I don't want to work, I want to bang on the drum all day.

May 10, 2006 8:29 AM

Labor, Vacation and an Unreasonable Policy. I need help figuring out how to strike an acceptable live/work balance when my company's "policy" is designed to crush my soul.

My company provides paid vacation to hourly employees after one year of continuous employment. The manual states nothing about unpaid vacation, but does state that hourly employees are not entitled to paid personal days or sick days.

Our department was informed last week that we will now be stringently held to "company policy" which essentially means that the owners have decided that no paid vacation = no vacation at all. We been told quite clearly that no one will be able to take days away from the office, paid or unpaid, for the remainder of the year.

Helpful details: I work in a marketing department, not at a law firm or in a medical field. We have no client interaction whatsoever. We are not in a crunch period, launching a new project or doing anything unusually significant that would require such stringent attendance. We are also not offered fabulous compensation to make up for the sacrifice.

For various reasons, family/personal, I know for a fact that I will not be able to maintain perfect attendance for the remainder of the year. I need, at minimum, 2-3 days of unpaid leave each quarter. To make up for this fact, I have maintained perfect attendance and punctuality on all other days and tend to work a minimum of 10-25 hours of overtime each pay period. The days I require can be planned in advance and I am willing to forfeit them if I'm not meeting deadlines and monthly goals.

These concessions were deemed unacceptable by upper management and now I'm left to worry about the future.

How should I respond? What are some other options I can offer in exchange for these days that I quite desperately need?

Bonus: what is your company's stated policy about vacation? I would like to bring excerpts from other employee manuals to my next negotiation meeting.

posted by cior to work & money (47 comments total)

Honestly? You're going to get a lot of advice about changing jobs. Sometimes voting with you feet is the only way to change things. I don't have any other advice, but I feel your pain, those policies are insane.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:33 AM on May 10, 2006

I accept that I may have to quit, and that's certainly one of the easiest options. That said, I do enjoy my job, my coworkers and would like to be able to work this situation out.

It's my hope that through the insight of some of the folks here I can develop a more compelling argument and/or bring evidence that their policy isn't standard.
posted by cior at 8:41 AM on May 10, 2006

That's kind of creepy. I don't know if it violates labor laws (probably not, unless there's a union you belong to that I've never heard of...), but they can't seriously expect to hold onto their employees for any length of time.

Just for data - I just started at my company and get 15 days of paid vacation a year (which rolls over, btw - I'm hoping to have almost four weeks next year, if I'm careful). Additionally, I get 10 days per year of sick leave and 4 days per year of personal time. (I'm salaried, btw). I get, I think, slightly less than average - just over $29,000/year to work as a desktop-help/QA monkey. My company is technically for-profit, but has a non-profit approach to things.
posted by kalimac at 8:42 AM on May 10, 2006

though upper management sets the policy, do they know when you're there/not there? You can just come to an agreement with your boss (where you work overtime, but just report it as time for the day off). I've never had a problem doing that (normally work 40 hours/ week, so if I wanted a frieday off, work 4 10 hour days the rest of the week). I personally don't see any dishonesty in this (ok, so you're not reporting your hours on the day you worked, but you're getting paid for the work you do, not getting paid for work you didn't do)
posted by defcom1 at 8:47 AM on May 10, 2006

I think your forehead feels a bit warm.
posted by caddis at 8:50 AM on May 10, 2006

I also suggest voting with your feet, though I realize that's sometimes real difficult. In the mean time why not schedule a meeting with your boss to sit down and discuss this.

You don't say how aware they are of the particulars of this time off need or how big they are. It's possible the Family and Medical Leave Act applies, but that may require you to get into the particulars of why you need the time, which you may not want to do. If you're okay with that and your employer has more than 50 people you may be able to fall back on this.

I think the trick here is to get your concerns and needs out there immediately, particularly if this is something that might be covered by federal law. This way if they come back to you in a month with a denial or threaten your employment you can say "I'm sorry, I thought we discussed how this fell under the FMLA law - did you determine that it's not?" or "I don't understand, are you saying that if I take advantage of my federally guaranteed leave I'll be penalized for it?"

Not that they can't find a way to can your ass some other way or that that's the kind of relationship you want to have with an employer. Which is why you want to throw your cards face-up on the table now and hopefully get your boss on your side with this.

