Go to https://ground.news/mapmen to get the world's news in one place, compare coverage, and be better informed. Subscribe through our link for 40% off unlimited access.
Why did Google Maps have a big black smudge before 2012? And why did it disappear? And what does it have to do with Captain Cook? And what is a phantom island?
NOVA SCOTIA/NEW BRUNSWICK BORDER – Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has met with far-right extremists camped out on the border between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for the purpose of workshopping conspiracies for the summer season. “It was a heck of a road trip, but I just had to visit my Tinfoil Hat Bros for advice […]
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
A reader writes:
I work at a small nonprofit and recently the employee with the longest institutional knowledge just left her position because of the years of abuse, micromanagement, and overwork she endured.
Now, the executive director is trying to set up an all-staff meeting with a “spiritualist” so that she can figure out why there has been so much negative energy in the building. Setting aside the issue that she will find any way to avoid responsibility for her bad behavior, I feel deeply offended that I’m being required to attend a consultation and a subsequent “cleansing.” I don’t have a connection with this sort of spiritual practice and it feels unethical to require staff attendance, but is it illegal?
Best,
Disgruntled Nonprofit Employee Attempting to Leave a Toxic Work Environment
Yes! Or rather, it would be illegal if they refused to let you opt out if you frame it as a religious accommodation.
Say this: “My religious tradition doesn’t permit me to participate in that, so I will not be attending.”
Religious accommodations apply to lack of faith as well as faith, by the way. Legally, your employer cannot require you to participate in someone else’s religious or spiritual ritual/observance/practice if it’s contrary to your own bona fide religious beliefs or lack thereof.
If you’re told your boss wants you there anyway, say this: “We can’t legally require that and could get in trouble for trying to.” If you need to cite the law, it’s Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Caveat: that law only applies to organizations with 15 or more employees, although some states have laws that kick in at lower numbers. If you’re not covered … well, honestly, you might try it anyway because your boss sounds clueless enough that she might not figure that out. Otherwise, just call in sick.
Following the arrest of 100 Columbia University students, dozens more pro-Palestinian protests have sprung up across the country, even as the school year winds to a close. What do you think?
Last week, the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted to advance the Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act, or the Pro Codes Act (H.R. 1631), to the full House. The bill would extend copyright protection to codes (such as building codes) that are developed by standards development organizations (SDOs) and incorporated by reference into local, state, and federal laws, as long as the SDOs make the codes “available to the public free of charge online in a manner that does not substantially disrupt the ability of those organizations to earn revenue.”
This is the latest development in a long-running battle between SDOs and public interest groups that have posted online standards incorporated by reference. SDOs have sued these public interest groups for copyright infringement, and the public interest groups have argued that once the standards are incorporated by reference, they lose their copyright protection. The public interest groups have argued in the alternative that the fair use right permits the online posting of the standards. The courts have ruled in favor of the public interest groups on the fair use theory without addressing the protectability argument. The Pro Codes Act seeks to foreclose the protectability argument without directly implicating the fair use theory.
The SDOs supporting the Pro Codes Act assert that it would increase access to the law by incentivizing the SDOs to provide online “reading rooms” where the public could read the standards incorporated by reference. However, such reading rooms are unnecessary because public interest groups already provide free online access to the standards in more usable formats. As Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), stated: “This legislation is a solution in search of a problem: at least one public interest organization is already providing much better access to the law, also for free, with no financial impact on the standard organizations.” In 2023, McSherry successfully represented Public.Resource.Org in ASTM v. Public.Resource.Org, where the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that fair use permitted Public.Resource.Org to post online codes incorporated by reference because it served a nonprofit, educational purpose.
During last week’s markup of the Pro Codes Act, Representative Zoe Lofgren introduced dozens of amendments to improve the bill, one of which would codify the ASTM precedent established by the DC Circuit. Unfortunately, the committee rejected this amendment. (In fact, the committee voted down all of Lofgren’s amendments, except for one that would require the Government Accountability Office to study the effects of the bill.)
Rep. Lofgren also entered into the record an opposition letter in which a coalition of libraries, civil society, disability rights groups, and others argue that providing free access to the law furthers the fundamental purpose of copyright, which is to allow public access to knowledge. Some of the letter’s signers also made this point in an amicus brief in ASTM v. Public.Resource.Org:
The Copyright Act ultimately aims to achieve the constitutional goal to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art 1, cl. 8, sec. 8.
