn't apply here, because the old employer is within his rights to say that they won't deal with Ryan as a product rep because of the way his employment ended (again, a jerk, but within his rights). But I'm not a lawyer and if he's seriously interested in potential legal action, he should talk to one who specializes in employment law.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Can a manager be both effective and well liked? Nope.
Can a manager be both effective and well liked? Nope. Not going to happen.My post at U.S. News & World Report this week explains why. Please join the debate and weigh in in the comments section over there!
Friday, July 4, 2008
laid off in order to lower pay?
A reader writes:
Last Friday, I was laid off from my job. Apparently the official reason is "lack of work," although my manager kept hammering on the fact that I was getting paid so much more than other people in the same positions.
In our area, we had 4 people working the same positions: 3 permanent employees (including me) and 1 contractor. I have fairly good reason to believe (alas, no proof) that the contractor was hired on as a permanent employee just the week before I was laid off. My guess is for a good $10 less an hour than I was being paid. In my papers to be signed, it was stated that the company could not hire anyone for my position in the coming 90 days. Of course it said nothing about any period prior to my involuntary departure.
My manager advised me to take the severance package (approximately 1 month's pay), yet not to touch it, since they may very well call me back within 60 days and I would have to pay it back. I have a hunch that they will call me back, but only at a much lower pay scale. Is all this legal? If not, what recourse do I have?
First let me say that I'm not a lawyer and this is outside my area of expertise, so I'm doubly unhelpful on this one. I'm hoping someone who can speak more definitively on these issues than I can will weigh in.
However, what I do know is that if your company did lay you off as a method to ultimately get you back at a lower rate of pay, they are not a company you want to work for.
So to me, that trumps the question or whether or not it's legal, although you could certainly speak with a lawyer to determine your options. (Disclaimer: In general, I tend to think people should save legal action for the most egregious situations, simply because it usually means spending a lot of money and even more energy and emotion on something that can be hard to prove.) But my hunch is that unless you can prove that the whole thing was premeditated ("let's hire on the contractor, lay off Susan, and then rehire her at a lower rate of pay"), you'd have little recourse. But hey, that's a hunch with no J.D. behind it, so take it with a grain of salt.
Anyone have more helpful thoughts than my sort of lame advice?
Last Friday, I was laid off from my job. Apparently the official reason is "lack of work," although my manager kept hammering on the fact that I was getting paid so much more than other people in the same positions.
In our area, we had 4 people working the same positions: 3 permanent employees (including me) and 1 contractor. I have fairly good reason to believe (alas, no proof) that the contractor was hired on as a permanent employee just the week before I was laid off. My guess is for a good $10 less an hour than I was being paid. In my papers to be signed, it was stated that the company could not hire anyone for my position in the coming 90 days. Of course it said nothing about any period prior to my involuntary departure.
My manager advised me to take the severance package (approximately 1 month's pay), yet not to touch it, since they may very well call me back within 60 days and I would have to pay it back. I have a hunch that they will call me back, but only at a much lower pay scale. Is all this legal? If not, what recourse do I have?
First let me say that I'm not a lawyer and this is outside my area of expertise, so I'm doubly unhelpful on this one. I'm hoping someone who can speak more definitively on these issues than I can will weigh in.
However, what I do know is that if your company did lay you off as a method to ultimately get you back at a lower rate of pay, they are not a company you want to work for.
So to me, that trumps the question or whether or not it's legal, although you could certainly speak with a lawyer to determine your options. (Disclaimer: In general, I tend to think people should save legal action for the most egregious situations, simply because it usually means spending a lot of money and even more energy and emotion on something that can be hard to prove.) But my hunch is that unless you can prove that the whole thing was premeditated ("let's hire on the contractor, lay off Susan, and then rehire her at a lower rate of pay"), you'd have little recourse. But hey, that's a hunch with no J.D. behind it, so take it with a grain of salt.
Anyone have more helpful thoughts than my sort of lame advice?
