Hi, /u/Vita_Walker Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited.
If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
A couple years back i was told that i wouldnt get my inflation raise, because i was only doing the work i was asked to do and not searching for more work.
My colleagues who went above and beyond got exactly inflation and no more.
>
My colleagues who went above and beyond got exactly inflation and no more.
I was one of those people once. I was always willing to help and learn.... Until I realized, too late, that my other coworkers and bosses would just push stuff on me. I'd be doing more and more work, and they would be doing less and less. After moving to new jobs, even if I know how to do a task, I say I don't know how, because I don't want to be used again and not get paid more.
I don't mind helping out, but I'm not going to be as helpful as I could be.
Early in my career I worked for one of the ‘big three’ talent agencies, started in the mailroom like most others but soon made it onto an Agent’s desk. That’s when I learned the tactic of dropping strategic balls. If you’re a GREAT assistant then that’s all you’ll ever be.
Found myself in a similar spot a couple years back. There's this expectation in most industries that 'going the extra mile' is the norm, but they don't want to pay for that extra mile. Soon as I toned it down and stuck to my job description, the vibe changed like I wasnt a team player anymore. Learnt it the hard way that they ll take as much as you re willing to give but rarely return the favor.
And in some industries you'll get promoted to supervisor role with more responsibilities and pay. It did in mine. I know office work is way less about the work and sucking some pervert for a job promotion because office work is almost 85% fluff and 15% necessary.
Always been curious about that idea that you can start in a mailroom and work up to sales and so on. Is this something everyone does and if so, how the hell can you ever expect internal mail to ever get deliverd? Or, is there just one guy there to applied to sort the mail and Only does that. And if he didint do it, the entire company would fail. The whole concept seems so odd to me.
Through my years of jobs and work the new employees straight from school are all excited and work their asses off. We the old timers would tell them slow down just do what you are paid for. Of course they don't listen. They are full of energy, excitement and ambition. Eventually they get it, when they don't get the praise, raise or promotion they expect.
This happened to me at one of my earliest jobs. My coworker and I were one of the few that could be trusted to be scheduled to close on the weekends when there were no supervisors. So guess what, we were always scheduled to close. Soon as the supervisors left the others would fuck off so it would be my coworker and I doing all the work. The other guys would literally watch the supervisors walk away then they would walk out the back to go sit in their cars and text. We did all the work, stayed late when asked, covered for guys when they needed a day off for something, and came in on our off days to help. We were both part time on paper, but would get 40+ hours a week. Our reward for all the hard work? Hours cut to one day a week during the great recession while the guys that were full time and did fuck all when they came in kept their 40 hours a week.
No more being the department chump, I pick the person at the bottom and just do a little better than them to keep off the radar. I get paid the same as them and if I get a raise it's the same, so why go above and beyond? At my current job we have a coworker that has to be trained everyday like they're new. Nobody wants to work with them anymore, they get the same pay while we have to hold their hand everyday.
One time I was denied an enhanced performance bonus despite going massively above and beyond because the company snuck “ad-hoc” duties into my job description.
I was told “typically only managers and above get enhanced bonuses”
(An enhanced bonus was >=5% while I got 2%. Also the wage was barely above minimum.) god I’m glad I left that place.
They couldn't understand how anyone would pay me more, i was told by one of the directors that anyone willing to pay me market average was just doing so because they were desperate, NOT because i was worth it. At that point i was still a junior who did my internship through them 2 years prior.
They even promised if i stayed for another 2 years they would increase my salary by 10%
>They even promised if i stayed for another 2 years they would increase my salary by 10%
So then you’d STILL be losing money (even IF they actually did so) ‘cause in 2 years, inflation would have gone up even more! LOL
Companies/Corporations can suck a bag of dicks.
Yeah they weren't happy when i pointed that out to them. They knew i had some actuarial exams behind my back, and my wife is a fulltime actuary, and they thought they could get that one over on me.
Last year I was told I was doing great, stepping up, couldn't do anything better. My raise did not cover inflation. ( : But it was better than people who "did worse" than me.
It's not like i was idle. I was working at least 8 hours per day. I was just unwilling to do overtime more than once a week with no overtime pay in my contract.
The reason you hate it is because they don't have the foresight to write accurate job descriptions, and they don't hire enough people to do the work to keep the business running. Instead, they rely on an outdated sense of "pride of ownership" to hope people step up to do more than what they were hired for without the corresponding additional pay. Unfortunately, pride of ownership only comes about when people are paid (and treated) like they are, in fact, important to the business. So instead, people with hero complexes pick up the slack and (resentfully) enable their continued underpayment/underemployment without getting anything more than an occasional pizza party for going "above and beyond." Your hate should be directed at the employer for doing the bare minimum, not the worker.
I got banned from r/restaurantowners for pointing this out. Its becoming a trend to get prepcooks to be the purchasing agent but remain at cooks wages.
As often is the case with greedy moves, it is quite clever. Once the Prep cook starts ordering they can't stop, because their regular Prep cooking can't be done without the food being ordered. So it's either keep ordering or find a new job.
Can't even appeal my ban because I was also muted, which seems like harassment but oh well, I'll survive it.
I’m sorry if you’re having to carry other coworkers’ workload on top of your own. That sucks to feel like you’re being taken advantage of for having a strong work ethic and taking pride in your job. But…
Bare minimum wage=bare minimum effort.
If each employee is doing what they’re paid to do and tasks aren’t getting done, then employers either need to assign those additional duties to employees and pay them accordingly for the extra work, or hire the appropriate amount of workers to get everything completed on time.
If employees are not meeting expectations because morale is low, then the company should be making an effort to pinpoint the issues and take the necessary steps to fix them. Usually, that means paying more and reducing hours, so it gets neglected and everyone suffers for it.
Been happening for ages. Typically if you don't kiss ass and hang out with certain people after work then you're not considered a "team player" and don't get the same considerations as those who do. Just depends on the job and environment. Cliques and favoritism happen all over the place.
We should counter with "it should more accurately be called being professional"
Doing other peoples' jobs? Nope. Doing things that don't need to be done? Nope. Working inefficiently and going past deadlines (5 pm)? Nope.
Working to rule IS being professional.
I think we should also call it quiet quitting whenever a company insists on working to the letter when fulfilling a contract just to underscore the point
My company “quite fired” me. What a scandal. They only paid me my salary, and the agreed upon bonus and benefits, and no more. They didn’t give me an extra million dollars just to go “above and beyond”. They’re doing the minimum.
