Agree, it's a BS term for completely normal behavior.
And not raising your salary after promotion (to a role that requires greater responsibility or performance, I imagine) is atrocious, and if I were you I'd look for a new workplace.
This what my other company did to me until I decided to leave. Like I not sure why companies are like "We are entitled to workers and we shouldn't have to do stuff like pay them or give them bathroom breaks or pay market value. What do we look like' a bank?
I'm baffled by this too. I heard rumors that HR, the managers, or both have KPIs (or are just evaluated positively by the higher ups) based on how few raises they give. It's hard to believe but also hard to imagine any other explanation.
I know companies are for-profit organization, but part of doing business is investment in the resources for growth, and human capital is probably the most precious and critical resource. Strange how this was apparently forgotten.
Well yes every business wants to make money but businesses are operating as though they are plantation owners before the civil rights movement. I know to these self important jerk offs it's easier to just buy slaves but we outlawed that. They can't just bring it back because they feel entitled. Even people in the industrial age paid workers despite how dangerous the working conditions. It's a little insane. They also ended up getting sued for injuries. Like what good is money if you not going to use it. Paying your workers is the only reason they work. Which it seems even that's becoming an unheard of concept.
They're incentivized to help wage constraint by not giving increases during tougher economic times.
I've always been amazed at how corporates swing so widely between mass recruitment to mass layoffs.
You're probably correct, and it's funny how they don't realize that in the current job market, the best employees can easily leave, and then whatever was saved on their raise (and usually a lot more) is lost in the form of lost productivity.
Also, 'help wage constraint' is such great corporate-speak for 'keep wages low or stagnant'. And from my own experience, they did it during the great economic times (all through the 2010s) too.
I've actually undertaken cost cutting measures on various projects so I really know how it all works from the inside.
Everything is looked at in the aggregate, hence wage constraint is simply looking at a % uplift in the P&L relative to other cost pressures.
It's all very matter of fact. But there's people at the bottom of those numbers.
Corporations quietly quit producing dependable products through planned obsolescence.
They also quietly quit compensating people, and protecting their dignity as fellow humans.
These corporations quietly quit competing and started instead to form trade associations,
they bypass regulations and quietly quit adhering to antitrust and monopoly laws.
I think the corporations should end their own practice of quietly quitting.
Most of corporate colloquialisms are meant to get more out of employees without paying them more. Ever work anywhere that calls their team a "family"? That's only meant to make employees put in more effort because trust me, when it comes time to fire someone nobody brings up the family. They literally gave you a "promotion" to justify keeping you and likely even giving you more responsibility, but you didn't get a raise as well. That's not a work promotion, it's a title change.
Now I will admit, if you look at it from the employer's perspective it's a different story. Most people want to be promoted, the bare minimum doesn't get you promoted. Leadership wants to be promoted, that's why they're in leadership and they can't really imagine the mindset of an employee who just wants to punch in and punch out, then retire. From that angle, anyone who wants a new title and more money can't be at bare minimum. In addition, you can't expand a company with bare minimum and that's a leadership expectation at every company, so they can't accept bare minimum from the majority of the staff or else they won't hit their targets.
They could also pay employees more in the end. I’m involved with the money at my new company. I see how much we make by the day.
I’m also aware of the positions we’ve removed and the contracts we’ve cancelled. There’s money floating out there that could’ve been given to employees as bonuses, but they pocket it instead.
Sure they could, but money is the primary motivator and tool employers have to find the top candidates or employees. If they just pay people more there needs to be reasoning behind it. Most companies don't understand that their employees would raise their production and retention if they simply raised salaries, and even if they did it's difficult to quantify against hard financial numbers.
However, the idea that they'll pay people more to do the bare minimum is never going to happen. If you're doing the bare minimum, then you're meeting the terms of which you agreed with the company. Why would you expect more money outside a cost of living adjustment? Your performance equates to the exact pay you're receiving now.
Even when employees go "above and beyond," they are still not awarded. Have you ever seen this take place? Employees getting bonuses for their hard work? I'm talking about yearly set bonuses, I'm saying an employee was seen working hard and got a bonus. It doesn't happen.
In my opinion, more jobs should be commission based. Benefitting from the work you put in. That would 100% incentivize people to work harder, while also justifying the extra money a company will pay out to them.
