The narrator acquired a puppy with specific dietary needs, which required specialized, prepared food. Because the narrator did not want to prepare this food regularly, they hired a recommended person to make two weeks’ worth of meals. These meals, packaged and labeled with the narrator’s name, were stored in the community fridge at work, to be collected every second Monday.
The narrator soon noticed that some of the labeled bags of dog food were disappearing, with empty bags later found in the waste bin. Since the dog was well-fed when the mother dog-sat, the narrator initially found the situation amusing and let it continue, only making light complaints to Human Resources and colleagues. However, after the theft continued, the narrator became angry and raised the issue publicly during a productivity meeting, after which the thefts immediately stopped, leaving the narrator to wonder if they were wrong for allowing the theft to continue for so long.
Coworker ate dog food for close to six months. AITAH for letting it go on so long?
As organizational psychologist Dr. David Maister, known for his work on trust and service, noted regarding workplace environments, “Trust is built in small increments and is lost all at once.” This situation reflects a breakdown in basic workplace trust when one party unilaterally decided to take another’s labeled property.
The narrator’s initial reaction—amusement and passive complaint—created an environment where the perpetrator(s) felt safe continuing the behavior. This behavior, stealing specialized food, suggests a combination of desperation (perhaps due to personal financial constraints or misunderstanding the food’s value) and a perceived lack of consequences. The shift from humor to anger highlights the cumulative impact of boundary violations, even seemingly minor ones. The eventual public confrontation was a high-stakes escalation that successfully re-established a boundary, but it did so through shame rather than direct, earlier communication.
The narrator’s actions were understandable given the persistent, disrespectful nature of the theft. However, a more constructive approach, after the initial light complaints failed, would have involved addressing HR or management with concrete evidence rather than waiting until they were ‘pissed.’ In the future, documenting the loss and reporting it formally immediately after the first confirmed theft, rather than letting it continue, prevents the issue from becoming a larger emotional burden and preserves better workplace relations.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The narrator is facing a dilemma regarding the appropriate response to repeated theft of their property—specifically, specialized dog food—by unknown colleagues over several months. While the narrator initially tolerated the situation, which they found somewhat funny, the continuous action turned into genuine anger, leading to a public confrontation that successfully ended the theft.
The core conflict lies between the narrator’s right to their property and the choice to handle the initial minor theft passively versus escalating the matter when it became a persistent issue. The question remains whether the narrator was an ‘asshole’ (AITAH) for allowing the theft to occur for an extended period before taking definitive action, even though that action ultimately resolved the problem.