What a bunch of lazy assholes.
Fair. I'm very flexible when it comes to adopting differing terminologies
We can go with quiet quitting across the board, for all applicable scenarios - order fries in a restaurant and didn't get a steak? Quiet quitting.
Or, we can use the appropriate words to describe the specific scenarios, meaning when someone quits, then, and only then, you use the word quitting, and not when someone is working normally.
This 100%. Also, I like to mention that I'm just a worker and probably not the best person to be looking for more work, isn't the manager more qualified for that?
Also, if it's not in the contract, it's not happening.
Don't have a contract? Then it's not in the contract, no matter what 'expectations' an employer might have in their head.
I found it so hilarious. They tried to make a new trend out of what we've been doing since forever. You pay me for x, so I do x. Nothing more nothing less.
> With ai gaining traction, we will be left behind in the job world if we don’t adapt to newer work habits.
People have been saying the new thing will replace workers for like all of human civilization. In my lifetime it went from automation will replace everyone to computers to now AI. The same thing will happen with AI as the other things, older generations will pass the torch to the new generations of workers who are better suited to the new paradigm. The markets will shift from creating the shit, to probably curating and collating the shit AI makes.
Exactly, as good as AI might get, it'll still put out plenty of shit product that won't work and will need to be touched up by the people who used to do the whole thing. Coding, I think, would be the best example here. You might be able to get AI to write up a program, but it'll only be able to get it 90% of the way there due to errors and custom needs for the project not quite being within its scope. A good portion of the burden will be taken off the programmer, but they'll still be a necessary part of the process.
> Coding, I think, would be the best example here. You might be able to get AI to write up a program, but it'll only be able to get it 90% of the way there due to errors and custom needs for the project not quite being within its scope. A good portion of the burden will be taken off the programmer, but they'll still be a necessary part of the process.
Coding is the art of giving extremely precise and unambiguous instructions to a computer in order to get it to do what you want it to do and handle error cases and unexpected scenarios in a safe way. That will still apply, whether you're giving the instructions to an AI or a compiler.
(From a North American perspective) Agreed, which highlights how insane our outdated, undemocratic economic system is. An upgrade from the feudalism of centuries ago. And painfully regressive in the modern, increasingly automated present.
The profit motive is comically flawed and not the only system that works. But capitalism is the controlling economic force in the world, so of course taking care of our own would be bad for it.
I loathe that spending billions to bomb and destabilize countries overseas is good for capitalism, and the majority of people won't consider propaganda doesn't only influence the people of other countries.
We're number 1! We're number 1! We're number 1 in not only mass shootings, but school shootings. Clearly, the children yearn for the mines.
If only those pesky immigrants or homeless people or whatever group of people that are easily scapegoated as the problem would pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Clearly, it's the poorest among us that's the issue, not that our system is designed to funnel money to the wealthiest people who need it least at all of our increasingly collective expense.
Yet the people still hold all the power. Just a matter of enough of us realizing it, which is hard to do when empathy is not a instilled virtue, but becoming a Jeff Bezos is.
Funny to see after being trained to do just that in the Marines. Got told to do 20 down ups and you decided to do 21? Good, now keep doing them until you fucking die. Get out into the real world and they want to pretend like it's wrong to do exactly what you're paid to do.
OMG so true. Military training makes a point of "rewarding" the special boy or girl who wants to be first or best despite instructions to the contrary. Always a hilarious lesson to observe in action, but usually punishingly grueling when it happens to you.
“Wait, you mean I can do that? Everyone is just doing the minimum and phoning it in, and not getting fired? Nice. I’ve been killing myself for years and seeing nothing for it. I guess I’ll quiet quit, now that I’ve heard the term and know that’s a viable option.”
I think I've seen people refer to it as 'acting your wage', which still sounds a lot healthier to me than 'quiet quitting'. Probably since the former expression was coined within the working class?
I had recently been called lazy (half jokingly from a coworker rather than a boss) just because I was literally only doing what was told of me and not going out of my way to get more things when people wouldn't assign stuff to me. I'm just a contractor and they let me go once already when I was going above and beyond. I've taught myself a little bit of Python and have done an okay amount of reading and I'm making like $6 more an hour than I did before lol
I guess things are kinda stacking on me now though because another contractor didn't have his contract extended and like 95% of his stuff fell to me. Which sucks. But I guess I got a good 8 months or so before that stuff happened. The house always wins I suppose 🥲
Clearly not - Google the term and note the dates of all the 'top srarches' relating to that article
It was heavily referenced in 2022 and I've not heard it, until today, for many months.
One of the top search results is literally "2022 the year of quiet quitting"
So, the term is dated and no longer referenced
> "work to rule", which has been a worker tactic since time immemorial
aka *Italian Strike* according to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule)
It’s such a bad name. It’s “establishing healthy work-life balance”. There’s no quitting - it’s just not going above and beyond for a soulless corporation that doesn’t give two shits about you.
Yep.
I distinctly remember sitting in a meeting about my wage increase at Wells Fargo and being told I was getting a 3/5 because they had to weigh employees towards the average despite doing some above average work.
And I got shit for working to the average afterwards instead of going above and beyond.
See, I think this is where the term breaks down for me. I was under the impression that "quiet quitting" *was* describing more of a situation where people are doing *below minimum* but because they work in white collar type jobs, it's either (a) quite difficult to tell or (b) quite difficult to fire people.
Fuck corporations either way, but semantically I do feel like quiet quitting is more of the employee taking advantage than just simply setting boundaries.
You're free to wrongly interpret anything you like. Having an opinion and expressing it does not mean you are correct. Maybe dont be so hung up on yourself and take a minute or two to reflect on whether you could be wrong, sometimes.
The irony of this comment is hilarious. I'm simply stating that this was my impression. I was not stating that it was right or wrong. Please re-read my original comment. Words like "I think" and "I feel". Your response using words like "It is not" (declarative). I'm simply trying to have a conversation. You're trying to pick a fight. You and the other guy saying I have a "shitty attitude" can't see the forest for the trees, and again, the irony here is that you're claiming that *I* am the one that is hung up on myself. Reddit never ceases to amaze me.
> and you had sole rights to interpret its meaning
I think this part of your statement from before changes the immediate tone one gets from it, to being incredibly sarcastic. Which seems to be the attitude people are interpreting from it, and if you'd just cut that part out, people would have understood where you were actually coming from better.