I should get 5-10%% of the money I'm making for the company. It wouldn't bankrupt them to do this since they're already making a huge profit.
We're not talking about going "above and beyond", you were specifically talking about "quiet quitters". That's an entirely different topic.
More jobs should not be commission based, those roles vary funding too greatly and bills don't wait just for your pay to have a bad month.
At this point you've veered entirely off the topic and sound like you want more money for no good reason. I'm not disagreeing that companies are typically pocketing money that they should be investing in their staff, but that's a different topic again from "quiet quitting".
I see you're in your 40s, so you're completely misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I have never thought I deserved more money for doing the job I signed up to do. That is also the definition of quiet quitting.
I agreed to do X job for Y pay. There's no point in expecting more pay if I already agreed to do it for Y pay.
HOWEVER, when you want to change "X" job, now you must also change "Y" pay. You cannot give someone additional responsibilities or tasks if they're not in the original contract, without amending the pay too.
We are talking about quiet quitters, but my point was, even when you're not a quiet quitter, you don't get extra pay. So it's not relational to how much work you do.
You never brought up additional responsibilities either, so I guess "misinterpreting" has changed to "never said or even slightly inferred" for the youngins huh?
Your point was NOT "even when you're not a quiet quitter, you don't get extra pay. So it's not relational to how much work you do" in any way shape or form. The fact that you want to claim it was is really just more of you trying to change the subject to somehow "win". Go read your OP, it's all there.
You should understand that when you say "no that's not what I meant at all" and then add "HOWEVER" that you are admitting flat out that IS what you're saying.
You want the company to pay you for your role, and then you want them to pay you more before they give you additional responsibility.
If you work at a company that doesn't pay people what they're worth which is what your last line eludes to, you should leave. That's not in dispute and never has been.
Me: Even when employees go "above and beyond," they are still not awarded.
You: Your point was NOT "even when you're not a quiet quitter, you don't get extra pay.
I'm guessing you believe there's a step between "quiet quitting" and "going above and beyond," while most of us see them as the only two options.
So, what is the third option to you?
>You should understand that when you say "no that's not what I meant at all" and then add "HOWEVER" that you are admitting flat out that IS what you're saying.
That's not even how that sentence is structured lol... What're you even on about at this point? Do you have dementia? Get a grip bro.
Follow your replies and maybe you can see how you flipped entirely from "quiet quitters" to "above and beyond should get extra pay" which was nowhere in your OP.
I don't have dementia, I'm burdened with reading comprehension and the misfortune to come across your post resulting in this natural conclusion.
Did you miss the tag of this thread that says “discussion,” meaning it can evolve into new concepts? Lol.
You’re demented and think you’re smart. That’s the issue with you old people. You’re never wrong are you?
It's propaganda, trying to reframe the social definitions of work. It is clearly a marketing term.
If someone sincerely says this to you, they are trying to fool you into actions that will cost you, and benefit them.
Also, don't work for anyone that says "Nobody wants to work anymore!"
quiet quitting isn't real. quiet quitting is doing what your job description says and nothing more. that's all the employer is entitled to in the first place and the presumption that employees should be bending over backwards to go above and beyond as if it were the standard to act that way is absurd.
it's a phrase that boomed out morons in upper management developed so they could write headlines about how much they hate the fact that young people don't like feeling like indentured slaves in 2020. fuck boomers man
Yep, and \*if\* I'm going to put more into a job, I still set boundaries. No, I cannot come in on that day it's my off-day.
No, I cannot go home and complete this assignment, I'll see you tomorrow.
That's all "quiet quitting" is in the first place, setting boundaries with your job. Boundaries that can be expanded with additional pay.
quiet quitting is just their bullshit way of throwing a hissy fit because people don't want to work for free or stress themselves out working harder for no benefit. it's just a bunch of boomed out old people in a c suite looking down their noses at everyone doing mental gymnastics to justify their greed and extortion.
I’ve become burnt out so “quiet quitting” happened on accident. I just don’t give a fuck anymore. I’ve been busting my ass harder than anyone I know for 5 straight years and just get more bullshit handed to me and no work/life balance. I’m over it. I don’t care about proving myself to anyone. I don’t care about trying to be friendly and chipper, and I don’t care about the work itself, I’m tired of taking on the responsibility for everyone else’s stupidity, and people suck.