During last week’s markup, some members of the House Judiciary Committee displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. Proponents of Pro Codes claimed that the bill would strike a balance between copyright law and public access to information. But copyright law and access to information are not in tension; facilitating access to information is the constitutional purpose of copyright, as the library and civil society groups wrote in their brief in support of Public.Resource.Org.
Some members of the committee tried to parse standards incorporated by reference from other elements of the law. But as Rep. Lofgren rightly noted, in 2020 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “government edicts doctrine” that works created by government officials in the course of their official duties are not copyrightable. Accordingly, when a work is incorporated by reference into an official government document it has the force of law and belongs in the public domain. In 2019, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) filed an amicus brief in State of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org asking the Supreme Court to affirm this reasoning, and explaining how libraries rely on the government edicts doctrine to preserve and provide access to the cultural record, including all elements of the law.
Another flawed argument by lawmakers at the Pro Codes markup is that standards incorporated by reference is an unfair “taking” of the SDOs’ copyrights under the Fifth Amendment. As the lawmakers’ argument goes, governments must compensate property owners when they take over private property for public use under eminent domain; similarly, the government should extend copyright to the SDOs in exchange for the use of their standards. But this analogy falls apart because there is no reluctance on the part of the SDOs for the adoption of their standards; in fact, the SDOs actively lobby governments to adopt their standards.
A related argument by supporters of the Pro Codes Act is that the SDOs provide a valuable service, and therefore they deserve a revenue stream in exchange for their contribution to the public good. But copyright law does not grant copyright to reward hard work (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). Further, the DC Circuit Court found that although Public.Resource.Org has been posting incorporated standards for 15 years, “the plaintiffs have been unable to produce any economic analysis showing that Public Resource’s activity has harmed any relevant market for their standards. To the contrary, ASTM’s sales have increased over that time.” The SDOs can also derive significant revenue from selling training materials and programs. SDOs do not need a copyright incentive; the development of standards advances the economic interests of their members.
Additionally, Rep. Lofgren pointed out that, in 2020, the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org found constitutional limits to legislatures’ ability to expand copyright. Chief Justice Roberts stated “no one can own the law” and reaffirmed that if “every citizen is presumed to know the law, … it needs no argument to show … that all should have free access” to its contents. Pro Codes would be unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments, which guarantee the public’s rights to read, share, and discuss the law.
It is worth noting that several House Judiciary Committee members made nearly identical arguments in favor of the bill, and I assume the standards development organizations circulated talking points in advance of the markup. We know that passing the Pro Codes Act is a major legislative priority for the SDOs.
ARL and our fellow advocates are disappointed that the Pro Codes Act will advance to the House, particularly since the House did not hold a hearing on the bill. We remain grateful to Representative Lofgren, who has defended copyright law against overprotection for decades.
Katherine Klosek is the Director of Information Policy and Federal Relations at the Association of Research Libraries. This post originally appeared on the ARL’s site.
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. My coworker is bitter that I wouldn’t play a game with her
I (19M) am a college student with a single source of income. Before my shift today, my coworker (18F) sent me a Game Pigeon text out of nowhere. I sort of went along with it, we went back and forth with Cup Pong a few times, and then I started my shift at work. I assumed it was okay to leave the game unfinished until I got off of my shift, but my coworker kept trying to distract me and get me to finish the game. I feel it’s perfectly reasonable to patiently wait to finish a Game Pigeon game until later, but apparently she didn’t share that conviction. She got increasingly irritable the entire shift, even at one point going as far as trying to call me and then leaving a succinct voicemail with just two biting words: “fuck you.” This was the final straw for me and when I decided I was going to draw the line in the sand. I made it clear to her that I wasn’t going to finish the game until I got off work. I politely informed her that I would get off at 11 and that we could continue the game then.
She proceeded to harass me throughout the entire shift and made it clear that I was no longer a friend to her, just a coworker. It was so bad at the end of the night that she wouldn’t even speak to me. I tried to say bye in a cheery voice and she just gave me a blank stare, her lips pursed as she glared at me. I tried a few more times to lighten the mood, but it was clear that she wasn’t gonna bite. She then left and now I just feel bad. Am I the a**hole?
No. Your coworker is a petulant child.
