After 'Quiet Quitting', Here Comes 'Quiet Firing' (msn.com) 231
"Quiet quitting" as a catchphrase "took off on TikTok among millennials and Gen Zers," according to Business Insider. They describe it as "employees doing what their job expects of them, and not offering to do more than what they get paid to do."
The Washington Post digs deeper: Quiet quitting looks to many like a reasonable retreat from the round-the-clock hustle culture. But to others, quiet quitting represents disengaged employees sandbagging and shirking all but the minimum effort, not expecting — or not caring — that their employers might fire them for it.
But if we're going to accuse workers of quiet quitting, we should also acknowledge the phenomenon of "quiet firing," in which employers avoid providing all but the bare legal minimum, possibly with the aim of getting unwanted employees to quit. They may deny raises for years, fail to supply resources while piling on demands, give feedback designed to frustrate and confuse, or grant privileges to select workers based on vague, inconsistent performance standards. Those who don't like it are welcome to leave.
Their article even provides an example. One reader (near retirement age) says their employer required them to return to the office for at least three days a week — "but those who left the area are allowed to continue to work fully remotely."
The Washington Post digs deeper: Quiet quitting looks to many like a reasonable retreat from the round-the-clock hustle culture. But to others, quiet quitting represents disengaged employees sandbagging and shirking all but the minimum effort, not expecting — or not caring — that their employers might fire them for it.
But if we're going to accuse workers of quiet quitting, we should also acknowledge the phenomenon of "quiet firing," in which employers avoid providing all but the bare legal minimum, possibly with the aim of getting unwanted employees to quit. They may deny raises for years, fail to supply resources while piling on demands, give feedback designed to frustrate and confuse, or grant privileges to select workers based on vague, inconsistent performance standards. Those who don't like it are welcome to leave.
Their article even provides an example. One reader (near retirement age) says their employer required them to return to the office for at least three days a week — "but those who left the area are allowed to continue to work fully remotely."
It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Informative)
It's not called "quiet firing" it's called "constructive dismissal".
See, for example:
https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/u... [www.gov.uk]
Some countries don't have laws against unfair dismissals, but it still has a name.
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Interesting)
And don't suggest that they're equivalent. One is immoral, designed to get you to quit without justifiable reason by making your life a living hell. The other is applying reasonable boundaries in your day to day life.
I hate the term "quiet quitting". I worked my ass off, outside of work, being available 24/7 and working crazy hours in my 20s and early 30s. At a certain point, after some serious problems with stress and personal life imbalances, I realized my hyper-focus on work was not only unhealthy for me, it was unhealthy for my career because I cared too much about work.
I "quiet quit" in my early/mid 30s and my happiness skyrocketed, my job performance improved, my career progressed and my income went way up. And I react outside of work hours only to emergencies, as it should be.
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked my ass off, outside of work, being available 24/7 and working crazy hours in my 20s and early 30s.
I tried that. I burned out. It's been seventeen years, and I haven't recovered yet.
Cherry on the cake of having the CEO stand by and watch the fireworks knowing full well what was happening? One of his VP friends (they'd all come over from some management consulting firm together) telling me I "wasn't committed enough". While working 100+ hours a week for the company, running their entire IT, by then really a three man job, with no management backing whatsoever.
Shit, I still can't talk about it without feeling my blood pressure rising.
Count yourself lucky you caught yourself before becoming the fireworks.
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Interesting)
"One of his VP friends (they'd all come over from some management consulting firm together) telling me I "wasn't committed enough""
He sounds like a standard issue sociopath. Plenty of them in those sorts of positions, in fact thats often how they get there by treading on other people as they climb the pole.
Re: (Score:3)
"Well, until someone like Biden gets elected and causes hyperinflation to destroy all your savings..."
Here in the UK lots of people in their 50s retired during Covid. Now with double digit inflation they're having to go back to work. Unless you're seriously rich you can never count on early retirement, circumstance and the economy often has other ideas.
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, until someone like Biden gets elected and causes hyperinflation to destroy all your savings..."
Here in the UK lots of people in their 50s retired during Covid. Now with double digit inflation they're having to go back to work.
Wait, Biden caused double-inflation in the UK? Dear God, he's more powerful than we ever imagined!
Re: (Score:2)
The man has reach!
