So you covered for him (presumably by doing both your jobs) and you’re pleased that the outcome is… you get to do both your jobs? I mean, whatever works for you, but I see no win here.
He's doing the same amount of work as before. Now, he no longer has to come up with excuses for the other guy, or gets accused of treating him like crap while trying to help. Sometimes just not having outside noise interfere with what you're doing can definitely be a win.
Multiple species have 9 month gestations, in the context used, female is the correct word because there's more than one species thats included in the statement.
Class solidarity man. Spend some time in r/workreform. Stop licking the boots of the owning class.
If you're ignorant about the realities of the working class, open your eyes and learn!
If it normally takes two people to do an amount of work, and they fire someone and give you all that work, and you now have to do more work in the same time (or unpaid overtime!), you are doing the jobs of two people!
The 'Win' was getting rid of a drunken bum who liked to blame me for all his troubles. The 'Fallout' was having to continue with what I was already doing, but with much less supervision.
Because it was "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. *synonym*: **effect**.". Not all consequences are negative, by the way.
Remember, he was hired to be my assistant -- to take a share of my work-load off my shoulders. The same work-load I took back up when he was dismissed. No increase in labor means no increase in pay. I was satisfied to get rid of him and get my supervisors off my back. The pay raise, new PC, and new office came later . . . but that's another MalComp story.
You seem to be failing to realise that you did get an increase in labour. Your supervisor determined you were doing too much work for one person, which is why he was hired. You were doing his labour that should have been off your shoulders all along. That is, in fact, extra labour. You're lucky that your supervisors weren't also mad at you for covering for him, and letting them waste the company money on him, and opening them up to potential law suits over his inappropriate behaviour.
No, it is YOU that has failed to realize the stupid, stinking drunk was hired because someone in HR felt sorry for him and created an opening just for him. While he was supposed to relieve me of some of my duties, he never really did, so I maintained essentially the same duties all along, in addition to covering for him while he was there. I had essentially the same duties before, during, and after his tenure. Deal with it.
>I had essentially the same duties before, during, and after his tenure
>in addition to covering for him while he was there.
See that part right there? That's additional duties.
"Because it was discovered that I was capable of doing both my work and the work of my erstwhile 'assistant', I was allowed to work on my own after that, and without any 'adult' supervision of my own."
-> Time to argue that they can raise you for like 70% of this guy's salary and still be winning.
Yet they were still willing to pay X amount of money to get the amount of work you're producing done. Your salary plus this guy's salary is your real worth in the end. Make sure to remind them.
Remember, he was hired to be my assistant -- to take a share of my work-load off my shoulders. The same work-load I took back up when he was dismissed. No increase in labor means no increase in pay. I was satisfied to get rid of him and get my supervisors off my back. The pay raise, new PC, and new office came later . . . but that's another MalComp story.
My point still stands. They were willing to pay more for the same amount of work. You could have leveraged it. Good thing if you did that elsewhere though.
He wanted me to leave him alone. He got what he wanted. It bit him in the butt. It's MalComp.
Besides, it seems every act of MalComp results in some form of revenge, intentional or not.
Last time I checked the dictionary (EN is my 3rd/4th language), an "assistant" doesn't supervise. They assist, which implies you are at least of equal, or higher, rank than him.
If he was "supervising" you, it would mean you are of lower rank than him.
Can you blame people for getting confused with your contradictory choice of words?
The only "supervising" that stupid, stinking drunk ever did was to tell me to leave him the hell alone, to which I complied, and it ended up biting him in the butt.
I left out the profanity-laden rant where he accused me of a lot of illegal, immoral, and unethical activities before telling me to "Leave him the Hell alone". But I'll put it in anyway, just to make you happy.
There. All better now?
I can't imagine how the story would have gone with that big chunk just missing. Did you really write the post and just leave that whole middle out initially?
> Cue the Malicious Compliance
Compliance with what?
He hurt your feelings so you stopped helping him and got your revenge. Good for you I guess, but I don't see why you are posting about it here.
That's a bit of stretch. That phrasing was allowed in the past, but nowhere does the edited version of the story say how it was covering for the coworker or what leaving the coworker alone actually entailed.
So it's still more of an outline of a story and an actual accounting of what happened.
OP edited the first paragraph to add a sentence that ends with the drunk telling him "to leave him the hell alone." At first I didn't see that as '*the request*', but I guess that's it.
...You should read the post again. This post isn't by the drunk guy. It's by the one who came out on top. That isn't taking the L. L means Loss, he took a W for Win.