2. Older employees give me basic life reminders
I am a relatively younger manager (early 30s) and keep running into a minor issue when I manage people older than me — they keep giving me advice and reminders like I am not a capable person. For example, when planning a big cross-country move, one gave me unsolicited advice on the best way to pack and lift a box (!). Today, a person I manage reminded me that I need to file my taxes or get an extension if I am not ready (they were done weeks ago).
Answering the question in good faith rubs me the wrong way because I wouldn’t even like this type of “advice” from my mom, but I also don’t want to be abrasive about such innocuous comments. I don’t have any issues with them following my instructions or adhering to my decisions, so it feels silly to be fixated on this, but I also don’t want my colleagues to think I need basic concepts like “file your taxes on time” explained to me.
I would love a script or advice on what to say next time so I don’t accidentally blurt that I have been a grown adult for several years now and don’t need another parent.
Are you a woman and was the box-lifting advice from a man? Because you might not ever cure them of that. But you can try with a dry, “I’ve moved before, thank you” or “I’m good with that stuff, but thanks.”
With the tax-filing advice and similar topics, it might be interesting to think about how you’d respond if the comment came from someone your own age or younger. If someone younger than me reminded me about taxes, it would probably feel more camaraderie-ish than parental — more like “ugh, taxes are due for all of us / have you filed yet / I’m still working on mine” and less like a parental reminder. But even if it’s clear they don’t mean it that way, you could try responding as if they did — “I did mine last month, have you done yours yet?” And responding as a peer might reinforce to them that you are not in fact a child in need of guidance.
If it’s not possible to respond like that because the advice or their manner is so infantilizing, sometimes the most effective thing is to allow your face to pointedly convey “what an odd thing to say” and/or to dryly respond, “I’ve got it covered.”
3. My employee smells bad
I have a team member who has some pretty bad BO (body odor). I’ve had a conversation about it with her, and, without prompting from me, two other team members have politely mentioned it to her. Both times she said she’s had Covid and couldn’t smell much, but also swears she used deodorant and cologne. I even had gotten a new stick of deodorant and put in a drawer I keep hair spray and a few other such things in and told her it was in there if she needed it, just in case it was a financial issue. She said she had sensitive skin and couldn’t use that kind.
Now, I would think that once someone has told you that you stink, you would be mortified and make it a point to handle it, and if not after the first, the second time!? Everyone says she has really bad BO and one other team member in particular is very upset at working with her like that. I hate to write up or fire someone for BO, but what else to do? Is it an offense worthy of such?
It’s reasonable for you as an employer to set baseline expectations that people will show up at work clean and not smelling of body odor so extreme that multiple coworkers have complained. So it’s time for another conversation. This time say something like: “We’ve spoken about this before but it’s continued to be a problem. You might need to wash your clothes more frequently or shower more often, or it might be something medical that you should speak to a doctor about. I know you mentioned you were unaware of it previously, but this time I do need you to see what you can do about it.”
(Obviously if she informs you that there’s a medical reason for the problem, that changes the situation. But unless that happens, it’s reasonable to expect her to come to work with appropriate hygiene.)
4. Manager recorded training role-plays without employees’ knowledge
My husband works for a large company at a location managed by Bryan. Bryan isn’t his supervisor or in his reporting line, but he does have the ability to assign him some tasks and can make some decisions that affect my husband as an employee based out of that location. However, all of the other employees at this location are directly supervised by Bryan. He has made some odd management decisions in the past, but nothing especially egregious until last week.
All employees at this location went through a training session with corporate HR and Bryan. They were paired with another employee to act out scenarios in front of Bryan with the HR person joining remotely over Teams on Bryan’s laptop. After everyone had completed the training, Bryan sent out a link to a recording with everyone’s session. No one taking the training had any idea that they were recorded. Some folks have tentatively raised this issue with Byran, but he doesn’t seem to get that this was inappropriate.
People are understandably upset. We live in a one-party consent state, meaning that nothing illegal has occurred from what we can tell. Even so, my husband is surprised that Bryan wouldn’t realize the implications of recording employees without their knowledge. The presence of an HR person over Teams makes this particularly baffling, since they would have received a notification on their screen that it was being recorded. My husband plans to let his own supervisor know what occurred since she works closely with Bryan’s supervisor. Are we correct in thinking that Bryan did something wrong here? And is there a better way to elevate the concerns of employees in this location, given the fact that HR may have known that people were recorded without their consent?
