Sharing an office requires a certain amount of consideration, especially when people work different schedules and use the same communal spaces. But there’s an important distinction between company property and something an employee has personally purchased.
Just because an item isn’t being used at a particular moment doesn’t automatically mean everyone else has permission to take it. Sometimes, that misunderstanding can turn an ordinary workday into an unnecessary confrontation.
For one Reddit user, the trouble began when their expensive ergonomic chair kept appearing in unexpected places. They had bought it to accommodate a bad back and only used it during their three weekly office days. Eventually, they discovered that a coworker had been taking advantage of their absence to use it herself.
After an important adjustment mechanism broke, the OP decided that verbal objections weren’t enough. Their next move prompted an accusation that surprised them. Read on to find out why management considered their response a workplace problem.
An office worker locks up his personal chair after a coworker keeps borrowing it without permission
There is something uniquely frustrating about paying for a solution to your own problem, only to discover that other people have quietly decided they are entitled to use it.
What makes situations like this especially irritating is not always the object itself. It is the assumption that personal boundaries become optional simply because someone else finds the arrangement convenient.
The OP bought a $380 ergonomic chair because the standard office chairs were aggravating a bad back. He did not ask the company to purchase it, and he did not offer it as shared furniture. Yet a coworker began taking it to another desk on the days he worked from home, adjusting it incorrectly and leaving crumbs behind.
The situation became more serious when the chair’s height lever broke. After the coworker dismissed his concerns, the OP installed a $12 bike lock so the chair would remain where he left it.
A different perspective is that the coworker may genuinely have viewed the empty chair as unused workplace equipment rather than someone’s personal property. That does not make her behavior reasonable, but it explains why she might have been surprised by the boundary.
The more revealing problem is what happened after she was told. Instead of simply respecting the owner’s request, the issue was reframed as the OP creating a “hostile” environment.
Workplace psychologist Amy Edmondson has written extensively about psychological safety and how workplace environments function best when people can raise concerns without fear of interpersonal retaliation.
Psychological safety is not the same thing as allowing everyone unrestricted access to other people’s belongings; rather, it depends on people being able to communicate legitimate concerns and boundaries without being punished for doing so.
That distinction is useful here. The OP did not lock a communal office chair to prevent coworkers from sitting down. He secured something he personally purchased after another employee repeatedly used it without permission. Calling that “hostile” seems to confuse physical appearance with workplace conduct.
There is also an important issue of accommodation. The chair exists because the OP has a physical need that the ordinary office furniture does not adequately address.
Even without discussing formal disability accommodations, the practical point is straightforward: removing his personal chair without consent leaves him with equipment he considers unsuitable for spending an entire workday.
The manager’s request for “flexibility” therefore needs to work in both directions. Flexibility could mean the OP agrees to remove the lock if the chair is left alone. It could also mean management provides an appropriate workplace chair if they expect personal equipment to remain available for general use.
The coworker’s argument that the chair was “just sitting there” is particularly revealing. An empty object is not necessarily communal property. Someone’s desk, laptop, headphones, coat, or coffee mug does not become office equipment simply because the owner is working remotely that day.
The OP’s response was fairly measured: either respect his ownership, or provide a suitable replacement. That gives everyone a practical path forward.
Ultimately, the bike lock is not the real issue. It is a $12 symptom of a boundary that should have required no lock in the first place.
A workplace can encourage sharing without treating personal belongings as communal resources. And sometimes the most professional solution is simply to respect the words, “I bought this, I need this, and please don’t use it without asking.”
Here’s what people had to say to OP:
These Redditors said personal property is not communal and backed OP against the coworker
These users urged OP to involve HR and request a proper ergonomic accommodation
This commenter mocked the “office property” excuse by suggesting OP grab the coworker’s purse
These users condemned the coworker’s entitlement and said the boss knew OP was right
Was locking the chair a perfectly reasonable solution, or should the employee have involved HR sooner? And should the company offer a suitable replacement instead of demanding that the lock disappear?