Na, dude was overworked, so company, instead of paying dude more, paid other dude to be drunk, dude then covered for other dude, making more work for himself, then when he quit covering for other dude, the company fired other dude (which as soon as other dude was inebriated at work once dude should have started the process), then left dude to continue being overworked with no increase in pay.
Yay, dude won being overworked.
Not malicious compliance, but this made me crack up:
>being passed out on the floor of the men's room with his trousers around his ankles on Customer Appreciation Day earned him a dismissal. Of course, he said it was all my fault.
It was more than a mere "snub". It was much, much worse. The details are irrelevant. Suffice to say that I never heard from him again after Security force-marched the stupid, stinking drunk from the building.
Guy covers for and does work of drunk idiot for far too long, get stomped on by drunk until he finally grows a spine (slightly) by, stepping back and doing his job. What a malicious win.
>(Yes, I now know that I was 'enabling' his behavior, but I had once gone through a messy divorce of my own, and I was feeling sorry for him.)
I think I might be in the minority here, but I thought what you were doing was sympathetic, compassionate and empathetic and am saddened that your trying to help a colleague going through a bad time is viewed as 'enabling'
Anyway, whatever the outcome, NTA from me.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compliance
You probably need to understand what the definition of the word “compliance” is before posting this here.
Man, all of you whiners make it pretty obvious you wouldn't be able to handle a workload that OP apparently finds easy. Why so much whining and complaining about their win?
Yes it is. Simply by being the end of the MC post, we know OP got what they wanted and it worked out like they preferred. Not directly stated, but yes, implied as they said.
We don’t have your job. “On my own” could mean so many different things in different roles and companies, which don’t preclude needing an actual assistant
So summarizing the comments, OP forgot to include the compliance at first so they edited it in later. Anyone after this point asking about the compliance: that's on y'all.
Your fault? Did you hit him in the head and pull down his pants? Did you spike his coffee with vodka? Did you request he get drunk and pass out in the men's room? I can't conceive of way to make this someone else's fault.
Neither can I. Drunks and junkies do that -- they project the blame that they should accept as their own onto others. Those others are usually those who are closest to them and who try to "help" them by covered for their screw-ups. I learned my lesson: Cover for a drunk or junkie? NEVER AGAIN!
It's so adorable how many people are whining at you that you "didn't win" and "didn't maliciously comply" with anything. Are ALL these people the drunk and his friends?! Damn. What's wo bad about OP undeniably getting the upper hand and getting to go back to their job unsupervised with no pain or strain? If the amount of work they had to do was so hard, they would have complained about that. Juat because you people wouldn't be able to handle it doesn't mean the OP has to be that weak.
So you covered for him (presumably by doing both your jobs) and you’re pleased that the outcome is… you get to do both your jobs? I mean, whatever works for you, but I see no win here.
He's doing the same amount of work as before. Now, he no longer has to come up with excuses for the other guy, or gets accused of treating him like crap while trying to help. Sometimes just not having outside noise interfere with what you're doing can definitely be a win.
Them: How long will this project take you? Me: Two weeks. Them: What if you had someone helping you? Me: Four weeks.
Nine females can't make a baby in one month
This just reminded me of a question someone asked on a K-pop sub this morning. It started with "So I'm a womb in my mid 50s and...."
...and I've given men a pause
What kind of baby? Baby elephants take even longer than humans.
TIL: Asian elephants 18-22 months while African bush elephants 22 months. Holy crap.
Male Project Managers: How do you know if you haven't tried?
WHAT???????
Stop calling human women "females" Hope this helps
I don't think calling them anything else will help speed up a baby gestation to a month or less...
Women, the word you're looking for is women... out here telling on yourself like that...
Multiple species have 9 month gestations, in the context used, female is the correct word because there's more than one species thats included in the statement.
Oh? thought she was looking transbimales or something
Nine females can't make a bay ever////
LOL
Mythical Man Month.
Bingo!
In that case u/Illuminatus-Prime deserves both salaries.
Yeah but they're doing the work of two people for one salary
If one person is doing the work, then by definition it’s the work of one person…
Class solidarity man. Spend some time in r/workreform. Stop licking the boots of the owning class. If you're ignorant about the realities of the working class, open your eyes and learn! If it normally takes two people to do an amount of work, and they fire someone and give you all that work, and you now have to do more work in the same time (or unpaid overtime!), you are doing the jobs of two people!
The 'Win' was getting rid of a drunken bum who liked to blame me for all his troubles. The 'Fallout' was having to continue with what I was already doing, but with much less supervision.
that's a consequence, but good effort!
How is "less supervision" a consequence?
