'Can’t expense my bike rides home?': Employer refuses to accept bike hire expenses in lieu of Uber

Written rules and policies can be ridiculously shortsighted. Often times they've been committed to paper hurriedly by an HR rep, or middle manager, responding to demands that are being placed on them by frustrated executives. The aforementioned situation often results in entirely one-dimensional rules that don't offer any room for leeway or interpretation on a case-by-case basis.

Like what you see? Follow our WhatsApp channel for more.

Posted by Brad Dickson

That's how you end up with situations as the one u/CyclingFrenchie describes in the story that they shared to r/MaliciousCompliance this week. Their post was titled "Can't expense my bike rides home? Okay, then I'll take very expensive [U]bers instead."

In their story, they explain how their new job has a rule where, if you work late, you can take an Uber home and expense it. u/CyclingFrenchie prefers to hire an electric bike instead because “it's a great way to decompress after a long day's work." The issue arose when they went to expense the cost of these hires and were told that the policy didn't cover the electric bike hires; that's when they decided to maliciously comply with the policy and began taking the more expensive Ubers instead. This wouldn't go on for long before the company realized its error and revered the policy.

Keep reading to see screenshots of the story below. For more malicious compliance check out this worker who was told that the airport they were Ubering too was “in walking distance” so they started taking Ubers to the further, more expensive, airport instead.