Or you could go work for people who aren't douchebags.
posted by phearlez at 8:50 AM on May 10, 2006

This kind of policy is certainly draconian and unlike anything I've encountered in any job I've ever had! I've never been refused all time off (paid or unpaid) and I have worked in jobs that (because they were not fulltime) had no leave provisions.

What I would do is pretty much exactly what you're doing: be on time, put in extra hours, meet your goals, plan your time off , inform your supervisors and say you're taking it to compensate for the extra 8 hours you worked last week, then simply take your time off. It's an aggressive stance, but their stance is unreasonable. You're an employee, not a slave, not a robot.

(FMLA does not cover time off for minor illness or routine medical care, like well-baby visits)
posted by crush-onastick at 8:51 AM on May 10, 2006

What are the consequences of taking a day off anyway, despite the new policy? This seems really extreme to me. What if, g-d forbid, you are actually physically incapacitated and can't work? (Just curious -- that question can be ignored.) Your company's new policy appears to be designed to piss people off and separate the loyal worker bees from the disgruntled. Is your upper management the type who might revert the policy back in a few months, after they've shaken loose a few bad apples? You may want to tread lightly if this is the case.

My datapoint -- public sector in USA, 3 years' service, 3 weeks vacation (accrue-able), 12 days sick/year (accrue-able), 2 days personal/year (use it or lose it). 11 set holidays per year.
posted by contessa at 8:55 AM on May 10, 2006

contessa:

1. The consequences of violating the policy will likely include a humiliating reprimand dispatched by my boss and the owners of the company. If I violate the policy 2-3 times each quarter I can expect to be terminated.

2. If I'm incapacitated and can't work, they might require an MD's note. The culture here demands that we go to work sick, we infect each other, get miserable. I took two days off last week for the flu that I caught from my boss. I was unable to function on any level, yet still came to work the remaining days to prove to them that I was sick.

I don't expect to get sick, and really don't want to tarnish my image by faking sick for the sake of days I legitimately need.

Thanks for your datapoint!
posted by cior at 9:01 AM on May 10, 2006

Honestly? You're going to get a lot of advice about changing jobs.

Second, third, and fourth. I don't know specifically what you do within the marketing realm, but the marketing skillset is valuable; there are, no doubt, many places that would value your skills that have less draconian leave policies.

I don't know if this is an option for what you do/where you live, but have you considered being a consultant? I love, love, love being a consultant (I'm a systems analyst) because like you, I need time off on more or less a quarterly basis.

The joy of consulting is that I'm hourly - I can come and go more or less as I please (within the constraints of project deadlines, of course...) and I'm in control of it. Of course, when I don't work, I don't get paid, but to me the freedom of being able to take time off whenever I need to, without regard for why; sick, bored, busy, whatever.

We been told quite clearly that no one will be able to take days away from the office, paid or unpaid, for the remainder of the year.

If I were you, I would talk to a lawyer - I'd be very interested in finding out if this is actually legal. Paid time off is, by definition, personal time - you can do with it what you want. That's the point of it.

You're given no paid personal or sick days as an hourly employee, which to me means you're in the situation I'm in; don't work, don't get paid. I'm not sure they can actually ban people from taking time off if they're willing to do it unpaid.
posted by pdb at 9:05 AM on May 10, 2006

Just for clarification, cior:

(1) It appears that the original policy was that pre-1-year-at-company employees had no paid vacation. Do you fall into that category?

(2) If the answer to #1 is yes, was there an informal arrangement that stated that pre-1-year-at-company employees could have paid vacation in such-and-such-a-way, and it is that arrangement that ended?

(3) If the answer to #1 is yes, did you accept your position there fully understanding that you would have no paid vacation the first year?

(4) Does the requirement that no one take vacation days for the remainder of the year apply to everyone, or just pre-1-year-at-the-company employees?
posted by WCityMike at 9:06 AM on May 10, 2006

That should read:

"for me, the freedom of being able to take time off whenever I need to...is well worth the tradeoff of not getting paid when I do."
posted by pdb at 9:06 AM on May 10, 2006

pdb: They are effectively saying that there are no unpaid days off for employees within their first year.
posted by cior at 9:09 AM on May 10, 2006

At the very least, stop working overtime until you get time off. Work to rule.

I looked up the labor laws in your great state (per profile) and it appears that they are of no assistance. Other jurisdictions (such as British Columbia) have vacation/sick policies spelled out in law, yours does not.