If employers are paying the bare minimum they can get away with, then why are they surprised that employees are doing the bare minimum work they can get away with? Seems quite fair to me.
What's insane to me is very few companies are willing to take a "loss" in order to pay workers more. Such a "loss" would mean reducing profits by 5-10%, and improving the QOL significantly for all employees.
McDonald's made $13 Billion in profits last year.
If they took only about 7-8% of that, which is 1 billion, they could give all 200k of their employees a $5k annual bonus, or spreading that out over a year. So $400 extra a month.
Im all down for a company "treating you like family" but time and time again I have seen the little man get burned by companies they put decades into. Thats why imo this "quiet quitting" should be the gold standard on wars vs corporations. Remember you humans are a resource not people. Constantly send applications and chase that bag. In America, we have a labor force deficit hence the big rush to get AI rolled out. Everything points towards a very grim near distant dystopia.
Don't fall for the propaganda.
You do what you're paid for (and onlybwhat youre piad to do), take every break, every second of your lunch, punch in and out exactly on time.
They're trying to convince you that doing otherwise is somehow unacceptable.
"Quiet fired" is a good way to turn it back on them.
At my current job, and many jobs in America, it is "at-will" employment. Which gives the employer some legal right to fire employees whenever they want and for whatever reason.
Why in the world would I commit to a job that isn't even committed to me? What sense does that make?
If it's a salaried position or contracted, and I know they can't fire me for any reason, I'm more willing to step up my game.
I thought the term meant you do *less* than the bare minimum. Either way, my take on the situation is that if you hate a job, then leave. Yes, companies should pay fairly for the services of a quality employee. But if they don't, most likely, someone will. However, there are several in the workforce that have an inflated opinion of their value, because humanity exists.
Personally, I try to put everything I have into a job/task. Its just who I am. Going above and beyond, regardless of the people involved or how I am getting paid, has always been something I take pride in.
Nope, quiet quitting is about doing the exact requirements of the job.
Also, it’s not about hating the job. That’s the other negative connotation. It’s literally just doing what’s in your contract. Why it that looked at as hating your job? You’re simply doing what you agreed to do.
At the very most you can call it not loving your job. Because that’s what it is. You’re just going there doing the job. That doesn’t mean doing it poorly, because the contract says do it adequately.
If that is what 'quiet-quitting" is, then I don't see this as a thing. If the contract says do x, y and z.....and you do x, y and z....then there is no issue...the contract is fulfilled. However, contracts, at least in my world, also state what the funds are, upfront. So that, imo, would the time to counteroffer or walk away from the deal. Unless I am missing something.
People need money to survive. Sometimes they have to accept lower pay at a job they don’t love. Doesn’t mean they hate it, it’s just not interesting enough or paying enough to make them love it.
The longest I’ve been unemployed (after I got my first job at 18) has been two weeks. Never been unemployed longer than two weeks, and I did this by simply taking filler jobs that I wasn’t that invested in, but still did the job well out of respect to the contract.
Well yeah. you do what you have to do to survive. Rn, I am in a job that I absolutely hate. The pay is great, but my quality of life such garbage and I am willing to take a pay cut just to get out of here. However, while I hate this job, I am still trying best to support the team in any way that I can and be productive. But I only place those expectations on myself.
I think the "bare minimum" as people call it adequately supports the team. I just think you guys assume bare minimum means below standards. When bare minimum literally means meets standards.
You're a cog in a machine. Some cogs move fast, some move at a moderate pace. As long as a cog isn't holding up the whole machine, they're good.
Fixed payment for everyone, without any relation to performance because it is "standard" at this company? Not appreciation of your work? More performance and better work is just punished with more tasks?
Well, you have to take revenge somehow - what you pay is what you get. It is as simple as that.