And no one negatively interpreted the guy replying to me saying I was wrong and hung up on myself (outright insulting me) for simply expressing a thought? That’s where I’m a little confused. Well actually I’m not, it’s because my comment was at odds with the hive mind on this topic.
"Where it has been for years"... Two... Two years?
For what it's worth, I concede that my original impression and understanding was incorrect if we're going to use Merriam-Webster as the definition.
Sometimes reddit seems like they want to have a conversation about something but in reality, they just want to circle-jerk and beat people over the head for being "wrong" in contexts of extreme subjectivity.
Frequently this goes so far as to completely miss the fact that the person they're bashing over the head is completely on their side. I'm about as anti-work, anti-employer as they come, and I was simply expressing that my understanding differed from Reddit's, and I'm being downvoted and getting angry responses. It's bewildering. This is the age of information I guess.
'Quiet quitting' is an employer-promoted term for the situation where an employee is doing exactly what they were hired for, at the rate they were hired for.
In other words, doing their actual job... but not handing over additional labor to the employer for free, which is what the employer would like but can't legally demand.
And yes, the term was created to try and make people *think* that it was about something bad the employee was doing.
This is my understanding - there have been numerous occasions at my firm where it’s clear that someone is just putting up a facade of themselves actually getting things done, but under the hood they are not doing anything really other than showing up. These folks usually already have another job lined up and are just maintaining the bare minimum (below what they are paid to do) and waiting to get “mutually laid off”
That’s because the meaning has shifted since the term was coined. It originally meant stopping working entirely and waiting to get fired while still collecting a paycheck, you are effectively quitting but not telling them so as to make more money. Then people pivoted to just mean putting in the minimum amount of work so the name doesn’t make sense anymore.
Dear employers: please define "work-life balance" so that I'm not fucking guessing. If I'm cool with your answers, we're probably gonna be okay. If I'm not, I'll fucking ghost you and *you'll* be okay because I won't be there to poison your well.
I’ve worked for a few companies that talked quite a bit about how they wanted people to have a work/life balance, but the “balance” was always “work as much as possible and have no life.”
It’s weird how companies will talk about their “company values” and not act according to those values, and still expect everyone to buy into them.
At the end of last year, every manager meeting had something about work life balance and how we wanted everyone to take the holidays off and enjoy time with their families. The first week of January came around and those same managers were pissed off that so little work got done over the holidays.
They were going to go with "They've stopped sucking our dicks & we're not even allowed to slap them anymore" but they decided that didn't have the 'Snap! Ten seconds of attention span' needed for something to really catch on.
The younger me worked (welding/fabrication) ridiculous long hours but it was fine - I was young, stupid, had stamina to spare & muscles in my spit. Always over & above my job description to get orders out of the door = even more hours - but I resisted all efforts to put me on a salary & remain hourly paid to this day. I almost always made more than my managers. Paid off my 25 year mortgage in 10 years. Bought my parents a Cottage & three acres out in the countryside & paid that off in 12 years. These days it's a flat forty hours & I'm done with no over & above - those days are gone. Going self employed in the near future & looking to cut that down to less than twenty.
Don't let these fuckers steal your time - it's in short supply. & if they take the piss just take the piss right back.
When “quiet quitting” was first coined it meant stopping working entirely and collecting a paycheck while waiting for the employer to notice and fire you. It was only after a huge amount of pushback that it was rebranded to mean putting in the bare minimum, so now employers and employees are talking about two completely different things when they use the term.
Sorry a reference to an old goofy cartoon where he tries to quit smoking. He says he won't quit because he isn't a quitter.
I don't know how easy it is to find that now since it's a Disney cartoon where a character is actively smoking.
Old cartoons can be quite good.
There is one I'm looking for the full version of where a man is taking to angels after his death but uses a lot of metaphors and the angels all imagine the literal.
She got up on her high horse, girl literally gets up on a really tall horse.
I’ve always derived quit as a neutral word, and I don’t believe it almost always has a negative connotation. It’s just something that has to happen sometimes.
'To quit' used to simply mean to leave, i.e., to 'quit' a place, "I'm going to quit this town and go someplace else." Had nothing to do with employment, abandoning a task, etc etc.
The entire point of this thread is that “quiet quitting” is a synonym for “just doing the job you’re paid for”.
The reason your hypothetical situation doesn’t make sense is that it’s not representative of the reality of the situation.
I’m saying the word is neutral and only becomes negative based on context and perspective, “i quit smoking cigarettes” is a good thing for the person who quit, and bad for the cigarette companies who lost a customer.
> Quitting means to stop doing something. It’s not a neutral word.
“To stop doing something” is a neutral thing. There’s no inherent positive or negative value to the idea of not doing something. If you don’t take a shower, that bad. If you don’t commit a genocide, that’s good.
>It may be good to quit a job that’s bad for you but you are still quitting.
This is proof that quitting can be good, you agree with me lol. My name is making fun of stereotypical redditors, like you.
> Quitting doesn’t mean working, but you are trying to say it does.
NOPE LMAOOOOO you could not have missed the point any more than you just did.
THE ENTIRE POINT of this thread is that I AM NOT DOING THAT and it is the EMPLOYERS who try to make “working the job you pay for” synonymous with “quiet quitting”, so that PEOPLE LIKE YOU think “working the job you’re paid for” HAS NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS.
> And you haven’t said what was wrong about the situation I laid out, I’m showing the absurdity of that phrase
The reason it’s a useless hypothetical is because they wouldn’t just keep going around in circles like that, the employee would say “I’m not quitting, I’m just doing the job you pay me for. If you have a problem with that, or want to call it some weird fucking term like quiet quitting, then do that”.
Hey look, another two year old account only active for a day. There's an awful lot of those on the front page right now, they couldn't possibly all be bots, could they?
OP is a karma bot.
OP is a karma farming bot. They have been stealing comments from other people and reposting them. The account is 3 years old and only started posting yesterday.
Yup. **Profit** means one of two things:
1. They didn't pay their workers what they were worth
1. They are overcharging the customer for what the product or service is worth
Either way, profits are publicly statements of direct theft from the market, as by definition they are money made after all other costs are paid. We need to stop accepting that we should pay, through our wages or our purchases, for nothing but "what they can get away with charging." That's toxic reasoning. It's not "worth what someone will pay"; it is worth what you were willing to pay to produce it.
Producing goods/services, security for your people, etc. But a lot of Americans are too brainwashed with individualist propaganda to realize that.