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, until someone like Biden gets elected and causes hyperinflation to destroy all your savings..."
Here in the UK lots of people in their 50s retired during Covid. Now with double digit inflation they're having to go back to work.
Wait, Biden caused double-inflation in the UK? Dear God, he's more powerful than we ever imagined!
You ain't seen nothin, yet. Just wait until they strike him down in the next election!
Re: (Score:2)
He raised oil prices worldwide! Can’t they decide if he’s a drooling idiot or part of the deep state?
Re: It's called consructive dismissal (Score:3)
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
Working like mad in your early career makes sense if you're getting compensated extra for doing so.
Unfortunately a lot of companies just make promises - work hard now and you'll be in a top position in the future with more pay and more free time. Needless to say it doesn't often happen.
Re: (Score:3)
You must be in your early twenties, reading too many reddit forums about FIRE.
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: It's called consructive dismissal (Score:2)
Have you seen the difference in delivery times if you drop a $15 tip in advance?
Throw down a $2 tip on the same delivery order and I guarantee you it won't get there as fast. This already happens.
Re: It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It's called consructive dismissal (Score:2)
Spot on!
Re: It's called consructive dismissal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: It's called consructive dismissal (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
You're spot on there. I had almost the exact same experiences. Calling it "quiet quitting" only serves to reinforce the ludicrous "protestant work ethic" notion that you should make your job the singular priority in your life and dedicate all of your time and mental energy to it. I realized my employer did not care one bit about their employees when I watched as they laid off, furloughed, cut benefits, and eventually cut everyone's pay in 2008-2009 despite our site having barely been impacted by the downturn, with instructions to ensure that "everything still got done" even though you were doing more work at ~80% annual pay.
Did we ever see anything to make up for still "beating" Wall Street's expectations? Not unless you were upper management with a bonus. The whole experience left me wondering why more people aren't interested in unions, and especially why more professionals don't unionize. Union dues seem like a small price to pay for more peace of mind.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This. Companies haven't been loyal to employees since the 70s. WTF would I care what happens to them?
Fire the MBAs and start running corporate America like human beings, not soulless spreadsheet-driven robots, and maybe people will eventually come back around.
Re: (Score:3)
You're spot on there. I had almost the exact same experiences. Calling it "quiet quitting" only serves to reinforce the ludicrous "protestant work ethic" notion that you should make your job the singular priority in your life and dedicate all of your time and mental energy to it. I realized my employer did not care one bit about their employees when I watched as they laid off, furloughed, cut benefits, and eventually cut everyone's pay in 2008-2009 despite our site having barely been impacted by the downturn, with instructions to ensure that "everything still got done" even though you were doing more work at ~80% annual pay.
Did we ever see anything to make up for still "beating" Wall Street's expectations? Not unless you were upper management with a bonus. The whole experience left me wondering why more people aren't interested in unions, and especially why more professionals don't unionize. Union dues seem like a small price to pay for more peace of mind.
The media spends a lot of time demonising unions (to be fair, SOME unions deserve it) in order to dissuade anyone from the ideals of labour unionism (the idea that we have some say and protection in our employment). It seems to work despite unionised workplaces having better conditions, pay and job security.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:4, Interesting)
I seriously injured my arms into many hours at the keyboard and shot a 20 year programming career in the head. The company I work for was considered one of the top 50 employers did everything they could to get me to quit. I'm talking serious mental fuckery. Had to be in by 8 o'clock, couldn't leave any earlier than five. Exactly 30 minute lunch break exactly 2 15 minute breaks. I couldn't do anything the keyboard otherwise it would claim I was faking my injury. They put me on QC of and IOT device the membrane keyboard. They wouldn't give me any money to transcribe my handwritten notes of the QC experience. The company had a "dual career ladder" and they moved my status from principal engineer to manager and then said my job was eliminated because I had nobody working for me.
they reviewed my work looking for any flaw and I was consistently rated by most of my peers as being one of the best developers they had. And then I went to meeting after meeting where I was told in many ways that I really wasn't a very good developer and I should go do something else.
this happened over 25 years ago and I still have flashbacks. I still overwork myself only because it's hard to get work done when your hands don't work right.
