A Malaysian startup founder has fired a Gen Z employee after discovering she allegedly worked only two to three hours a day despite enjoying full work-from-home (WFH) privileges, a monthly salary of around S$1,150 (RM4,000), and an extensive list of company benefits.
The dismissal, which happened just a day before she reached her three-month mark, is the third time the employer has terminated staff for remote work abuse. His account of the incident has since triggered heated debate online over Gen Z work culture, employee productivity tracking, and the future of flexible work arrangements.
Remote Work Abuse Despite Generous Perks
The founder stressed that his company offered benefits often found in multinational corporations (MNCs), including:
- Flexible WFH policy
- 25 days of annual leave
- Paternity and maternity leave
- MyRapid transport card
- Decent work laptop
- 10–20% annual salary increment
- Upcoming medical panel access
But the arrangement soon broke down. Logs revealed the employee was active for just a few hours each day, despite her critical role as the first point of contact for technical issues. Her alleged behaviour included:
- Going offline more than 15 times, often blaming childcare demands
- Taking emergency leave without notice
- Refusing to attend the office when required
- Allowing her husband to use the company laptop for his own work
Despite these issues, the founder said he still paid her full August salary, citing fairness.
WFH Culture & Gen Z Work Ethics Under Scrutiny
The employer admitted the repeated terminations made him question whether his management style, hiring process, or even the WFH policy itself was at fault. “Am I being too lenient, and is it being mistaken for weakness?” he asked, noting that while he wanted to remain fair, some staff appeared to exploit the flexibility.
His post went viral, with many employers supporting his decision. One commenter wrote: “WFH, good pay, 25 days leave, annual increments—what more do they want? People are abusing remote work perks.”
Others suggested hybrid work solutions, such as requiring new hires to begin with office-based work before earning WFH privileges. Some also cautioned against stereotyping Gen Z, pointing out that not all young employees misuse flexible arrangements.
The case reflects a wider regional and global debate about workplace accountability, employee monitoring systems, and the sustainability of remote work policies in a post-pandemic world. For businesses, it underscores the challenge of balancing flexibility with productivity, while for employees, it highlights the importance of maintaining trust when enjoying the benefits of remote work.