Data point: I have 3 weeks vacation, 2 weeks sick/personal time (no carry-over), 2 floating holidays, and 9 regular holidays.
posted by crazycanuck at 9:10 AM on May 10, 2006

WCityMike:

1. Original policy as it's worded says that employees accrue paid vacation at the rate of one week per year of completed service (with limits for longtime employees). It says nothing about unpaid time off for new employees, but does state that personal and sick days are unpaid for hourly employees. There is no original policy, no alternate manual. The long and short of it is what I've written.

2. No informal arrangement, nothing else stated or spoken until this most recent pronouncement. We just assumed that no paid vacation meant that we'd have to suck it up financially for any days we needed off.

3. I did not accept this position with ANY understanding about vacation other than I would not receive paid time off until I had completed a year of service. I am perfectly fine with footing the bill for my days off, so this policy sparked no questions or opposition.

4. The policy does not apply to everyone and seemingly hasn't been made in response to a project, deadline or financial motivation. The policy has been applied to employees within their first year of service -- which disproprotionately means my department. My department does not have a record of abusing policy, and as a whole we are a very productive and successful bunch.
posted by cior at 9:16 AM on May 10, 2006

If I'm parsing your responses correctly, cior, your problem, then, is that you believed you would have the liberty of taking unpaid vacation days off during your first year of service, and you are now being told that you do not have that liberty during your first year of service?

Also, often, employee manuals contain sections that notify the reader that policies are subject to change without notice, and/or sections that state that the employee manual should not be considered an employment contract. Does your manual have such a section?
posted by WCityMike at 9:27 AM on May 10, 2006

Either you can do without the days off, or they can bend that policy, cior, or else you're getting a new job. I think what you are describing is absolutely unfair, not to mention senseless. If you can't budge on your need and they are not responding to what you're offering to induce them to bend, then prior to the first day off you really need, job hunt as hard as you can. And when you quit, if you're not already employed, file a claim for unemployment, and see this thread's many comments about "constructive dismissal", which might or might not fly. A first year employee asking 8-12 days off during the year is not completely trivial but it's not an unfair request if you really need them, and their policy is certainly restrictive to the point of being onerous.
posted by nanojath at 9:30 AM on May 10, 2006

WCityMike:

1. Yes, you are parsing me correctly. I am 5 months into my first year of service. This is the first I've learned of this policy, and it seemingly cropped up in response for my request for three days off in June. Now, my entire department has been called to a meeting (tomorrow) so we all understand policies. We must bring our manuals and have this non-policy (unwritten!) explained to us.

2. "The Employee Handbook represents a general statement of current Company employment practices, and it may be changed from time to time in the Company's sole discretion, with or without prior notice."

3. I'm fux0red, right?
posted by cior at 9:32 AM on May 10, 2006

Wait a minute. You get sick/personal days right? Are you looking for days off (unpaid) besides those? Why can't your unpaid breaks be personal days?
posted by dness2 at 9:39 AM on May 10, 2006

Are you paid for your overtime? If you aren't a manager, chances are you're non-exempt even if you draw a salary. (See this article for more information, and check the DOL.) In which case, if they haven't paid you for your overtime, they owe you a big chunk of change which they might be willing to trade for some comp time.
posted by j-dawg at 9:40 AM on May 10, 2006

Data point: I'm an hourly employee in Tennessee. After 3 months employment, I received 2 weeks (10 days) paid vacation annually. I get no sick leave, but am expected to either take that as unpaid time off, or use a vacation day. I may be required to show a doctor's note.

In practice, they are very liberal about allowing unpaid time off in addition to my paid vacation, provided I am not out at the same time as the co-worker who can fill in for me, but that's my cool boss, not corporate policy.

As an aside, I don't think you should count Canadian data points. Employment law is more liberal there (eg. if you are a temp, you receive extra pay of 4% - equivalent to two weeks off annually - on every check since you're not eligible for vacation; mat leave is maximum 1 year paid through federal employment insurance; etc.).
posted by joannemerriam at 9:41 AM on May 10, 2006

dness2: Wait a minute. You get sick/personal days right? Are you looking for days off (unpaid) besides those? Why can't your unpaid breaks be personal days?