Re: (Score:3)
they reviewed my work looking for any flaw and I was consistently rated by most of my peers as being one of the best developers they had. And then I went to meeting after meeting where I was told in many ways that I really wasn't a very good developer and I should go do something else.
Wow. I had a similar experience working a dead-end job as security back in my college years.
Busted my ass making a remote facility that everyone hated into a pleasant place to work. Had a manager change at HQ followed by military service (Desert Storm). Suddenly, on my return, i went from star employee to crap employee without changing a thing. It ended with my being sent home with "no available hours for you to work this week" to an on-call basis. I filed a complaint with the legal folks at the USN as
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole concept of quiet quitting is (to me) rather odd. If I am in a job that I felt compelled for some reason to do so little that any less, I would be fired - I'd leave that job pronto.
You're assuming that the employee doesn't use that time for something else. One scheme that emerged from the Work-From-Home wave during the pandemic was people taking up more than one job at the same time - a very easy & immediate way of doubling your salary.
Certainly, if anyone around me at present "quiet quit", there would be no quiet firing, but a fairly quick dismissal.
For just doing what they were paid? Remember, "quiet quitting" isn't about getting away with not doing your job, just not going over & above what you're being paid to do.
It's a two-way street. A company needs to give a reason for its employees to be ambitious. If it doesn't reward hard work & ambition, then it shouldn't expect it in return.
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not called "quiet firing" it's called "constructive dismissal".
It's not quiet quitting either. It's "acting your wage".
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
Constructive dismissal targets individuals. This phenomenon that they're calling "quiet firing" is targeted at entire departments/job classifications/business units, typically to keep labor costs down by not paying annual wage increases and/or to avoid the cost of mitigating grueling labor practices that grind people down. Amazon is about to get stung by it. [vox.com]
Here in the small town where I live, most employers have been maintaining churn for the past decade and a half or so, and they've burned through the local labor pool to the point that they're cutting business hours and/or services because they can't get workers enough any more. The typically younger workers that they'd once been able to rely upon have all done stints at each of those employers, then were compelled to move away to greener pastures.
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is an 'annual wage increase' and why do you, and apparently others, think this is a requirement?
It's the increase you should get to offset inflation. Sometimes called 'not having a real terms pay cut'
Re: (Score:2)
[An annual pay raise is] the increase you should get to offset inflation. Sometimes called 'not having a real terms pay cut'
Annual pay increase may be called merit increases and/or cost of living increases, but it all boils down to adjusting salary to meet the market. If inflation goes up by 8% but market salaries go up by 4%, your "cost of living" increase is probably not going to cover increases to your cost of living. The raise will be 4% because it was really only ever meant to be a market adjustment. People think of it as an inflation adjustment but that is not the real purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
[An annual pay raise is] the increase you should get to offset inflation. Sometimes called 'not having a real terms pay cut'
Annual pay increase may be called merit increases and/or cost of living increases, but it all boils down to adjusting salary to meet the market. If inflation goes up by 8% but market salaries go up by 4%, your "cost of living" increase is probably not going to cover increases to your cost of living. The raise will be 4% because it was really only ever meant to be a market adjustment. People think of it as an inflation adjustment but that is not the real purpose.
Technically true, but people really don't tend to look favourably on having their wages reduced in real terms, even more than missed merit or market raises. So not adjusting relative to inflation is likely to cause much more annoyance and retention issues than other wage factors.
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
Because inflation is a thing and if you don't increase my wage accordingly, I have to move on to a company that does or I get poorer and poorer every year.
Re: It's called consructive dismissal (Score:2)
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:5, Insightful)
and why do you, and apparently others, think this is a requirement?
Any annual pay increase is the opposite of a loyalty penalty, and it's required because when you penalize loyalty you don't get any -- and as an employer you are then stuck with constant recruiting and training costs.
Re: It's called consructive dismissal (Score:3)
Re:It's called consructive dismissal (Score:4, Insightful)
It's amazing how many employers raise their prices to customers annually shrugging their shoulders and claiming "inflation" and expecting understanding, then don't understand at all when employees want a raise to cover cost of living increases.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "mise au placard" (cupboarding?) in French. And yes, it's been around forever, and no, it's not equivalent to "quiet quitting."
