What is "quiet quitting" to you?

[cnov]

I think it's an utter load of nonsense dreamed up by the media (my guess would be right) to get us proles arguing amongst ourselves and hating on people that Iike working from home.

Always had to be another new buzz word to get people up in arms about something.

[El Presidente]

6 hours ago, La_Tigre said:

All for it, it’s time for the corporations to stop making record profits and squeezing the ground level to husks. 

 

That always amuses me. Big evil corporations squeezing the worker. 

Reality? In Oz, 78.5% of "Corporations"employ less than 10 people. They account for 44% of total employment in the country. I suspect it wouldn't be too different in the UK/US. 

Public Sector/Government can certainly manage the workforce changes by expanding or developing a new department. Productivity/profitability is a non issue, and its shows. 

Many large corporations will continue with "automate, amalgamate, relocate, terminate" wherever possible. Welcome to the ugly side of capitalism. 

It is small and medium business where the magic happens. It is where all great large corporations started. They are the ones who struggle with the announcement of a queens death public holiday, RUOK days, paternity leave, equal representation,  etal. They are the ones with the house on the line covering the overdraft. They are the ones with little time for "quiet quitters" as they  need motivated, multi skilled, problem solvers who are prepared to go the extra mile.  If they wish a "bare minimum" work attitude then the public service is their best bet. 

Distinction needs to be made between large corporations and small/medium businesses. They should be treated differently. 

 

 

[LordAnubis]

I quiet quit. Then real quit. Problem is just like everything. Everyone wants everything for nothing. Employers included. Sack most staff during covid. Then business goes down for a bit then the brakes are unleashed and the same volume of work is now being asked of 1 person where before there was 3. Ain’t nobody dying for their job. 

It’s about fairness. If you want someone to do the work of three men. Then pay him three times the wage. If employers paid for all the after hours emails that they’re making millions in profit from, then that would be fair. But they’re not. 

[99call]

To me its simple. 

- The advancement of technology, now means desk jockey's that have previously been paid a kings ransom for sending 10 emails a day, need to be re-assessed as to their value.  How easy is it to replicate their skills?  how likely is it their job will be absorbed in to AI in the next 20yrs? 

- Pay people who do valuable, skilled, difficult work with their hands much more. 

- Pay people who do unskilled, difficult work with their hands much more

- Cut the fat, in the 'Manager' class,  value and pay the good ones,   demote the useless ones. 

Two things can be true at the same time.  Are there millions of people sat at home conning the system,   yes!    Are there millions of people working at home, affectively, efficiently,  minimising pollution, happier, improved family lives.........yes!

I don't think we can get away from the fact that multiple studies say productivity has improved with home working.  That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to dead wood, that need to be re-purposed. 

I the UK, the "pret-economy" and transport barons are incensed that that dead eyed commuters are not longer queuing up for the daily drudge.   A shit sandwich, a shit coffee, and a shit journey, to a shit train, to a shit job.       I do have sympathies for the small catering business that have hit so hard by this, but they had a captive audience for soooo long, and they didn't provide them with quality, so.....unfortunately it's time to adapt and change. 

Recently Sir Alan Sugar (the UK's Apprentice guy) went on a tirade slagging off UK workers, calling them lazy scum, and that they should get back to work.  Someone asked him, "where he was".  He replied 'I'm at work on my yacht'  'I've got great internet and I can react to any international business day or night".     Oh yeah, nice one Alan, so it's ok for you but not the plebs. 

I think all thats required is a re-balancing of society.  People we need to pay and value more, like social care workers for the elderly, nurses, postal workers, firemen.    People that work on computers in middle management, where there skills can be quickly simulated by others, and are now very common amongst the general population, need to be de-valued. 

Ultimately, there are many who do work from home, that has already agreed their own paycuts,  Largely the figures involved represent the black hole of misery which was there commuting lives, and they are more than happy with the trade-off. 

 

 

[rcarlson]

What is quiet quitting to me?  

Slacking without regard to long term consequences.  

You reap what you sow.  

And that works both ways.  