The manual states I get no paid sick/personal days. It does not state how many unpaid days I get. The new policy they are trying to assert is that new employees get no unpaid days, for any reason.

That said, if someone in my family died I expect that they'd be reasonable about it. It'd still be unpaid.
posted by cior at 9:43 AM on May 10, 2006

j-dawg: I'm paid 1.5 for overtime.
posted by cior at 9:44 AM on May 10, 2006

The culture here demands that we go to work sick, we infect each other, get miserable.

Cior, this sounds like a truly horrible place to work. Is it your first job? Is it actually better than other jobs that you've had? I understand that you like your coworkers, but the downsides seem too large. This sounds like a company that truly does not care about its employees and is looking for an excuse to fire a few. Or, alternatively, there are some sadists on the management team that enjoy exercising power over other people.

In terms of concrete action: I would just present the situation to them: let them know that you will need 2 to 3 unpaid days off per quarter and that if they can't agree to that, you'll need to start looking for work elsewhere. I don't see room for convincing or negotiating. It strikes me as a pretty simple take-it or leave-it request.
posted by alms at 9:44 AM on May 10, 2006

j-dawg: I offered to give up overtime in exchange for comp time, but that was rejected due to KY law stating that overtime must be paid for hourly employees.
posted by cior at 9:45 AM on May 10, 2006

j-dawg: I'm paid 1.5 for overtime.

That's good; at least they're following the law. But I believe the law also allows employees and employers to work out comp time arrangements in lieu of overtime pay. It might be worth bringing this up as a possibility.

Good luck!
posted by j-dawg at 9:46 AM on May 10, 2006

alms:

1. This is not my first job.

2. It's exponentially worse than other jobs I've held. I fully recognize that the appropriate thing to do at this juncture is to quit. What keeps me here is a deep connection to my work product (my brainchild!) and to my coworkers (who are some of the most fabulous people I've ever had an opportunity to work with).

3. They are sadistic-types, seemingly not trying to weed out a bad apple.

4. Thanks for the take-it/leave-it suggestion. Perhaps simple is best, no bargaining.
posted by cior at 9:48 AM on May 10, 2006

I think you're out of luck, for two reasons:

1) FMLA doesn't apply to you because you haven't worked for this employer for one year, and it doesn't apply to your company unless it has more than 50 employees working within 75 miles of your job site. Even if the latter is true, the former is not in your case.

2) Kentucky, like most states, is an employment at will state, and you can be fired for any reason at any time.

I sixth, seventh, and eighth the advice above to find another job or face the consequences, which could include termination, and it certainly sounds like your department is indeed being summoned to have this new policy "explained" to you. Simply present your situation to the company, and they will tell you soon enough if your request is reasonable to them.

I've come to the realization over my working life that no job is really worth this kind of trouble and worry, especially since your descriptions of working conditions and wages seem so dire. Good luck.
posted by lambchop1 at 9:49 AM on May 10, 2006

j-dawg: the offer of unpaid leave in exchange for overtime pay was denied, on their part.
posted by cior at 9:49 AM on May 10, 2006

uh-duh. I guess I didn't catch the part where you said you're in your first year at your company, so please forgive me if my comment neglected that point (which it did).

Except for the part where I said the whole thing is pretty harsh, because it is. There is the letter of the rule (which in your case, isn't even that, because it's not explicitly stated anywhere), and the spirit of the rule; I don't know that I would want to work for anyone whose adherence to some policy across the board is so blind, without any consideration for other factors that might work in your favor for special circumstances.
posted by contessa at 9:52 AM on May 10, 2006

I guess my response, then, is that I think you labored under a misunderstanding when you accepted the job: I've yet to see a corporate culture where it is okay for an employee restricted from initially taking vacation days during his first year of employment to instead take vacation days on an unpaid basis.

Most every company I've worked for, small or large, doesn't like the idea of an employee taking unpaid vacation. If they're not going to pay you for your day off, they don't want you to take the day off. That seems to be a fairly common norm in nearly every environs I've worked for.

Others' experiences may differ. But that's what I've been exposed to quite literally everywhere I work.

If I were you, and you feel comfortable enough in this environment doing so, I would suggest at this meeting that the company's vacation policy isn't very competitive with other vacation policies out there. Vacation, sick, and personal time is as much an employee benefit as salary; to not grant any vacation time for one whole year and to also pay no sick or personal time to hourly employees is extremely non-competitive. At the risk of sounding nosy, is the salary exceptionally good there? If not, what do they offer to bring people in your staff range in the door, or do they see your salary class as expendable?

