I Have Information That Could Save My Former Employer a Lot of Trouble. But Maybe I Won’t Tell Them.

Good Job Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by coolvectormaker/Getty Images Plus and NataliaAlkema/Getty Images Plus. Good Job is Slate’s advice column on work. Have a workplace problem big or small? Send it to Laura Helmuth and Doree Shafrir here. (It’s anonymous!) Dear Good Job, I am 61 years old, and for 35 years, I was an employee in the QA lab of a local manufacturing plant. Last year, we merged with another company and had a large turnover in upper management, including my supervisor, who was replaced with someone with no lab experience. Soon after, I was let go. I am left-handed and the equipment is set up for right-handed people, so I would need to cross back over in front of the testing equipment to access the computer to enter the results. So, instead, I would write down the results and then enter them all at the same time saving me steps and time. There was nothing in the SOP about this, but according to the new supervisor, this was not following HER procedure. She warned me several times not to keep doing it, but admittedly I did, and was let go for insubordination, which was true. As part of my job, every quarter I would calibrate the testing equipment. This process was documented on paper. My much younger colleagues on the other shifts (and the new supervisor) probably didn’t even realize I did this. I have a certification that comes from the equipment manufacturer that I renew (free) every five years. Some of our customers do audits, and this is checked. The people cleaning out my desk drawer for my personal stuff threw in the box of calibration standards and the notebook with the results and my certificate into a bag for me to take as I was sitting in the HR office before they walked me out. The machines, due to the changing of the seasons and use, WILL get out of calibration, resulting in incorrect test results. The calibration does not involve a life or death results, just product quality, though may result in recalls and have huge financial implications. A failed audit from a customer would also be a big problem fro the company. Do I look at it as, this company put food on the table and gave me a decent life for the past 35 years, I should help them out and notify somebody? Or just say “screw them” for the way they let me go and let the chips fall where they may? —Screw Them or Be the Nice Guy Dear Screw Them or Be the Nice Guy, We lefties endure enough—terrible scissors, spatulas angled the wrong way, the indignity of dry erase markers—so I am seething that you were fired because you had found a totally fine workaround to the entire lab being set up for right handed people! And so, as a fellow lefty and grudge holder, I really want to tell you to screw them. But as a workplace advice columnist, I am going to tell you to not screw them—but it’s for your own good, I promise. Because while I would love for you to just keep everything and let the chips fall where they may, you need to return the calibration standards and the notebook with the results. These belong to your former workplace, and they could potentially make things unpleasant for you personally when they discover they’re missing. That said, you don’t need to tie up these documents with a bow for them. Send them back with a note that says you were going through the box that your colleagues packed up for you and realized they had included these important documents, so you’re returning them. Then close this chapter of your life and move on. By the way, if they approach you about consulting for them once they realize they don’t know what they’re doing, feel free to name an exorbitant price. Please keep questions short (<150 words), and don‘t submit the same question to multiple columns. We are unable to edit or remove questions after publication. Use pseudonyms to maintain anonymity. Your submission may be used in other Slate advice columns and may be edited for publication. Dear Good Job, I need to add something to your answer to Torn (8/18/26), the letter writer who discovered through work that her sister’s boyfriend was the subject of an active investigation for sexual crimes against minors. You were spot on that the letter writer can give general safety advice to their relative but nothing about the investigation into the relative’s boyfriend. In addition to NDAs, etc., it’s a vital principle that investigations almost invariably need to stay confidential because sometimes they do not uncover provable wrongdoing, and disclosure can cause tremendous harm to the person’s life. However, the letter writer not only can but should speak to a supervisor at work about the situation. For one thing, the letter writer needs to recuse from this investigation. Perhaps more importantly, the letter writer can offer a warning to the team that the relative’s boyfriend has access to a young child via the relationship. A responsible investigating authority will act to prevent imminent harm if there are indications, even if it means missing out on being able to bring some of the most serious charges. The letter writer will likely not be privy to that decision (other than if the relative calls to announce that the new beau has been arrested), but they can take whatever comfort is available from having done everything in their power to help in the right way. I’m sorry to letter writer that they are dealing with this dilemma (and rightly afraid for their relative’s child), but the letter writer deserves tremendous praise for wanting to approach this ethically. —Former Prosecutor Dear Former Prosecutor, Thank you so much for this important added perspective. I’m hopeful that the letter writer is able to take your advice and that the authorities speed up their investigation if they find it warranted. Thank you again. —Doree More Work Advice From Slate A little over a month ago, I got summoned to HR while at my regular work tasks. I was sat down, and told to sign a paper acknowledging responsibility for the “incident on June 15” and stating that I would “accept consequences thereof, including but not limited to remedial sensitivity training.” I had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. Never miss new Slate Advice columns Get the latest from Prudie and our columnists in your inbox each weekday, plus special bonus letters on Saturdays. Advice Workplace Jobs