HR tells employee not to cover for two coworkers to avoid giving him leverage for another raise, employee maliciously complies years later when coworkers are out sick: 'Focus on my core responsibilities? You got it!'

Author image for Ben Weiss
Ben Weiss • Writer and Editor
Sep 15, 2025 8:00 AM EDT

Employees should always be careful not to take on too many responsibilities, but employers should also be careful when they restrict employees from taking on extra work. For the employee, you don't want to be known as being too good at your job. Otherwise, you might end up with more tasks and duties than you had initially bargained for without a proper pay raise or promotion. As for the employer, when you restrict your employees from taking on extra work, you might find yourself in a pickle down the road if said employee is doing a good job at protecting himself or herself in the workplace.

In this case, the author of this tale became the only person capable enough of substituting for two other coworkers if they were out sick or busy with other tasks. Of course, those other coworkers weren't able to do the reverse. Still, the employee was happy to cover for his coworkers if the company was in a pinch. Now, as several members of the online community pointed out, the employee should not feel the pressure to take that work on unless they were going to be properly compensated for that extra work. The author did manage to negotiate a well-deserved pay raise because of their capabilities, but that's when HR decided to restrict him from stepping in for these other coworkers moving forward. It seemed that they were concerned that the employee would continue to use their privileged position to their advantage during the next contract negotiation. 

Well, the day came when both of those coworkers were unable to come to work, and the employee was tasked with stepping in at the last minute. Thankfully, the employee decided to do exactly what HR requested five years ago, which was absolutely nothing.

Add as a preferred
source on Google
Advertisement

  • "Focus on my core responsibilities? You got it!"

    Blonde businesswoman points to a paper while lecturing a younger male employee.
    via Unsplash+ (Getty Images)

    Image is representative only and does not depict the actual subjects of the story.

  • This MC was five years in the making. While my job employs many people, there are only two people whose roles affect me: PERSON-A and PERSON-B.
    via [deleted]
  • I can cover for PERSON-A and PERSON-B, and either of them can cover for me, but I'm the only person at my company's many locations who can cover both roles when they are off at the same time. This usually happens 3-5 shifts a year during emergencies, so I'm happy to help.
    via [deleted]
  • During a meeting for a pay raise, I mention I'm the only person in the company who can cover PERSON-A and PERSON-B at the same time, and how this has been helpful in a pinch.
    via [deleted]
  • In their infinite wisdom, my boss tells me I am to no longer cover PERSONS- A-and-B, and to focus on my core responsibilities.
    via [deleted]
  • ASIDE: I still got a pay raise, but I think they wanted to prevent my argument from resurfacing again in the future, in the event I wanted to leverage another raise.
    via [deleted]
  • I knew this policy would bite boss in the, as a matter of "when," not "if." Fast forward five years, the boss double-booked vacation for PERSON-A and PERSON-B. Boss asks me to cover both shifts for one day, as there is nobody else to cover.
    via [deleted]
  • "As per your instructions five years ago, I am not to cover the responsibilities of PERSON-A and PERSON-B during a shift."
    via [deleted]
  • The most chefs-kiss part of this interaction was something I learned from Reddit: DOCUMENT EVERYTHING.
    via [deleted]
  • When they instructed me five years ago to never again cover PERSON-A and PERSON-B, I asked for confirmation via e-mail. I keep these e- mails in the event I'm seen as uncooperative.
    via [deleted]
  • During a minute-by-minute emergency, I forwarded boss' own e-mail back to them, mentioning that I would focus on my "core responsibilities."
    via [deleted]
  • Thankfully, they were able to provide coverage that day (someone came in on their day off), and boss and I had a frank conversation about their rule- making several weeks later.
    via [deleted]
  • Open laptop displaying a Gmail account
    via Stephen Phillips - Hostreviews.co.uk

    Image is representative only and does not depict the actual subjects of the story.

  • PN_Guin • 13m ago "When, not if" is always fun. You get to be prepared while the person responsible get's a nasty surprise. Bonus point for proper cya procedure.
    via [deleted]
  • The MurderedGirdle OP. 10m ago It's why I thought to have them confirm via e- mail. "This will bite you in the Better watch my own back."
    via [deleted]
  • PN_Guin 2m ago Way too many bosses tend to throw their employees under the bus and blame them for their mistakes. Glad you came prepared.
    via [deleted]
  • And forwarding people their own mails is always fun. Had a client call me once quite angry why a project wasn't finished yet. He got rather sheepish when I forwarded him his own mail, where he wrote to stand by until he has finished the final review.
    via [deleted]
  • gui_luis 3m ago I don't know if it's something that makes sense in English, but in my country we say "revenge is a meal served cold". You had to wait five years but he got that back
    via [deleted]

Want More? Follow Us and Add Us as a Preferred Source on Google.

Tags

workplace-stories employee work stories toxic-workplace job work human resources overworked-employees company toxic-work-environment
Scroll Down For The Next Article