Overworked employee took a day off — and his boss found out the hard way that he was irreplaceable
His bosses shouted at him for 45 minutes in the morning for maliciously complying with what he was ‘hired’ to do.
Too many companies overwork their employees without fair compensation. One employee had enough after being left to cover for others. The company hired workers who weren’t fit for the labor-intensive job and then fired them without replacements. They told him to cover the second shift, but he decided to maliciously comply with the rules in a way that made his point clear. On Reddit, the employee shared how he made his company realize his value.
“Company thought of having only one person per shift trained to properly do a labor-intensive job in a closed, humid building pumping 190° water through liquid truck trailers,” he wrote. After firing two substance-abusing workers, he was left to work for both the first and second shifts. “One of the companies we delivered to tripled their order and the job worked me to the absolute bone with 90-110 hour weeks during hot summer months,” he wrote. Originally, he was told his shift would be 7 AM to 3 PM, but now, he was told to work both shifts as he was the only person who knew the job. “At first, it wasn’t too bad, I could get 4 trailers done in an hour, so 32 in an 8-hour shift if I’m busting a$$,” he wrote. But soon, the number of trailers tripled.
Worker slowly starting to lose energy and motivation – stock photo Getty Images | Photo by shapecharge
He repeatedly asked his higher-ups to hire more people, but they told him to do as instructed. The overwork started taking a toll on him, and he ended up causing $5,000 in damages after backing a trailer out without unhooking it first. He was asked to take a drug test, given that the previous recruits had tested positive for substance abuse. “On the drive there, my manager asked me if I was going to fail. I said it depends on what they test for. He said they test for everything. I asked if that included caffeine and exhaustion. He just kinda blankly looked at me, then turned back to the road,” he recalled, making it clear the workload was getting to him. He passed the drug test.
“Monday, I come in, almost falling asleep on the drive. I pulled my manager aside, the plant manager aside and the owner’s son aside… They all said, just gotta do ‘do the job I was hired to do, do what I’m told,'” he recalled. “So Tuesday, that’s what I did. When I was hired I was told my schedule was 7 AM to 3 PM, so I clocked out at 3 PM. I shut my phone off and took my girlfriend to the fair,” he wrote.
His bosses were left scrambling, unable to reach his phone. “The next morning, the owner’s son proceeded to chew me out for a solid 45 minutes. I just sat there and let him rant. Turns out, once I left, my supervisor and plant manager had to do my job. They managed to do 4 trailers from 5 PM when they realized I left, until midnight… This is the same amount I could do in 1 hour,” he wrote.
“So once his rant was over, I said, ‘Well, clearly you’re not going to fire me.’ He was taken aback. I continued, ‘You have no one who can do my job, you didn’t take me seriously when I said I couldn’t do it alone anymore and so I decided I’d show you how important I was. I’ve got a kid and a life outside this job. The pay is great, but I’m not going to kill myself to get it and put in 90-110 hour weeks in the dead of summer,'” he recalled before stating his demands to continue in the job. “Here’s what’s going to happen, you’re going to give me a raise and 3 weeks paid vacation and you’re going to let me pick the guy who takes 2nd shift. He looked at me like I just robbed him, but then, after a solid 5 silent minutes, he agreed,” he recalled. He concluded, “Companies suck your soul out via blood sweat and tears if you let them, so don’t.”
This article originally appeared 3 years ago.
Drunk On Vodka At 35,000 Feet, A United Flight Attendant Was 10X Over The Legal Limit
We assume the people responsible for our safety at 35,000 feet are sober. This story is an uncomfortable reminder that isn’t always true. A drunken flight attendant incident on a United Airlines transatlantic flight reminds us that aviation demands sobriety, not sympathy, but sometimes we have to wrestle with both.
A United Flight Attendant Drank Onboard. It Should Worry All of Us.
On October 17, 2025, a long-serving United Airlines flight attendant on a San Francisco (SFO) to London (LHR) flight drank multiple miniature bottles of vodka during the trip, was met by paramedics on arrival at Heathrow, and was later arrested after tests showed a blood alcohol concentration of 216 milligrams per 100 millilitres, roughly 10 to 11 times the legal limit for aircrew in the UK. The incident has ended a career of more than two decades (she reigned immediately after the incident before she could be fired) and has left many asking how this could have happened.
Colleagues noticed that something was wrong and radioed ahead. On the tarmac, paramedics described low blood pressure and alcohol on the flight attendant’s breath. She admitted to drinking, later pled guilty in court to performing an aviation duty while impaired, and received a fine rather than jail time, including:
- £1461 fine
- £584 victim surcharge
- £85 in court costs
(about 2800 USD)
What Should Our Repsonse Be?
There are two separate but related reactions to a story like this. The first is anger and fear. Cabin crew are critical to passenger safety. They respond to medical emergencies, run evacuation procedures, and act when the flight deck is occupied. The idea that a crew member would be intoxicated while on duty triggers a natural, indignant response.
The second reaction is pity and recognition that there is often more to these stories than headline facts. Reports indicate the flight attendant had been grappling with isolation and grief and that she brought her own miniature bottles on board. That context does not excuse what happened. It does, however, complicate our moral response. Addiction and acute stress can push otherwise sober-minded people to make catastrophic mistakes. The industry must insist on safety, while also creating pathways for intervention and treatment when appropriate.
From a regulatory standpoint, this case highlights a recurring double standard in the public mind. Courts in the U.K. historically treat intoxicated flight attendants more leniently than pilots, who often face harsher penalties, including jail. That difference is understandable given that pilots are the last line of defense in aircraft control. But it can foster complacency if not addressed carefully. Impairment anywhere in the cabin is a safety risk…what if that plane had to evacuate?
Airlines do have safeguards: pre-duty fitness checks, crew peer reporting, captain authority to ground unfit staff, and in some cases, random testing. Yet no system is perfect. Sometimes the first prevention is a co-worker recognizing a problem and alerting authorities before something worse happens.
Is This More Common Than We Think?
We should also be honest about aviation culture. For decades, layovers and alcohol have often gone hand in hand. That is changing. Many airlines and unions now push employee assistance programs more aggressively. Substance misuse policies are stronger. Still, stigma remains. Senior crew in trouble often hide it rather than seek help. Removing that stigma, encouraging early intervention, and enforcing clear safety boundaries is essential. A system where crew members feel they must hide alcohol in a galley bag is a system that has already failed them.
But that does not mean voiding personal accountability. What matters most is protecting passengers. After all, flight attendants incessantly remind us that they are “primarily here for our safety.” We can show compassion for struggling crew members while still insisting on accountability. Those two positions are not contradictory. A safer industry is one that supports its people before they reach a breaking point but still punishes them when they break the law.
I feel very bad for this woman, but she does not deserve to be a United flight attendant.
CONCLUSION
This was a tragic situation for the crew member, for United Airlines, and for every passenger who trusted their safety during that transatlantic crossing. The immediate question is how it happened. The bigger question is whether airlines are doing enough to protect travelers and intervene when employees are in crisis. That’s an ongoing issue in the industry and one that I have no easy answer for, but at least the system worked here in the sense that this (former) flight attendant did not go undetected.
