Worker gets written up for 'not smiling enough', Reddit explodes over toxic workplace culture: 'Smile for who?'
The write-up that launched a fiery comments
Sexism and silent expectations in the workplace
A question of morale or management control?
You Might Also Like:
Are long notice periods costing techies big opportunities? Reddit explodes over netizen's FAANG offer dilemma
In a post that has now gone viral on Reddit's r/antiwork community, a warehouse employee's account of being officially reprimanded for "not smiling enough" has left the internet both baffled and furious. The anonymous user, who identifies as a picker working grueling 10-hour shifts in a windowless warehouse, shared the surreal experience of being pulled aside by a supervisor and handed a write-up for what was described as a poor attitude.The post reads, 'I asked what it was for, he said: 'Your attitude. You don't smile or seem approachable.'' The employee emphasized that their role involves little to no interaction with others and that productivity had not been questioned. 'I work 10-hour shifts moving heavy boxes in a windowless building where we're not allowed to have earbuds, take phone calls, or speak unless it's job-related,' they wrote. 'Smile for who? The boxes?'The post quickly gained traction with thousands of comments, many accusing the supervisor of weaponizing workplace morale as a vague and subjective criterion. 'So now I guess I'm supposed to beam like a Disney mascot while hauling pallets in steel-toed boots for $16 an hour?' the user wrote, encapsulating what many saw as the absurdity of the situation.Other Redditors chimed in with biting sarcasm and mock suggestions. One commenter encouraged the worker to request a formal HR meeting, complete with a smiling improvement plan, periodic check-ins, and 'mentorship from employees who smile correctly.' Another wrote, 'Definitely give him the creepiest dead-eyed smile every time you see him from now on,' echoing a sentiment of sarcastic resistance.Several users speculated that the situation could be tied to gender-based discrimination, with one commenter asking bluntly, 'Are you a woman? If so, I'd honestly go to HR and ask if there is a 'women must smile' policy in the handbook.' Others shared personal experiences of being told to smile in male-dominated environments like construction sites, where such expectations are rarely placed on men.One particularly poignant comment read, 'The sexual harassment I witnessed on a daily basis went completely ignored by management/HR. And when the female employees would speak up or clap back, they got labeled as rude or difficult to work with, or bad for morale.' For many, the post has become a microcosm of how gendered double standards and unrealistic emotional labor are quietly enforced in blue-collar jobs.The write-up has also sparked a broader debate around what workplace morale actually means and whether it can—or should—be tied to outward expressions like smiling. While it's true that positivity can be infectious, commenters argue that in physically demanding environments with minimal human interaction, forcing emotional expressions becomes performative, even punitive.The story, first shared on Reddit, has now sparked interest across platforms and discussions around labor rights, especially in environments where conditions are already harsh and pay is low. Many are calling for better training for supervisors and more stringent policies around what constitutes acceptable grounds for disciplinary action.As one user put it: 'They want to fire you, they are just starting a paper trail. Make sure you get a copy of this for the eventual unemployment case.'In the age of AI productivity tools and mental health awareness, the idea that warehouse workers must also perform joy on demand seems increasingly dystopian. Whether this incident was a one-off or indicative of a larger workplace culture problem, the internet has made one thing clear—people are done being told to smile for minimum wage.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
Worker gets written up for 'not smiling enough', Reddit explodes over toxic workplace culture: 'Smile for who?'
The write-up that launched a fiery comments Sexism and silent expectations in the workplace A question of morale or management control? You Might Also Like: Are long notice periods costing techies big opportunities? Reddit explodes over netizen's FAANG offer dilemma In a post that has now gone viral on Reddit's r/antiwork community, a warehouse employee's account of being officially reprimanded for "not smiling enough" has left the internet both baffled and furious. The anonymous user, who identifies as a picker working grueling 10-hour shifts in a windowless warehouse, shared the surreal experience of being pulled aside by a supervisor and handed a write-up for what was described as a poor post reads, 'I asked what it was for, he said: 'Your attitude. You don't smile or seem approachable.'' The employee emphasized that their role involves little to no interaction with others and that productivity had not been questioned. 'I work 10-hour shifts moving heavy boxes in a windowless building where we're not allowed to have earbuds, take phone calls, or speak unless it's job-related,' they wrote. 'Smile for who? The boxes?'The post quickly gained traction with thousands of comments, many accusing the supervisor of weaponizing workplace morale as a vague and subjective criterion. 