Yes. You don’t record people role-playing without their knowledge. It would be reasonable to ask HR for a clearer policy on recording, one that at a minimum ensures anyone participating in a meeting or training session is aware when something is being recorded. (Ensuring you have everyone’s consent can be more complicated in a work situation since sometimes people’s discomfort with recording is trumped by business needs— but at a minimum people should be informed and have the opportunity to raise concerns if they have them.)
Your husband could also ask that the recording be deleted since it was made without people’s knowledge or consent, but I’d be more concerned about ensuring Bryan is told it was inappropriate and that it won’t happen again.
5. Wearing a swimsuit around coworkers
I just came back from a week of travel out of state for work. Typically when I travel to this location, there are many people from my company who stay at the same hotel so the odds of running into one of your other traveling coworkers around breakfast, in the gym, in the elevator, or at the bar at night is pretty high.
However, this week while I was at said hotel, I was walking by the pool and I thought how nice it would be to go for a swim that evening after all work events and obligations were complete. I did not have my suit with me anyway, but then started to wonder if it would even be appropriate to go for a swim? As mentioned above, the chances of running into someone you work with (including your own manager) in the elevator is pretty high. Assuming that you wouldn’t be walking around the hotel in JUST your swimming suit (wearing a coverup or something), is it appropriate to go swimming (or use the hot tub) while on a work trip?
Yes. Just like it’s not inappropriate for coworkers to see you wearing gym clothes in the gym, it’s not inappropriate to be spotted wearing swimwear in the pool. You’re wearing the right clothing for the occasion.
TAOS, NM—Returning the snacks to the cupboard a few bites before everything in his life would have fallen into place, local man Mario Rossi stopped one Oreo short of successfully eating away all of his problems, sources reported Wednesday. “Well, I’ve certainly had enough of those,” the 35-year-old said to himself,…
VATICAN—Their excitement reaching a fever pitch as they awaited the supreme pontiff’s appearance for a papal audience, a wild St. Peter’s Basilica crowd grew increasingly fired up Wednesday as they tossed around inflatable crucifixes, Holy See sources confirmed. “Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy…
Researchers combing through a server based in North Korea found animation work for Amazon’s Invincible and Max’s Iyanu: Child of Wonder, including log files that suggest animators in China further outsourced the work to North Korea, unbeknownst to the American companies. What do you think?
PARADISE, NV—Expressing bewilderment at the utter lack of spectacle during the jam band’s four-night run in the state-of-the-art entertainment arena, disappointed Phish fans confirmed this week that they were really expecting more from the Sphere’s visuals than a projection of the group’s website URL. “Given what a…
MIDDLETOWN, OH—Shocked by the trove of mysterious compositions, household sources revealed Wednesday that a bench near the piano had been secretly hiding several books about music. “My God—ragtime classics, Disney favorites, A Charlie Brown Christmas—does anyone else know about this?” said one source, marveling over…
Here at Weird Sisters Soups & Brines, our top priority has always been to prepare nourishing, ready-to-eat soups, enjoyable alone or with the whole clan. After a long day with kinsmen slaughtering foes in an odorous peat bog, there’s nothing like returning to the sod hut and forgetting all your toils and troubles over a bubbling bowl of Weird Sisters Soup. Filled with the eye of newt and chunks of frog toes our customers have come to savor, our soups are always sure to beguile you.
But we at Weird Sisters also understand that we have a responsibility to adhere to the values of society, even when that society consists of grown men running around disguised as forests. While our soups do include blood from a sow that hath eaten her nine farrow, Weird Sisters strongly condemns bloodshed in principle and treachery generally.
With this in mind, we would like to offer our sincere regret for having retained Macbeth as our company spokeslord.
We first hailed Lord Macbeth as the face of Weird Sisters Soups after he, with brandish’d steel, carv’d out his passage against our foes. When thence King Duncan bestowed upon Macbeth a new title, we immediately seized upon a golden marketing opportunity by signing him as: “Macbeth, Thane of Chowdor.”
In our defense, Macbeth’s taste for beheading was limited at the time to rebels from Western Isles and Norweyan lords, which tracked positively among clansmen 18–32.
Despite the suspicious and rather murder-y death of King Duncan, we saw no warning signs that Macbeth, now himself king, was in any way unstable. Thus, screwing our courage to the sticking place and investing heavily in billboards, we furthered our alliance by rolling out our limited-edition Weird Sisters Soup—Macbroth.