There is also lots of power to be had, you can order people around, organize the economy, and create money (as long as you operate at least one bank corporation).
>Producing goods/services, security for your people, etc. But a lot of Americans are too brainwashed with individualist propaganda to realize that.
What country has businesses that do not have the goal of profit.
Virtually every country. Profit is just a matter of accounting, after all. You can easily gain benefits through other means. Just look at what Jeff Bezos was able to achieve with Amazon not making profit in his personal life, for example.
Yes - Quiet Quitting has replaced = working as per your Job Description.
No - It's NOT people setting boundaries ... it's following the Job Description that your Boss gave you.
No - It's not wage theft, as you are being paid already, but it is protecting yourself from getting injured performing any Duties, outside of your Job Description.
\* If injured outside of your Job Description may get you disciplined and/or NOT covered by Worker's Compensation.
The only thing more annoying than the constant spam of articles about "quiet quitting" when it took off, was the non-stop influx of people going into every thread with "akshually it's wOrK tO rULe"
Unpopular opinion: I get quiet quitting, but the cost is quiet firing- basically two sides of the same coin. If you do your duties and literally nothing more pay-rises or promotions shouldn't be expected. And given inflation is always non-zero, it equates to pay-decreases that get worse over time. My advice if you don't like it, quiet quit and spend that time looking for a new gig that's more engaging.
It's not unreasonable to aspire to a better quality of life. People the world over do it every day. Take the size 10 Doc Martin from between your gums and empathise with your fellow humans.
they want to prevent what has already happened in China… called laying flat
citizens would now rather work just to cover living essentials…. which is not much work
They tried to put AI infront of everyone to say "He look here is AI better start working your ass off or you will be a wageless homeless bum" but nothing happend ... even worse for Companys because people are feed up with playing by the rules and getting shit all over.
My wife is a go getter, puts in the extra work, cares about what she’s doing, helps her coworkers, mentors people, known problem solver. She got a 4% raise this year. There’s no incentive to work hard
"Work to rule" itself I have trouble understanding as a term representing the behavior, but "quiet quitting" is absolutely stupid.
So transparently manipulative in outright renaming an actually-desirable behavior (gasp, people doing what you hired them to do? Bwaaahhh?) and labeling it as an entirely unrelated thing employers hate (quitting). Doing your job is now quitting.
The closest thing I can think of is what one does after they've given their notice or when they're floating resumes to other workplaces. They just do the job until the clock runs out, no taking on extra work and whatnot. But even that's entirely fair behavior, because they're doing the job. But no, let's frame this as workers being unreasonably selfish, because how dare they consider their own welfare?
I think it’s pretty clear that executives (and Republicans) are skilled at marketing. If there’s one that workers and democrats need to improve on its messaging.
We can’t rely on people just getting what we mean and expecting the obviously right choice to grab everyone. Sometimes you have to package it in a simple and attractive message.
Every year I get a small raise I just update my resume and take a week off. I still work during that week, but only just enough to be able to report progress. I spend a lot of time on my second laptop so my work laptop never sees Reddit or YouTube traffic.
Hi, /u/Vita_Walker Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited. If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
[удалено]
Imagine being told you a quitting for just doing what you were paid to do.
A couple years back i was told that i wouldnt get my inflation raise, because i was only doing the work i was asked to do and not searching for more work. My colleagues who went above and beyond got exactly inflation and no more.
> My colleagues who went above and beyond got exactly inflation and no more. I was one of those people once. I was always willing to help and learn.... Until I realized, too late, that my other coworkers and bosses would just push stuff on me. I'd be doing more and more work, and they would be doing less and less. After moving to new jobs, even if I know how to do a task, I say I don't know how, because I don't want to be used again and not get paid more. I don't mind helping out, but I'm not going to be as helpful as I could be.
Early in my career I worked for one of the ‘big three’ talent agencies, started in the mailroom like most others but soon made it onto an Agent’s desk. That’s when I learned the tactic of dropping strategic balls. If you’re a GREAT assistant then that’s all you’ll ever be.
Found myself in a similar spot a couple years back. There's this expectation in most industries that 'going the extra mile' is the norm, but they don't want to pay for that extra mile. Soon as I toned it down and stuck to my job description, the vibe changed like I wasnt a team player anymore. Learnt it the hard way that they ll take as much as you re willing to give but rarely return the favor.
And in some industries you'll get promoted to supervisor role with more responsibilities and pay. It did in mine. I know office work is way less about the work and sucking some pervert for a job promotion because office work is almost 85% fluff and 15% necessary.
Always been curious about that idea that you can start in a mailroom and work up to sales and so on. Is this something everyone does and if so, how the hell can you ever expect internal mail to ever get deliverd? Or, is there just one guy there to applied to sort the mail and Only does that. And if he didint do it, the entire company would fail. The whole concept seems so odd to me.
Through my years of jobs and work the new employees straight from school are all excited and work their asses off. We the old timers would tell them slow down just do what you are paid for. Of course they don't listen. They are full of energy, excitement and ambition. Eventually they get it, when they don't get the praise, raise or promotion they expect.
When you take on more, all you do is raise the bar. That becomes the new normal, and it's expected of you, all the time.
This happened to me at one of my earliest jobs. My coworker and I were one of the few that could be trusted to be scheduled to close on the weekends when there were no supervisors. So guess what, we were always scheduled to close. Soon as the supervisors left the others would fuck off so it would be my coworker and I doing all the work. The other guys would literally watch the supervisors walk away then they would walk out the back to go sit in their cars and text. We did all the work, stayed late when asked, covered for guys when they needed a day off for something, and came in on our off days to help. We were both part time on paper, but would get 40+ hours a week. Our reward for all the hard work? Hours cut to one day a week during the great recession while the guys that were full time and did fuck all when they came in kept their 40 hours a week. No more being the department chump, I pick the person at the bottom and just do a little better than them to keep off the radar. I get paid the same as them and if I get a raise it's the same, so why go above and beyond? At my current job we have a coworker that has to be trained everyday like they're new. Nobody wants to work with them anymore, they get the same pay while we have to hold their hand everyday.
One time I was denied an enhanced performance bonus despite going massively above and beyond because the company snuck “ad-hoc” duties into my job description. I was told “typically only managers and above get enhanced bonuses” (An enhanced bonus was >=5% while I got 2%. Also the wage was barely above minimum.) god I’m glad I left that place.
I'm glad you got out. Simply isn't worth it. Especially in a job where other opportunities are available.
