Singapore worker let go after refusing Saturday work asks: 'Is this legal?'

On April 17, a Reddit post on r/askSingapore unexpectedly caught fire. A Singapore-based office employee claimed he was terminated on the spot after declining a new directive from his employer—to start working Saturdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., in addition to his existing Monday-to-Friday schedule. The proposed incentive? A 5% salary increase.

He refused, citing his need for a reasonable work-life balance and pointing out that the Saturday duties were “completely unrelated” to his original job scope. According to his account, he was given a termination letter the same day.

Looking for clarity, he turned to Reddit: “Is this considered wrongful termination?” he asked. “I want to know what my next steps should be and whether there’s any legal action I can take against them.”

The post sparked a flurry of responses, with Redditors divided between legal realism and workplace sympathy. One user commented, “They can terminate you for not liking your face.” Others explained that since the employee had rejected the new working terms, the company had the legal right to end the employment, so long as they observed notice protocols.

But beyond legality, many noted something else: the troubling normalization of overreach disguised as opportunity. “On the bright side, you’re dodging a real red flag,” said one commenter. And just like that, a story about a weekend work request became a flashpoint for a much larger conversation.

Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM) makes one thing clear: an employer cannot unilaterally change the core terms of an employment contract—including working hours, job scope, or salary—without the employee’s agreement. Changes require consent, and failure to obtain it should trigger negotiation, not coercion.

In this case, the employer introduced a new term: work Saturdays for a 5% pay bump. That constitutes a contract modification. When the employee declined, the employer had two legal paths: maintain the current arrangement or initiate lawful termination by serving notice or paying in lieu. It seems they chose the latter. From a compliance standpoint, this is above board. But what the law permits and what workplace ethics demand are not always aligned.

The move—terminating someone for declining an unrelated workload with minimal compensation—may not breach the law, but it breaches the spirit of mutual respect many professionals expect from modern employment. It also underscores a growing imbalance between flexible job definitions and rigid managerial expectations.

1. The Quiet Expansion of Work Hours

Singapore has long battled the cultural inertia of long working hours. Though MOM mandates a maximum of 44 hours per week for non-executive workers (unless otherwise stated in the contract), many PMETs (Professionals, Managers, Executives, and Technicians) fall outside these protections.

In practice, salaried office workers are often expected to be “flexible,” even when that flexibility is only ever asked of them—not their employers.

Saturday work, especially in roles not client-facing or time-sensitive, often signals resource shortfalls or management inefficiencies rather than legitimate operational needs. When these demands are made under the guise of minor rewards—like a 5% salary increase—they become even more exploitative.

2. The Power of At-Will Termination (Without the Name)

Singapore doesn’t formally have “at-will employment” as seen in the United States, where an employer can terminate a worker for almost any reason (barring discrimination). Yet the practical effect can be similar.

Unless termination is explicitly tied to wrongful dismissal grounds—like pregnancy, union activity, or whistleblowing—employers face little friction when ending contracts, so long as they fulfill notice terms.

This makes it legally easy to fire someone who doesn’t bend to evolving expectations. But ease doesn’t make it fair. When changes to work arrangements come with zero negotiation and immediate consequences for dissent, the employee-employer relationship shifts from mutual to transactional.

3. Social Norms and Silent Red Flags

In tight-knit work cultures like Singapore’s, job retention often hinges on unspoken compliance. Employees learn quickly what’s “optional” but not really. Rejecting additional work, even if contractually justified, can paint one as uncooperative or “not team-oriented.”

The fact that the employee in this Reddit story was terminated the same day he declined suggests a premeditated choice—not an impasse reached over time, but a swift rebuke for asserting boundaries.

This raises a red flag: when companies couch aggressive expectations in “offers,” they turn employment into a test of submission. Refuse, and you’re not just disagreeing—you’re deemed incompatible.

Implications:

This case may seem anecdotal, but its resonance reflects a shifting undercurrent in Singapore’s white-collar economy. It’s not just about one person losing their job; it’s about how flexible labor expectations increasingly erode the psychological contract between employer and employee.

For employees: This is a wake-up call to scrutinize job contracts more carefully. Even standard weekday roles may include vague clauses about “reasonable overtime” or “business needs” that, in practice, allow employers to extend work hours without rewriting contracts.

Professionals need to document any new work requests, clarify if they are contractual amendments, and respond in writing. Silence or verbal consent could later be interpreted as acquiescence.

For employers: Managers should ask: is the demand truly essential—or a shortcut to patch organizational gaps? A 5% raise for a 20% increase in work time is unlikely to inspire loyalty. If anything, it signals undervaluation. More crucially, abrupt terminations over boundary-setting damage trust and morale, even among remaining staff. The short-term gain of compliance risks long-term reputational loss.

Singapore’s employment framework leaves most PMETs without strong protections. Unlike unionized manufacturing sectors, office professionals rely on limited recourse through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP).

While MOM provides guidance on best practices, enforcement is often passive unless complaints are escalated. Strengthening fair dismissal guidelines and encouraging third-party mediation could help balance this asymmetry.

This Reddit post wasn’t just a cry for help. It was a crack in the surface of a growing fault line—where workplace expectations stretch further while protections remain static. What’s alarming isn’t just the legality of the termination—it’s how easily employers can reframe compliance as incompatibility. Say no, and you’re “not a fit.” Raise a concern, and you’re “not adaptable.” These are the silent ways workplace power operates today.

But workers are not unaware. From viral resignation posts to rising demand for flexible roles, there’s a quiet rebellion underway. Employees are pushing back against the idea that “just a few more hours” is a fair trade for burnout. Employers who respect boundaries—not just legal minimums—will win in the long run. Those who don’t may find themselves the next viral cautionary tale.