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
stupid lawsuits: fired for refusing to get boss coffee
Jezebel reports today on the case of receptionist/data entry clerk Tamara Klopfenstein:
I don't want anyone fetching me coffee. And in fact, I sometimes bring my staff coffee. But if I asked someone to do a task that could reasonably fall in their purview (and like it or not, getting coffee isn't crazy for a receptionist), after having already had to talk to them about it once, and they replied with Klopfenstein's snippy email, I'd think about firing them too. And who says something that attitude-laden three weeks on the job?
(Although to be more precise, I wouldn't fire the person on the spot. I'd warn them and explain my expectations and what sorts of responses are and aren't acceptable, and I'd find out if the person was interested in working under those conditions. Still, I can understand why they fired her immediately -- she demonstrated an attitude problem that was unlikely to go away.)
And I am a woman, if that matters, which it doesn't.
After working for a few weeks, her (male) bosses asked her to get their coffee for them. She declined, and her manager e-mailed her, saying: "This is not open for debate. Please don’t make an easy task a big deal." Klopfenstein felt that getting coffee "reinforced outdated gender stereotypes," so the next day, when she was asked to get coffee again, she sent an e-mail that read: "I don't expect to serve and wait on you by making and serving you coffee every day." Nine minutes later, she was fired. Klopfenstein promptly sued the company for sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. The judge ruled: "The act of getting coffee is not, by itself, a gender-specific act," and dismissed the case. But Klopfenstein's attorneys argue that "Some tasks are inherently more offensive to women."Seriously? So are her lawyers arguing that asking a male receptionist to get coffee would be okay, but it's not okay if she's a woman?
I don't want anyone fetching me coffee. And in fact, I sometimes bring my staff coffee. But if I asked someone to do a task that could reasonably fall in their purview (and like it or not, getting coffee isn't crazy for a receptionist), after having already had to talk to them about it once, and they replied with Klopfenstein's snippy email, I'd think about firing them too. And who says something that attitude-laden three weeks on the job?
(Although to be more precise, I wouldn't fire the person on the spot. I'd warn them and explain my expectations and what sorts of responses are and aren't acceptable, and I'd find out if the person was interested in working under those conditions. Still, I can understand why they fired her immediately -- she demonstrated an attitude problem that was unlikely to go away.)
And I am a woman, if that matters, which it doesn't.
juggling job offers
A reader writes:
I have been job hunting for weeks and have not received job offers or interviews from the preferred employers whom I've applied to. Just when I thought that the road ahead seemed bleak, I received one job offer today, along with a second interview this Thursday and another first interview next Monday. As much as I am delighted at the change in situation, I am rather confused as I wish to make a wise and informed decision -- not taking an offer just because the salary package sounds appealing, but accepting one that is in line with my interests.
Anyway, I am neutral about the job offer as I would be more keen about the job that is interviewing me on Monday. Furthermore, the company interviewing me on Monday is my ex employer and I am familiar with the job scope. As for the company which offered me a second interview this Thursday, it seems to be a challenging environment but offers an attractive remuneration package.
Here are my questions: First, if the company that is granting me a second interview offers me the job on the spot, should I take it immediately, even though I am also keen on working for my ex employer(but the interview with my ex employer only falls on next Monday)?
Secondly, the interview panel for the session with my ex employer will involve 4 people from the upper management- 2 directors, 1 department assistant director and a HR assistant manager. Does this mean that it is likely that there will only be one round of interviews, given that the top management are already present in the first round of interview?
I'm quite confused and hope that you will be able to advise me on the matter.
I see why you're confused! Let's break this down.
Easy question first: The interview with your former employer might be one round only, or it could be more. It's fine to ask them that.
Harder question: how to juggle the offer you have with the two other positions you're interested in. What timeline did the company that made you an offer give you for giving them a decision? If this wasn't discussed, contact them immediately and say that you're extremely interested and want some time to think it over. Ask when they need to hear back from you by. You are hoping they will give you a couple of weeks, but that's unlikely; they're more likely to give you a week, maximum -- because they have other candidates on the line who they need to get back to. If they turn the question around and ask how long you need, you really don't want to ask for longer than a week; they'll start questioning your interest level.