Re: (Score:2)
Quite Cynical (Score:2, Interesting)
Are employees supposed to kneel before their bosses, thankful for the privilege to work for them? Or should employers finally realize, that their employees generate all the results?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't have to be the typical employer-employee r
Re: (Score:2)
"Quiet quitting" brings to mind people like Wally:
https://dilbert.com/strip/1998... [dilbert.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Stating that "employees doing what their job expects of them, and not offering to do more than what they get paid to do." is a bad thing, shows how broken the employer/employee relationship is. Are employees supposed to kneel before their bosses, thankful for the privilege to work for them?
Asking employees to go above and beyond their minimum duties is not some kind of indentured servitude. Most jobs paying over minimum wage have the expectation you will go beyond your minimum duties. And pay generally reflects this (for non-toxic employers). Employees who add extra value beyond the minimum for the most part make more money than those who barely fulfill the minimum requirements. My company has salary bands for the same role that can sometimes have $50k+ difference between the lower and upper
Re: Quite Cynical (Score:2)
Re: Quite Cynical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
See I was giving you a fair shake till we got to here.
don't be a dick on your way out and your managers will absolutely attest to your diligence and competency to the place you get when you start shopping around
And if you've seen the "automated" hiring process that's been around for the last decade and a half you'd know that is complete bullshit. Some AI screening software that's looking for keywords isn't calling your last employer for a reference. They don't ask for a reference when you're doing the six or seven online skill test things that are checking how fast you can solve a problem and how clever you can be solving a problem. Your Linkedin, your Githu
Re: (Score:3)
Talented people don't do those skills assessments, experience speaks for it. The method I suggested bypasses the algos and is based on gaining additional experience. If you do it right you don't even lose out on the deal
Wow you are so disconnected from what is happening in the real world. I am so sorry for you. More and more companies are moving to these things, I. . . I've got no words for how out of touch you are.
they will end up feeling it when you go elsewhere and admit their mistake with positive references in the future
Literally not even the same cosmos you and I are in here. That's never happened and I've never seen anyone say this is something to bank on. Like this is so not the case we've memed the fuck out of it. I mean look up "Principal Skinner out of touch meme". I don't even know how to even remotely address this
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the point by a large margin.
Let's pick an example out of the air, an auto manufacturer. The C-suite gets paid fantastically better than the line workers. But for the sake of argument, let's clone the whole thing into two alternate timelines. In one, a plague kills the entire C-suite dead. In the other, it kills all of the factory workers.
Which of those two auto manufacturers is more likely to manage manufacturing a car (you know, the actual point of the company) tomorrow?
Following that logic thro
Oh really (Score:4, Insightful)
in which employers avoid providing all but the bare legal minimum, possibly with the aim of getting unwanted employees to quit. They may deny raises for years, fail to supply resources while piling on demands, give feedback designed to frustrate and confuse, or grant privileges to select workers based on vague, inconsistent performance standards.
That sounds like every managed service company I have ever worked for. I realize this is supposed to be targeted toward individuals but when its just general policy you have to wonder how these companies keep staff.
Re: (Score:2)
That just sounds like a badly managed company.
I've been quiet quitting for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
Employment is a business transaction. They pay me money ,I do work. I wouldn't do the work if they didn't pay me so why should I do any extra?
There seems to be an assumption by bosses that white collar workers should work more than required for [reasons]. Would these same bosses have a plumber come round to fix a leak then say "Hey, can you fix this pipe here too? We wont pay you any extra but thats ok, right?"
The last employer I stupidly pulled my finger out for made me redundant so lesson learnt. Never again.
Re:I've been quiet quitting for decades (Score:4, Insightful)
One of my first questions when they start talking about "Flexibility" is: "Does that go both ways?"
Re: (Score:2)
I just avoid any direct confrontation with bad working practices and simply work at 85% of my ability.
I can help my colleagues and still get my work done.
Unlike a colleague who works at 110% all the time and skips his lunch breaks. He's had to take time off due to stress related symptoms.
Re:I've been quiet quitting for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
Great point! As an IT director, I make it clear to my team, repeatedly, that sometimes we have to work on an evening or weekend as circumstances require, such as for a deployment that can't interrupt business hours. I also make it clear that, when they need to leave early for whatever reason, or take a day off here and there, they don't need to ask permission, just let me know. Some of the best people on my team are such hard workers that I literally have to beg them to take time off.