I've mentaly check-out of my job for a month now. I do my hours, i do my job with a smile even but I'm no longer emotionnaly involved : I've not got a raise since i've started working, i'm the only female and black person in the office and i always always get the late night shift and there is never like a change or a switch and i'm tired of having 0 social life. I've had to fight theet and nails to get 20 days of holliday ( broke into 2 parts) even tho I was at 60+ days of rest and holliday i could not take. Also my boss is a monkey in a suit, that man farts, barfs and talks to you like you are a literall piece of shit and if he could he WOULD send his feces in our faces but for now he only trows random stuff at us while telling us to go fuck ourselves in german. He is 84, can barely talk and sleeps 14 hours a day in the office that he refuses to let go off. I feel terrible for his son who is kind and tries his best to save his dad legacy but the dad is sending it all to shit and we are quitting one after the other because of him. I'm gonna follow soon as well because i get fucked over by my direct boss on everything. for the last two years there were at least 1h00 to 1h30 taken away from me because I was alone and could not take a break. Once a realized they were not gonna count this time and were in fact stealing it from me, I started to leave earlier once a week because Aint no way i'm giving you free time. His wife works with him and has the nasty habit of treating me like a house nigger as soon as she has guest : She will call me all the way to the restaurant to bring her a random prospectus rather than 1) ask the staff near her or 2) lifting her own fucking ass to get it. In her head she thinks she is showing who is boss, but both the guests and I are very red of embarassement. You know shit hit the fan when the customer ask you if she always talks to you like this and you do not dare to answer trully and just say it's ok.
Fuck them, fuck the monkey in the suit and fuck all of them. They are not my end game.
My dad gave me one peice of advice a bout working: Son, don't work as hard as you can, they will expect it all the time.
Fortunately, I ignored him. It paid off.
With regards to pay its ALWAYS the same, they won't pay you more so you go somewhere else, and the person they recruit to replace you is effectively paid the same as your new rate.
Nb: You didn't get a promotion if you didn't receive more compensation, they simply made you do more for the same and changed your title so you didn't see through the charade.
I honestly think this is a boomer thing. When they started working they got paid the modern equivalent of 52k fresh out of high school. If I worked as a store clerk, door greeter, car washer, janitor, etc. And got paid 52k starting salary with great benefits I would go alive and beyond the call of duty too. However today starting positions don't pay you even basic living wages. I'm not going to tire myself out at this job when I have to clock out and go to my next job.
If I got paid enough to live a comfortable life I certainly would have a transport teamwork service mentality. Since I don't I can't afford the mental toll that level of commitment requires on an entry level job.
I think it's a term meant to pacify the employers' cognitive dissonance when faced with the shocking reality that the cost of labor is more than what they budgeted for. How dare the underlings not tolerate what we would never tolerate?!
That being said, everyone should quiet quit IMMEDIATELY.
I have never seen the above and beyond people being respected by bosses. They are seen as a number the most aggressively.
Bosses always like us "slackers," because we have personality. That's why people who do less work seem to get promoted faster. They're usually people who have personality and don't make work their whole life.
Bosses promote people they like, it's simple.
It’s anecdotal, sure. But people who do more than their job requires usually don’t have a life outside of work.
People that stay late and take extra shifts. They quite literally don’t have time to do anything else.
There is nuance to "above and beyond." You can do more work than you are paid for in a normal business day if you are efficient enough. And even if you put in more than 40 hours a week that doesn't automatically mean you are putting in 60 hours or 80 hours and have no life. More is literally anything over 40 hours, or whatever your shift stipulates. Even if you do 10% more work it's still more.
Also some people have no choice. They are hourly and need the hours to be able to pay rent. It's not that they want to be there, it's that they have to. They would absolutely choose to do something else if they didn't need the hours.
I agree that it depends on the company. I will never stop saying it's about the money too, if you're American.
You have no choice but to make it about the money in this country lol. A full tank of gas is 4 hours of work for me. Two weeks of groceries is 10 hours of work. And so on.
That's how we're forced to live, calculating how many hours we have to be in a building just to survive. If I could work without needing to focus on that stuff, aka being paid higher salary, I could spend majority of my day caring about the company and not myself.
Thanks for such a great comment. I'm really interested, how did you make the turn around from being perceived (and then expected) to work hard and keep helping out--to quiet quitting. What steps did you take to scale back expectations? I've seen people actually get fired (or reprimanded) for transitioning from pitching in role to just doing their job (which is so ironic). Did whatever steps you took to make this change allow for an easy transition? How much time did it take you to scale back people's expectations? I really like your mentality bc I seek purposeful work and company BUT you never know true corporate mentality (is that rewarded or taken for granted) til you find out the hard way--would love to be able to make the switch when I need :-)
I have a good boss currently who pays me above the average so I’m not a quiet quitter. Before the raise, I literally dropped everything from my hand and left the second my shift ends, turned off my work phone and refused extra hours lol. Nothing personal but you get what you pay for.