Next, call or email the other two companies immediately. Tell them you are extremely interested in the position they have open but that you have an offer from another company that you need to give an answer to within a week. Tell them that an offer from them would likely be your first choice, but you're constricted by the timeline. Companies that are very interested in you will do what they can to move up the interview.
However, do be prepared for them to tell you that they (a) can't move up the interview because of schedule conflicts or (b) don't expect to be able to make an offer decision within a week. If that happens, then you have a hard decision on your hands. Are you willing to turn down the offer you have, without any guarantee that you'll get an offer from one of the other two companies?
What you cannot do is accept the offer you have, with the intention of going on the other interviews and backing out of the first job if you get another offer later. Not only is that a crappy thing to do to the first company (who will have turned their other candidates loose by that point), but you'd risk damaging your reputation in your industry, because people talk, and you never know when that will come back to haunt you. So the basic question before you is whether you're willing to end up with no job offers in order to see the process through with the other two companies.
The best case scenario is that the first company gives you more time for an answer, and the other two are willing to move quickly once you explain the situation to them. Good luck! Let us know what you decide to do.
I have been job hunting for weeks and have not received job offers or interviews from the preferred employers whom I've applied to. Just when I thought that the road ahead seemed bleak, I received one job offer today, along with a second interview this Thursday and another first interview next Monday. As much as I am delighted at the change in situation, I am rather confused as I wish to make a wise and informed decision -- not taking an offer just because the salary package sounds appealing, but accepting one that is in line with my interests.
Anyway, I am neutral about the job offer as I would be more keen about the job that is interviewing me on Monday. Furthermore, the company interviewing me on Monday is my ex employer and I am familiar with the job scope. As for the company which offered me a second interview this Thursday, it seems to be a challenging environment but offers an attractive remuneration package.
Here are my questions: First, if the company that is granting me a second interview offers me the job on the spot, should I take it immediately, even though I am also keen on working for my ex employer(but the interview with my ex employer only falls on next Monday)?
Secondly, the interview panel for the session with my ex employer will involve 4 people from the upper management- 2 directors, 1 department assistant director and a HR assistant manager. Does this mean that it is likely that there will only be one round of interviews, given that the top management are already present in the first round of interview?
I'm quite confused and hope that you will be able to advise me on the matter.
I see why you're confused! Let's break this down.
Easy question first: The interview with your former employer might be one round only, or it could be more. It's fine to ask them that.
Harder question: how to juggle the offer you have with the two other positions you're interested in. What timeline did the company that made you an offer give you for giving them a decision? If this wasn't discussed, contact them immediately and say that you're extremely interested and want some time to think it over. Ask when they need to hear back from you by. You are hoping they will give you a couple of weeks, but that's unlikely; they're more likely to give you a week, maximum -- because they have other candidates on the line who they need to get back to. If they turn the question around and ask how long you need, you really don't want to ask for longer than a week; they'll start questioning your interest level.
Next, call or email the other two companies immediately. Tell them you are extremely interested in the position they have open but that you have an offer from another company that you need to give an answer to within a week. Tell them that an offer from them would likely be your first choice, but you're constricted by the timeline. Companies that are very interested in you will do what they can to move up the interview.
However, do be prepared for them to tell you that they (a) can't move up the interview because of schedule conflicts or (b) don't expect to be able to make an offer decision within a week. If that happens, then you have a hard decision on your hands. Are you willing to turn down the offer you have, without any guarantee that you'll get an offer from one of the other two companies?
What you cannot do is accept the offer you have, with the intention of going on the other interviews and backing out of the first job if you get another offer later. Not only is that a crappy thing to do to the first company (who will have turned their other candidates loose by that point), but you'd risk damaging your reputation in your industry, because people talk, and you never know when that will come back to haunt you. So the basic question before you is whether you're willing to end up with no job offers in order to see the process through with the other two companies.
The best case scenario is that the first company gives you more time for an answer, and the other two are willing to move quickly once you explain the situation to them. Good luck! Let us know what you decide to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)