# I have problems asserting myself.



## Subtle Murder (May 19, 2012)

I'd like some advice regarding how to handle situations like the following:

The other night I had a four hour shift at the bookstore that I was looking forward to. I'd spent most of the week lifting heavy boxes (I have arthritis in my lower-back, so that's a huge NO-NO) and trying to get one of our new stores up and running, and I was tired and in pain and just wanted a quiet and easy shift. The great thing about working in our bookstore on the late shift is that there's not much to do, so you can chill out and read or do some light dusting/sweeping. My boss called, asked if I could come in a couple of hours early to help out at our store next door, and then head over there again after I had finished my shift in our bookstore. Fine and dandy. Our store next door is a convenience/newsagency type store, just for reference (meaning I would have to do heavy lifting, but I figured it would be okay for a couple of hours).

Anyway. I get to work, do my first hour at the convenience store, then go to the bookshop to relieve my co-worker for her break. The way we had the night set up (I hope this doesn't get confusing!) was that when she finished her shift at 8:00pm, she was supposed to go and help at the convenience store whilst I did my four hour bookstore shift. Then she'd leave at 10:00pm, and I'd head back over to the convenience store after 12:00am. I told her I was looking forward to coming into the bookstore at 8:00pm because I was exhausted from setting up the new store during the week. She says to me: "Our boss said that we could do it where I just stay here in the bookstore until 10:00pm, then you come in for an hour and close, then head back next door." I was reluctant to do it because I was looking forward to being able to just relax for a couple of hours and not have to do any more heavy lifting. Also, I suspected my co-worker didn't want to go next door to help out because she doesn't like working there (neither do I, but if they need help I don't say no). 

Anyway, I didn't agree to it. I told her: "Boss told me x, y, z, so I don't think it's a good idea to change." She insisted that she would call our boss and ask her, and then proceeded to call. But instead of asking her, she said: "Hi Boss. So I'm working here until 10:00pm, right? And Sirène is staying next door until then, right?" I could hear our boss saying: "It's up to you guys, whatever you think is best". My co-worker said: "Okay, I am staying here until 10:00pm then." There was no mutual decision making, no asking me whether or not I wanted to do it. She called to run it past our boss and get confirmation that it was okay for her to stay. 

I was really pissed, for a number of reasons. 1) I was looking forward to that shift. 2) She didn't ask our boss, she _told_ her. 3) I felt like she strong-armed me out of my shift because _she_ didn't want to help out next door. 4) She knows I have arthritis in my back, and I had just been telling her how exhausted I was and how much pain I was in, and yet she ignored that in favour of her desire to stay in the bookshop. 

Whilst I was feeling all of these emotions, I then became angry at myself for getting upset over something as 'silly' as that. I knew that if I kicked up a fuss she would say: "Why are you kicking up a fuss? It's no big deal!" Then I got angry at myself all over again for not being able to stand up and say what I wanted out of the situation. I know most of you will say: "Why didn't you just tell her that you didn't want to work the entire shift next door, and that you'd rather work in the bookstore?" Simple. When something upsets me, I tend to get really emotional about it. Like, rather than just tell her what I wanted, I felt like screaming at her (actually, to be precise I wanted to punch her in the face - a bit extreme, I know. Anger issues are fun!) for being an inconsiderate twat who manipulated the situation to better suit her needs. I can't really conduct myself in a calm or rational manner when I am in that state, so I just withdraw and becoming stony cold or silent. Then I started thinking of passive aggressive things to say to her to get the point across (lash out at her, was more like it), but I opted to just high-tail it out of there before I said or did anything stupid.

When I'd had a chance to calm down and think about things, I realised it was for the better that I stay at our convenience store because I wouldn't have to keep swapping back and forth between stores, and once I get myself into a rhythm at work I generally don't like to break it because it totally demotivates me. My whole issue was the fact that she didn't accept my initial response and instead strong-armed me into what she wanted, and then that I couldn't assert myself and say: "Hang on, that doesn't sound like a discussion at all. I'm not happy with this situation", because I told myself I was overreacting and being silly about the whole thing.

I guess my main questions are, how can I combat this? I don't know how to assert myself without being emotional (fuming, raising my voice (oh yelling, why am I so fond of you?), and eventually bursting into tears - yeah, I'm kind of sensitive). In order for me to conduct myself in a calm and rational manner, I have to remove myself from the situation and take some time to distance myself from my feelings so that I can let my logic and rationale do the talking (and even then I still feel the emotions bubbling under the surface). In situations like that, where it's not entirely possible to allow yourself that time, how can I effectively conduct myself so that I can be calm _and_ assertive? Also, what are some ways that I might possibly be able to deal with the emotional reactions?