It should be pointed out that, throughout what, in retrospect, was a campaign of conspiracy and murder, Macbeth continued to meet his contractual obligations in a professional manner. In fact, Macbeth was integral in the creative process and was helpful in providing such content as “Is this a ladle I see before me? Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, I sup on soup!” and “Whenever my soul is too much charg’d with blood, I relax with a steaming bowl of Weird Sisters’ Gall of Goat, now with even more nose of Turk!”
Was the slogan “M’m! M’m! Dead!” going too far? We realize now it was, and we regret this decision to capitalize on Macbeth’s increasing notoriety and insatiable bloodlust. We could find excuses by saying we have eaten on the insane root that takes the reason prisoner, but in truth, we were thrilled by skyrocketing brand recognition for Banquo Bisque.
We realize now that this was not in keeping with our company’s core values. Rest assured, we have listened to our customers and severed ties with Macbeth, much as Macbeth’s head hath lately severed ties with his body.
Furthermore, we are proud to announce that Weird Sisters Soups has established the Macduff Family Foundation for Not Murdering Brethren and Their Bairns.
We look forward to putting this tragedy behind us, and we hope our loyal customers will continue to enjoy such new Weird Sisters offerings as Malcolm Minestrone and Hot-and-Siward Soup.
Weird Sisters Soups & Brines: By the pricking of our thumbs, something wicked good this way comes!
New book coming this Fall! Pre-order today. Featuring over 200 pages—including 32 pages of brand new comics—Hope it All Works Out! contains all your favorite Mouse and friends comics, along with a selection of my best material from the past few years. In stores September 24!
NEW YORK—Violating the judge’s order prohibiting the former president from killing his one-time fixer, Donald Trump was held in contempt of court Tuesday after stabbing Michael Cohen to death with a ballpoint pen. “Given the defendant’s willful and repeated refusal to comply with this court’s instruction not to shank…
Taylor Swift’s latest album The Tortured Poets Department dropped Friday, immediately breaking streaming records on Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Music with 300 million streams in its first day. What do you think?
This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.
A reader writes:
I genuinely don’t understand how folks deal with the overwhelming guilt of taking time off work. I’ve had this problem since I started working right out of college, and it’s persisted through multiple job and industry changes and multiple PTO policies — from seven days to unlimited — in my over 15 years of work. During Covid, my workplace was understaffed and very strict with travel and PTO, and I felt too guilty to leave even when my grandparents were dying from Covid or when my best friend wanted me to be maid of honor at her wedding. I will never get those experiences back, and I made that sacrifice for a retail job I hated — I had no passion for it, I was a very small cog in the wheel, and I quit as soon as I found something else! (Thankfully, I’m at a job I love now, largely due to your advice.)
As much as I regret every day missing those experiences, the guilt of missing work is so strong that I still find it incredibly hard to take time off even for huge life events or catastrophes, and I delay small things as much as possible to try to stave off some of the guilt. For example, my doctors want me to have surgery that I know would vastly improve my quality of life, but I feel so guilty about taking time off I’ve put it off for over a year. When I do take time off — like my honeymoon last year — I wake up every day with tears in my eyes from guilt and feel sick to my stomach from not working.
I’ve never returned to a work crisis; at every job, there have been people to cover for me. But I can’t stop feeling incredibly guilty for missing work. My parents always say it’s a normal part of having a job, but I don’t want to spend my whole life feeling this guilty all the time. I have never come back to work “relaxed” or “refreshed,” and I’m currently dealing with some burnout because of it. I know I need time off, but I don’t want to spend it feeling worse than I currently do due to the guilt.
I wrote back and asked, “If you had to break the guilt down, what do you feel guilty over exactly? Be as specific as you can — it will help us sort through this.”
It was tough to boil it down, but I know I wouldn’t be able to afford to live if I didn’t have a job. And I don’t just mean fun things like trips and hobbies, I wouldn’t be able to afford food, housing, or other basic necessities. Any time I’m not working during work hours, I feel extremely guilty for taking advantage of my company. I know it’s part of my compensation — just like the money I need to live, but I also know no one would ever complain if I didn’t take any days off (especially since we have a no minimum “unlimited” days off policy). And I definitely hear folks complain about people who take too much time off (and those people are always first on the list for layoffs!).
