Latest news with #toxicworkenvironment
Independent Singapore
a day ago
- Business
- Independent Singapore
Singapore woman quits S$6k job to escape toxic boss, ends up struggling on half the pay
SINGAPORE: Many employees leave their high-paying jobs to escape the stress of a toxic work environment or difficult bosses. However, a man recently shared on social media that such moves do not always lead to happier outcomes. Posting on Reddit's Ask Singapore forum, he said his sister experienced this firsthand. According to him, she left her S$6,000-a-month job because of a 'toxic boss' and an 'overly demanding' workplace. She eventually took on a job paying S$3,000, hoping that her mental health would improve and that she would enjoy a better work-life balance. Unfortunately, things did not turn out as she had imagined. The man said his sister recently complained that her new role remains stressful and tiring. On top of that, she is now struggling financially. 'She walked away from S$6k to earn S$3k, and now she complains she's got no money,' he said. 'It's the very decision she made for herself, yet she's resenting it.' He also shared that when he tried to offer practical solutions to improve her situation, his sister dismissed every suggestion outright. 'I talked to her about upgrading her skills to ease into finding a different job with a higher salary, [but she said] it's 'so time-consuming' and that 'those institutions are just out there to make money, not really professional in teaching,'' he wrote. 'OK, then I suggested self-learning, [but she said she had] 'no time,' and 'I can't follow if I have no structure.'' The man said it has been frustrating to watch his sister remain in a cycle of dissatisfaction without taking any steps toward change. Beyond the emotional strain, the situation has also had a tangible impact on their family finances. Since his sister stopped contributing a monthly allowance to their parents, he has been forced to shoulder more of the household's expenses on his own. Feeling stuck and unsure how to help, he turned to the Reddit community for advice. 'How do you advise someone like this? She's got years of working ahead of her, but she seems stuck and unwilling to make any change,' he said. 'What kind of counselling service or career advisor in SG can I send her to? I can't just leave her like that because she's my sister, and I want her to be happy, whether she's earning S$3k or S$6k. I want her happy and healthy, not complaining and stuck.' 'Every time she complains, you have to shut her down.' In the discussion thread, one commenter bluntly told the man that his sister needed to take responsibility for her choices. 'Your sis is a working adult. She has to learn to resolve her own issue and make her own decision,' they wrote. 'You can help advise her, but that is all. She has to work it out herself. The more you help her, the more she will take for granted and ignore you.' Another echoed this sentiment, writing, 'No, you can't do anything but advise nicely once. Subsequently, the best you can do is just listen. Because if she didnt listen the first time, no matter what you say is not going to work. So let her rant if she needs it.' A third suggested, 'You have to be honest with her that she cannot complain if she doesn't want to try and put in the work. Every time she complains, you have to shut her down.' In other news, a part-time worker has publicly criticised a 'drink stall chain' in Singapore for making her and other employees pay for any incorrectly made beverages. In a post on the r/SGexams subreddit, the worker wrote that she found the policy both 'unnecessary' and 'unreasonable,' especially since they are only paid S$9 per hour. Read more: Drink stall chain allegedly makes staff pay for incorrect orders, says part-time worker
Independent Singapore
a day ago
- Business
- Independent Singapore
'Is it okay to be honest about a toxic ex-workplace in an interview?' Job seeker asks
SINGAPORE: When it comes to job interviews, one of the most awkward and nerve-racking questions candidates face is: 'Why did you leave your last job?' It's a reasonable question, but for those who left due to a toxic work environment, answering it can feel challenging. How honest should you be? Is it ever okay to tell the truth? This type of predicament came up in a recent Reddit post when a user solicited advice from other netizens: 'I have an interview coming up soon and would like some tips on how you guys share about leaving a past job experience due to a toxic environment.' The post rapidly elicited comments both from professionals and hiring managers, and the responses had a clear consensus: while honesty is vital, tact, in this situation, is more crucial. Rule #1: Don't vent, even if justified As one Redditor frankly puts it, 'Don't emphasise the toxic environment or mention anything negative about the employer or business. Just say that they didn't meet your career expectations or that there were no career advancement opportunities.' While it might be tempting to share your side of the story, especially if you had a difficult workplace, most hiring managers won't view it favourably. Sharing too much negativity can raise red flags about your attitude or flexibility, even if you were the victim. An HR professional offered a clear warning: 'Don't ever say bad things about your current or previous company. Just say that the company is undergoing reorganisation or that you're searching for professional growth.' Rule #2: Reframe, don't disclose Instead of pointing fingers at anyone, it's better to frame the departure around your career objectives. Several commenters recommended expressions that can help the original poster make the conversation in a positive tone. Phrases such as: 'I was searching for opportunities aligned with my goals.' 'I felt stuck in my prior role and seeking new challenges.' 'I'm interested in exploring prospects with additional occupational movement.' 'The firm was going through a lot of changes, and I needed more stability.' One recommended, 'You need to spin it. Say something like: 1) Seeking new challenges, 2) Career progression, 3) Mention something in their job posting that you find interesting.' In short, reposition the narrative. 'Rather than providing explanations on why you left, focus on what you're hoping to find,' another commenter said. Rule #3: Make it about growth Interviewers seek motivation in job candidates, curiosity, and a focus on the future. Therefore, instead of blabbering about what went wrong in the past job, highlight what enlivens you about the new prospect. One Redditor offered a smart tactic: 'Talk about their job description, mention something from the job posting that you find interesting, ask questions, and show that you're very interested.' This method sidesteps pessimism and reveals that you've explored the role and that you're serious about it. Protect your reputation As enticing as it might be to 'set the record straight' about a difficult experience, job interviews aren't the proper venues for voicing out gripes. Even if your former employer was in the wrong, many hiring managers will never know the entire story, so they'll likely form their opinions of you based on how analytically you handled the experience. As one Redditor summarised it: 'Usually, they won't probe too much into why unless you give them bad vibes or red flags.' So, maintain the professional deportment, remain future-focused, and always remember — the best way to demonstrate you've risen above a toxic environment is to show that it didn't and never defined you.