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

It's going to take practice to get the knee-jerk emotional reaction under control so I would say work on that first, and then when you've taught yourself that you can control that, you'll feel more comfortable asserting yourself appropriately. I think controlling your emotions can be done best just by taking a second to notice them, label them, know that you have the right to feel them but not to embarrass yourself by acting them out aggressively, then remind yourself that if you don't stand up for yourself, no one will and this girl will continue to think that she can bully and make decisions for you. It sounds like you already have an idea of what you'd like to say ("Hang on, that doesn't sound like a discussion at all. I'm not happy with this situation"), just remember that, and say it next time. When you assert yourself in one situation successfully it makes the later ones less daunting. Don't feel guilty for standing up for yourself!


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

If you feel like you're going to shout/cry/overemote perhaps you could try writing, in a memo form, perhaps. Just try not to be snarky. 

Otherwise, stand in front of mirror and make faces where you just say 'no' with a facial expression that does't allow for someone to interpet that you're up for negotiation. 

Also, if you find that you say yes enough that people expect it, you need to start putting in a couple no's from time to time, or else people will just assume you'll acquiesce. A few well placed no's will get you a bit more respect than it sounds like you currently are.


----------



## Temur (Jun 14, 2012)

I think a key to not getting emotional is

Know that its not personal

That is, she didn't screw with you because out of spite, but because shes self interested which is instinctive.
She really would have done it to anyone not just you.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

Ease into it. Simply, unemotionally, suggest that you have a different idea, one that will allow you a bit of a break for your back. If they refuse, then feel free to assert yourself all over their face. 

This is how I handle most situations. Nice guy first, mean guy if that fails. One of them almost always works.


----------



## frenchie (Jul 7, 2011)

Really don't get emotional that causes a lot of problems.Ask her why she put you on that shift and make it known loudly and politely that you don't like working because of your arthritis.Remember, don't attribute to malice what could easily be attributed to stupidity/ignorance.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

frenchie said:


> Remember, don't attribute to malice what could easily be attributed to stupidity/ignorance.


This is one my life's mantras.


----------



## frenchie (Jul 7, 2011)

bellisaurius said:


> This is one my life's mantras.



I tell my mom this all of the time. I think it is crazy how many people forget this.


----------



## ujellyfish (Apr 15, 2011)

First of all, as an extrovert you're prone to be thinking about the outside world a lot. As an introvert myself, I often just simply forget about people's situations.... all the time. To be clear, I'm not insensitive to people. INFPs are known for being healers, and good people people, and really empathetic and all of that jazz. But, as an introvert, my focus is primarily inward, not outward. If I were in her situation, I'd probably be thinking, doing it this way makes more sense, since there's less back and fourth. I'd probably be doing it to try and be nice or at the very least not just in my own interest. Even if I'd been aware of your condition previously, it's really likely that it just simply wouldn't come to mind.
So, as others have said, keep in mind that even though you're constantly aware of yourself, everyone else rarely is, so even things that seem like they have to have been intentional more often than not are just coincidences and accidents, and if you blame people for those you actually do have reason to be mad at yourself.
No one sees themselves as bad people, and a large majority of people feel better when they go out of their way for someone, especially someone they have to deal with frequently like a coworker, than when they do something in their own self interest.

So, you definitely have to tell people when you have a problem, or else you have to deal with the consequences without having anyone else to blame. But, that being said, it's important not to be emotional about it. Assertion is all about respect, and using an emotional appeal makes most people instantly lose respect for you. I'm not only talking about not lashing out, but also more subtle things. If you're asking someone for the first few times to do something or not do something, it's important not to sound bent out of shape over it and to absolutely not take it personally. And, here's a big thing that a lot of people miss.... try not to bring up your arthritis as an excuse of why you don't want to do such and such work. It's valid, yes, but it's unprofessional. If you start trying to appeal to people about how much pain you are in, whether you're intending for it to come off like that or not, people will start wondering, if she's not cut out for this job, then what are we doing paying her for it?

I hear that it's tough for you to control your anger. Basically your emotions, your anger, your taking it personally, those things are governed by the most basic and unevolved part of your brain. It's the center for fear and all of those other things. It's pretty much your body working on an instinctual level. Logical, rational, and calm thinking comes from one of the most evolved and newest part of your brain. Basically what I'm saying is, your emotional center works much, much faster than your logic center, no matter what personality type you are. The way you can try and keep this at bay is by doing things that exercise your rational brain parts. Personally I struggle with fear. I'm afraid of everything under the sun and a lot of the times I'll just start feeling afraid for no reason, which makes me feel stressed and stuff. I keep this part of my brain at bay by writing down lists, which exercise the logical part of my brain that makes me feel in control of the situation. So, obviously you can't sit down and write a list every time you need to confront someone, but try and find some kind of quick brain exercise you can do to keep you thinking rationally.