And, out of curiousity ... you wouldn't happen to be working in a law firm, would you? This sounds so familiar with past employers.

Also, I suspected your employee manual would have a clause like that ... and I do think it gives you a pretty unpleasant hit in terms of their ability to "clarify" this policy on you.
posted by WCityMike at 9:53 AM on May 10, 2006

Well, I guess I'm forced to throw my lot in with the "vote with your feet" crowd. It's not so much because of this one policy (shortsighted though it is). It's because any employer who takes such an approach clearly doesn't think much of its employees in general.

Best of luck...
posted by j-dawg at 9:55 AM on May 10, 2006

A further follow-up, after I've read some of your other responses in this thread: if you've got no ability to change the circumstances under which you're working, I would add my voice to the "move on" crowd — with two caveats.

First, if you've done a lot of moving around, you may want to grunt it out. It's easy for us to say "leave," but potential employers look at how long you've been at positions when they consider you for a job. If you have only been at your past positions for brief periods of time, this may tarnish your resume.

Second, if you can help it, by no means leave your current position until you've been offered and accepted a new position. This economy is just too screwed up to do otherwise, at least IMHO.
posted by WCityMike at 9:58 AM on May 10, 2006

cior,
I was prepared to comment that expecting unpaid personal days (for vacation reasons) beyond sick time was perhaps contrary to normal work-attendence expectations at traditional companies (read: conservative rules-wise). But not having ANY guidance on sick/personal days is a big stumbling block to my lecture. The firm needs to have guidelines if it is to be a hard-ass about rules. They're trying to guard against absence abuse by being so tight with unpaid time - ok fine, that's not very European but it is a legitimate management model. But at the same time being so loose with the guidelines that you just have to trust that you won't be penalized for legitimate absences (flu, death) because they would be "reasonable" is not a good trade-off. Look for another job, not because you're not getting unpaid leave, but because the company hasn't figured out how to balance the power between management and workers in a mature way. It's not where you want to be long-term.
posted by dness2 at 10:10 AM on May 10, 2006

Oh, and one more thing... if you do move on, make sure you get arrangements like this worked out in writing as part of the job negotiation process. Even the most strident employers are often willing to make concessions during hiring to get the staff they want, even if it means bending a little policy.

Again, good luck...
posted by j-dawg at 10:10 AM on May 10, 2006

Data Point:

I am a Systems Analyst and work for a state university system in Texas. I recieve 1 day of paid vacation per month and 1 day of paid sick time, accruable. I can take it any time pending permission from my immediate supervisor. I also have a flexible work schedule that allows me to work as much or as little as I need to to get my projects accomplished.
posted by SpecialK at 11:08 AM on May 10, 2006

That does suck. And here I was complaining just this morning about not having as much time off as our European subsidiary. Guess I should count my blessings.

Every job I've had from flipping burgers and shagging carts to this "professional" job I do now has allowed for unpaid time off. You can't take a month off but if you need a few days in addition to the paid time off you're accruing, it is fine. You just won't get paid and you're of course, still on the hook for insurance deductions during that time.

There are 3 reasons not to go to work: You want to go on vacation -- that is not work; there's a personal day -- your kid is sick or you have to wait for furniture to get delivered sometime between the 7am and 6pm; or a sick day -- you're just going to throw up and infect your cowokers. All of these can be paid or unpaid depending on the kindness of your employer. My employer separates these into separate paid buckets, but if I need unpaid time off that's cool too.

The whole point of offering employees time off is to improve their productivity and make them less likely to quit. Your company's policy is asinine. I mean, Wal-mart used to lock its employees in the building overnight but even it has a better time off policy.

If you give your boss notice in advance you need to be out of the office and you plan on making plans for someone to cover in your absence or whatever - especially if you're not going to get paid for it. If your not getting paid for it and the business won't suffer why does it matter your ass isn't in your seat at the office?

A good employer will sell its time away policy as a benefit and be upfront about benefits before you start. So hopefully your next gig will give you time away.