[gustavehenne]

The way I interpret 'quiet quitting' (which I concur is a terrible label) is simply the loss of goodwill. Businesses rely on people way more than most think they do and goodwill, flexibility and curiosity are key attributes to increase an organisation's productivity, and ultimately value. Leaders that don't focus in on leadership (sounds silly but there are many that don't), genuinely caring about their people, respecting them and showing real empathy will lose goodwill and people that care.

Game over.

[PuroDiario]

I think in the past this was referred to as coasting? Kind of? 
 

Between quiet quitters and woke employees the office is somewhat a mine field, without even getting into other considerations of the work place these days, where you can’t call someone out on bad work product or lack of commitment without a very detailed communication plan if you want to avoid issues. 
 

that said, employees are better informed and aware of all puts and takes of their jobs. The market has been, and still to certain extent is super liquid for job switching, people are having kids later and less attached to their origins hence more mobile and prone for change…The system in which employees participate of the downside in a business if it does poorly (job loss, no promotion, stagnant wages, etc) but not of the upside when it does well (no equity in the business, no formulaic approach to career progression or role expansion, etc) is going to struggle…because you can’t get people to go the extra mile if there is not a rationale argument for it. 
 

likewise, many many many jobs can be outsourced to lower cost locations which is happening already so it is an interesting time…

[treberty]

9 hours ago, BoliDan said:

It has always been around for sure. But now it is being advertised over social media as a legit philosophy and gaining popularity by people in massive numbers. 

Exactly. Peter Gibbons (the Office Space character) is becoming mainstream. Office space was released in 1999 I think...

[La_Tigre]

4 hours ago, El Presidente said:

 

That always amuses me. Big evil corporations squeezing the worker. 

Reality? In Oz, 78.5% of "Corporations"employ less than 10 people. They account for 44% of total employment in the country. I suspect it wouldn't be too different in the UK/US. 

Public Sector/Government can certainly manage the workforce changes by expanding or developing a new department. Productivity/profitability is a non issue, and its shows. 

Many large corporations will continue with "automate, amalgamate, relocate, terminate" wherever possible. Welcome to the ugly side of capitalism. 

It is small and medium business where the magic happens. It is where all great large corporations started. They are the ones who struggle with the announcement of a queens death public holiday, RUOK days, paternity leave, equal representation,  etal. They are the ones with the house on the line covering the overdraft. They are the ones with little time for "quiet quitters" as they  need motivated, multi skilled, problem solvers who are prepared to go the extra mile.  If they wish a "bare minimum" work attitude then the public service is their best bet. 

Distinction needs to be made between large corporations and small/medium businesses. They should be treated differently. 

 

 

The earlier post wasn’t the most eloquent and you are correct. In the US, ‘corporations’ means Amazon, Tenet Health and the like, Walmart, Walgreens, Big Insurance and their ‘independent’ benefit managers that just so happen to be owned by them…

This is not sole proprietor or family business/ small corporations trying to eek out their way. They’ve been suffocated by ‘automate, amalgamate, relocate, terminate’ as well.

[GavLew79]

At the risk of exposing myself (oo-er!) to abuse, I guess I am currently "quiet quitting" at my current workplace. 

It's not good because I'm in a senior position. 

It's built-up over time. And it's now in the "f*** you" stage, actively searching for other jobs, preparing a succession plan etc. 

Why? Think of it as a goodwill 'bank'. Each time a negative situation occurs, it makes a withdrawal from the bank. Things like bonuses, recognition, promotions, pay rises, sh!t, even a "good job mate, well done" now and again tops-up that goodwill account with a deposit. With very few deposits, and plenty of withdrawals, I'm now into overdraft. 

I can't go in to specifics, but things like no defined strategy so chaotic execution; no project managers; people wearing 3 different hats, treating audits and standards like a test that you cram for 1 week before (rather than being codes to doing good business; and doing it when no one is watching); doing an MBA and having the discussion about paying me back the fees put off so many times, I've given up; preparing presentations and giving them, only to be asked for the same presentation topic a week or so later (obviously didn't listen); being called negative when providing potential solutions to problems we have; underperforming employees that I can't fire because we can't attract new talent, being told we need performance management, preparing a system with HR, trialling it (all to ACAS guidelines) for it to be replaced with a nonsensical one page form; no corporate goals or rewards system for me to peg the performance management system to... And f***ing myriad others. I've had a tit-full of this shit. 

