It's funny, but I think because we travel so much there is a definite etiquette around air travel for us and part of it is you would never ever try to sit together.

Hah, I am brenda here. Though I did want/try to sit with my boss on the one flight we were on together, because she lives in Hawaii and I never see her. And because she's cool.

The one trip I had to travel with my boss was rather awesome, because she was super-cool, and rented a Mustang convertible for our conference and we went on desert rides in our free time in Phoenix. And drank. A lot.

It's funny, but I think because we travel so much there is a definite etiquette around air travel for us and part of it is you would never ever try to sit together.

YES, unless it is agreed upon beforehand with someone you like. Also awkward, when you are upgraded to First and your boss isn't. But it solves the problem quite nicely.

A lot of places have rules that keep multiple staff members from being on the same plane ... helps avoid some of that. Of course, it depends on whether those rules are being followed; one place I worked (years and years ago) had such a rule and, for one program, the entire senior staff was on the same plane. (FWIW, all went well and everyone made the trip safely.)

Steph, I suggest getting some GABA for flight where you can't take Ativan. I sometimes take GABA at night or when I'm super stressed and it helps me to relax without making me out of it. I don't know why exactly it works because I'm pretty sure it doesn't pass the blood-brain barrier, but it helps the muscles relax, and maybe that sends a message to my brain that it can relax a bit too.

Ugh, and now there's this trivial bullshit at work that looks like I caused a problem when about 50 things went wrong first and then got dumped on me.

Backstory: there are 10 JAMA journals; the editor-in-chief of one of them HATES the freelance staff. It's just a known thing, and everyone accommodates her instead of telling her to grow up. We aren't allowed to email her directly, and have to email her assistant, and on the department guide we were given, it says in all caps "NEVER CALL THIS OFFICE FOR ANY REASON."

Awesome. But in the normal course of editing, I never need to contact the editor's office for any of the journals. (So you can see where this is heading.)

So I get assigned an article that has all kinds of problems -- there are strict rules about how many tables/figures an article can have, and this one had too many. All my boss said when she assigned the article was "Check the guidelines about number of tables."

Maybe she could have punted it back to the editor-in-chief's office and said "This has too many tables. Deal with it." But instead she gave it to me. So I had to ask my boss "Should I tell the author there are too many tables and ask them to delete some?"

Boss says no, email the editor-in-chief's office and tell them the problem and ask what to do. (Hey, Boss, you could have saved us a step and DONE THAT YOURSELF.)

So I email the office. This is done through a website with dropdown menus for departments, so you select the journal you want and pick the person to email (in this case, it has to be the assistant, because the editor-in-chief is a nut job who can't be approached directly). So I pick the assistant's email address, email him, and copy my boss.

My boss immediately replies privately to me "Oh Lord, the editor is going to go ballistic that you sent it to [assistant]. Didn't you remember that [assistant] left the staff???"

Well, I actually didn't remember, but -- when I went to that goddamn dropdown menu to find the assistant for this fucking journal, the only name that popped up was the name of the guy who left, not his replacement. How can I email someone who isn't an option on the goddamn motherfucking menu?????

Which I told my boss, without the profanity.

Jesus fucking Christ, I get assigned an article with problems that should have been sorted out before it ever got to me, and then I get told to deal with it, and when I deal with it using the ONLY option available to me, I get fallout because that option wasn't correct? And all of this because the editor-in-chief is a known nutjob who they still tolerate anyway, even though she makes everyone's jobs more difficult.

I am not remotely equipped to handle this bullshit. And I have to be there tomorrow. I might flat-out punch someone.

And when I asked my boss "Why is [no-longer-assistant]'s name still on the dropdown menu if he left, because that makes human error inevitable since there is no other option to choose if I need to email that office?" she replied "That is a very good question for [name I assume is an IT person]."

FUCK YOUR VERY GOOD QUESTION. You put me in an unwinnable situation and then gave me shit for not doing it right. Fuuuuuuuuuuck youuuuuuuuuuu.

I can't believe I have to be in meetings there all day Friday. I am going to cut a bitch.

I think it is possible to say something along the lines of 'pleses do not scold /yell /chastise me for something I can not be responsible for .

Of course, I might be a in the very pissed off at everyone Matt works for mode - because some other peoples bad time management skills ( will just stick with that part ) has him working at crisis level - possible all month long.

So I feel the need to defend every one in stupid work situations.

Work is bette when there is less stupid stuff

Steph, it's good to know my workplace isn't the only one that's crazy.

I'm working on a journal that has a strict page limit of 14 pages. About half the papers are more than that. So we ask the EiC for special permission, and about half the time she gives it, so half of the papers get to ignore the "strict" page limit and half of them get pissed that they can't. Then it's up to me to ask the author to cut one to three pages out of his paper, well after peer review and acceptance, and so who does he get pissed at? Me, of course.

Then it's up to me to ask the author to cut one to three pages out of his paper, well after peer review and acceptance, and so who does he get pissed at? Me, of course.

Right. If we have a rule that an article can't have 3 tables, and yet an article with 3 tables gets accepted, it wasn't my decision to accept the damn paper, so I assume it's okay. But of course it's not okay, so they make the freelancer (who isn't even allowed to speak with the EIC, which would make things so much easier) sort this shit out. It's not *just* bullshit, it's inefficient bullshit.