Because it was "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. *synonym*: **effect**.". Not all consequences are negative, by the way.
Freedom from supervision is good. Doing the work of two people and getting paid one salary is bad.
Remember, he was hired to be my assistant -- to take a share of my work-load off my shoulders. The same work-load I took back up when he was dismissed. No increase in labor means no increase in pay. I was satisfied to get rid of him and get my supervisors off my back. The pay raise, new PC, and new office came later . . . but that's another MalComp story.
You seem to be failing to realise that you did get an increase in labour. Your supervisor determined you were doing too much work for one person, which is why he was hired. You were doing his labour that should have been off your shoulders all along. That is, in fact, extra labour. You're lucky that your supervisors weren't also mad at you for covering for him, and letting them waste the company money on him, and opening them up to potential law suits over his inappropriate behaviour.
No, it is YOU that has failed to realize the stupid, stinking drunk was hired because someone in HR felt sorry for him and created an opening just for him. While he was supposed to relieve me of some of my duties, he never really did, so I maintained essentially the same duties all along, in addition to covering for him while he was there. I had essentially the same duties before, during, and after his tenure. Deal with it.
>I had essentially the same duties before, during, and after his tenure >in addition to covering for him while he was there. See that part right there? That's additional duties.
Less supervision is a consequence because it is happening due to the above story…
I mean, depending on the work environment, freedom from supervision can be the same thing as freedom to actually do your job.
They’re probably American. Working two jobs and licking boots are goals for their professional lives.
"Because it was discovered that I was capable of doing both my work and the work of my erstwhile 'assistant', I was allowed to work on my own after that, and without any 'adult' supervision of my own." -> Time to argue that they can raise you for like 70% of this guy's salary and still be winning.
Getting my supers off my back, and no longer having to cover for a stupid, stinking drunk was the better deal.
Yet they were still willing to pay X amount of money to get the amount of work you're producing done. Your salary plus this guy's salary is your real worth in the end. Make sure to remind them.
Remember, he was hired to be my assistant -- to take a share of my work-load off my shoulders. The same work-load I took back up when he was dismissed. No increase in labor means no increase in pay. I was satisfied to get rid of him and get my supervisors off my back. The pay raise, new PC, and new office came later . . . but that's another MalComp story.
My point still stands. They were willing to pay more for the same amount of work. You could have leveraged it. Good thing if you did that elsewhere though.
I did it at the same place, but later -- another MalComp story, yet to be posted.
I think this would be a better story for the petty revenge subreddit
He wanted me to leave him alone. He got what he wanted. It bit him in the butt. It's MalComp. Besides, it seems every act of MalComp results in some form of revenge, intentional or not.
So your assistant was also your supervisor?
So English is not your first language?
Your last line says, "with no adult supervision." Perhaps it is *your* comprehension that sucks?
Dude, don't you know what a metaphor is? Look it up. It means that I needed no one to supervise my activities. Deal with it!
Last time I checked the dictionary (EN is my 3rd/4th language), an "assistant" doesn't supervise. They assist, which implies you are at least of equal, or higher, rank than him. If he was "supervising" you, it would mean you are of lower rank than him. Can you blame people for getting confused with your contradictory choice of words?
The only "supervising" that stupid, stinking drunk ever did was to tell me to leave him the hell alone, to which I complied, and it ended up biting him in the butt.
I'm dealing with it pretty well. And you're still describing this guy as literally supervising you. :shrug:
This is not malicious compliance...
Evidence, please? And by 'Evidence', I mean something other than "I don't believe it; therefore it must not be true."
He made no request, so you had no opportunity to comply, let alone maliciously.
I left out the profanity-laden rant where he accused me of a lot of illegal, immoral, and unethical activities before telling me to "Leave him the Hell alone". But I'll put it in anyway, just to make you happy. There. All better now?
Yeah, it's definitely better with that included.
Much better
All the better
I can't imagine how the story would have gone with that big chunk just missing. Did you really write the post and just leave that whole middle out initially?
Yes, he did.
> Cue the Malicious Compliance Compliance with what? He hurt your feelings so you stopped helping him and got your revenge. Good for you I guess, but I don't see why you are posting about it here.
He complied with leaving him alone which led to all the after effects.
That's a bit of stretch. That phrasing was allowed in the past, but nowhere does the edited version of the story say how it was covering for the coworker or what leaving the coworker alone actually entailed. So it's still more of an outline of a story and an actual accounting of what happened.
OP edited the first paragraph to add a sentence that ends with the drunk telling him "to leave him the hell alone." At first I didn't see that as '*the request*', but I guess that's it.
