Rigid Overtime Policies Backfire: How One IT Specialist Turned the Tables on Unfair Work Practices

When managers set strict rules about overtime that can’t be changed, regardless of what the project needs, they risk not only employee burnout but also operational failures. In this real-life example, a company’s strict overtime policy backfired spectacularly when an IT expert, tired and fed up with unreasonable expectations, pointed out the flaws in their system, which led to a complete policy change. This case shows how important it is to have fair overtime rules, protect employee rights, and manage projects in a realistic way in order to keep workers happy and the business running.

Overtime rules don’t always favor employees, which can often feel unfair 

An employee shared how they used malicious compliance to highlight the flaws in overtime policies after putting in extra hours during the week

In the world of IT project management, being able to change processes to the unpredictable realities of complex systems is just as important as having technical know-how. The IT worker in this case had to move old systems from remote locations, which was hard to do because of bad connectivity, old hardware, and no documents. The team suggested overnight moves to cause as little trouble as possible, which would require extra work. But because management was worried about how much overtime would cost, they made a strict rule: any overtime had to be paid for by leaving early on Friday. There were no excuses, and there were no talks.

On paper, this rigid policy on workplace overtime may have seemed like a good idea, but it didn’t take into account how unpredictable technical moves can be. The hours of overtime were all over the place; sometimes they went from two to seven hours in one night. Even though the worker was very tired after a 7-hour migration, they weren’t allowed to change their plan during the week and had to “recover” time only on Friday because that’s how the company’s rules work.

The situation hit a breaking point when ransomware attacked a site that had just been moved on a Friday that was supposed to be a day for recovery. The worker wasn’t given time to rest; instead, they were told to drive to the scene of the problem and deal with it. When they got there, they told their boss in a clever way that, according to company rules, their job had already ended. This made the rule even more ridiculous and useless. The business couldn’t handle a major cybersecurity event well because it didn’t have the freedom it had been denied in the past.

This event showed that the company had a major problem with how it understood worker rights and fair labor standards (U.S. Department of Labor). Employers must fairly pay non-exempt workers for all hours worked over 40 per week, according to labor rules. If you try to make up for overtime with forced time off, especially if the rules are strict and help the company more than the worker’s healing, you could break the law and lose the trust of your employees.

After what happened, things changed right away. The company quickly started paying overtime for the last few months of the project because they knew that when managing difficult, mission-critical projects, they had to be flexible, fair, and care about their workers’ well-being. The employee got a mild reprimand for their “attitude,” but there were no official consequences. This shows that when companies put strict cost-cutting measures ahead of common sense and basic human respect, it is usually management that has to figure out how to adapt, not the employee.

In the end, this case should teach managers a lesson: being flexible with workplace rules isn’t just important for keeping employees happy; it’s also important for project success, handling crises, and keeping an honest, strong organization.

Many people online called out the company for having unreasonable overtime policies