Ever been in a situation where no matter what you do, it’s still wrong? Oh, yes, it’s definitely a case of “something doesn’t add up” and, more often than not, it’s not a you problem, it’s a them problem.
And what makes this problem worse—not for you, but for them—is when someone maliciously complies with the circumstances of the problem. And then the company shoves itself into a corner because it can’t find a solution to the problem.
Sometimes, there is no winning, no matter what you do. But maybe winning was never an option because of the people in charge
Image credits: Pavel Danilyuk (not the actual photo)
Especially when company policy and managerial orders contradict each other, leaving you out of a job, maliciously complying with the chaos
Image credits: Chevanon Photography (not the actual photo)
Image credits: Karolina Grabowska (not the actual photo)
Image credits: Mizuno K (not the actual photo)
Image source: Practical_Ad3462
The company's rash decision-making led to there being no clerk, no replacement, and no inadequate boss
Redditor u/Practical_Ad3462 recalled a story from 2005 when the missus had just moved from the U.S. of A to live with him in the land down under. Due to bureaucracy, OP’s wife ended up settling for a job she could actually get and do, and that was being a clerk at a brokering loans company.
All was fine and dandy for some time, until one fateful request to prep some coffee. You see, company policy doesn’t allow folks (even more so if they are women) to make coffee for others. It reinforced a traditionalist approach that some sales sharks liked to abuse.
That didn’t stop one salesperson from doing it anyway as she brought a client over. Sure enough, she’s now asking OP’s wife to fetch some coffee for them. One discreet and polite excuse later, the salesperson chooses violence and “tattles” on her to the super.
This is where it gets interesting—the Mrs. gets fired. Kinda. She’s told she should continue working until they find a replacement. But she was fired. In any case, she kept complying maliciously with the requirements.
Turns out, the company pushed itself into a corner as they couldn’t find a replacement for months. Never did, until one day the Mrs. landed another job and jumped ship, leaving the company barge floating on without a clerk. Oh, and the super was fired.
Folks loved the story, tossing 6,000 upvotes its way and sharing their stories
And the folks on the subreddit gobbled up the story as if it was an extra-glazed donut left in the company kitchen because it was Tim's birthday. By that, we mean the post got nearly 6,000 upvotes (96% positive).
Some pointed out that if this was to happen today, equal rights institutions would be all over that company. Like over an extra-glazed donut. I’ll stop. At the very least, this has sex discrimination written all over.
Others shared some of their experiences and stories. Turns out, getting fired-not fired is a thing as another employee was told (also in the heat of the moment) they were fired, but never told when. Needless to say, they had to figure that one out themselves through HR. Who was also flabbergasted.
And yet others didn’t really need a “punch of reality at 6AM” as they read the story and understood that it was from 18 years ago.
The Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 could've been invoked, but malicious compliance seemed more appropriate
It probably needs no explanation, but the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 is an act put into force by the Government of Australia to protect people from unfair treatment based on all-things sex and gender identity. This includes sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy and breastfeeding. It also extends to cover family responsibilities and makes sexual harassment illegal.
Should discrimination or harassment happen, people can submit a formal complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Commission works in partnership with various anti-discrimination groups to promote equality and actively counter discrimination, sexual harassment and violence against women.
Alongside this, the Australian Government also has acts for racial discrimination (1975), disability discrimination (1992) and age discrimination (2004).
So, what are your thoughts on any of this? Would you have somehow one-upped the malicious compliance? If so, how? Let us know in the comment section below!
The author of the post was active in the comment section, providing context where questions arose
Here's what the rest of the social platform had to say about the story
