I do too. A paycheque is one thing, good manners is something else.
Absolutely this. And in addition these are business conversations that shouldn’t involve anyone’s concept of passivity or aggressiveness. Choosing a polite or simply neutral way to express concepts is certainly preferable to aggressive communication, but the term ‘passive-aggressive’ means disguising actual aggression with insincere language or actions.
I’m not sure how strong of a stance I would wish to take on this, but I’m not entirely sure “thanks” are owed or even really warranted from a manager to an employee for simply doing their job. Especially in the absence of going above and beyond what was asked/expected.
To me, “Thanks” means something more than, “I see you adequately did what we both agreed beforehand that you would do.” To me, in such a situation, “Thanks” is nothing more than a meaningless platitude - which - if I don’t actively disfavor, I pretty much ignore.
If they are going to thank me for showing up for my appointed shift and doing a minimally acceptable job, ought they also thank me for not stealing (too many) supplies? Not burning the building down? Not running over customers in the parking lot? 
Also, what is the boss/manager thanking me. Did I do them a personal favor? Or are they thanking me for not causing the hassle of firing me, or covering my shift if I flaked out? Or should the owner/investors thank me?
“Friendly reminder” makes me think of this. Talk about passive-aggressive.
I don’t even know what “makes you sound passive aggressive” means? What is it to SOUND passive aggressive? What does that sounds like?
How is that hard to understand?
^ See, that is what it sounds like to be aggressive. But maybe I meant that with no aggressive intent. Still, written like that, it sounds aggressive (IMHO). You can do the same thing with “passive-aggressive.”
Or is “sounds” giving you trouble? Substitute “seem” or “might make you come across as.” Or is it what is passive-aggressive? It’s having negative feelings about something/someone and instead of coming out and saying it, you address it indirectly, like with false politeness, for example.
Noted.
As a friendly reminder, If you don’t know, it’s not worth explaining to you.
Regards
Q.E.D. 
I can’t see that. There’s no morality or politics in the article. The framing is that written communication can be harder to decipher, and that you might be communicating things you don’t intend. That’s about as non-judgemental as you can get.
The only part I really take issue with is the list itself. I note that the writer of the article didn’t make the list, however. It purportedly comes from a study. However, even when clicking the link, I can find no data on how the terms were determined to be passive aggressive. All you are told is that it comes from “Ahref Data.”
It seems to me to just be a puff piece promoting a pop article with the barest minimum of research. I seriously doubt much thought was put into any of it at all.
The purpose of the word “Thanks” in that context would be to make your worker feel appreciated. The rules would be the same as they are in regular life. Thank someone for something insignificant, and it seems insincere. But don’t thank them when they put in a lot of work, and it can feel dismissive.
It’s not that you “owe” anyone a thanks. That’s just the wrong framework, that sets up an adversarial relationship. The goal in such language is to have a more cordial or friendly relationship, based on the idea that this make the job more pleasant both for the boss and the worker. And happy employees make for better productivity and loyalty.
Look at the headline. It basically screams out “don’t use these phrases – they make you sound passive-aggressive!”. The rest of the article tries to support this.
It’s true that the writer never says “you should not …” but rather invokes a third-party authority: “according to this study, you should not …”. Maybe instead of calling it “virtue signaling” I should have said that the article was “passive-aggressive virtue signaling”. 
This I agree with. My main point is that the whole thing is bullshit. I say this as someone who intensely dislikes biz-speak – which is really all that this is – but the problem with most biz-speak isn’t that it’s offensive, it’s just that it’s pretentious and stupid. But we’re all so used to it that it’s just like being vaccinated – bring it on, I have powerful antibodies that make me able to totally ignore it!
I really agree with you, wolfpup.
I’ve been giving way too much thought to this, because it is something I simply do not perceive, no matter how much I try.
I’m thinking about situations in which I receive an email asking/telling me to do something, whether from a superior, equal, subordinate, or customer. From any of those sources, I’ll basically decide whether it is something that I am reasonably expected to do. If it is, I’ll just do it. If it isn’t, I may simply ignore the request, or send some reply either saying I’m not going to do it or suggesting they find a more appropriate person to ask.
In NONE of those situations, tho, do I even NOTICE if someone says, “Thank you in advance” or any of those other phrases. They are just BS business “pleasantries.”
I tend to prefer directness in my communications. However, I intentionally “soften” my work communications, after years of hearing that people take offense to being directly asked to do their jobs, or to do what they said they would do. So I add things like, “Per our previous email” or “Thanks in advance.” Now I hear some people are going to say THAT is offensive?! Seems kinda like damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
They aren’t saying it’s offensive, they are saying it’s (potentially) passive-aggressive. Which is exactly how you describe your intent - you want to be aggressive (“do your job”) but in a more passive manner. Some people might appreciate this less-direct approach; it’s really annoying to others.
These kinds of articles are written for people like you and wolfpup, who don’t notice these phrases when others write them and disagree with the idea that they are passive-aggressive. The article is not telling you how YOU should be interpreting these phrases. It is telling you how other people might interpret them.
I think, like others have pointed out, it depends on context. Take this example:
This is a friendly reminder for you to deliver the report I asked for, per my last 3 emails. I realize you are very busy and extremely important, so whenever you can find time on your schedule to provide the report, I’ll be grateful. I myself don’t have much else to do but await your report before I can proceed with my admittedly less important work duties, so please don’t rush on my account. Thanks in advance!
Can you detect the passive aggression?
I don’t think this has been emphasized enough in this thread. Basically, if you don’t want your intent misunderstood as aggressive, then avoid these cliches. In fact, you would think most of those complaining would appreciate the license to be more direct in their communication.
I don’t WANT to be aggressive. Hell, my preference would be that I didn’t have to remind people to do their jobs.
Makes for an awfully complicated situation - especially in mass emails - if you need to figure out, “Which of these people prefer which style of communication?” Especially if you realize certain people will rake offense if there is ANY difference in the communications you send.
My personal opinion is that far too many people take things far too personally, perceiving aggressions passive, micro, or whatever. So my preference is to have as little to do with people was possible!
To me, reading that article as passive aggressive makes as much sense as seeing those phrases as passive aggressive. Maybe it could be, but it most likely isn’t.
But mostly I object to the use of “virtue signaling.” Nothing about the piece says that the person is claiming that they believe something is wrong only to win “points” with another group. That’s the concept of the term. Similarly, “wokeness” makes no sense as there’s nothing social justice related in the post at all, let alone a reason to think it was overdone.
It just seems to make the whole thing political to me, and I don’t get it.
I agree re: the comments about “virtue signaling” and “wokeness.” They don’t make a lick of sense in this context.
As per my last email and please advise are almost always passive aggressive in my experience but, other than friendly reminder which is sometimes employed that way, none of the rest.
“Per our conversation”, in my view, is a way of putting the recipient on the record as having made the decision to do (or have the sender do)… whatever. It takes away the “I never said that” defense when things go south due their choice. Passive/aggressive? Maybe. It has its place.
The others - meh.
Plus “As per” is redundant and irritates the **** out of me. “Per” is sufficient; “As” adds nothing.
…he said, somewhat aggressively.