I can clear things up a bit. First off, you're right. It absolutely was fraudulent. The job was being a butt-in-chair in case things went wrong more than it was

I can clear things up a bit. First off, you're right. It absolutely was fraudulent. The job was being a butt-in-chair in case things went wrong more than it was typing a few keys. There were also some low priority tasks (irregular data entry, restocking printers with paper, etc.), but no one seemed to care if those jobs were done. My memory is very hazy regarding this detail so take it with a huge grain of salt, but I believe he quit because they offered him that versus being fired and charged with a crime. (There were some other shenanigans with other employees, and I can't be sure I'm not conflating things or making them up.) > You can absolutely argue that the job was stupid and should be automated (it should've been)... Yes. See my reply to another reply. > you can absolutely argue about whether that person was feeling societal pressures to work two jobs and felt like this was the only way to make ends meet. In this time and place, I worked three jobs (separately, and with my employers' full knowledge) and had all my bills paid off the first week of each month. With only (and any) one of those three jobs paying my bills off would have taken about 2.5 weeks. Each job was technically unskilled (although skills helped) and required only a high school diploma.) It was a very prosperous time with low unemployment. I've never been one for societal pressures, but this guy didn't have kids (neither did I at the time); which I think would have been the strongest defense. > And, in the end, it actually caused other people to likely do overtime to cover up for his skimping. It definitely had some downstream consequences... possibly overtime but I can't be sure, and although most of the people involved were salaried, on a personal level, they ended up staying later than they otherwise would have.