Just a pure culture (there isn't one)/values clash. 

That said, I've spent the weekend and today's bank (public) holiday writing an important bid, with no support from the rest of the organisation. That just compounds the fact that it's a one way street. F*** them. I'm off at the earliest oppo. 

[Cigar Surgeon]

<cracks fingers>

Hoy boy can I ever add to this discussion.

Here's what quiet quitting means to me, because I've quietly quit at my job:

• No longer putting in 10-11 hours a day when I'm paid for 8
• No longer remoting into the office to do work in the evening and weekend when it can be done the next morning
• No longer proactively fixing mistakes other people have made
• No longer proactively solving potential issues that are outside of my job responsibilities
• No longer rocking the boat to steer the company into making more money and having less problems

I now do what my job responsibilities are to the best of my abilities, and nothing more.

Why?

Because after working my tail off for 36 months, being told by the COO that what I did for the company was 'instrumental in decisions and the successful strategy of the company' pay raises and compensation were put into the hands of HR. HR felt that the pay raise I deserved for year 2 and year 3 were considerably less than inflation.

This is a shining example of why people quiet quit. 

Yes I'm currently looking for a role with another company. No I'm not shirking my duties at work, my work quality is still better than easily half the people that work for the company. Yes I've brought the issue up with my entire leadership chain to be told that compensation and compensation review is in the hands of HR.

People don't quit bad jobs they quit bad leadership.

 

I'll give another great example from a job in my past.

I was working for a large Telecom company as a Business Analyst I. My work was great, lots of kudos, awards, regular pay raises. The Business Analyst II role becomes vacant, there's no one qualified to fill that role (and I've only been in the BA I role for less than a year).  They ask if I'd be willing to take on the responsibilities until a suitable candidate can be found.

I see this as an opportunity to kill it in the role, and then move into the role. Seems like a good plan, right?

Well after a year doing both roles, and doing an excellent job, I approach my manager (and the Director) and say I'd like to apply for the BA II role. The response? You're not qualified. 

There's a bit of a quiet moment and eventually I say: So I guess I won't be continuing to take on the BA II role then? No we still need you to backfill that role.

I'm not qualified, for a job I'm currently doing (well), that I need to continue doing.

Needless to say I left, and from friends still working there it sounds like they didn't have a clue as to why I left.

[Duxnutz]

Bludgers been around forever. ‘Member George Constanza sleeping under his desk!? Yep! 
 

Also some of the comments about working after hours make me glad I fly planes. Set the parking brake and go drink a beer. Responding to emails after hours? Why. 

[Hammer Smokin']

I'd say the employers version of "enhancing" your dating site profile, while falling short in person.

[RedLantern]

Choosing to work to live rather than the other way around. Fulfilling one’s job without any significant ambition for advancement. Not having work feature heavily in your own self-identity. None of this is a new phenomenon, just a new, and bad, term for it. 

[ayedfy]

I think this thread perfectly illustrates that like all social phenomena, "quiet quitting" describes something that could be exploited by lazy opportunists, but also describes a genuine problem. 

Yeah, there are lazy bastards who don't work as hard as we'd like them to ('we' not just being bosses, but also coworkers who have to pick up their slack).

Then there are those genuine hard workers who are sick and tired of seeing all their hard work being undervalued by their employers. Juggling responsibilities outside of their job title because the boss can't be bothered hiring extra hands, working absurd hours and always being available/on call without compensation, not being around to see their kids grow up because they're more invested in the company than their boss who treats them like a wage monkey.

The media (well, mostly the media that more explicitly backs capital) seems intent on depicting "quiet quitting" as only the former, because it suits their interests of top-down class warfare. But any boss who refuses to acknowledge the reality of the latter will wake up one day to find their offices full of the former because the latter has buggered off!

Then they'll write a cranky letter to the editor about how "nobody wants to work anymore".