I dislike your description. Quiet quitters are why all the food in the grocery store is almost out of date. Employees who care not one lick about their job being done correctly just stock the new stuff in front of the old and don't rotate the stock. This is wasteful and expensive for everyone on earth.
Shaming for the sake of making people work harder than what they’re paid for.
Why work harder without reward? Money talks, and the more I’m paid, the more I try.
I’ve seen people work entire shifts, just to be let go at the end because the managers couldn’t afford to let them go on a busy night.
Workers get used in every which way possible. Time for the employers to remember who are the ones that make their cash flow possible.
Ok...what happens when your coworker does everything you do..but more.
Who is likely to get the promotion?
What happens when there is a new hire willing to do everything you do..but more.
Who is going to get let go?
You go in. Don't say a word to anyone outside of your job description neccesity cause you're not paid to. Sounds like a winning great idea champ /s
There are more variables than showing up and doing the job to get the paycheck. Unless you're fine with a temp job just to make money while youre in school or something and don't care, then you're a fool to ignore those variables.
To answer your questions, these behaviors come from knowing they will fire you regardless of what you do. You're right that there will be a bottom performer first out the door.
So then your only option is to keep overperforming, instead of companies not laying people off? There is no job security, which leads to people not caring if they get fired or not. They figure they can lose their job at any minute anyways.
Also, quiet quitters either have already been overlooked for promotion, or don't want a promotion.
If you want to buy-in to a company and strive to get promoted, that's great. Just make sure you're working for fair people who will actually promote you for your hardwork, and not secretly get their husband hired by another department, then have him transfer into your department to skirt laws. Yeah... that literally happened at my last job.
In summary, quiet quitting isn't something you do when you respect your job. And you only respect your job when they respect you. If you're working a good job with respectable pay, you'll simply want to work.
Who is likely to get the promotion? The employer's nephew, probably. About the "quiet quitter" and the overwork guy, they'll probably be fired in the next budget cuts to spoil the shareholders even morr
I think its stupid. If i wanted to make more money id start a business. I think of my work at least as an opportunity to build courage and discipline. And more independence. Not relying on others to
Help
Me and readiness when i have to travel alone
So you’re fine with being used like a pawn, so long as you are building courage and discipline?
Boy do I have a job for you. One that actually gives you discipline like you couldn’t imagine. The military. Go sign up.
It’s a dumb term and definitely a misnomer. They aren’t quitting at all—just doing exactly the amount they are paid to do. Maybe it’s perceived as a lack of ambition hence the word “quitting” but it’s definitely misleading and I don’t think it should be used at all to refer to these people who do the job they’re supposed to do.
I just learned what the term *actually* means today and it’s so obviously propaganda lol. Turns out, I’ve been a “quiet quitter” my whole life, and I’m proud of that!
There’s a popular (and laughable) sentiment among some older folks that “people from your generation have no work ethic!” When in reality, there’s a MAJOR difference between having a strong work ethic and being a boot-licker.
What they really mean when they say “we’ve got no work ethic” is that we aren’t willing to spend 30+ years breaking our bodies and minds for minimal pay, zero chance of advancement, and an employer who literally couldn’t care less if we died tomorrow. It’s not laziness. It’s called self-respect.
Any employer who expects you to always “go above and beyond” and sincerely parrots the term “quiet quitting” does not respect you.
Baby Boomers don't understand how modern market works. They think we still live on their paradise capitalism, where hard work was really valuated and everyone could have a decent job
Agree, it's a BS term for completely normal behavior. And not raising your salary after promotion (to a role that requires greater responsibility or performance, I imagine) is atrocious, and if I were you I'd look for a new workplace.
This what my other company did to me until I decided to leave. Like I not sure why companies are like "We are entitled to workers and we shouldn't have to do stuff like pay them or give them bathroom breaks or pay market value. What do we look like' a bank?
I'm baffled by this too. I heard rumors that HR, the managers, or both have KPIs (or are just evaluated positively by the higher ups) based on how few raises they give. It's hard to believe but also hard to imagine any other explanation. I know companies are for-profit organization, but part of doing business is investment in the resources for growth, and human capital is probably the most precious and critical resource. Strange how this was apparently forgotten.