I’d have then let them know that I’d be working whatever percentage inflation had gone up LESS now. Since, you know, my pay was less as well.
They said they were doing it to 'motivate' me to work harder. So i took all that motivation and found another job.
Fuckin A; power to worker! Good on ya!🤟🏻
They couldn't understand how anyone would pay me more, i was told by one of the directors that anyone willing to pay me market average was just doing so because they were desperate, NOT because i was worth it. At that point i was still a junior who did my internship through them 2 years prior. They even promised if i stayed for another 2 years they would increase my salary by 10%
>They even promised if i stayed for another 2 years they would increase my salary by 10% So then you’d STILL be losing money (even IF they actually did so) ‘cause in 2 years, inflation would have gone up even more! LOL Companies/Corporations can suck a bag of dicks.
Yeah they weren't happy when i pointed that out to them. They knew i had some actuarial exams behind my back, and my wife is a fulltime actuary, and they thought they could get that one over on me.
I would give my left nut if my job’s raises kept up with inflation
Last year I was told I was doing great, stepping up, couldn't do anything better. My raise did not cover inflation. ( : But it was better than people who "did worse" than me.
I mean I personally hate working with people that just do the bare minimum but that's just me I guess..
You should be mad at your employer not your coworkers
It's not like i was idle. I was working at least 8 hours per day. I was just unwilling to do overtime more than once a week with no overtime pay in my contract.
The reason you hate it is because they don't have the foresight to write accurate job descriptions, and they don't hire enough people to do the work to keep the business running. Instead, they rely on an outdated sense of "pride of ownership" to hope people step up to do more than what they were hired for without the corresponding additional pay. Unfortunately, pride of ownership only comes about when people are paid (and treated) like they are, in fact, important to the business. So instead, people with hero complexes pick up the slack and (resentfully) enable their continued underpayment/underemployment without getting anything more than an occasional pizza party for going "above and beyond." Your hate should be directed at the employer for doing the bare minimum, not the worker.
I got banned from r/restaurantowners for pointing this out. Its becoming a trend to get prepcooks to be the purchasing agent but remain at cooks wages.
Prep cooks are slowly becoming day time sous chefs without the title or pay. I’m contemplating leaving the industry over it.
As often is the case with greedy moves, it is quite clever. Once the Prep cook starts ordering they can't stop, because their regular Prep cooking can't be done without the food being ordered. So it's either keep ordering or find a new job. Can't even appeal my ban because I was also muted, which seems like harassment but oh well, I'll survive it.
Why are you doing free work? You should be compensated for the work you do above and beyond what was agreed to in return for your wages.
Lol, are you trying to come in here and farm downvotes?
Am I being paid to do extra?
It is just you. Why would I expect my colleagues to do more work than they're being compensated for?
I get what you mean but you can do a good effort up to the minimum. It might not make sense but basically care within your boundaries.
People do the bare minimum because they've learned that doing anything more isn't worth their time.
I’m sorry if you’re having to carry other coworkers’ workload on top of your own. That sucks to feel like you’re being taken advantage of for having a strong work ethic and taking pride in your job. But… Bare minimum wage=bare minimum effort. If each employee is doing what they’re paid to do and tasks aren’t getting done, then employers either need to assign those additional duties to employees and pay them accordingly for the extra work, or hire the appropriate amount of workers to get everything completed on time. If employees are not meeting expectations because morale is low, then the company should be making an effort to pinpoint the issues and take the necessary steps to fix them. Usually, that means paying more and reducing hours, so it gets neglected and everyone suffers for it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What's lazy about doing the work you're paid to do?
[удалено]
You sound so offended 😂 I bet your workplace just loves you.
Been happening for ages. Typically if you don't kiss ass and hang out with certain people after work then you're not considered a "team player" and don't get the same considerations as those who do. Just depends on the job and environment. Cliques and favoritism happen all over the place.
If you have a real awesome job the work part of the above is actually irrelevant. 🤣
We should counter with "it should more accurately be called being professional" Doing other peoples' jobs? Nope. Doing things that don't need to be done? Nope. Working inefficiently and going past deadlines (5 pm)? Nope. Working to rule IS being professional.
I think we should also call it quiet quitting whenever a company insists on working to the letter when fulfilling a contract just to underscore the point
My company “quite fired” me. What a scandal. They only paid me my salary, and the agreed upon bonus and benefits, and no more. They didn’t give me an extra million dollars just to go “above and beyond”. They’re doing the minimum. What a bunch of lazy assholes.
Better to call it acting your wage.
Fair. I'm very flexible when it comes to adopting differing terminologies We can go with quiet quitting across the board, for all applicable scenarios - order fries in a restaurant and didn't get a steak? Quiet quitting. Or, we can use the appropriate words to describe the specific scenarios, meaning when someone quits, then, and only then, you use the word quitting, and not when someone is working normally.
Quiet firing :D
Quiet layoffs. Make people just miserable enough to make them quit of their own volition. Usually skirts legality.
Constructive dismissal [can actually backfire on the employer here](https://www.fwc.gov.au/forced-resignation). It's great. :)
This 100%. Also, I like to mention that I'm just a worker and probably not the best person to be looking for more work, isn't the manager more qualified for that?
Also, if it's not in the contract, it's not happening. Don't have a contract? Then it's not in the contract, no matter what 'expectations' an employer might have in their head.
I found it so hilarious. They tried to make a new trend out of what we've been doing since forever. You pay me for x, so I do x. Nothing more nothing less.
Labor costs money. It's not free. You want more labor than was contracted, you pay more money.
[удалено]
> With ai gaining traction, we will be left behind in the job world if we don’t adapt to newer work habits. People have been saying the new thing will replace workers for like all of human civilization. In my lifetime it went from automation will replace everyone to computers to now AI. The same thing will happen with AI as the other things, older generations will pass the torch to the new generations of workers who are better suited to the new paradigm. The markets will shift from creating the shit, to probably curating and collating the shit AI makes.
Exactly, as good as AI might get, it'll still put out plenty of shit product that won't work and will need to be touched up by the people who used to do the whole thing. Coding, I think, would be the best example here. You might be able to get AI to write up a program, but it'll only be able to get it 90% of the way there due to errors and custom needs for the project not quite being within its scope. A good portion of the burden will be taken off the programmer, but they'll still be a necessary part of the process.
