If your boss has ever made a false promise of a promotion, then you have likely had the ‘carrot dangled’ before you. It is a cynical tactic—keeping a reward just out of arm’s reach to ensure you keep grinding away—and one that many workers will find all too familiar.
It’s not uncommon for workers to have the carrot of better pay and a bigger title dangled before them as motivation to work harder and longer hours. But in many cases, all that extra work doesn’t pay off, with the boss never honouring their end of the bargain.
One of the most egregious recent examples of this (that we’ll cover in this article) is that of a Woolworths exec who was denied a promised promotion. This was despite working over 100 hours per week, which led her to experience temporary blindness and a stroke. She later lodged a Fair Work general protections claim to seek damages.
In this article, we look at stories of workers who were strung along by a dangled carrot; promised lofty new titles and salaries, only to find the reward was snatched away in the end.
One way that bosses fatten up their employees is to flatter them with praise and the prospect of better pay, only to get them working longer, harder hours. This is what happened to one Reddit user, who wrote about what they described as a recurring workplace practice. That is, making false promises of promotions and raises “at the cost of the employee showing and proving themselves first.”
The employee said their company praised their potential and spoke about its desire to “invest in their employees.” This was translated into an expectation for employees to “bend over backwards” in their role. The implied future rewards, however, never materialised. The employee noted their employer would continually push back a decision, saying “let’s do this and see in 3 months.” Once the review finally came, the worker said that they only received a “measly 2-3% raise.”
Completely aware of the fact that they were given a false promise of promotion, the employee eventually said “enough is enough” and resigned. This triggered the company’s president to try and convince them to stay. However, the employee stuck to their guns, telling the president, “I don’t think the way I want to be compensated will be matched.” The final meeting with the president proved to be the last straw.
The employee expected a discussion about why they should stay, but the meeting instead focused entirely on company needs. The employee’s takeaway was the company’s blatant self-interest. “You need to tell me why I should stay. Not what I can do for you,” they wrote.
Comments on the post empathised with the employee, confirming that this type of manipulative tactic is pervasive. One popular sentiment was that false promises of promotion are a cheap way to increase productivity without increasing costs. As one commenter put it, “a 10% raise is expensive” but vaguely promising “a future [at the company] is free.”
Many expressed support for the employee’s decision to leave. They highlighted that the best way to get a significant raise is often to resign and find a better paying job. They dismissed the company’s last-minute efforts as pure damage control, noting that managers only show true interest when they realise they will have to spend more money and time to replace the employee.
Many workers can recognise this situation; you’re given more responsibilities by your boss, but without a pay rise. This classic case of dangling the carrot, known as a dry promotion, was detailed by one Reddit user. They described how their manager had told them that their promotion and raise was “going to happen for sure.” He told the worker that it was “all settled with HR” and just needed some documents filed to make it official.
However, three months later the worker was not only told the promotion and pay rise would not happen. But also, that they “still would have to take on the new responsibilities.” Given this false promise of promotion, one commenter urged the original poster to “stop doing the new responsibilities immediately.” Another suggested confronting the manager directly, stating they should say: “Without the promotion, the new responsibilities are outside of my pay grade.”
Another commenter viewed the situation as a chance to exploit the employer. They advised the worker to take on the new responsibilities “for 3 months to use them as experience for your next job.” This would effectively let the company “pay” for their training before the employee secured a better role elsewhere.
One of the most shocking recent stories of an employee who experienced a false promise of promotion is that of former Woolworths chief growth officer Miwah Van. In October 2025, Ms. Van lodged a Fair Work general protections claim with the Commission. She alleged that she was forced to work up to 119 hours per week, which resulted in numerous serious health problems that saw her hospitalised. Ms. Van had been promised a promotion, but Woolworths never delivered on this. She also claimed that she faced discrimination after she was diagnosed with cancer.
Ms. Van joined Woolworths in September 2019, initially serving as general manager of group strategy. Her responsibilities rapidly expanded over the next few years. But this came at the cost of what she claims was a crushing workload and insufficient resources. Ms. Van’s Fair Work general protections claim detailed her extraordinary working hours. Before her cancer diagnosis, she alleged a minimum work week of 64 hours, with weekly peaks reaching 119 hours. The severity of these allegedly resulted in multiple serious health episodes. This included unexplained swelling, hives, temporary loss of vision and a suspected mild stroke in August 2020.
This suspected stroke led to an emergency hospital admission with stabbing chest pains, visual impairment, numbness and weakness on her left side. When Ms. Van complained about the heavy workload, an executive allegedly dismissed her concerns. He allegedly told her that the workload was normal and that she was expected to “drink from a fire hose.”
Ms. Van’s Fair Work general protections claim alleged that she was promised a promotion to the position of chief transformation officer in September 2020. This would be a huge promotion, seeing her enter into Woolworths’ senior leadership team. Ms. Van alleged that Woolworths’ then-chief transformation officer, Von Ingram, and then CEO Brad Banducci had agreed that she would succeed Ms. Ingram as CTO.