CBS News
4 days ago
- CBS News
Corrections officer sues state prison system, alleges abuse and hazing by fellow guards
A veteran correctional lieutenant is taking legal action against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, alleging abuse from fellow officers. Eric Beam has been a part of the CDCR for years, serving in several prisons including Corcoran and Salinas Valley. He's now filing a lawsuit claiming a toxic work environment after what his legal team is calling "violent hazing" and assault by fellow officers. According to the complaint, Beam, who describes himself as a dedicated officer and family man, was burned with department-issued pepper spray, had his foot crushed and possibly permanently damaged, and says he was sexually assaulted when an officer grabbed his groin. In one instance, he claims he was tied to a wheelchair and left helpless in an inmate shower. Beam states these weren't isolated incidents and that this is part of a larger culture within CDCR known as the "code of silence." He says his supervisors witnessed the violence and never intervened. The complaint also names specific guards, supervisors and even the warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. Beam is now seeking legal counsel intervention, hoping to hold the state prison system accountable. CBS Sacramento has reached out to the CDCR regarding the lawsuit, but we have not yet heard back.
Daily Mail
26-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Staff claim state-funded school is TOXIC as $205k-a-year 'marketing guru's sick Post-it notes' revealed
Top Utah Tech University administrators covered a breakroom cabinet with crude and inappropriate notes, a bombshell lawsuit claims. Three school employees initially sued the university in November, claiming they were the victims of a toxic work environment. A recently unsealed court document obtained by Daily Mail alleges that a metal cabinet in the university's marketing department break room was allegedly covered in over 200 vulgar Post-it notes. Nearly a quarter of the notes are attributed to the Vice President of Marketing and Communication, Jordon Sharp, whose salary in 2024 was $205,658, according to Utah's state transparency website. The notes Sharp allegedly wrote include, 'I've accidentally hired two prostitutes' and 'Oh my gosh. I just grabbed his little penis. That felt really unnatural.' Other messages he is accused in the complaint of writing are: 'She tried to put her balls in my mouth' and 'Eat those ball(s) or throw them away.' 'Do you have any friends that are minority or ethnic in nature? Could you bring any of those?' the complaint alleges he penned. 'You can both go to hell and have a great day,' and 'If you ever feel stressed, come on over & smack it till you smile' are also notes the court claims Sharp wrote. Other notes allegedly include: 'She bugs the p**s out of me. It's all over the floor,' and 'Do you like red balls?... better than blue.' The lawsuit was filed by Becky Broadbent, the university's former general counsel; Jared Rasband, the former Senior Associate General Counsel; and Hazel Sainsbury, Utah Tech's Title IX coordinator. They launched their case after Utah Tech's former President Richard 'Biff' Williams allegedly gave Sharp a phallic-shaped vegetable display and listed the plaintiffs' names as the senders in November 2023. '[Williams] left a display of an assortment of vegetables shaped as male genitalia, including a long zucchini referred to as a "zuweenie," on VP Sharp's front porch to "help" with his recovery from his medical procedure that day,' the lawsuit says. The group believes framing them for the raunchy gift was retaliation for their response to discovering the Post-it note cabinet, the lawsuit claims. According to the complaint, after discovering the cabinet in September 2021, the plaintiffs stated that they were legally obligated to report it, but human resources minimized the misconduct. 'These Post-it Notes were highly obscene, offensive, and vulgar, and included derogatory references to sex, race, individuals, and investigations conducted by the University,' the lawsuit said. 'Plaintiffs were viewed unfavorably by Sharp, other senior administrators, and the UMAC department, for simply fulfilling their job responsibilities.' Sainsbury told The Salt Lake Tribune that when she first learned of the notes, she thought it was 'too outrageous to be true'. 'Nothing prepared me for the shock of seeing that wall of Post-it notes,' she said. 'But there I was, standing in front of something even worse than I had imagined. 'What I saw was not just a violation of policy - it was a reflection of a culture where power protected certain individuals from scrutiny, even when their behavior was clearly inappropriate.' Daily Mail contacted the employees' lawyers, Utah Tech University and the Utah Attorney General's office, which is representing the school, for comment. The school said in a statement to Daily Mail: 'As a university, we are focused on the future and moving forward together and continuing to build upon our university's incredible momentum. 'However, the university acknowledges challenges over the past few years, including an internal confidential Title IX investigation conducted four years ago related to a quote board, which included statements taken out of context. 'When the University's Title IX coordinator investigated a complaint connected to the quote board in September 2021, no Title IX-related policy implications were identified. 'Subsequently, the university conducted a separate HR process and implemented corrective measures. 'As we look to the future under new leadership, the university remains focused on continuing to make positive changes for the benefit of our students, our mission and the community we're building together.' Broadbent, Rasband and Sainsbury claimed they suffered as a result of the administrators' actions and are seeking damages to be determined at trial. The university has sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that Utah's governmental immunity law protects it because it is a public university.