I have a hard time asserting myself too, but in the opposite way so I can understand in some senses. I'm short and thin and look really young and I just don't experience anger, pretty much at all, so even when I'm saying words that make it clear that I'm unhappy in a situation, it's hard for me to actually get people to take me seriously enough to get the point across. Most people end up ignoring my wishes, not out of spite or even out of stupidity, just simply because my nature is so mild and pleasant that even when I'm unhappy it's impossible for people to register this.
Basically the most important thing is to just keep speaking your mind however you can, whether it's being heard or not. If your complaints are justified, eventually someone will hear you and stand up for you.


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

Bah, if your boss is a heterosexual man and I was a woman, I'd just call him up and explain my situation frantically to him. He'll most likely feel sorry and react off of the old 'White Knight Syndrome', getting you your shift. And if you think that's beneath you and you're throwing away your dignity, think again - if it's really as desperate a situation as you say it is, then it wouldn't hurt to take one small step down from your ego just long enough to get what you need. Just don't stray too far from it; there are worse ways one can lose their dignity.


----------



## ujellyfish (Apr 15, 2011)

NovaStar said:


> Bah, if your boss is a heterosexual man and I was a woman, I'd just call him up and explain my situation frantically to him. He'll most likely feel sorry and react off of the old 'White Knight Syndrome', getting you your shift. And if you think that's beneath you and you're throwing away your dignity, think again - if it's really as desperate a situation as you say it is, then it wouldn't hurt to take one small step down from your ego just long enough to get what you need. Just don't stray too far from it; there are worse ways one can lose their dignity.


Can't really tell how serious you're being. Assuming that you are serious:

I'm not sure how much I buy the whole white knight syndrome... I've certainly had guys go out of their way for me before, but I'm not sure it's such a reliable thing that I would risk my job over it. If anything seeming frantic would probably lead most bosses to lose respect for you, which if it continued to be a problem, could easily lead to losing your job.

Besides that, this sounds like a pretty persistent issue throughout her life, so even if that did work in this situation, it'd still be an issue she'd need to work through eventually, right?


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

ujellyfish said:


> I'm not sure how much I buy the whole white knight syndrome... I've certainly had guys go out of their way for me before, but I'm not sure it's such a reliable thing that I would risk my job over it. If anything seeming frantic would probably lead most bosses to lose respect for you, which if it continued to be a problem, could easily lead to losing your job.


So what, because she's desperate, the boss would lose respect for her? Sounds like a real ass to me. If she has an honest-to-god good reason for taking the earlier shift, then he should let her. It sounds like the other woman doesn't have the same sort of issues and can get the necessary work done on the later shift. However, OP seems like she had every good reason to need the earlier shift.



ujellyfish said:


> Besides that, this sounds like a pretty persistent issue throughout her life, so even if that did work in this situation, it'd still be an issue she'd need to work through eventually, right?


The other woman is probably going to be an asshole no matter what. If she keeps persisting, the boss will just have to schedule them to work apart, if at all possible. The only time I ever worked well with a real d*ck was back in first grade. As I grew up, though, I was less able to work with former enemies than former friends. So to deal with the issue, she'll have to seriously discuss it with her boss and/or take it up with the other woman. If the other woman just keeps on persisting, get the boss involved. He has the final say - it's in his job description!


----------



## ujellyfish (Apr 15, 2011)

NovaStar said:


> So what, because she's desperate, the boss would lose respect for her? Sounds like a real ass to me. If she has an honest-to-god good reason for taking the earlier shift, then he should let her. It sounds like the other woman doesn't have the same sort of issues and can get the necessary work done on the later shift. However, OP seems like she had every good reason to need the earlier shift.
> 
> The other woman is probably going to be an asshole no matter what. If she keeps persisting, the boss will just have to schedule them to work apart, if at all possible. The only time I ever worked well with a real d*ck was back in first grade. As I grew up, though, I was less able to work with former enemies than former friends. So to deal with the issue, she'll have to seriously discuss it with her boss and/or take it up with the other woman. If the other woman just keeps on persisting, get the boss involved. He has the final say - it's in his job description!


Doesn't sound like an ass to me, sounds like a rational boss. If heavy lifting is in the job description and I have someone working for me who complains about that, I'd probably lay them off too. Now on the contrary if they came to me calmly and rationally explaining that they have a little difficulty with heavy lifting, they could still do some but to please allow me to do the minimal amount of that as possible, then I'd be more willing to listen to them. That being said, some people would still fire people over this, so it's all a matter of priorities. If she's able to do the lifting, she probably should. If she's not then she'd be fired if she didn't ask anyway, so it's worth a shot.

You know how when you're trying to ask out a girl, you're not supposed to be too clingy or seem too desperate? Because desperation is a turn off to girls and guys alike. It makes people look weak and makes people inherently lose respect for them.