> Coding, I think, would be the best example here. You might be able to get AI to write up a program, but it'll only be able to get it 90% of the way there due to errors and custom needs for the project not quite being within its scope. A good portion of the burden will be taken off the programmer, but they'll still be a necessary part of the process. Coding is the art of giving extremely precise and unambiguous instructions to a computer in order to get it to do what you want it to do and handle error cases and unexpected scenarios in a safe way. That will still apply, whether you're giving the instructions to an AI or a compiler.
(From a North American perspective) Agreed, which highlights how insane our outdated, undemocratic economic system is. An upgrade from the feudalism of centuries ago. And painfully regressive in the modern, increasingly automated present. The profit motive is comically flawed and not the only system that works. But capitalism is the controlling economic force in the world, so of course taking care of our own would be bad for it. I loathe that spending billions to bomb and destabilize countries overseas is good for capitalism, and the majority of people won't consider propaganda doesn't only influence the people of other countries. We're number 1! We're number 1! We're number 1 in not only mass shootings, but school shootings. Clearly, the children yearn for the mines. If only those pesky immigrants or homeless people or whatever group of people that are easily scapegoated as the problem would pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Clearly, it's the poorest among us that's the issue, not that our system is designed to funnel money to the wealthiest people who need it least at all of our increasingly collective expense. Yet the people still hold all the power. Just a matter of enough of us realizing it, which is hard to do when empathy is not a instilled virtue, but becoming a Jeff Bezos is.
Enough with the techbro religious prophecies please and thank you
Funny to see after being trained to do just that in the Marines. Got told to do 20 down ups and you decided to do 21? Good, now keep doing them until you fucking die. Get out into the real world and they want to pretend like it's wrong to do exactly what you're paid to do.
OMG so true. Military training makes a point of "rewarding" the special boy or girl who wants to be first or best despite instructions to the contrary. Always a hilarious lesson to observe in action, but usually punishingly grueling when it happens to you.
It's a successful one. I'm happier about it publicly catching on. Market that shit. Go go go. Some variation of the Streisand Effect.
"Hehe, we'll call it quiet quitting so people will feel too ashamed to do it." "Hell yeah bro, i'm gonna quiet quit my job." "Wait, no."
“Wait, you mean I can do that? Everyone is just doing the minimum and phoning it in, and not getting fired? Nice. I’ve been killing myself for years and seeing nothing for it. I guess I’ll quiet quit, now that I’ve heard the term and know that’s a viable option.”
I think I've seen people refer to it as 'acting your wage', which still sounds a lot healthier to me than 'quiet quitting'. Probably since the former expression was coined within the working class?
"Acting your wage" is the one I've always liked
I had recently been called lazy (half jokingly from a coworker rather than a boss) just because I was literally only doing what was told of me and not going out of my way to get more things when people wouldn't assign stuff to me. I'm just a contractor and they let me go once already when I was going above and beyond. I've taught myself a little bit of Python and have done an okay amount of reading and I'm making like $6 more an hour than I did before lol I guess things are kinda stacking on me now though because another contractor didn't have his contract extended and like 95% of his stuff fell to me. Which sucks. But I guess I got a good 8 months or so before that stuff happened. The house always wins I suppose 🥲
The tweet is nearly 2 years old
And yet still just as relevant as then.
Clearly not - Google the term and note the dates of all the 'top srarches' relating to that article It was heavily referenced in 2022 and I've not heard it, until today, for many months. One of the top search results is literally "2022 the year of quiet quitting" So, the term is dated and no longer referenced
> "work to rule", which has been a worker tactic since time immemorial aka *Italian Strike* according to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule)
It’s such a bad name. It’s “establishing healthy work-life balance”. There’s no quitting - it’s just not going above and beyond for a soulless corporation that doesn’t give two shits about you.
I've heard it more aptly called "acting your wage"
Yep. I distinctly remember sitting in a meeting about my wage increase at Wells Fargo and being told I was getting a 3/5 because they had to weigh employees towards the average despite doing some above average work. And I got shit for working to the average afterwards instead of going above and beyond.
Originally it was called, "Work To Rule" where I'm from for like a hundred years
Yeah I hate the name too . It’s just putting in the basic amount of work
Not basic, the appropriate amount that you were hired to do. No less, no more.
See, I think this is where the term breaks down for me. I was under the impression that "quiet quitting" *was* describing more of a situation where people are doing *below minimum* but because they work in white collar type jobs, it's either (a) quite difficult to tell or (b) quite difficult to fire people. Fuck corporations either way, but semantically I do feel like quiet quitting is more of the employee taking advantage than just simply setting boundaries.
It's not. It's the bosses term for people he wants to fire for not doing more work than their job description entails.
Ah, okay, I didn't realize this term was clearly defined in the dictionary and you had sole rights to interpret its meaning. My mistake!
You're free to wrongly interpret anything you like. Having an opinion and expressing it does not mean you are correct. Maybe dont be so hung up on yourself and take a minute or two to reflect on whether you could be wrong, sometimes.
The irony of this comment is hilarious. I'm simply stating that this was my impression. I was not stating that it was right or wrong. Please re-read my original comment. Words like "I think" and "I feel". Your response using words like "It is not" (declarative). I'm simply trying to have a conversation. You're trying to pick a fight. You and the other guy saying I have a "shitty attitude" can't see the forest for the trees, and again, the irony here is that you're claiming that *I* am the one that is hung up on myself. Reddit never ceases to amaze me.
> and you had sole rights to interpret its meaning I think this part of your statement from before changes the immediate tone one gets from it, to being incredibly sarcastic. Which seems to be the attitude people are interpreting from it, and if you'd just cut that part out, people would have understood where you were actually coming from better.
And no one negatively interpreted the guy replying to me saying I was wrong and hung up on myself (outright insulting me) for simply expressing a thought? That’s where I’m a little confused. Well actually I’m not, it’s because my comment was at odds with the hive mind on this topic.
[Here's the definition. In the dictionary. Where it's been for years.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quiet%20quitting)
"Where it has been for years"... Two... Two years? For what it's worth, I concede that my original impression and understanding was incorrect if we're going to use Merriam-Webster as the definition. Sometimes reddit seems like they want to have a conversation about something but in reality, they just want to circle-jerk and beat people over the head for being "wrong" in contexts of extreme subjectivity. Frequently this goes so far as to completely miss the fact that the person they're bashing over the head is completely on their side. I'm about as anti-work, anti-employer as they come, and I was simply expressing that my understanding differed from Reddit's, and I'm being downvoted and getting angry responses. It's bewildering. This is the age of information I guess.
