Welder Tanks Production After Boss Complains About His 99% Accuracy

Efficiency in the workplace is a delicate balance, but some managers just want to watch the world burn. Slowly.

We’ve all had that boss. The one who stares at a spreadsheet so hard they forget how reality works. They obsess over a single percentage point while ignoring the mountain of completed work right in front of them.

One welder decided to show his foreman exactly what “perfect stats” look like, and the results were gloriously catastrophic for the company’s bottom line.

Now, read the full story:

Here is the thing about this kind of management: it hurts to watch.

It is genuinely painful to see a boss punish their best player because of a tiny statistical anomaly. The OP was doing five times the work of his peer. Five times!

Yet, the foreman was so fixated on a “perfect score” that he couldn’t see the massive loss in revenue he was creating. It is satisfying to see the OP get their Saturday work back, but you have to wonder how much money the shop lost that week just to teach the foreman a lesson in basic math.

Expert Opinion

This situation is a textbook example of a phenomenon known in economics and sociology as Goodhart’s Law.

Named after British economist Charles Goodhart, the law states: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

In this case, the foreman stopped caring about the actual goal—producing usable metal parts—and started obsessing over the measure: the pass rate percentage.

According to an analysis by the Harvard Business Review, this type of metric fixation often leads to “gaming the system.” When employees realize they are being judged on a specific number rather than their actual contribution, they will alter their behavior to satisfy that number, even if it hurts the company.

The OP’s reaction to slow down is also a symptom of disengagement caused by poor management.

Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2023 report highlights a staggering statistic: low engagement costs the global economy $8.8 trillion annually.

When a high-performer like the OP is told their extra effort doesn’t matter, they stop giving it. It’s a protective mechanism.

Dr. Travis Bradberry, author of Emotional Intelligence 2.0, often discusses the danger of “performance punishment.” This happens when capable employees are scrutinized more simply because they do more volume, while slower employees fly under the radar.

The takeaway here is clear: Managers need to look at the “net output,” not just the error rate. If a worker makes 100 items and breaks 1, they are still 89 items ahead of the worker who makes 10 items and breaks none.

Check out how the community responded:

These users pointed out that the “slow” coworker might actually be a genius who figured out the system long before the OP did.

It seems every industry, from call centers to landscaping, has a boss who doesn’t understand how time works.

Some Redditors broke down the numbers to prove just how ridiculous the foreman’s logic actually was.

A few users had clarifying questions about the certification and the fallout.

How to Navigate a Situation Like This

If you find yourself in a spot where a boss is penalizing you for high performance, the first step is data visualization. Before you slow down, try to present the numbers in a different way. Sometimes, verbal arguments fail where a simple bar chart succeeds. Show a graph comparing “Total Usable Parts” between you and the slower coworker. It forces the manager to see the net benefit you provide.

If that fails, you have to set a boundary to protect your own sanity. You can ask for “clarified priorities.” Send an email saying: “I can prioritize 100% accuracy, or I can prioritize volume. Which one is the business goal for this week?”

When they inevitably say “accuracy,” you have your written permission to slow down. This is what the OP did, effectively. It protects you from being fired for low productivity because you are simply following the specific instruction given to you.

Conclusion

The OP proved a valuable point: be careful what you wish for. The foreman wanted perfection, and he got it—at the cost of actual production. It is a satisfying win for the worker, but a sad reflection on how often bad metrics drive good employees to do less.

So, the consensus seems to be that the OP was in the right.

What do you think? Was this a fair reaction, or should the OP have just ignored the foreman and kept working hard?