People need a balanced life, and managers who recognize this, will get more productivity than those who ask for insane hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Great point! As an IT director, I make it clear to my team, repeatedly, that sometimes we have to work on an evening or weekend as circumstances require, such as for a deployment that can't interrupt business hours. I also make it clear that, when they need to leave early for whatever reason, or take a day off here and there, they don't need to ask permission, just let me know. Some of the best people on my team are such hard workers that I literally have to beg them to take time off.
People need a balanced life, and managers who recognize this, will get more productivity than those who ask for insane hours.
And this is how you retain the good people.
You give a little and you get a little. The "sometimes" doing a little work out of hours is an accepted thing in IT... some companies abuse the "sometimes" bit (financial services is worse, they honestly expect 60-80 hour weeks out of people). If I do my 37.5 hours that's all you can reasonably expect, I get all my assigned tasks done and again, that is all you can reasonably expect. If you'd like a bit more, show me that you appreciate it and you'll get it. Giv
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. By all means, go ahead and do that 24/7 if you are so inclined - but be sure to get compensated for it. If not in cash, in smaller companies you might ask for some company stock. Or extra vacation days. Or whatever.
In my previous job, I was in an on-call rotation once every four weeks. The terms were simple: You get paid extra for being on-call for that week *and* if someone actually calls you in, you get compensated for that as well.
When you were not on-call, there were clear instructions NOT to bo
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is there is almost always a massive power imbalance between the employer and employee. They have a choice of candidates and work that needs doing. You need a job to keep food on the table and because your healthcare is tied to it.
So even with very good employers, there need to be rules to protect employees. "Soft firing" is just another name for "constructive dismissal".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not getting paid to do work, exactly.
You're getting paid to give your time. Time is always, definitively measurable. Work is not measurable.
Work or no work, you're getting paid by the hour. That is why everyone, everywhere gives currency divided-by time as a salary or pay measurement.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I've done it for 20 years so clearly I'm doing something right. Sounds like you're just a bitter sucker who works day and night and no doubt give your boss a blow when he asks and expects everyone else to do the same. We're not all mugs like you pal.
Work to rule? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't quiet quitting just working to rule? Which is what you should be doing anyway, unless you have a personal stake in the company itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but each generation seems to need to rediscover things themselves, and the current one seems especially keen to think they invented everything, so they can give it a new name, describe it as a "life hack", and blog about it.
To be fair though, work to rule to me implies something of an deliberate protest action, like when you're in a job where you can't strike, rather than just about trying to bring back a better work life balance. I think American's do struggle with this more than, as another commenter
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't quiet quitting just working to rule? Which is what you should be doing anyway, unless you have a personal stake in the company itself.
The problem with working to rule as a day-to-day thing is it creates a big incentive for managers to start micromanaging and adding new duties. The more you approach your job in an adversarial manner the more your employer will do the same.
But the other issue as a worker, is it also creates this feeling like if you've put in any extra effort you're somehow a sucker, which is not a good thing. My favourite times working have also been my most productive, because the tasks were the most meaningful and interes
What universe are these people from? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What universe are these people from? (Score:2)
Quiet Quitting, new to me (Score:2)
Quiet quitting is just normal work (Score:3)
They must think that almost everyone in the EU is quiet quitting. Germans go to work, get their work done during prescribed hours, and then go home. Going beyond that should be an extremely race exception. Doing that all the time just burns you out and you are not being paid for that.
I don't see the difference (Score:4, Insightful)
between "quiet firing" and shitty management.
But surely.. (Score:2)
If you're allowed to work remoted if you left the area, all you have to do is say you left the area.
"Quiet Quitting" is a terrible name... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had to guess from the name, I'd picture someone discontinuing working and taking the money and seeing how long it takes until fired. "Doing your job responsibilities, but avoiding things like unpaid overtime" is not 'quitting' in any sense. The name plays right into the hands of folks that want to paint unreasonable job responsibilities as 'normal'.
The "quiet firing" is similarly nothing new. I have had companies admit that they were deliberately making things bad to get attrition without the negativity of a layoff or having to pay out severance. Then they are shocked that the good employees leave.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, and that's what quiet quitting actually is. No idea why this article is referring to "quiet quitting" as simply clocking out for the day after your regular shift.