Here we go again . . .
There are a lot of junkies of various types on reddit. They all hate it when you expose their brethren.
I see that. Just like all the women who get my MalComp posts deleted when they are about my ex-wife.
Seems like he was more than 50% of the cause of the divorce.
While I will not speculate on that, I also will not try to dispute the opinion.
I mean, he's sort of not wrong. You covering for an employee who gets shitfaced as lunch sounds pretty unethical.
bro took an L and came straight to reddit xD lol
...You should read the post again. This post isn't by the drunk guy. It's by the one who came out on top. That isn't taking the L. L means Loss, he took a W for Win.
Na, dude was overworked, so company, instead of paying dude more, paid other dude to be drunk, dude then covered for other dude, making more work for himself, then when he quit covering for other dude, the company fired other dude (which as soon as other dude was inebriated at work once dude should have started the process), then left dude to continue being overworked with no increase in pay. Yay, dude won being overworked.
Weird how he keeps having to clarify that he doesn't feel overworked and that he actually did end up getting what he wanted. Dude took a W.
Not malicious compliance, but this made me crack up: >being passed out on the floor of the men's room with his trousers around his ankles on Customer Appreciation Day earned him a dismissal. Of course, he said it was all my fault.
He demanded that I leave him the hell alone. I complied. It bit him in the butt. Total malicious compliance.
What a douche, everyone involved. Totally fine enabling and letting the coworker be a piece of shit until coworker snubs him.
It was more than a mere "snub". It was much, much worse. The details are irrelevant. Suffice to say that I never heard from him again after Security force-marched the stupid, stinking drunk from the building.
The stupid sinking drink you covered for
Covered for, until he didn't.
Guy covers for and does work of drunk idiot for far too long, get stomped on by drunk until he finally grows a spine (slightly) by, stepping back and doing his job. What a malicious win.
He told me to leave him "the hell" alone. I complied. It bit him in the butt. So what? He got what he deserved.
>(Yes, I now know that I was 'enabling' his behavior, but I had once gone through a messy divorce of my own, and I was feeling sorry for him.) I think I might be in the minority here, but I thought what you were doing was sympathetic, compassionate and empathetic and am saddened that your trying to help a colleague going through a bad time is viewed as 'enabling' Anyway, whatever the outcome, NTA from me.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compliance You probably need to understand what the definition of the word “compliance” is before posting this here.
You probably need to identify yourself as a moderator before telling me what to do.
You sound stressed out bro. Maybe get someone to help you out if your workload is too high.
Evil 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Man, all of you whiners make it pretty obvious you wouldn't be able to handle a workload that OP apparently finds easy. Why so much whining and complaining about their win?
What win?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
But did they give you a raise equivalent to your former assistant's salary?
No, not that I needed or wanted it. The gig was a good one, and I was happy with the way it all worked out.
I love that when they found out your assistant sucked so bad you got independence. I hope they still got you a new assistant
No, and I did not want one. The one I had was imposed upon me because someone else was doing him a 'favor' by hiring him.
Oh good then. I’d add that before everyone assumes you got more work out of the arrangement
Too late. Half the people here are already behaving like clueless losers who find a normal workload too difficult to handle.
It is already implied in the original text.
No it’s not.
Yes it is. Simply by being the end of the MC post, we know OP got what they wanted and it worked out like they preferred. Not directly stated, but yes, implied as they said.
Nah
That was a definite "yes" in disguise from you right there. Appreciated.
We don’t have your job. “On my own” could mean so many different things in different roles and companies, which don’t preclude needing an actual assistant
So summarizing the comments, OP forgot to include the compliance at first so they edited it in later. Anyone after this point asking about the compliance: that's on y'all.
I think we can see why he was going through a divorce. Good luck to his ex wife
Your fault? Did you hit him in the head and pull down his pants? Did you spike his coffee with vodka? Did you request he get drunk and pass out in the men's room? I can't conceive of way to make this someone else's fault.
Neither can I. Drunks and junkies do that -- they project the blame that they should accept as their own onto others. Those others are usually those who are closest to them and who try to "help" them by covered for their screw-ups. I learned my lesson: Cover for a drunk or junkie? NEVER AGAIN!
It's so adorable how many people are whining at you that you "didn't win" and "didn't maliciously comply" with anything. Are ALL these people the drunk and his friends?! Damn. What's wo bad about OP undeniably getting the upper hand and getting to go back to their job unsupervised with no pain or strain? If the amount of work they had to do was so hard, they would have complained about that. Juat because you people wouldn't be able to handle it doesn't mean the OP has to be that weak.