The problem probably isn't the woman or the boss being "asses" though, either way. First off, like I said before it's more likely that the whole thing is a misunderstanding, since most people aren't just mean to coworkers for fun. There are lots of rational explanations as to why this woman could be acting like this other than just being a bitch. It's a lot more productive to try and find one of those explanations rather than just writing her off all together, since there are workarounds for personality types and whatnot, but there's no workaround for someone just being a bitch.
Furthermore, it really does sound like the poster is having trouble asserting herself in general, not just in this specific case with these specific people. So, even if she settled this particular issue in some roundabout way, she'd still be easily angered and unable to express to people when she needs something in specific.


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

ujellyfish said:


> Doesn't sound like an ass to me, sounds like a rational boss. If heavy lifting is in the job description and I have someone working for me who complains about that, I'd probably lay them off too. Now on the contrary if they came to me calmly and rationally explaining that they have a little difficulty with heavy lifting, they could still do some but to please allow me to do the minimal amount of that as possible, then I'd be more willing to listen to them. That being said, some people would still fire people over this, so it's all a matter of priorities. If she's able to do the lifting, she probably should. If she's not then she'd be fired if she didn't ask anyway, so it's worth a shot.


If it's in her job description, then yeah, she could get fired. Or the boss could just give her the easier job when he has someone else who can do the job she can't. That should just be simple common sense. Now, if that other lady can't do it for some good reason, then fine. But her reasoning should be held up to the same standards as OP's reasoning would be.



ujellyfish said:


> You know how when you're trying to ask out a girl, you're not supposed to be too clingy or seem too desperate? Because desperation is a turn off to girls and guys alike. It makes people look weak and makes people inherently lose respect for them.


Yeah, how dare she not be capable of something. That makes it seem like people with physical deformities can't have relationships because they would need somebody for something. This is a different case, of course, but your statement is a generalization.



ujellyfish said:


> The problem probably isn't the woman or the boss being "asses" though, either way. First off, like I said before it's more likely that the whole thing is a misunderstanding, since most people aren't just mean to coworkers for fun. There are lots of rational explanations as to why this woman could be acting like this other than just being a bitch. It's a lot more productive to try and find one of those explanations rather than just writing her off all together, since there are workarounds for personality types and whatnot, but there's no workaround for someone just being a bitch.


As I said, she should talk to the 'bitchy' woman first and try to get the matter settled. If not, then she's a bitch. And yeah, you're right - there is no workaround to someone being that much of an ass.



ujellyfish said:


> Furthermore, it really does sound like the poster is having trouble asserting herself in general, not just in this specific case with these specific people. So, even if she settled this particular issue in some roundabout way, she'd still be easily angered and unable to express to people when she needs something in specific.


Unless it's part of her natural mindset, of course she would have difficulty. I know that to be assertive, I have to be willing to be more outspoken. Sure, I try to employ tact when my job (or something else important) is at stake. But does that mean that I let others walk all over me? No. I try to find out what the problem is and fix it. If I can't, then I try to adapt. And if I can't do that, then I leave and find something else.


----------



## ujellyfish (Apr 15, 2011)

NovaStar said:


> If it's in her job description, then yeah, she could get fired. Or the boss could just give her the easier job when he has someone else who can do the job she can't. That should just be simple common sense. Now, if that other lady can't do it for some good reason, then fine. But her reasoning should be held up to the same standards as OP's reasoning would be.


My point is, it is in her job description right now. Her boss may or may not have a use for someone who cannot preform this task, however especially in retail oriented jobs like working at a bookstore, one of the most important traits is usually their personality. Someone who becomes frantic without trying to work things out rationally is not the kind of person most people want to deal with on a day to day basis, and as the manager that person doesn't have to. And why deal with someone you don't want to if you don't have to?
Trying to use emotional appeals by being frantic will make her look lazy and manipulative rather than actually troubled, which will make her look unmotivated- not good traits in the eyes of a boss.
Even explaining her condition rationally leaves the risk of seeming lazy, but she's more likely to be taken seriously if she retains her composure.




NovaStar said:


> Yeah, how dare she not be capable of something. That makes it seem like people with physical deformities can't have relationships because they would need somebody for something. This is a different case, of course, but your statement is a generalization.


What? I was trying to make it clear to you that people lose respect for desperate seeming people. Girls don't date desperate guys most of the time because they seem like losers, and employers don't normally hire desperate employees for similar reasons. I never said anything about people with deformities and their relationships or anything of the sort... I am kind of curious how you jumped to this conclusion. 




NovaStar said:


> As I said, she should talk to the 'bitchy' woman first and try to get the matter settled. If not, then she's a bitch. And yeah, you're right - there is no workaround to someone being that much of an ass.


I'm talking about more than just talking though... obviously talk must be involved, but my point is that she should try to not see it as the woman being an ass and try to instead see it from the woman's perspective. The woman probably has valid points that she was coming from, and understanding them will make the talking part easier.
If you approach someone as impossible or bitchy or anything of the sort it's highly likely that nothing productive will come out of the talk- only hard feelings on both sides.




