Haven

During a company-wide management meeting, the CEO announced a new policy requiring all employees to work every Saturday without additional pay. He explained that the company was facing increased competition and needed everyone to demonstrate greater commitment. Most department heads immediately supported the decision. One manager even described it as a necessary sacrifice for the company’s future. However, the head of operations raised his hand. “Sir, before we implement this policy, I think we need to review the employment contracts. Most of our employees were hired under a five-day working agreement. We cannot simply introduce an additional working day without considering the legal and financial implications.” The CEO looked at him. “Are you saying you won’t support management’s decision?” The manager replied calmly. “I’m saying we should make sure the decision doesn’t expose the company to unnecessary legal problems. If employees are required to work additional hours, we need to establish the appropriate compensation arrangements.” The CEO wasn’t impressed. “Other department heads understand the situation. Why are you the only person making this difficult?” The manager answered: “Because someone has to consider what happens after everyone agrees.” The room became uncomfortable. The CEO accused him of undermining management authority and told him that people who couldn’t support the company’s direction had no business leading departments. The meeting ended, and the manager was asked to submit his access card before leaving the building. By the following morning, HR had issued his termination letter, citing insubordination and failure to align with management’s strategic direction. His colleagues were shocked, but nobody wanted to defend him publicly. Some even advised him to apologise to the CEO and request his job back. He refused.