Unhappy workers turning to tech to get back at bosses

RESIGNING en masse. Deleting files containing months of hard work from a server. Spitting into the food at a food-processing facility. These are just some of the ways that disgruntled employees have sabotaged their employers in the last year.

Interviews with companies across various industries suggest that the age-old practice of workplace sabotage remains well and alive in Singapore, and that unhappy workers, in fact, have become ever more creative in getting back at their companies – with help from technology.

A frustrated baggage handler who worked for Changi Airport Group was sentenced to 20 days’ jail last week, after he swapped close to 300 luggage tags on bags, sending them to the wrong locations. He alleged that he was ill-treated by the company. His actions cost Singapore Airlines and SilkAir more than $42,000 in compensation pay-outs.

There are various reasons why people might resort to workplace sabotage, said

Ronald Lee, managing director of human resources consultancy PrimeStaff Management Services.

“Workplace sabotage has always been around,” he added.

The most common causes of workplace sabotage are anger regarding wages, and perceptions of favouritism, lack of training or the way staff have been treated, he said.

The number of cases of workplace sabotage has remained constant over the years, Lee said, based on his experience. “The change is in how technology has made sabotage more subtle and not easily detected, like deleting files surreptitiously or manipulating information.”

Attempt to leak info

A member of a local technology company’s upper management told the Straits Times that a member of his team gained access to a restricted part of the system in January to copy information from shared files.

“The employee was upset because he suspected his boss of having an affair with his wife,” he said. “Whether that was the case is still unknown, but there was enough evidence to show that he was intending to pass the information to one of our competitors. That was sufficient to demand his resignation.”

The company’s investigations also revealed that the employee had managed to do so because his boss unwittingly gave permission to him to access the system after hours.

Similarly, an account director at a local design company, who wanted to be known only as Jean, said that a staff member who was “very emotional” about not being allowed to present at a pitch had deleted seven different shared folders containing her team’s finalised work. The staff member was later found to have been suffering from moderate schizophrenia.

“It was a very stressful and alarming situation when we went in to find all our work gone,” Jean said. “I would hesitate to welcome him back into our office, but hopefully he has been seeking the psychological help he needs.”

Neither company reported t he incidents to t he police because they decided to “let it go”.

“It’s in the past now. Furthermore this was a particularly young staff member, and I believe it would have been really damaging if he had both a history of mental illness and a criminal record,” Jean said. “I want to live and let live.”

Other forms of workplace sabotage are more old-school. Employees of a large-scale food processing facility who were unhappy about being scolded after they were late for work chose to get back at their boss by spitting in the food.

The company had seen around 10 such incidents of workplace sabotage in recent years.

“We have had unhappy staff who would spit in the food if they were scolded, then storm off,” said the company manager, who declined to be named as he was not authorised to speak publicly.

He added that some staff have also admitted to using unclean knives and utensils to handle food, as a means of “getting back” at the company.

“They know that this could result in very serious illnesses among our customers, maybe even deaths. We cannot tolerate this sort of behaviour,” he said.

The errant staff were immediately fired, and another line chef was hired to keep an eye on food handlers and cleaners at the processing facility. The company decided not to make a police report, for fear that members of the public might think that all its staff did the same thing.

“Industries that involve having people working on a line are most susceptible to sabotage.

Supervisors cannot always be in all places at all times, and this may give angry workers the chance to try to damage the products,” said the manager.

Earlier this year, a small, 20man strong advertising and events firm met its biggest challenge, when 12 interns and executives threw in the towel on the morning of a largescale event.

According to a senior director at the firm, who wanted to be known only as Koh, the staff had been very unhappy about having to work long hours in the run-up to the event. This resulted in a heated argument that morning, following which 12 employees handed in their resignation letters, some even providing cheques in lieu of a notice period.

“It was clearly planned and meant to sabotage the event. We got by with some last-minute help from our friends and family members, but it was a horrible experience,” Koh said.

One employee even flipped a table and k icked over a standee on his way out, she said.

The change is in how technology has made sabotage more subtle and not easily detected