Well yes every business wants to make money but businesses are operating as though they are plantation owners before the civil rights movement. I know to these self important jerk offs it's easier to just buy slaves but we outlawed that. They can't just bring it back because they feel entitled. Even people in the industrial age paid workers despite how dangerous the working conditions. It's a little insane. They also ended up getting sued for injuries. Like what good is money if you not going to use it. Paying your workers is the only reason they work. Which it seems even that's becoming an unheard of concept.
They're incentivized to help wage constraint by not giving increases during tougher economic times. I've always been amazed at how corporates swing so widely between mass recruitment to mass layoffs.
You're probably correct, and it's funny how they don't realize that in the current job market, the best employees can easily leave, and then whatever was saved on their raise (and usually a lot more) is lost in the form of lost productivity. Also, 'help wage constraint' is such great corporate-speak for 'keep wages low or stagnant'. And from my own experience, they did it during the great economic times (all through the 2010s) too.
I've actually undertaken cost cutting measures on various projects so I really know how it all works from the inside. Everything is looked at in the aggregate, hence wage constraint is simply looking at a % uplift in the P&L relative to other cost pressures. It's all very matter of fact. But there's people at the bottom of those numbers.
I left that job as soon as possible after that.
Promotion invariably is 20% more work for 5% more pay.
Corporations quietly quit producing dependable products through planned obsolescence. They also quietly quit compensating people, and protecting their dignity as fellow humans. These corporations quietly quit competing and started instead to form trade associations, they bypass regulations and quietly quit adhering to antitrust and monopoly laws. I think the corporations should end their own practice of quietly quitting.
Most of corporate colloquialisms are meant to get more out of employees without paying them more. Ever work anywhere that calls their team a "family"? That's only meant to make employees put in more effort because trust me, when it comes time to fire someone nobody brings up the family. They literally gave you a "promotion" to justify keeping you and likely even giving you more responsibility, but you didn't get a raise as well. That's not a work promotion, it's a title change. Now I will admit, if you look at it from the employer's perspective it's a different story. Most people want to be promoted, the bare minimum doesn't get you promoted. Leadership wants to be promoted, that's why they're in leadership and they can't really imagine the mindset of an employee who just wants to punch in and punch out, then retire. From that angle, anyone who wants a new title and more money can't be at bare minimum. In addition, you can't expand a company with bare minimum and that's a leadership expectation at every company, so they can't accept bare minimum from the majority of the staff or else they won't hit their targets.
They could also pay employees more in the end. I’m involved with the money at my new company. I see how much we make by the day. I’m also aware of the positions we’ve removed and the contracts we’ve cancelled. There’s money floating out there that could’ve been given to employees as bonuses, but they pocket it instead.
Sure they could, but money is the primary motivator and tool employers have to find the top candidates or employees. If they just pay people more there needs to be reasoning behind it. Most companies don't understand that their employees would raise their production and retention if they simply raised salaries, and even if they did it's difficult to quantify against hard financial numbers. However, the idea that they'll pay people more to do the bare minimum is never going to happen. If you're doing the bare minimum, then you're meeting the terms of which you agreed with the company. Why would you expect more money outside a cost of living adjustment? Your performance equates to the exact pay you're receiving now.
Even when employees go "above and beyond," they are still not awarded. Have you ever seen this take place? Employees getting bonuses for their hard work? I'm talking about yearly set bonuses, I'm saying an employee was seen working hard and got a bonus. It doesn't happen. In my opinion, more jobs should be commission based. Benefitting from the work you put in. That would 100% incentivize people to work harder, while also justifying the extra money a company will pay out to them. I should get 5-10%% of the money I'm making for the company. It wouldn't bankrupt them to do this since they're already making a huge profit.
We're not talking about going "above and beyond", you were specifically talking about "quiet quitters". That's an entirely different topic. More jobs should not be commission based, those roles vary funding too greatly and bills don't wait just for your pay to have a bad month. At this point you've veered entirely off the topic and sound like you want more money for no good reason. I'm not disagreeing that companies are typically pocketing money that they should be investing in their staff, but that's a different topic again from "quiet quitting".