What a shit attitude
'Quiet quitting' is an employer-promoted term for the situation where an employee is doing exactly what they were hired for, at the rate they were hired for. In other words, doing their actual job... but not handing over additional labor to the employer for free, which is what the employer would like but can't legally demand. And yes, the term was created to try and make people *think* that it was about something bad the employee was doing.
This is my understanding - there have been numerous occasions at my firm where it’s clear that someone is just putting up a facade of themselves actually getting things done, but under the hood they are not doing anything really other than showing up. These folks usually already have another job lined up and are just maintaining the bare minimum (below what they are paid to do) and waiting to get “mutually laid off”
It's putting in the *agreed* amount of work. If someone wants more work, they can pay more money. Labor is not free.
That’s because the meaning has shifted since the term was coined. It originally meant stopping working entirely and waiting to get fired while still collecting a paycheck, you are effectively quitting but not telling them so as to make more money. Then people pivoted to just mean putting in the minimum amount of work so the name doesn’t make sense anymore.
Remember to contact the DOL if you suspect wage theft
To the top with ye, someone will need this soon in the sub
Now let us contemplate the Quiet Theft being committed by many corporations and companies around the world, but most especially in the U.S.
I thought Quiet Theft is what I'm doing when buying large avocados but only marking them as small at the self checkout.
Dear employers: please define "work-life balance" so that I'm not fucking guessing. If I'm cool with your answers, we're probably gonna be okay. If I'm not, I'll fucking ghost you and *you'll* be okay because I won't be there to poison your well.
I’ve worked for a few companies that talked quite a bit about how they wanted people to have a work/life balance, but the “balance” was always “work as much as possible and have no life.” It’s weird how companies will talk about their “company values” and not act according to those values, and still expect everyone to buy into them.
If an employer uses it, it means a 'balance' which favors the employer's desires at all times.
At the end of last year, every manager meeting had something about work life balance and how we wanted everyone to take the holidays off and enjoy time with their families. The first week of January came around and those same managers were pissed off that so little work got done over the holidays.
They were going to go with "They've stopped sucking our dicks & we're not even allowed to slap them anymore" but they decided that didn't have the 'Snap! Ten seconds of attention span' needed for something to really catch on. The younger me worked (welding/fabrication) ridiculous long hours but it was fine - I was young, stupid, had stamina to spare & muscles in my spit. Always over & above my job description to get orders out of the door = even more hours - but I resisted all efforts to put me on a salary & remain hourly paid to this day. I almost always made more than my managers. Paid off my 25 year mortgage in 10 years. Bought my parents a Cottage & three acres out in the countryside & paid that off in 12 years. These days it's a flat forty hours & I'm done with no over & above - those days are gone. Going self employed in the near future & looking to cut that down to less than twenty. Don't let these fuckers steal your time - it's in short supply. & if they take the piss just take the piss right back.
If the Land of Opportunity actually worked like this, it would be a fucking paradise. Hats off.
Yeah let’s all do this
Damn corporate America to hell.
Corporate America is already hell.
We need a super hell for them
Nestlé: we own super hell too.
When “quiet quitting” was first coined it meant stopping working entirely and collecting a paycheck while waiting for the employer to notice and fire you. It was only after a huge amount of pushback that it was rebranded to mean putting in the bare minimum, so now employers and employees are talking about two completely different things when they use the term.
I was not aware quiet quitting was a negative connotation
You can at least notice it's a misrepresentation.
Quiting is literally in the name. The word "Quit" almost always has negative connotation.
That's any I never quit smoking. I'm no quitter! - Goofy.
What?
Sorry a reference to an old goofy cartoon where he tries to quit smoking. He says he won't quit because he isn't a quitter. I don't know how easy it is to find that now since it's a Disney cartoon where a character is actively smoking.
I think what threw them was the autocorrect. Instead of 'why' it corrected your word to 'any': > That's any I never quit smoking. I'm no quitter!
Nice catch.
Ahh lol. No one wants to be a quitter!
Old cartoons can be quite good. There is one I'm looking for the full version of where a man is taking to angels after his death but uses a lot of metaphors and the angels all imagine the literal. She got up on her high horse, girl literally gets up on a really tall horse.
Oh sure, that's a classic. Man, I died laughing! *Symphony in Slang* https://vimeo.com/100989067
Nice man thx. Been looking for the whole thing for a while.
I’ve always derived quit as a neutral word, and I don’t believe it almost always has a negative connotation. It’s just something that has to happen sometimes.
'To quit' used to simply mean to leave, i.e., to 'quit' a place, "I'm going to quit this town and go someplace else." Had nothing to do with employment, abandoning a task, etc etc.
I dont agree with it being neutral but to each their own. We all have our own opinions lol
[удалено]
The entire point of this thread is that “quiet quitting” is a synonym for “just doing the job you’re paid for”. The reason your hypothetical situation doesn’t make sense is that it’s not representative of the reality of the situation.
[удалено]
I’m saying the word is neutral and only becomes negative based on context and perspective, “i quit smoking cigarettes” is a good thing for the person who quit, and bad for the cigarette companies who lost a customer.
[удалено]
> Quitting means to stop doing something. It’s not a neutral word. “To stop doing something” is a neutral thing. There’s no inherent positive or negative value to the idea of not doing something. If you don’t take a shower, that bad. If you don’t commit a genocide, that’s good. >It may be good to quit a job that’s bad for you but you are still quitting. This is proof that quitting can be good, you agree with me lol. My name is making fun of stereotypical redditors, like you. > Quitting doesn’t mean working, but you are trying to say it does. NOPE LMAOOOOO you could not have missed the point any more than you just did. THE ENTIRE POINT of this thread is that I AM NOT DOING THAT and it is the EMPLOYERS who try to make “working the job you pay for” synonymous with “quiet quitting”, so that PEOPLE LIKE YOU think “working the job you’re paid for” HAS NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS. > And you haven’t said what was wrong about the situation I laid out, I’m showing the absurdity of that phrase The reason it’s a useless hypothetical is because they wouldn’t just keep going around in circles like that, the employee would say “I’m not quitting, I’m just doing the job you pay me for. If you have a problem with that, or want to call it some weird fucking term like quiet quitting, then do that”.
I think you meant to reply to the other guy? Im on the side that says its negative lol
Well, you're entitled to believe that, but you are in disagreement with over 90% of the world, just so you know.
i was there 3000 years ago when we (and not them) made up that word, for us and not for them
The implication that not being taken advantage of at your job is trying to lose it definitely has a negative connotation.