Although I don't recommend you do so, I hope one of your coworkers in the meeting tomorrow is brutally honest and tells the boss where they can put that stupid policy.
posted by birdherder at 11:17 AM on May 10, 2006

Datapoint (Ontario Canada) - law requires that all full-time employees get min 2% vacation pay, which translates to 2 weeks/year. Some other stuff about reasonable leave. The company I work at - I'm salary, get 3 weeks off/yr, 2 personal days, and something like up to 10 sick days, though they are expected to be for-real sick days; they're not some sort of fringe benefit or accruable. There's allowances for unpaid leave for bereavement, family issues or illness, maternity/paternity leave.

I never regard such situations as yours as cut-and-dried. If you're not a stellar worker, you're just phoning it in, as they say, then they would likely hold you to the letter of the policy as a means of pressure. On the other hand, if you are truly giving 110%, are always meeting your deadline/quota/budget, are the go-to person in your dept... then it's been my experience that companies will usually be quite flexible in order to keep you happy.

Depending on how badly you need this gig, I would also consider gently testing the boundaries, before quitting. Bank some hours Monday to Thursday, then leave Friday @ noon - assuming that you completed your 40, done all assigned tasks, not left anybody hanging, and you notify the people who are affected. See how that goes. If they'd fire you for that, they don't value your services too highly, do they.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:58 AM on May 10, 2006

It sounds like some management bigwig/seminar told them to take a hard line or their new, young employees lest they "walk all over" the company.

What's likely is that they want this rule so that all time off can be decided on a case-by-case basis. They're playing dumb, time-consuming, micromanagment games that are just asking to lead to favoritism in enforcement.

That said, to paranoid execs, your discussion of the time you need sounds like it could be interpreted as something that would escalate. After all, if you're willing to forfeit the days off if deadlines don't permit, then they're not really necessary, right? Don't give them that loophole.

Ask for the time off that you need in a reasonable manner. A couple of weeks ahead of time is more than reasonable. When the goon squad comes by to humiliate you, stay calm and don't let them get away with treating you like a child. "You cannot have this day off" may be answered with "My apologies for the inconvenience, but is not possible for me to report to work on that day." Avoid all baiting. Your reason is "a personal matter." Be mentally prepared to be fired, just in case. (Be looking for a new job anyway. This is a weird and unreasonable policy. But you might last the year just through the fact that it's a pain to fire someone.)
posted by desuetude at 12:05 PM on May 10, 2006

Seems like the best thing to do (although a lot of effort) would be to:

1. Get another job lined up.
2. Then give the ultimatum: either they put in writing right then that you can have what you want, or you're taking it.
posted by reklaw at 12:10 PM on May 10, 2006

Maybe they just changed the policy because some loser is abusing it. Try to find out if this is the case. They me be trying to fire someone on these grounds. They may let up once that person is gone.

Good Luck!
posted by johnd101 at 12:25 PM on May 10, 2006

I know for a fact that I will not be able to maintain perfect attendance for the remainder of the year

Given this, and the hardline stance outlined in your followups, it's clear that you have only two options: find the new job before being fired, or after.

You will have other opportunities to create great projects. And you can still have lunch/beers/whatever with the old colleagues.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 1:09 PM on May 10, 2006

Hey all, the big meeting to discuss policy is set for tomorrow morning. I'll check back in with the results shortly thereafter.
posted by cior at 2:05 PM on May 10, 2006

To further the vote with your feet cries, be honest with them at your exit interview (though not in your resignation letter, if you choose to write one), they need to know that these kinds of policies are not tolerable. If you are as enthralled with your brainchild as it sounds, do the company a favor and let them in on the problem you have with their behavior. Maybe they won't listen, maybe they will curse your name. But you will have tried. Also, you might sleep better at night.
posted by bilabial at 7:36 PM on May 10, 2006

Update/resolution-filter:

I had my meeting today, asked for three days off for the two remaining quarters of the year. Denied.

I offered a great many things in exchange for these days, all denied.

I told them quite clearly that I would have to sacrifice my position if I couldn't get at least half of those days. They gave me four, one more than my bare minimum.

So it seems that I stay. For now.

Thank you for all of the support, data points.
posted by cior at 12:30 PM on May 11, 2006

I hope you're updating that resume, anyway. :/
posted by litlnemo at 3:48 PM on May 11, 2006

Cior --- good job with the clear communication. I'm glad it worked out for you.

That said, I agree with Litlnemo.
posted by alms at 8:59 AM on May 12, 2006