NovaStar said:


> Unless it's part of her natural mindset, of course she would have difficulty. I know that to be assertive, I have to be willing to be more outspoken. Sure, I try to employ tact when my job (or something else important) is at stake. But does that mean that I let others walk all over me? No. I try to find out what the problem is and fix it. If I can't, then I try to adapt. And if I can't do that, then I leave and find something else.


I'm not implying she should let people walk all over her. Quite the contrary. But, just because someone is taking advantage of her in some way doesn't mean she can't have dignity in the way she regards the issue. Tackling the issue head on and logically is much more productive and dignified in the long run than having an emotional breakdown at her boss and hoping that he'll leap to her rescue like your white knight advice implied. 


Isn't it funny how a feeling type is having to explain to a thinking type why a logical approach is more valid than an emotional approach?


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

ujellyfish said:


> My point is, it is in her job description right now. Her boss may or may not have a use for someone who cannot preform this task, however especially in retail oriented jobs like working at a bookstore, one of the most important traits is usually their personality. Someone who becomes frantic without trying to work things out rationally is not the kind of person most people want to deal with on a day to day basis, and as the manager that person doesn't have to. And why deal with someone you don't want to if you don't have to?
> Trying to use emotional appeals by being frantic will make her look lazy and manipulative rather than actually troubled, which will make her look unmotivated- not good traits in the eyes of a boss.
> Even explaining her condition rationally leaves the risk of seeming lazy, but she's more likely to be taken seriously if she retains her composure.


Actually, think about it - if she could get evidence from a certified doctor that she does indeed have carpal tunnel, the boss can factor that into his decision. Now, this other woman may not have had that sort of issue, as the OP stated herself. Therefore, if this other woman was capable of working at the later time, doing the same sort of task that he would have otherwise given to OP, why would he not assign her to it instead? Which explanation is better: "I just don't have time" or "I have carpal tunnel, and I also have proof from a doctor"?



ujellyfish said:


> What? I was trying to make it clear to you that people lose respect for desperate seeming people. Girls don't date desperate guys most of the time because they seem like losers, and employers don't normally hire desperate employees for similar reasons. I never said anything about people with deformities and their relationships or anything of the sort... I am kind of curious how you jumped to this conclusion.


I think we're both jumping to conclusions here. You're under the belief that this other woman has a good explanation for her actions, and that may be true (we don't have enough information to determine this one way or the other yet). However, if there IS no issue, then the problem is determining if firing an employee over a wrist problem is better than just assigning another in her place for the day? Wouldn't it be more logical to assign people to positions that they have strengths in, rather than just brushing them off and giving them the boot?



ujellyfish said:


> I'm talking about more than just talking though... obviously talk must be involved, but my point is that she should try to not see it as the woman being an ass and try to instead see it from the woman's perspective. The woman probably has valid points that she was coming from, and understanding them will make the talking part easier.
> If you approach someone as impossible or bitchy or anything of the sort it's highly likely that nothing productive will come out of the talk- only hard feelings on both sides.


Actually, I agree with this. However, it's important that the other woman knows how OP is feeling. Lying about one's feelings only leads to more issues (isn't it funny that I'm telling this to a Feeling-dominant?). It's important not to act on them so rashly, but it's also important not to ignore them. Listen to the other persons' points, determine their value, then decide what to do. If both can come up with a plan together, then all the more power to them. If not, then one of them is being too uncompromising - that needs to be dealt with somehow. A third party individual like the boss could deal with the issue once and for all.



ujellyfish said:


> I'm not implying she should let people walk all over her. Quite the contrary. But, just because someone is taking advantage of her in some way doesn't mean she can't have dignity in the way she regards the issue. Tackling the issue head on and logically is much more productive and dignified in the long run than having an emotional breakdown at her boss and hoping that he'll leap to her rescue like your white knight advice implied.


I do apologize that my post seemed to imply that. If you're better at understanding and expressing your feelings, you could probably express them in such a way that doesn't come off that desperate. To me, however, it would seem like desperation when one falls back on arguments of their Fi/Fe. That doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. I've come to understand that a strong user of Fi/Fe is more than capable of making valid arguments, but they rarely hold up to my stringent line of thinking (Ti). Therefore, I've been making a concentrated effort to try and understand how Fi/Fe-users can best wield their strengths.

INFPs have always been particularly good at making me feel bad for being so blunt, but I think it's a good thing that they DID make me feel bad. If they didn't, I wouldn't have learned to try and be more diplomatic in my dealings with other people. Over the internet here, I'm extremely blunt and cynical (must have something to do with anonymity), but in the real world, I always play off my shadow-auxiliary Fe.



ujellyfish said:


> Isn't it funny how a feeling type is having to explain to a thinking type why a logical approach is more valid than an emotional approach?