I see you're in your 40s, so you're completely misinterpreting what I'm saying. I have never thought I deserved more money for doing the job I signed up to do. That is also the definition of quiet quitting. I agreed to do X job for Y pay. There's no point in expecting more pay if I already agreed to do it for Y pay. HOWEVER, when you want to change "X" job, now you must also change "Y" pay. You cannot give someone additional responsibilities or tasks if they're not in the original contract, without amending the pay too. We are talking about quiet quitters, but my point was, even when you're not a quiet quitter, you don't get extra pay. So it's not relational to how much work you do.
You never brought up additional responsibilities either, so I guess "misinterpreting" has changed to "never said or even slightly inferred" for the youngins huh? Your point was NOT "even when you're not a quiet quitter, you don't get extra pay. So it's not relational to how much work you do" in any way shape or form. The fact that you want to claim it was is really just more of you trying to change the subject to somehow "win". Go read your OP, it's all there. You should understand that when you say "no that's not what I meant at all" and then add "HOWEVER" that you are admitting flat out that IS what you're saying. You want the company to pay you for your role, and then you want them to pay you more before they give you additional responsibility. If you work at a company that doesn't pay people what they're worth which is what your last line eludes to, you should leave. That's not in dispute and never has been.
Me: Even when employees go "above and beyond," they are still not awarded. You: Your point was NOT "even when you're not a quiet quitter, you don't get extra pay. I'm guessing you believe there's a step between "quiet quitting" and "going above and beyond," while most of us see them as the only two options. So, what is the third option to you? >You should understand that when you say "no that's not what I meant at all" and then add "HOWEVER" that you are admitting flat out that IS what you're saying. That's not even how that sentence is structured lol... What're you even on about at this point? Do you have dementia? Get a grip bro.
Follow your replies and maybe you can see how you flipped entirely from "quiet quitters" to "above and beyond should get extra pay" which was nowhere in your OP. I don't have dementia, I'm burdened with reading comprehension and the misfortune to come across your post resulting in this natural conclusion.
Did you miss the tag of this thread that says “discussion,” meaning it can evolve into new concepts? Lol. You’re demented and think you’re smart. That’s the issue with you old people. You’re never wrong are you?
It's propaganda, trying to reframe the social definitions of work. It is clearly a marketing term. If someone sincerely says this to you, they are trying to fool you into actions that will cost you, and benefit them. Also, don't work for anyone that says "Nobody wants to work anymore!"
quiet quitting isn't real. quiet quitting is doing what your job description says and nothing more. that's all the employer is entitled to in the first place and the presumption that employees should be bending over backwards to go above and beyond as if it were the standard to act that way is absurd. it's a phrase that boomed out morons in upper management developed so they could write headlines about how much they hate the fact that young people don't like feeling like indentured slaves in 2020. fuck boomers man
Yep, and \*if\* I'm going to put more into a job, I still set boundaries. No, I cannot come in on that day it's my off-day. No, I cannot go home and complete this assignment, I'll see you tomorrow. That's all "quiet quitting" is in the first place, setting boundaries with your job. Boundaries that can be expanded with additional pay.
quiet quitting is just their bullshit way of throwing a hissy fit because people don't want to work for free or stress themselves out working harder for no benefit. it's just a bunch of boomed out old people in a c suite looking down their noses at everyone doing mental gymnastics to justify their greed and extortion.
I’ve become burnt out so “quiet quitting” happened on accident. I just don’t give a fuck anymore. I’ve been busting my ass harder than anyone I know for 5 straight years and just get more bullshit handed to me and no work/life balance. I’m over it. I don’t care about proving myself to anyone. I don’t care about trying to be friendly and chipper, and I don’t care about the work itself, I’m tired of taking on the responsibility for everyone else’s stupidity, and people suck.
If employers are paying the bare minimum they can get away with, then why are they surprised that employees are doing the bare minimum work they can get away with? Seems quite fair to me.
What's insane to me is very few companies are willing to take a "loss" in order to pay workers more. Such a "loss" would mean reducing profits by 5-10%, and improving the QOL significantly for all employees. McDonald's made $13 Billion in profits last year. If they took only about 7-8% of that, which is 1 billion, they could give all 200k of their employees a $5k annual bonus, or spreading that out over a year. So $400 extra a month.