"Quiet firing" is some new term I've never heard of. It's referring to employers who make an employee's job and position unfavorable/distasteful to get the employee to quit. This isn't new. I'm guessing that the article made up their own "quiet quitting" definition because they needed a term to compare with their new "quiet firing" de
Re: (Score:2)
No, I've seen the definition of quiet quitting widely be "don't go above and beyond". If it had the meaning of "make work from home a smokescreen for skipping your work and see how far it takes you", I've never actually seen it, it's always about "doing your job, but only your job" wherever I've found it. Either people always framed it poorly as 'quitting' or folks hijacked it to mean something less obviously unscrupulous and overwhelmed any actual "quitting" behavior.
So this article's definition is prett
Just remember (Score:2, Insightful)
The same people bragging about "quiet quitting" are the same ones who will whine they aren't being promoted, aren't getting decent salary increases, etc.
If you're unwilling to help other workers out on an as-needed basis, unwilling to the grunt work because the job needs done, unwilling to do things "below your salary", unwilling to do anything except exactly what your job entails, you have no one to blame when you're stuck in your job.
I am not saying you should go gung ho every single day. What you should
Re: Just remember (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, turn it on it's head and see how it looks.
Imagine it is the employer being 'flexible' and 'a team player' and 'showing commitment'. Imagine if the employer regularly paid a 20% bonus for the week for the same amount of work done, then later asked the employees to work 20% more. How long would the employer keep paying this bonus if the employees flatly refused to work that 20% more (blaming market forces, the economy, whatever)?
Yeah.
The quiet quitters have probably already been exploited and lied to f
Re: (Score:3)
Promotion? Who gets promoted anymore? Companies caught up to the Peter Principle [wikipedia.org] and don't promote anymore. Instead if a position opens, they hire someone who has the skill set, you don't promote from the inside anymore.
So why exactly should anyone try to "climb the ladder" if there simply isn't any ladder to climb anymore?
I have a contract with my employer. What's written in this contract happens. If they wanted something else, they should have written it into this contract. Why the hell should they expect
Re: (Score:2)
If you're unwilling to help other workers out on an as-needed basis, unwilling to the grunt work because the job needs done, unwilling to do things "below your salary", unwilling to do anything except exactly what your job entails, you have no one to blame when you're stuck in your job.
Yep, exactly.
It's almost as though things aren't all black and white!
Job hopping (Score:2)
>"They describe it as "employees doing what their job expects of them, and not offering to do more than what they get paid to do."
And that is called being employees who are never noticed and never promoted. They can job-hop instead, and employers look at that type of candidate and say "why would I want to invest in someone who is going to leave in a year, wasting tons of my resources training and acclimating him/her?"
Tons of employees have a very distorted belief of what their labor is actually worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I stay when I get training and certification promised and after a year there isn't even any talk about it anymore?
That door swings both ways.
I had my share of employers, promising all sorts of certifications, only to sit there after a year and paying for it myself while prepping for the next job.
Re: (Score:2)
>"That door swings both ways."
Yes, it does. Hence, my saying the contract (which is bi-directional) is breaking down. It isn't all labor's fault, and it isn't all business' fault.
Not new (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Become? Care to point to a corporation that isn't already trying to push for importing more cheap labor?
Re: (Score:2)
They've always been pro-outsourcing. This is why the previous administration made it more difficult for employers to sponsor H-1B visas without showing that there is a shortage in labor. This is what democrats referred to as "the racist program that only allows top talented immigrants to get H-1B visas", implying that its purpose is to discriminate against general labor immigrants.
These program changes were made to prevent employers from importing labor in order to pay cheaper salaries. This in turn forced
Company men no more (Score:2, Insightful)
Never have been a corporate slave (Score:5, Insightful)
In the late 80's when I started my first IT job, I noticed people around me working crazy hours for that next promotion or that big stock option payout. It always looked like insanity to me, and I wanted to spend time with my family and friends and do things other than work. So I just didn't. I didn't throw it in my bosses' faces, I didn't make a big deal of it, I just quietly worked reasonable hours. If there was a real emergency, yes, I jumped in and helped resolve it. But my routine practice was to work regular hours.
My reward was great quality of life, and I didn't suffer at all in my career advancement. In a couple of instances I took a pay cut for better quality of life, but it was more than worth it, and it didn't take long for that loss to be recouped.