(2022)

(1979)

(1894)

[DaBoot]

Entitlement. That’s what a lot of people have. Government and union jobs have killed a high work ethic. As you have zero fear of being fired for poor performance, and the raises are time based and not performance based.. so why perform more?? 
 I can go deeper into western philosophy where you are told from childhood you can be anything you want to be when you grow up..from astronaut, to president…. And when you end up working the register at Walmart, wonder why you don’t work hard and apply effort to succeed and are depressed….

 

[Cairo]

"No one wants to work" usually means no one wants to work for them because they are a miserable boss.

Great bosses don't have those problems.

I will define my terms--I had some of both during my long working life.

Great bosses create a win win work environment.

Bad bosses create a lose lose environment.

When you are there is kinda obvious which is which.

 

[Hammer Smokin']

while many workers have a sense of entitlement, the same thing can be said about employers. 

it's quite an equal street. 

what's changing is the employer is losing some of the power, and certainly they don't like that. Control and power is what makes a successful business. 

this will certainly push employers to improve automation and remove the human from the equation. 

however, for many jobs humans are not replaceable. those are the jobs where employers are sweating. 

[ReturnFreeRisk]

Its when I submit my Initech TPS reports to Lumbergh (although lacking cover sheet, not timely) and I still dont get fired by the Bobs


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cigar Surgeon]

25 minutes ago, ReturnFreeRisk said:

Its when I submit my Initech TPS reports to Lumbergh (although lacking cover sheet, not timely) and I still dont get fired by the Bobs


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bassistheplace]

those that want to succeed, and are willing to sacrifice to succeed, will succeed

there is no substitute for hard work

[benfica_77]

 

[BellevilleMXZ]

On 9/18/2022 at 11:28 PM, Hammer Smokin&#x27; said:

quiet quitters make it easier for those who want to move up the corporate ladder. 

it's the best of both worlds. those who want to do the minimum can, and those who want to improve can do so easier. 

win win situation.

Very true. It has worked well for me, I hussle my a$$ at work, and it has paid out very well. Other guys I work with get mad at how well I am paid....and then go back to playing on phones, 10 smoke breaks a day, etc  Slack all you want, more $$$$ for me.😄

[ha_banos]

Don't settle. This guy was a shit developer now he's an agile coach at NASA. If you don't like it. Get out. If you can't change your organisation, change your organisation.

('pologies for IT slant..)

 

[MrBirdman]

On 9/20/2022 at 4:20 PM, bassistheplace said:

those that want to succeed, and are willing to sacrifice to succeed, will succeed

there is no substitute for hard work

The latter statement is 100% true. The former is, unfortunately, not. 

I have no idea what exactly is meant by “quiet quitting” but I’d bet there is nothing new about it other than (maybe) prevalence. If Gen Z is less willing to bust their ass without recognition, then yes you could blame entitlement as a gut-reaction. But I think Gen Z’s entitlement issues aren’t really with how hard they work, but rather with other expectations around the work environment (eg being “heard”; conflating a tell-off from the boss with “harassment” or a “hostile work environment”, etc). I’ve employed Gen Z people and many were incredibly hard working; the issues were the sort I just listed. (Which were definitely frustrating.)

As for “quiet quitting”, I think it’s “doing what’s expected and not going the extra mile.” Why not? First, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, even if it’s not my MO; and more importantly, it probably has something to do with a greater disconnect between work and reward than their parents’ generation.

Millenials and Gen Z are the most well educated in American history, but Millenials earn 20% less than Boomers did at the same age, and have >50% more debt. What’s more, a greater proportion of that debt is student debt (which has no underlying asset and thus builds no equity through paying off like a house or car). Higher student loans means less money to save and invest, which is compounding an already sizable wealth gap that will be even worse for Gen Z. And this doesn’t even touch a myriad number of other iniquities.

Bottom line: even the hardest workers won’t work for nothing, and when it’s that much harder to get ahead the motivation is correspondingly lower. 

And for those who want to blame “the unions”, pullease. Unions today represent about 10% of the American labor force; in 1983 it was over 20%. Boomers got better pay, and much better pensions than later generations (if they get a pension at all). Comments like that remind me of my boomer aunt who complains about the work ethic of this generation when she retired from secretarial work at 56 with a full pension. Find me a 30-something with that kind of gig.