However, in March 2022, the then 39-year-old Ms. Van was diagnosed with HER2+ breast cancer. She went on to undergo intensive treatment, including chemotherapy and radiation. Ms. Van said that in the five weeks following chemotherapy, she averaged 107 hours of work per week. During this time, she was hospitalised for three days due to serious health complications
In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Van alleged that the promise of the chief transformation officer role was broken shortly after her cancer surgery. In September 2022, Ms. Ingram allegedly informed Ms. Van that they were discussing filling the role from a pool of other candidates. Ms. Van maintained that she delivered strong performance leading up to her diagnosis, having received “exceed” ratings for three consecutive years prior to the events in question.
When she was told others were being considered for the role, Ms. Van claimed that she questioned Ms. Ingram directly, asking: “What’s really changed? Is it because I have cancer?” She then emailed Mr. Banducci about her “surprise and shock” to hear that Woolworths were conducting a search for candidates to fill the role promised to her. She told him that her reaction was to the expectations she had. She claimed that Woolworths had made” representations” to her over time that clearly indicated the company thought she was the “natural successor” to the role.
Ms. Van made further allegations in her general protections claim. She said that following her diagnosis and complaints about her workload, she was removed from key internal senior executive groups. Ms. Van also contended that she was directed to attend important meetings remotely and had her responsibilities stripped away. She alleged that in a meeting in October 2022, Mr. Banducci told her that her complaints were “crazy.”
He allegedly said that they “did not “reflect well” on her and that she was at risk of “self-sabotaging yourself.” Mr. Banducci also allegedly told her that “this is the moment … where you must behave appropriately right now.” Ms. Van also claimed that in relation to her cancer diagnosis, he once told her, “We are all a bit awkward about it.”
Ms. Van’s Fair Work general protections claim, which was filed with the Federal Court of Australia in November 2025, alleged discrimination and adverse action. She claimed she experienced this due to her illness, disability and repeated complaints about excessive hours and lack of resources. She also alleged that the denial of the promised promotion constituted discrimination.
Further evidence of alleged adverse action included a performance review in August 2023. In this meeting, Ms. Van’s direct boss Jane Danzinger allegedly marked her down from an “exceed” to an “achieve” rating. One reason allegedly cited for the downgrade was Ms. Van’s lack of adequate work-life balance in performing her role.
In another meeting, Ms. Van allegedly told Ms. Danzinger that in the previous year she had gone from “fighting for my life to fighting for my job.” In August 2023, Ms. Ingram allegedly became aggressive when Ms. Van raised the issue of the chief transformation officer role. Ms. Van said that she told her that she should “leave Woolworths.” The situation culminated in March 2024 when Mr. Banducci allegedly informed her that her chief growth officer role would be made redundant, offering a lesser role instead.
Ms. Van was not dismissed from Woolworths, but has been on leave since April 2024.
Ms. Van argued to the Fair Work Commission that Woolworths’ actions led to her losing her career. Her legal team stated that her claim will “inevitably be a large one” due to her very senior role at the company. Also, because she lost her career and experienced “significant harm” at the hands of Woolworths.” Ms. Van is seeking damages for lost future earnings and bonuses, medical expenses and damage to her professional reputation.
She told media that facing a life-threatening illness is already difficult. Ms. Van said that it was “devastating” to also have to grapple with discrimination, retaliation and marginalisation in the workplace. Ms. Van said that she is pursuing her general protections claim not just for herself, but for “every employee who deserves dignity, fairness and respect” no matter their health status or disability. As of writing, her claim is yet to be formally resolved by the Federal Court of Australia.
Ms. Van’s case sparked reactions online, particularly on Reddit. A former Woolworths employee who claimed to have worked with Ms. Van said that she was “super smart, and outworked just about everyone.” The employee noted that the phrase of being expected to “drinking from a fire hydrant” was a common catchphrase within the company.
Another commenter said that the most they’ve had to work was around “100 [hours] in 6 days,” resulting in long-term personal damage. One user reflected on a job that “cost me basically all of my friends and damaged me long term.” Many expressed that the commitment was ultimately not worthwhile, with one stating, “100 hour week, trading your health and soul to a company to only get shafted, yeah no thanks.”
Read more: How We Can Help You: Discrimination Claims
If you’ve been strung along with false promises of a promotion, pressured into extreme working hours, or punished for speaking up about your rights, you don’t have to face it alone. Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives has helped thousands of workers hold employers accountable for exploitation, discrimination and adverse action.
Whether you need to file an unfair dismissal claim, a general protections claim, or take action over mistreatment tied to your health, workload or complaints, we’ll guide you through the Fair Work process and explain your options clearly.
Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential first consultation so you can understand your rights.
