Spanish Man Skipped Work for Six Years, Still Paid
Joaquín García, a Spanish civil servant, gained global attention in 2016. His story resurfaced in 2025 due to renewed interest in workplace scandals. He worked at a water treatment plant in Cádiz, Spain. García, a plant supervisor, was employed by a municipal water firm. Unsurprisingly, his case became a viral topic for its sheer audacity.
How Did He Skip Work?
García stopped showing up to work around 2004. Due to a bureaucratic mix-up between two departments, each assumed the other was monitoring his duties.
As a result, no one noticed his absence for six years. During that time, he reportedly spent his days reading philosophy. According to his lawyer, workplace bullying had driven him away. Nevertheless, the company’s oversight allowed him to vanish unnoticed.
What Were His Job Responsibilities?
As a supervisor, García was responsible for overseeing operations at the water treatment facility. His role included managing daily tasks and ensuring the plant’s functionality. However, his lawyer argued that there was little for him to actually do. In fact, the job’s lack of oversight enabled his prolonged absence. García’s responsibilities were loosely defined, which further aided his disappearance. Moreover, the plant’s complex organizational structure helped hide his inactivity.
How Much Was He Paid?
García earned an annual salary of $41,500 (~₹36 lakh). Over the course of six years, he collected approximately $249,000. He faced no immediate financial consequences until 2016. Eventually, after being discovered, he was fined $30,000—roughly one year’s salary. The fine was the maximum penalty allowed. Consequently, he kept most of the money, which sparked public outrage.
The Irony of the Award
In 2010, García was nominated for a long-service award. Ironically, it was this nomination that led to his downfall. Deputy Mayor Jorge Blas grew suspicious during the award process. Subsequently, he contacted García, who offered no clear explanation. An investigation revealed that he hadn’t worked since 2004. The discovery shocked both colleagues and officials. His payroll still showed active employment, thereby exposing the blunder.
What Happened After?
García faced a $30,000 fine in 2016 after legal proceedings. Although his lawyer argued that he was bullied and feared losing his job, the court ruled against him. While some members of the public called him a legend, others saw him as a fraud. His case ultimately highlighted serious bureaucratic inefficiencies in Spain. To this day, it remains a cautionary tale about workplace oversight.
How His Story Came Back in 2025
In early 2025, García’s story re-emerged in news outlets like The Times of India and Daily Mail. These articles revisited his six-year absence, focusing on its absurdity. Simultaneously, social media platforms like X amplified the tale, with users comparing it to fictional workplace scams. The renewed interest was tied to broader discussions on remote work and accountability in the post-pandemic era. Even though the case was old, it resonated with modern critiques of work culture.
García, now faded from public view, left a lasting mark. His story exposed glaring flaws in Spain’s municipal systems. Furthermore, it raised broader questions about job necessity, responsibility, and oversight. Some admired his cunning, while others condemned his ethics. The $249,000 he earned without working remains a staggering figure. In contrast, the fine he paid was a mere fraction, adding to the controversy.
The Cádiz water plant became infamous for its oversight failure. A simple miscommunication between two departments had let García slip through unnoticed. Despite his lawyer’s claims of bullying, the argument gained little legal traction.
Today, García’s case is a cultural reference point. It is often cited in conversations about workplace reform and fraud prevention. His ability to ghost his job for six years continues to fascinate and frustrate. Ultimately, the 2025 news cycle shows the story’s timeless appeal. It serves as a reminder: when systems lack scrutiny, they inevitably breed loopholes.