I’m 1000% more relaxed in the evenings after work or on the weekends than I ever am on a vacation. I know that I put in enough work to have earned my weekends/evenings off, but I’m not able to complete enough work to ever feel like I’ve earned a full day off, much less a week. I feel like if I was just able to do two weeks of work in one, I could take a week off guilt-free without passing all my unfinished stuff to my team. It typically takes two people to fill in for me while I’m out, one of which has to be pulled off of his regular duties completely, so I know me being gone is costly for the company. If I cost too much, take too much time off, or become too inconvenient, why keep me on?
I’m not just feeling guilty for costing the company money but even more so for putting my family’s life and livelihood in danger for relaxation.
You opened by asking how other people deal with the overwhelming guilt of taking time off work, and the first thing to know is: most people don’t feel this way! The intensity of your feelings on this is vastly outside the normal range of how people feel about time off. So there’s something more going on than just a work issue.
But to address the work side of it:
Good managers and good companies want you to take time off. I want people who work for me to take time off because I want them be able to disconnect and come back refreshed — because people do better work when they’re not exhausted and burned out. People see things with fresh eyes and come up with better, more creative ideas when they get fully away from work sometimes (and not just for a couple of days on the weekend, but for a good, long break — at least a week and ideally two). I also want people who work for me to take time off because having you gone means I can better spot where the holes are — where we need cross-training, where we’re at risk of disaster if you ever got hit by a bus or seriously ill because no one knows how to access the X resource or what the deal is with the Y project.
You asked why your company would keep you on if you take time off. That is a really bizarre way to look at it! Your company assumes you’ll take time off, just like they assume you’ll cash your paychecks — it’s built into your compensation, it’s built into their business model, and they’re planning on it. It might be inconvenient to pay you too, but they do it because that’s an utterly routine, non-remarkable, necessary and expected part of how employment works. No one is contemplating replacing a good employee because they take a normal amount of PTO. It would make no sense to do that, because their replacement will also take a normal amount of PTO.
As for people needing to cover for you when you’re gone and getting pulled off other duties: same thing here. That’s a normal part of how this works. If your company is so short-staffed that it’s a disaster when someone’s out, that’s on your company — they’re not staffed appropriately. But it doesn’t even sound like disasters are happening; it sounds like people get pulled in to cover in a very standard, non-remarkable way. Again, this is normal. This is not a reason people get fired or put on layoff lists.
You said you feel you’re taking advantage of your company if you take time off, and that you’d be putting your family in danger. Do you feel you’re taking advantage of your company and putting your family in danger when you cash your paychecks? Like your pay, this is part of your compensation. You’re not taking advantage of anyone by accepting it and using it as intended.
I think you know that intellectually, but something in your brain is saying, “But they wouldn’t complain if I didn’t take it, so therefore that would be better.” So why does “they wouldn’t complain” trump the fact you deserve and have earned time off like everyone else, and that it’s essential to your health and well-being? That part in particular says there’s something more going on here — something a therapist could help you sort through.
That might not be the response you were expecting, but the feelings and responses you describe on this issue (waking up with tears in your eyes and feeling sick / not going when family members are dying or to be in your best friend’s wedding) are extremely disordered. They’re so far outside the realm of healthy thinking on this — and the impact on your life so severe — that it makes sense to bring it to someone who can help you do the hard work of sorting through it.
Some starting ideas to kick around with that therapist: did you learn growing up that your feelings and needs don’t matter? Or that you’ll be penalized if you try to take care of yourself first, or even at all? Or that you don’t have intrinsic value simply as you, but instead need to tie yourself into pretzels to justify being around? I’m not sure where it’s coming from, but you’ve got to dig into it, and that’s where I’d start.
I wrote in about getting through a staffing crisis after both my coworkers quit right when one of my company’s two owners went on maternity leave. I wanted to make sure that my “this is awful but that’s what all the extra money is for” outlook wasn’t distracting me from anything else the remaining owner could potentially do to help.
My letter was posted in March but I wrote it in January, during what was definitely the worst few weeks of the entire stretch. The owner came back in early February, and I was unsure of how that would go — she can be very exacting, and previously most conversations related to my work went through my supervisor. Turns out it was great! Her number one priority was figuring out what she could to do help me out and what she could take off my plate. By the time my letter went up, things were already much, much better than they’d been in a long time.
