CEO couldn’t reach employee for 45 minutes while he was on a break, called an old phone number and then asked: ‘Do you want this job?’

A 45-minute break from a laptop turned into an uncomfortable confrontation for one employee after their CEO reportedly became furious over a missed call, even though the employee had marked their Slack status as away and had already updated their phone number.

The employee later turned to Reddit for an outside perspective, asking whether the incident was an example of unreasonable workplace expectations or simply the kind of pressure employees are expected to tolerate, particularly in a startup environment.

Employee says they were away for just 45 minutes

According to the Reddit post posted on r/OfficePolitics, the employee stepped away from their laptop for around 45 minutes and changed their Slack status to “OOO.”

During that time, the CEO reportedly sent messages and attempted to call them through Slack. Because the employee was away from their computer, they did not see the messages or calls.

The CEO then tried to reach the employee on their mobile phone. There was another problem: the number he called was an old one that the employee had changed about six weeks earlier.

The employee said they had already updated their new phone number on Slack.

Eventually, another team member managed to contact the employee and tell them that the CEO was looking for them. The employee said they immediately called the CEO back.

CEO allegedly asked: ‘Do you want this job?’

The conversation quickly became heated, according to the employee.

The CEO reportedly asked: “Are you even part of this company?”

He also allegedly asked: “Do you want this job?”

When the employee attempted to explain that their Slack status showed they were away and that the CEO had called an outdated number, the CEO would not let them finish.

The CEO reportedly responded: “I don't care at all what your reason is.”

He then allegedly told the employee that if they wanted to keep working at the company, he could not be forced to deal with “missed calls or unanswered messages” from them again.

The call eventually moved on to another subject before ending.

The bigger workplace question: Is being unavailable the same as being uncommitted?

For the employee, the confrontation was troubling for a reason that went beyond being yelled at.

They questioned whether a brief period of unavailability could really be interpreted as evidence that they were not committed to their job.

“I do my work, I answer while I'm working, and I'm not someone who just disappears for no reason,” the employee wrote.

But the incident left them feeling as though they were expected to remain reachable throughout the day, with little room to step away from their computer.

That distinction is at the heart of the dilemma: Does workplace commitment mean being available whenever a senior executive calls, or should employees be able to have reasonable periods when they are offline?

Employee now worries about what happens next

The Reddit user said the experience left them “a bit shaken up” and unsure whether they were overreacting. They are particularly concerned about being called into a meeting with their manager the following week and want to be prepared to explain what happened.

Rather than simply arguing about whether the CEO was right or wrong, the situation raises a more practical question for employees facing a similar meeting: How do you defend yourself without becoming defensive?

The employee's dilemma remains unresolved. They believe they were briefly unavailable, not deliberately ignoring their CEO. Their CEO, based on the account, saw the missed calls and unanswered messages very differently.

And that leaves the larger workplace question hanging: when does being committed to your job stop meaning being responsive during working hours and start meaning being available at all times?