You didn't have to explain anything. I was focused on what you should do if the other woman DIDN'T have any valid excuse. I'm also more focused on weighing both explanations and determining which one is more important. If the OP is correct and the other woman has no excuse, then she has all the right in the world to feel a need to discuss it with her boss. You may not buy into the White Knight Syndrome, but I can assure you, it's true for many men. Even if you weren't being desperate, he's more likely to sympathize with you than another man. I think there were some studies on that subject... I'll have to see if I can find them in my massive list of internet bookmarks. I'll also remember to bring up the subject with my Sociology professor.


----------



## ujellyfish (Apr 15, 2011)

Okay so there are two glaring problems here. The first is that it really doesn't matter whether the other woman is more suited for the job. In the working world, especially in the low wage working world where there aren't degrees and certifications and internships and whatnot to judge the fit of a worker to the establishment, flexibility and a strong work ethic are pretty much all you have. It's not about whether the other woman is able to do the other job, in fact it has nothing to do with the other woman at all. All it has to do with is the poster and her ability to communicate her own needs, and if there is leeway then after that her wants, without getting fired by compromising her flexibility or work ethic in the eyes of her boss.

The second major issue with your arguments above is that you've suddenly switched boats and are now basically arguing my point- which is she should deal with this situation in a mature fashion by directly communicating whatever she needs to communicate rationally. The fact that you think the boss will respond more positively because she's female, which is kind of a bullshit thing to rely on anyway, is irrelevant to this.

Let me remind you that your own words were that she should "explain [her] situation frantically to him".

I won't even get too deep into the fact that your original statement was pretty sexist, by implying that it's egotistical of a woman to think she can have power over her professional life without using her sex appeal to get it.

Anyway, you've more or less agreed with me and I've more or less proven you wrong, even though you won't come out and say it so I believe my work here is done.
This argument is belittling the bigger problem anyway, which has nothing to do with her work at all, but rather with her own attitude towards people who upset her and her inability to communicate things that are bothering her.


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

ujellyfish said:


> Okay so there are two glaring problems here. The first is that it really doesn't matter whether the other woman is more suited for the job. In the working world, especially in the low wage working world where there aren't degrees and certifications and internships and whatnot to judge the fit of a worker to the establishment, flexibility and a strong work ethic are pretty much all you have. It's not about whether the other woman is able to do the other job, in fact it has nothing to do with the other woman at all. All it has to do with is the poster and her ability to communicate her own needs, and if there is leeway then after that her wants, without getting fired by compromising her flexibility or work ethic in the eyes of her boss.


And that's why we're disagreeing. I'm seeing the other woman as the source of the problem that needs to be dealt with, while you're seeing the OP as needing to deal with herself. We're both right in this case, but by ignoring the fact that the other woman may herself have an issue, you're ignoring the potentiality for this to be a bigger issue than you think it is. That said, I admit I could be blowing it out of proportion, but she needs to check and see if this is the case with the other woman first.



ujellyfish said:


> The second major issue with your arguments above is that you've suddenly switched boats and are now basically arguing my point- which is she should deal with this situation in a mature fashion by directly communicating whatever she needs to communicate rationally. The fact that you think the boss will respond more positively because she's female, which is kind of a bullshit thing to rely on anyway, is irrelevant to this.
> 
> Let me remind you that your own words were that she should "explain [her] situation frantically to him".
> 
> I won't even get too deep into the fact that your original statement was pretty sexist, by implying that it's egotistical of a woman to think she can have power over her professional life without using her sex appeal to get it.


I've grown too cynical over the years with society. Pardon me for making a suggestion that the majority do seem to be doing.

Now, on the topic of 'switching boats', how am I doing that? You were arguing a point that I agreed with in part - she needs to focus on figuring out what the other woman wants. However, my argument was if that should FAIL. I should have cleared that up in my post, I admit, but I forget to be specific sometimes.



ujellyfish said:


> Anyway, you've more or less agreed with me and I've more or less proven you wrong, even though you won't come out and say it so I believe my work here is done.
> This argument is belittling the bigger problem anyway, which has nothing to do with her work at all, but rather with her own attitude towards people who upset her and her inability to communicate things that are bothering her.


If you don't deal with the smaller problem first, how can you deal with the bigger problems? I don't think I'm belittling the bigger problem by suggesting she learn how to deal with the smaller problems first. I admit, my suggestion was more sarcastic and cynical, but I don't argue in terms of 'ethics'. If it was offensive, I'll apologize but not retract my statement. White Knight Syndrome is a common element of men who want to be noble: Amy Winehouse and White Knight Syndrome In my experience, it's more common than you seem to believe - your beliefs, however, fail to stand up to my experiences. This is where we're failing to agree, besides the fact that we're also arguing ethics.