This is the craziest thing, it's all an illusion: Those who wear themselves out trying to get ahead, don't actually get ahead any more quickly than those of us who set boundaries.
If my company were to "quiet fire" me, so be it, I don't need to work for that kind of company.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this. I work my hours. You like it, great, you don't, also great. I have a contract with my employer. What's written in this contract is what is going to happen.
Promotions don't happen anymore. Ever. How would they? Jobs are now quite specific. We have arrived at the point where I can't do the job of my boss and he can't do mine because two very distinct skill sets are required. So where does that "promotion" idea come in?
If you want more money for the job you do, request it. If it's not fulfill
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree. I've been both an employee and a company owner, so I have seen this from both sides. When I owned my own company, I did not expect people to work overtime. I did not tell customers the date of our next software release, saying only that it would be released when it was ready. That way, the developers didn't stress out about artificial deadlines.
As it turned out, we did a minor release about monthly and a major release a couple of times a year... probably the same cadence had I impo
Re: (Score:3)
One of the people I used to work with was an absolute genius. You know the kind. The one that passes by your table when you're about to bite into the the same because you've been trying to hunt down a bug for a day, glances at your screen, points to the bug and continues on his way to the coffee maker.
He basically came and went as he pleased and still accomplished more than most other people working here. Should I pester him about work hours? I don't even know how many hours a week he was in, I guess it mus
I have eight different bosses right now. (Score:4, Insightful)
Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.
Not new. Toxic, but it's been around forever (Score:2)
Because of all the laws around employee performance and dismissing a person, it's hard when you have somebody who's "okay" —not great, not bad, and you want to move them on. Instead people take this tactic of just marginalizing them and making it uncomfortable enough they simply want to leave of their own accord.
I disagree with it, I think it's a horrible practice, but I've seen it happen before, and it's nothing new.
Age Discrimination (Score:2)
The example given sounds more like simple age discrimination to me. The company can't actually fire him that close to retirement age without making it obvious, so theywork in little ways to make his life miserable.
Most of the folks I hear whining about "quiet quitting" seem to be complaining about people doing their jobs for the number of hours they've agreed up front to be paid to do them and not pitch in extra unpaid labor for free. Wouldn't then the proper analogous "quiet firing" be companies that don't
It's *not* quiet quitting, (Score:5, Insightful)
You can really see the pro-corporate bias is our media with these propaganda pieces. When I first heard the phrase I just figured it meant quitting without notice. I was aghast to find out it just meant doing your job and no more.
This is a bunch of rich assholes and Karens angry that the peons and serfs aren't falling all over themselves to server their every whim.
If you have zero opportunity for advancement and only get raises to keep you from leaving and/or rioting then of course you should do the job and no more. Seems to me that's how capitalism works. You do what you need to do and save your energy for elsewhere.
Fuck the American Cult Of Work. We work more hours than the Japanese. We're more productive than any other time in history and rather than share that productivity it's used to lay us off. It's never enough. Time for a New New Deal and they know it and so does everyone reading this.
It can be a bit simpler than that. (Score:2)
Just take away their red stapler. Job done.
Yep, that's me (Score:2, Insightful)
I loaf and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I probably work *maybe* 20 hours a week (if that).
BUT, the fact is that I get all my work done on time, and it's done well.
After that though, I'm goofing off- I'm NOT going to go scrambling around for more work to do.
Maybe I'll watch a movie, take a nap, do some stuff around the house, run an errand- whatever *I* feel like doing is what I'll do.
Do I feel guilty? Not one fucking bit. I do my job; the fact that they don't load me down with more work is on them, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are that even right now already nobody gives a shit...
This isn't new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you could see the slack simply as a reflection that the employee was given too little work by the employer
That's probably true. But then, the employer probably wasn't willing to pay for more work. Why should they get more work than they are willing to pay for? An employer who pays less than a living wage only deserves to be pushed out of an airlock, but barring that they deserve only the amount of work they're paying for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Point is, i's rare an employee really doesn't have any work to do (inside their own area), so it's unreasonable to feel entitled to shirk just because the employee happened to finish a specific task somewhat earlier.
Yes, I already know you have an employer-centric view of employment, you made that clear already.
Re: (Score:2)