The owners were grateful I’d kept things running significantly better than they’d hoped. That was great to hear but also concerning, particularly since at the same time, we were working on two transitions to streamline the business. My biggest concern was that between the “that wasn’t so bad (for us)” relief and the efficiency gains from the transitions, they’d decide maybe we were actually fine with the one new hire we made and there wasn’t any need for another. But when we sat down for a post-maternity-leave state of the union, I was clear that I was only happy if the hiring plan was unchanged, and our next new hire is starting in a couple of weeks.
As things stand now, my workload and stress level are significantly lower than they were even before everyone started quitting, which is great considering the multiple raises I’ve gotten. I can basically do no wrong in the owners’ eyes and they’re really invested in my happiness and my growth in the company. So in theory, when it comes to my self-imposed “quit if it’s not fixed by July” deadline, there should be nothing to worry about.
In practice, I don’t think the owners have learned any lessons about the importance of staff retention, and I’m really unhappy with how our first new hire (who’s now five months in) is being treated. I get all the credit for getting the company through this mess and endless grace for any balls I’ve dropped in the process. There’s no recognition of the fact that our new hire was a huge help and that I couldn’t have done this without her, or that she was a great sport about being hired into a complete mess of a situation, with only me to guide her when I barely had the time or the brainpower for it. She’s taken on so much and made my job so much easier, and the owners extend zero appreciation for that and make her miserable holding her to a standard that’s massively unfair given how haphazard her training has been. My old supervisor used to say she was shielding us from a lot, and I took it with a grain of salt, but now I get what she meant.
So that’s where I’m going to be spending my capital for now. Most of it is that I think my coworker deserves better, but it’s also because if she quits or gets fired, I’m going to quit rather than take on the extra work. I’m gathering my thoughts right now and planning to meet with the owners soon to make it clear that if history repeats, I’m not sticking around to bail them out. I guess we’ll see how that goes, but no matter what I should have a happy update later this year — either I’ll be able to report that they’ve righted the ship, or I’ll be out of there.
Installation view of “THIS SIDE UP” at the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft. Photo: Katy Anderson.
THIS SIDE UP, curated by Sarah Darro at the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft, illuminates the often invisible practice of art handling. The exhibition features 16 art handler-artists, with work by core artists Vivian Chiu, Willem De Haan, Clynton Lowry and Adam Manley. Uniquely skilled craftspeople, art handlers (or preparators) pack, ship, handle, move, prep, and install art, consistently meeting demands for precision, efficiency, adaptability, and safety. This rare combination of attributes and skills, though celebrated in many artists, is expected of preparators without recognition. Most major exhibitions are only possible because of the ingenuity of these creative individuals, yet their names are rarely included on the wall next to the artists, curators, and donors. THIS SIDE UP struck a chord with me in part because I’ve worked as an art handler since 2016. I know the care, craft, and rigor required, and I have experienced the ways in which our work can feel unseen.
Clynton Lowry, “Art Handler Magazine: Issue 1,” 2015. Cover designed by SARCO. On view in “THIS SIDE UP” at Houston Center for Contemporary Craft. Photo: Taylor Brubaker.
During a walkthrough of THIS SIDE UP, Sarah Darro shared some insight into her vision for the exhibition and how it came to be. Over the past 10 years, various curatorial roles have necessitated that Darro learn aspects of art handling. Working in this capacity, Darro came to fully appreciate the artistry required of preparators, and her idea for this show has been percolating ever since. It was important to Darro that she mirror the relational networks of art handling communities in organizing this show, where participating artists would recommend others for consideration.
Installation view of “THIS SIDE UP” at the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft, featuring “Moving Blanket Jacket,” 2013, “Moving Blanket Sleeping Bag,” 2013 and “Issue 2 Printing Plates,” 2024 by Clynton Lowry. Photo: Katy Anderson.
One of the strongest advocates for the art handling community is Clynton Lowry. The conceptual artist is best known for founding and running Art Handler Magazine, a highly visible publication with a large online presence that celebrates and supports preparators globally, calling for better pay and working conditions. Reprinted copies of the magazine’s first two editions are on view in the gallery. In addition, Lowry presents two suspended jackets and a sleeping bag, all fabricated with moving blankets, which are vital to almost every aspect of art handling. The materiality and form of these objects evoke a human presence and serve as haunting reminders of lost labor by skilled workers. With both the magazine and his art practice, Lowry undermines systems of power and exclusion, questioning what and who we choose to value in the art world.