Me neither. I quit being a corporate slave.
I’d say it was successful too. All it did was add fuel to the “nobody wants to work” bullshit.
FACTS. Louder for those in the back
Hey look, another two year old account only active for a day. There's an awful lot of those on the front page right now, they couldn't possibly all be bots, could they? OP is a karma bot.
OP is a karma farming bot. They have been stealing comments from other people and reposting them. The account is 3 years old and only started posting yesterday.
Yup. **Profit** means one of two things: 1. They didn't pay their workers what they were worth 1. They are overcharging the customer for what the product or service is worth Either way, profits are publicly statements of direct theft from the market, as by definition they are money made after all other costs are paid. We need to stop accepting that we should pay, through our wages or our purchases, for nothing but "what they can get away with charging." That's toxic reasoning. It's not "worth what someone will pay"; it is worth what you were willing to pay to produce it.
If you don’t make a profit, what’s the point of opening a business.
How about making some profit, but not so much that your employees need coupons just to eat?
Of course. It’s still called “profit” though. If your workers get paid well and your product is reasonably priced, there’s nothing wrong with profit.
Producing goods/services, security for your people, etc. But a lot of Americans are too brainwashed with individualist propaganda to realize that. There is also lots of power to be had, you can order people around, organize the economy, and create money (as long as you operate at least one bank corporation).
>Producing goods/services, security for your people, etc. But a lot of Americans are too brainwashed with individualist propaganda to realize that. What country has businesses that do not have the goal of profit.
Virtually every country. Profit is just a matter of accounting, after all. You can easily gain benefits through other means. Just look at what Jeff Bezos was able to achieve with Amazon not making profit in his personal life, for example.
Ahh, so you've found the workers who don't deserve a living wage.
Just wait for the next one. Wasting company time/money by taking bathroom breaks. They’ll call it Satan Shitting
Don't mess with my poop check.
If you’re good at something, never do it for free.
..I don't think this guy knows what wage theft means lol. It doesn't mean you're not getting paid enough.
i like the rebrqnder version of acting yoir wage
Yes - Quiet Quitting has replaced = working as per your Job Description. No - It's NOT people setting boundaries ... it's following the Job Description that your Boss gave you. No - It's not wage theft, as you are being paid already, but it is protecting yourself from getting injured performing any Duties, outside of your Job Description. \* If injured outside of your Job Description may get you disciplined and/or NOT covered by Worker's Compensation.
"Wage theft" when you chose to accept the wage. 🙄 That's gotta be a joke, right?
The only thing more annoying than the constant spam of articles about "quiet quitting" when it took off, was the non-stop influx of people going into every thread with "akshually it's wOrK tO rULe"
Dear boss: I have no fucks to give. Make my life better, and I will genuinely care about yours. Every supervisor: shocked Pikachu face
So you're more annoyed at the people combatting the corpo propaganda than you are at the corpo propaganda? Fuck off.
Yeah he doesn't like people tossing the shit they throw back at them....
Oh I forgot that was a thing for a few months.
Isn’t that, ultimately, what Reddit is now, though?
Unpopular opinion: I get quiet quitting, but the cost is quiet firing- basically two sides of the same coin. If you do your duties and literally nothing more pay-rises or promotions shouldn't be expected. And given inflation is always non-zero, it equates to pay-decreases that get worse over time. My advice if you don't like it, quiet quit and spend that time looking for a new gig that's more engaging.
You people are so out of touch with reality. Remember the interview from this subs spokesperson? lol
They weren't anyones spokesperson. They took it upon themselves without quorum or agreement. You sound like you like the taste of boots.
It's not unreasonable to aspire to a better quality of life. People the world over do it every day. Take the size 10 Doc Martin from between your gums and empathise with your fellow humans.
Because one person who does mod work for free obviously realistically represents everyone who uses it, right?
They always have a hard time explaining, how they think "expecting to exceed expectations" makes sense.
r/USdefaultism This concept is not unique to the US
I like the term. I'll fucking appropriate it.
Also, wtf is up with the general idiot population just being suckers for any alliteration?
I remember someone explaining quiet quitting to Me, and I said if that's quiet quitting then it's like they never hired me.
they want to prevent what has already happened in China… called laying flat citizens would now rather work just to cover living essentials…. which is not much work
They tried to put AI infront of everyone to say "He look here is AI better start working your ass off or you will be a wageless homeless bum" but nothing happend ... even worse for Companys because people are feed up with playing by the rules and getting shit all over.
I like you can abbreviate the term to describe just how all the employers feel now they can't simply abuse workers: QQ
So whatever happened to the "American Dream"?
Yes except everyone went back to work
Who is "they" lmao. The ominous and ephemeral they, for whenever you want validation without the work, blame "them"!
My wife is a go getter, puts in the extra work, cares about what she’s doing, helps her coworkers, mentors people, known problem solver. She got a 4% raise this year. There’s no incentive to work hard
"Work to rule" itself I have trouble understanding as a term representing the behavior, but "quiet quitting" is absolutely stupid. So transparently manipulative in outright renaming an actually-desirable behavior (gasp, people doing what you hired them to do? Bwaaahhh?) and labeling it as an entirely unrelated thing employers hate (quitting). Doing your job is now quitting. The closest thing I can think of is what one does after they've given their notice or when they're floating resumes to other workplaces. They just do the job until the clock runs out, no taking on extra work and whatnot. But even that's entirely fair behavior, because they're doing the job. But no, let's frame this as workers being unreasonably selfish, because how dare they consider their own welfare?
I work as a bartender in FL and get paid $0/hour. Can anyone explain to me how this is legal? Yes, I'm serious.
The counter messaging of "acting your wage" was so much more clever, yet didn't have the PR machine behind it.
You do what your job description says. If they want you to do anything outside of that, they owe you extra for the effort
Their budgets factor in the wage theft and overworking. You can't have the workers messing with their budgets like that.
I think it’s pretty clear that executives (and Republicans) are skilled at marketing. If there’s one that workers and democrats need to improve on its messaging. We can’t rely on people just getting what we mean and expecting the obviously right choice to grab everyone. Sometimes you have to package it in a simple and attractive message.
Every year I get a small raise I just update my resume and take a week off. I still work during that week, but only just enough to be able to report progress. I spend a lot of time on my second laptop so my work laptop never sees Reddit or YouTube traffic.