I admit, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But it's funny that you seem to think this is some sort of competition or game. This is a serious debate in which the goal is to reach a conclusion for what she should do to handle the issue next time it comes up. If your job was to 'defeat me' in a 'game', I recommend just taking me on in a game of chess or something more interpersonal.

If you believe my statement was sexist, then I'll apologize. It honestly wasn't meant to come off as sexist in any way. I also never said anything about 'sex appeal', not based on the normal definition of it. Go take a class in evolutionary psychology and see how this works. Most men are naturally more inclined to just help a woman he sees in distress, especially if he's down on his luck. Now, I admit, it sounds really dickish to go off and manipulate someone's emotions like that. However, I would get desperate myself if I was about to lose my job. Besides, it's not like I'm suggesting she go and sleep with the manager - I'm suggesting she try to garner sympathy. There's absolutely nothing wrong or demeaning about that, and heterosexual men are more naturally inclined to react to that need when it comes from a woman.


----------



## voicetrocity (Mar 31, 2012)

This is going to be kind of hard for me to put into words; since I'm naturally assertive, this hasn't been an issue for me all that much. 

First: You need to keep an open communication between you and your boss/manager/whomever else does the schedule. If there's something you can't do or that will cause you physical pain after awhile, you NEED to be open about that kind of stuff; I know that any boss I had would have been more receptive to keeping a schedule in place and would have defended me if they were aware I would be uncomfortable doing a certain task after a period of time. 

Secondly: You stated you HEARD your boss say that it was ok, *if the change had been agreed upon between the both of you*. There was no discussion or agreement- you, at that point, had every right to explain to your coworker that you didn't agree to the change and if they had some issues with it, that you would call the boss and discuss it between the three of you. I don't think this response is any more assumptive than what your coworker did to you. They went over your head (with or without malice), and you have every right to go over theirs in return. 

You have arthritis, you're an asset to your employer through helping with a move and have every F-in right to have a relaxing shift, if that was the original plan. You don't have to raise your voice or anything, just say how you feel. 

I very much recommend that you make some time to chat with your boss. Explain the situation and ask that any decisions made, pertaining to your schedule be discussed with you before being enacted (or, if they have any suggestions for handling this kind of situation in the future). Explain how the situation made you feel, and how there really wasn't much opportunity in the way of you being able to be heard.


----------



## Subtle Murder (May 19, 2012)

Thank you so much, everyone, for your responses. There have definitely been some very eye-opening opinions on the matter, and I'm taking all of them into consideration as to how I will deal with this sort of thing in future. I feel I might need to clarify a few things, though. 

The company I work for is both a bookstore and a convenience store. It just so happens that, in the particular location I was hired for, the bookstore and convenience store are separate entities (in other locations they are one store). I was hired for the bookstore, not the convenience store. I also _always_ inform my potential employers of my arthritis because I don't want them to expect me to be able to perform tasks I am otherwise unable to perform. My boss (a woman, by the way) is well aware of my arthritis. During our set up of one of our new stores, she continually told me to take it easy with the heavy lifting because she could see that I was over-doing it a little bit (I am incredibly aware of feeling useless at work as a result of my back problems, and I do what I can to show that I am capable of performing on the job, but I have my limits and my limits were reached after spending a week doing 12 hour shifts trying to get the new store in order). 

To continue, I wasn't hired for the convenience store. There's nothing in my job description (as a bookseller) that says I am required to do heavy lifting. In fact, we have people who work in our warehouse (a storage container downstairs) who do the heavy lifting for us. They bring the stock into the store and put it away. As a bookseller, my main job is to focus on maintaining the store and dealing with customers. Just for reference, the girl I had the issue with is one such person who works in the warehouse (being that we have three locations, it's not uncommon for staff to swap around and cover other people's shifts, which explains why she was in the bookstore that night). As far as I know, this girl doesn't have any pre-existing back conditions, and it is also part of her job agreement that she lifts heavy things as she's in the warehouse all day shifting stock and sorting through books. 

My suspicion as to why she did what she did is this: she doesn't like the other woman who was rostered to work at the convenience store that night. She didn't want to work with her, and she didn't want to work in the convenience store as it's not a book-related job and she didn't want to have to actually do anything (the convenience store, in comparison to our bookstore counterpart, is *insane*. It is consistently busy, stock needs to be tidied throughout the shift, the fridge constantly needs to be stocked and tidied, same with the magazine racks etc). I understand how she feels. I've consistently had the same thoughts when asked to work in our convenience store: "_that's not what I signed up for_". But as an employee of that particular _company_, I do what they ask of me. I understand that what she did wasn't because of any malicious reasons or to specifically cause hurt. Her reasons were purely selfish, which is why I got upset. I knew she wasn't thinking of how I felt in the situation purely because of her own desire to stay away from the woman working at the convenience store, and to avoid working in there at all as it's not her prefered job situation. 