Installation view of “THIS SIDE UP” at the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft, featuring works by Vivian Chiu. Photo: Katy Anderson.
Multidisciplinary artist Vivian Chiu acquired and repurposed dozens of 45 to 80-year-old crates for this exhibition. The crates were a gift from Mei Lum, the fifth generation owner of Wing on Wo. & Co, the oldest continuously operating store in Manhattan’s Chinatown. Chiu deconstructed the crates and reconfigured them into vessels that match the forms of porcelain objects they were originally designed to transport. To facilitate this, Chiu developed a system of making that involves elaborate math (done by hand on graph paper), precisely cut angled units of wood, and careful labeling to ensure the units fit together seamlessly. Chiu’s works are in conversation with several chairs and a coffee table that John Powers and William Powhida fabricated using upscaled art crates. Problem solving, system design, and transformation are essential aspects of art handling, highlighted with works by these artists.
Adam Manley, “Quotidian Relic: HCCC.2023.005.A–D,” 2023. On view in “THIS SIDE UP” at the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft. Photo: Taylor Brubaker.
Adam Manley creates reliquaries, which are containers designed to safely support art objects. Where most reliquaries are fabricated for rare and valuable items, Manley creates them for ordinary objects that he thinks should be collector’s items — a dolly, a step ladder, customized hammers, tape measures, or the 20-year-old mop and bucket from the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft. His work makes me consider what we value in the art world now, and what will be considered valuable 1,000 years from now, when our current artifacts of industry and culture exist in anthropological museums of the future. I especially enjoyed the moment where John Riepenhoff’s fabricated art handler holds the lid of Manley’s reliquary. This direct interaction between two art objects raises questions about the value of skilled labor in the art world.
Installation view of “THIS SIDE UP” at the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft, featuring works by Willem de Haan and Walead Beshty. Photo: Katy Anderson.
In the business of transportation and exhibition design, Willem De Haan created a three-piece luggage set, fabricated in plywood to an airline’s exact size restrictions. It is striking to consider how these art objects would function in different settings — at the airport, they are likely to be thrown around by baggage handlers, whereas in the gallery they are venerated. Perfectly paired with this work is a small Walead Beshty sculpture consisting of a FedEx box supporting a glass cube. The cube fits perfectly into the box and travels from place to place. With no supporting foam or protection, the glass cube becomes increasingly damaged as it travels. This work is poetic, dark, and playful. Any art handler would see the humor in this, as we have all received poorly designed packages with damaged art inside. Both De Haan’s luggage set and Beshty’s glass cube are shaped in part by systems of moving and shipping.
Installation view of “THIS SIDE UP” at the Houston Center for Contemporary Craft, featuring mounts by Demitra Thomloudis. Photo: Katy Anderson.
Also illuminated within this exhibition are mounts, carefully crafted objects designed to support artworks and simultaneously disappear. Viewers are not trained to look for or appreciate mounts. Instead, we admire the artwork, which floats, as if by magic. Yet it takes specialized skill and training to create custom mounts such as the ones on display by Jessica Andersen, Galen Boone, Motoko Furuhashi, René Lee Henry, Jessica Jacobi, Seth Papac, Demitra Thomloudis, and Bohyun Yoon. In this exhibition, mounts are celebrated as strange and fantastical works of art in their own right.
“THIS SIDE UP” exhibition credit vinyl. Image courtesy of Houston Center for Contemporary Craft.
THIS SIDE UP weaves together conceptual art practices, masterful fabrication, creative reuse, problem solving, and specialized skill sets, highlighting the passion, craft, and ingenuity of art handling. Sarah Darro and these 16 artists reveal the magic happening backstage that most people are not permitted to see. Importantly, every skilled worker involved with the exhibition was acknowledged in a comprehensive credit wall, which I believe should become the norm for all art institutions. THIS SIDE UP brings much-needed visibility to art handling communities, and hopefully will be a catalyst for a more equitable art world.
HOLLYWOOD – Superhero movie insiders report the upcoming film Deadpool & Wolverine will at long last introduce the long-rumoured nation of Canada to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While the MCU has previously been established as the home of Wakandans, Asgardians, and Atlanteans, the film franchise has studiously avoided acknowledging the existence of any country whatsoever […]
Express, which dressed generations of mall shoppers in slacks and blouses, now owns Bonobos and UpWest. It's closing dozens of stores but also plans to get sold to a consortium to survive.
