Once, it was a warning. Twice, a coincidence. But after firing three staff for the exact same WFH behaviour, one Malaysian employer is convinced it’s not bad luck but a pattern.
A Malaysian startup founder recently took to Threads to share his growing frustration after terminating a Gen Z employee just one day shy of her three-month mark making it the third time he’s had to fire someone over similar issues.
Despite offering what many would consider “MNC-level perks”, including flexible work-from-home (WFH) policies, the situation once again spiralled into repeated warnings, broken trust, and ultimately, dismissal.
The benefits were solid, the behaviour wasn’t
To give some context, the founder said he went out of his way to make the workplace attractive and supportive, even as a growing startup.
Among the benefits offered were:
- RM4,000 basic salary
- Decent work laptop
- Flexible WFH policy
- 25 days annual leave
- 7-day paternity leave + maternity leave
- MyRapid card for transport
- 10–20% annual increment
- (In progress) Medical panel clinic access
But despite what looked like a dream setup on paper, things began to go downhill not long after she opted for WFH.
Reasons for termination
The founder laid out a list of behaviours that eventually led to her termination after three warning letters.
Among the main issues were:
- Caught being unavailable online more than 15 times, with “anak buat perangai” (child acting up) being the most common excuse.
- Took emergency leave without informing anyone, only apologising after being confronted.
- Refused to come into the office when needed, more than three times.
- Allowed her husband to use the company-provided laptop for work, and denied it when asked.
It wasn’t just about missed calls or unread emails, it was about consistently being offline during critical hours. And it didn’t go unnoticed.
Logs don’t lie
According to the employer, the employee’s online activity was tracked through automated system logs, not by manual micromanagement.
Our system showed she was only active for 2–3 hours per day. And she claimed she didn’t have time to complete her daily tasks.”
This would’ve already raised eyebrows in any company. But in this case, her role was to act as a first point of contact for technical issues and delays in response could mean real-time losses for clients.
Even so, the employer said he paid her full August salary, despite the termination.
‘Is it me?’
The situation didn’t just end with her termination. It triggered deeper questions the employer had been asking himself for a while.
This is the third time I’ve had to let someone go for this exact pattern of behaviour. Now I’m starting to wonder, am I the problem? All I ever asked was for my staff to be present and responsive during working hours.”
While many bosses might have taken a harder stance, he admitted he’s been trying to be fair even generous. But now he’s questioning whether that leniency is being mistaken for weakness.
“Are the benefits I offer not motivating enough? Should I rethink how I hire? Or is it finally time to just abolish the WFH policy altogether?” he asked.
‘Some people abuse the flexibility’
The post didn’t go unnoticed. It sparked a wave of reactions from both employers and employees, many of whom were eager to weigh in.
Some sided with the boss, with one writing: “WFH, 25 days annual leave, decent pay, good laptop, transport card, annual increments…what more does she want?! People these days love abusing company perks.”
Others offered suggestions, calling for better onboarding practices:
“Maybe start with WFO for new hires. Once they’ve proven themselves, then allow WFH. Set clear boundaries from day one.”
At the same time, some reminded him not to generalise as not all Gen Z workers were like this.
Read the full post here:
View on Threads
