Top News

Most people expect joining formalities to involve paperwork, policies and introductions. Few expect a warning that their own credit card may be needed just to survive the job. But one workplace story shared online has struck a nerve for exposing how some companies shift financial risk onto employees. What began as a routine onboarding conversation quickly turned into a red flag-filled exchange about delayed salaries, out-of-pocket spending and reimbursement culture, ending with a resignation before the employee had even properly started work.

A career coach recently shared an incident involving a conversation between an HR representative and a newly hired employee. According to the account, the discussion began with HR welcoming the employee and mentioning that there was one requirement to address before they settled in. When the employee asked what it was, HR said the role required them to have a credit card.

Credit card- a requirement?

The employee was surprised and asked why a credit card would be necessary for the job. HR then explained that salaries were sometimes delayed, so employees used their cards to manage expenses in the meantime. That response immediately shifted the tone of the conversation. The employee sought clarification and asked whether salaries were indeed delayed. HR reportedly said it happened occasionally.

The explanation did not end there. HR also stated that when employees were sent on assignments, they were expected to use their own money first for expenses related to the work. The employee then asked whether those costs would be reimbursed later. HR confirmed that reimbursements were processed once payments were cleared.

Standard practice

At that point, the employee raised a larger concern. If the company was running operations, why were employees expected to finance parts of those operations from their personal funds? HR reportedly replied that this was simply how things worked in the organisation and that having a credit card made the process easier. The employee pushed back further, questioning why a company would not budget properly for salaries and business expenses if it already had the resources to operate. HR said they understood the concern but described it as standard practice within the company.

Employee resigns

Still unconvinced, the employee asked why salaries would be delayed in the first place if employees were doing their jobs and the company remained profitable. HR responded that the matter was beyond their scope. That answer appeared to be the final signal for the employee. According to Ingari’s post, the employee said they did not believe it was the right environment for them. They added that they could not commit to a role where workers were expected to fund company operations while also dealing with delayed salaries. The employee then resigned on the spot.

Internet reacts

The story sparked strong reactions online, with many users backing the employee’s decision to walk away immediately. One user said leaving was the right move, arguing that if a company cannot reliably pay salaries or cover basic work expenses, it should not be hiring in the first place. Another commenter described the offer as less of a job opportunity and more of a financial burden packaged as employment. According to them, rejecting it was the smartest decision. A third user echoed the same sentiment, saying that if a company needs employees to finance its operations, then the role is not an opportunity but a liability.