Irish Times
22-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
‘Burned out' bra saleswoman wins €15,800 for constructive dismissal
A lingerie saleswoman who said she was forced to quit her job of nearly 20 years over the health impact of workplace stress at due to a 'toxic' work environment at a Dublin department store has won €15,800 for constructive dismissal. Karrin Breslin was awarded the sum on foot of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Chantelle Lingerie Ltd, the operator of a concession in the lingerie department of the unidentified store. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) awarded Ms Breslin her full losses after ruling that the international lingerie brand repudiated her contract of employment by failing to address grievances about understaffing and rostering while her health deteriorated over the course of two years. It was submitted on behalf of Ms Breslin – an employee of the brand since 2004 – that when the department store reopened in May 2021 following the Covid-19 lockdown, her section was down to 12 staff with just two full-time, compared with 10 full-timers out of 17 before the pandemic. READ MORE The tribunal heard Ms Breslin had moved from north Co Dublin to Co Wexford during the pandemic closure. She asked at that stage to be given a set working day of 9am to 5.30pm, she said. Her employer's response was that 'this was not a request that could be granted given the opening hours of the shop and the need for a fair departmental roster', the tribunal was told. The tribunal was told that the department store, rather than the lingerie brand, was responsible for setting the roster governing Ms Breslin's working hours. 'I feel my mental and physical health has deteriorated ... I don't have a good work/life balance and it's going to get worse due to the late closing times coming back again,' she wrote. Ms Breslin's case was that her job was made 'overwhelming and physically hard' because of these issues and that she began to experience anxiety, low mood, high blood pressure and gastrointestinal problems 'as a result of work-related stress'. Following a medical absence in June 2022, Ms Breslin again wrote to her employer and set out that because the department was so 'understaffed' that sales were being lost because customers were walking out without being served. Her employer's position was this was 'a commercial point and not a personal grievance'. Ms Breslin had seven periods of certified medical leave between January 2022 and the summer of 2023, the tribunal heard. In an exchange of emails with her employer during her fifth period of medical leave in June 2023, Ms Breslin said she believed her illness was 'work-related'. 'There are major obstacles stopping me from doing a good job and this has been going on for years. It's got far worse in the last 4 months and definitely having a negative impact on my working life due to a stressful and sometimes toxic work environment,' she wrote. In responding correspondence, she was told: 'I am hoping you can get to the bottom of your sickness so you feel better,' the WRC heard. The tribunal heard that Ms Breslin worked her last shift on 25th June 2023 and ultimately did not return to work before she tendered her resignation on 31st October that year. Chantelle's managing director, who gave evidence, said she had assumed Ms Breslin would return to her job when she got better and that her resignation 'was pleasant and made no mention of issues or other employees' behaviour'. When it was put to her in cross-examination that Ms Breslin had told her she was 'burned out', the managing director said she 'understood there was an issue' of work-related stress but that she 'did not relate this' to Ms Breslin's resignation. Asked what she had done to respond to the staffing issues raised by Ms Breslin, the managing director said these were 'a matter for the shop'. In her decision, adjudicator Patricia Owens wrote Ms Breslin had been raising 'serious concerns for her physical and mental health' starting in October 2021. While the managing director made efforts to resolve 'minor issues' for Ms Breslin around medical certs and annual leave, 'more complex matters' around roster problems and staff shortages 'were never addressed', Ms Owens wrote. 'I consider that the respondent failed in its duty of care to the complainant to protect her health, safety and wellbeing while at work,' Ms Owens wrote. She considered the firm's failure to respond adequately to amount to 'repudiation of contract', upholding Ms Breslin's unfair dismissal claim. Ms Owens awarded the claimant €15,800, her full losses for five months' unemployment. A further complaint of disability discrimination under the Employment Equality Act was ruled out of time by the Commission. Ms Breslin was represented by Aisling Irish of Parker Law Solicitors in the case, while human resources consultancy Tom Smyth and Associates appeared for the employer.