'So now I guess I'm supposed to beam like a Disney mascot while hauling pallets in steel-toed boots for $16 an hour?' the user wrote, encapsulating what many saw as the absurdity of the Redditors chimed in with biting sarcasm and mock suggestions. One commenter encouraged the worker to request a formal HR meeting, complete with a smiling improvement plan, periodic check-ins, and 'mentorship from employees who smile correctly.' Another wrote, 'Definitely give him the creepiest dead-eyed smile every time you see him from now on,' echoing a sentiment of sarcastic users speculated that the situation could be tied to gender-based discrimination, with one commenter asking bluntly, 'Are you a woman? If so, I'd honestly go to HR and ask if there is a 'women must smile' policy in the handbook.' Others shared personal experiences of being told to smile in male-dominated environments like construction sites, where such expectations are rarely placed on particularly poignant comment read, 'The sexual harassment I witnessed on a daily basis went completely ignored by management/HR. And when the female employees would speak up or clap back, they got labeled as rude or difficult to work with, or bad for morale.' For many, the post has become a microcosm of how gendered double standards and unrealistic emotional labor are quietly enforced in blue-collar write-up has also sparked a broader debate around what workplace morale actually means and whether it can—or should—be tied to outward expressions like smiling. While it's true that positivity can be infectious, commenters argue that in physically demanding environments with minimal human interaction, forcing emotional expressions becomes performative, even story, first shared on Reddit, has now sparked interest across platforms and discussions around labor rights, especially in environments where conditions are already harsh and pay is low. Many are calling for better training for supervisors and more stringent policies around what constitutes acceptable grounds for disciplinary one user put it: 'They want to fire you, they are just starting a paper trail. Make sure you get a copy of this for the eventual unemployment case.'In the age of AI productivity tools and mental health awareness, the idea that warehouse workers must also perform joy on demand seems increasingly dystopian. Whether this incident was a one-off or indicative of a larger workplace culture problem, the internet has made one thing clear—people are done being told to smile for minimum wage.
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
Indian Railways passenger claims cop refused to vacate seat, video shows otherwise
An Indian Railways passenger posted a video on Reddit claiming that a police officer took over their reserved seat in an AC coach and declined to vacate it, despite repeated requests. The clip, uploaded to the platform's Indian Railways community, was titled: 'A policeman took our seat without asking and refused to move, is this allowed?'In the video, one of the men can be seen sitting on the lower berth of the coach, visibly irritated. 'I have been asking him to move since the afternoon, but he hasn't yet,' he The police officer, seated on the berth, responds casually, 'Do you have to sleep right now?' When the man replies that he does, the cop gets up but walks off with a parting comment: 'Don't remember police when you are in some difficulty.'Take a look at the viral post here: Watch the video here: The clip quickly sparked a wide range of reactions online. While many users criticised the officer's attitude, others argued that the situation might have been user recalled their own uncomfortable encounter on a train involving a uniformed passenger: 'Last year I had a run-in with an unruly jawan on the Vande Bharat Express He and his friend had no reservation. They refused to vacate our seats and even threatened me and my wife. I'm 54 and still had to argue just to claim our place. I wish there were stricter protocols for such situations.'advertisementOthers, however, had a different take. 'Refused to move? In the video, he is leaving. What do you need help with?' one user wrote: 'If someone isn't sleeping, it's okay to let another person sit. Be it a cop or anyone else, it's about basic humanity.'One of the users said that had it been someone from another profession, the reaction might have been different the video left the internet divided, it brought attention to a common travel concern, respecting reserved seating and the line between courtesy and entitlement. Whether it's a policeman or an ordinary passenger, the debate around space, manners, and authority on Indian trains remains very much on track.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Bengaluru man sold land for daughter's marriage in 2006, now she wants money from buyer, says 'I wasn't asked'; Internet reacts
The Sale That Sparked a Dispute Daughter Claims She Was Not Consulted Shifting Statements and Legal Pressure Live Events Legal Advice and Online Reactions (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A land sale that took place nearly two decades ago in Bengaluru has now led to a legal dispute. The daughter of the man who sold the land in 2006 has sent a legal notice to the current owners, claiming that the property was sold without her property, located under BBMP limits, was sold by the father of the woman who is now demanding compensation. According to the buyer, who shared their experience on Reddit, the sale was done directly by the seller, and no Power of Attorney (POA) was involved. The buyer also stated that they have been paying property taxes regularly since then, and the Khata certificate is in the name of their father, who bought the 19 years later, the seller's daughter claims she was not asked or informed before the sale. She is demanding compensation even though she was not a minor at the time. In fact, the buyer claims the seller himself had said the land was sold to arrange his daughter's seller's son initially said it was a family matter and would be sorted amicably. But months later, he told the buyers that they would be taking legal action and advised them to get a more recently, the tone changed again. The seller's son is now pushing for an out-of-court settlement and is allegedly using mild threats, saying things like, 'What if the judge rules in her favour?'The buyer said they felt pressured to settle and mentioned that the seller's son cited other cases where buyers had paid to resolve similar issues have assured the buyer that they are on strong legal ground, as they hold proper sale deeds and documents. Many users on Reddit supported the buyer, with one saying, 'If all papers are in place and records match government data, you should be fine.'Another user warned that this might be part of a family inheritance issue, where the daughter, possibly left out of the property share, is trying to claim her part through the from agencies