My boss knows how hard I work, she knows how enthusiastic I am about the job, and she knows how driven I am to make sales and accomplish our set budgets for the week. I'm valuable to her regardless of my capacity to lift heavy boxes, so I'm not too worried about being fired for being unable to perform those tasks (despite performing them anyway, against the recommendation of my doctor who said I shouldn't lift heavy things). 

Asserting myself is definitely something I have struggled with. In my earlier years, I would just lash out at people and make a huge fuss until I got my way. Obviously, time and experience taught me that that is not how you handle these situations. Instead, I looked inward and tried to figure out how I could adapt to the situation. This has kind of become my default setting. "Oh look, this is a shitty situation. I'm not happy with this! Looks like I'm going to have to change my expectations/compromise my feelings once again!". I do understand the benefits of doing this when there's nothing else you can do with the situation. I'm not doubting the effectiveness of this quality. My main thing is that I can't get a good balance between what I want out of the situation versus knowing when to just shut up and nut up, and move on. And part of that is because of the knee-jerk reactions. I'm an incredibly reactive person. And I think this is why I continually have this inner battle where I react to something, then react to myself reacting to something, then automatically tell myself I'm being an idiot and should just readjust my expectations and stop causing a fuss, and then end up harboring anger for not being able to just stand up and say: "No, this isn't what I want." (My brain, what a wonderful place to be! ) It's an infinite cycle that I'm having a problem breaking. 

As to this particular situation, I've let it go. I'm not angry about it anymore because I understand that it was partly my fault for not saying anything, and that the next time this pops up I just have to be more vocal about my wants/needs (especially if they're related to my health, as I absolutely do not want to compromise my health for a couple of extra dollars). I'm just struggling with actually getting to a point where I feel comfortable saying: "Wait a minute, I want to talk about this". I don't like conflict and I tend to just assume the other person is going to get angry with me for speaking up and lash out at me (which might actually be why I get emotional from the get-go, so as to try and combat/prepare myself for any emotional reactions from them... hmm, interesting. I think it might be partly that and partly the internal process of feeling versus thinking). 

Just to respond to some specific points:



ujellyfish said:


> If I were in her situation, I'd probably be thinking, doing it this way makes more sense, since there's less back and fourth.


I think if she had approached it that way and said: "Hey listen, I was thinking that all of this jumping back and forth is a bit exhausting. How about you stay over there for the duration of your shift, and I'll stay here", I might have been more inclined to listen (though, to be quite honest, with the state of exhaustion I was in, it's likely I would have said no anyway). She just suggested it out of thin air, and despite my saying: "Look, boss told me x, y, z" she went ahead and steamrolled me into doing what she wanted anyway. That was pretty much what I reacted to. In this situation, I made Boss her obstacle. Once she'd cleared that obstacle, she thought she was home free. If it had been the other way around and I'd noticed she'd thrown an obstacle in my way, I would have just dropped it altogether and left the situation as is. But, I guess I need to stop assuming that people will read these cues like I do. XD;; I should have been more direct and just said: "Sorry, I'm exhausted and would rather take on the calmer shift for the evening" (which, ugh, I totally need to work on). 



ujellyfish said:


> try not to bring up your arthritis as an excuse of why you don't want to do such and such work. It's valid, yes, but it's unprofessional. If you start trying to appeal to people about how much pain you are in, whether you're intending for it to come off like that or not, people will start wondering, if she's not cut out for this job, then what are we doing paying her for it?


I think I absolutely have to bring up my condition, because my arthritis is getting worse as a result of my not wanting to admit that I might be limited in this area. It started in my lower back and has now worked its way up to the middle of my spine. I don't really want to be a cripple by the age of 30.  As I clarified above, my boss is very much aware of my arthritis, and was very careful about me lifting boxes during the opening of our new location. So she's not altogether insensitive to it.  She values me as an employee because I have good knowledge of the books, a good rapport with the customers, and I am able to drive sales. She also knew of my arthritis before she employed me, so she'd have no leg to stand on if that was her grounds for firing me.  To be fair, most of my co-workers have been quite good about my back problem. It's me who stubbornly insists upon lifting heavy things, despite them saying they will do it. Maybe this is why some of them might have the impression that I have no issue with lifting heavy things. I have to start being a bit more self-preserving and say "no". 



NovaStar said:


> Bah, if your boss is a heterosexual man and I was a woman, I'd just call him up and explain my situation frantically to him. He'll most likely feel sorry and react off of the old 'White Knight Syndrome', getting you your shift.


I know exactly what you're talking about. I've experienced this before, and I don't really like to do this. I pride myself in being a reasonably strong woman. The idea of running to a man to fix my problems for me... it just doesn't sit well with me. I thanked your post because I'm thanking you for your feedback, despite not necessarily agreeing with it.  I do appreciate your feedback nonetheless (and the subsequent posts, which have been very interesting to read).


----------