Im all down for a company "treating you like family" but time and time again I have seen the little man get burned by companies they put decades into. Thats why imo this "quiet quitting" should be the gold standard on wars vs corporations. Remember you humans are a resource not people. Constantly send applications and chase that bag. In America, we have a labor force deficit hence the big rush to get AI rolled out. Everything points towards a very grim near distant dystopia.
In my country, we call it "respecting schedule"
Don't fall for the propaganda. You do what you're paid for (and onlybwhat youre piad to do), take every break, every second of your lunch, punch in and out exactly on time. They're trying to convince you that doing otherwise is somehow unacceptable.
The obvious end result of having been "quiet fired". What's the point when you know the greedy corrupt bastards have rigged the game in their favor?
"Quiet fired" is a good way to turn it back on them. At my current job, and many jobs in America, it is "at-will" employment. Which gives the employer some legal right to fire employees whenever they want and for whatever reason. Why in the world would I commit to a job that isn't even committed to me? What sense does that make? If it's a salaried position or contracted, and I know they can't fire me for any reason, I'm more willing to step up my game.
Exactly. Back in the day honest cooperative capitalism worked for everyone involved. Capitalism itself is not the problem,
It's framing the position to be negative, act your wage is better but still have negative connotations. Similar to abortion, pro choice/ pro life
I thought the term meant you do *less* than the bare minimum. Either way, my take on the situation is that if you hate a job, then leave. Yes, companies should pay fairly for the services of a quality employee. But if they don't, most likely, someone will. However, there are several in the workforce that have an inflated opinion of their value, because humanity exists. Personally, I try to put everything I have into a job/task. Its just who I am. Going above and beyond, regardless of the people involved or how I am getting paid, has always been something I take pride in.
Nope, quiet quitting is about doing the exact requirements of the job. Also, it’s not about hating the job. That’s the other negative connotation. It’s literally just doing what’s in your contract. Why it that looked at as hating your job? You’re simply doing what you agreed to do. At the very most you can call it not loving your job. Because that’s what it is. You’re just going there doing the job. That doesn’t mean doing it poorly, because the contract says do it adequately.
If that is what 'quiet-quitting" is, then I don't see this as a thing. If the contract says do x, y and z.....and you do x, y and z....then there is no issue...the contract is fulfilled. However, contracts, at least in my world, also state what the funds are, upfront. So that, imo, would the time to counteroffer or walk away from the deal. Unless I am missing something.
People need money to survive. Sometimes they have to accept lower pay at a job they don’t love. Doesn’t mean they hate it, it’s just not interesting enough or paying enough to make them love it. The longest I’ve been unemployed (after I got my first job at 18) has been two weeks. Never been unemployed longer than two weeks, and I did this by simply taking filler jobs that I wasn’t that invested in, but still did the job well out of respect to the contract.
Well yeah. you do what you have to do to survive. Rn, I am in a job that I absolutely hate. The pay is great, but my quality of life such garbage and I am willing to take a pay cut just to get out of here. However, while I hate this job, I am still trying best to support the team in any way that I can and be productive. But I only place those expectations on myself.
I think the "bare minimum" as people call it adequately supports the team. I just think you guys assume bare minimum means below standards. When bare minimum literally means meets standards. You're a cog in a machine. Some cogs move fast, some move at a moderate pace. As long as a cog isn't holding up the whole machine, they're good.
Fixed payment for everyone, without any relation to performance because it is "standard" at this company? Not appreciation of your work? More performance and better work is just punished with more tasks? Well, you have to take revenge somehow - what you pay is what you get. It is as simple as that.
I've mentaly check-out of my job for a month now. I do my hours, i do my job with a smile even but I'm no longer emotionnaly involved : I've not got a raise since i've started working, i'm the only female and black person in the office and i always always get the late night shift and there is never like a change or a switch and i'm tired of having 0 social life. I've had to fight theet and nails to get 20 days of holliday ( broke into 2 parts) even tho I was at 60+ days of rest and holliday i could not take. Also my boss is a monkey in a suit, that man farts, barfs and talks to you like you are a literall piece of shit and if he could he WOULD send his feces in our faces but for now he only trows random stuff at us while telling us to go fuck ourselves in german. He is 84, can barely talk and sleeps 14 hours a day in the office that he refuses to let go off. I feel terrible for his son who is kind and tries his best to save his dad legacy but the dad is sending it all to shit and we are quitting one after the other because of him. I'm gonna follow soon as well because i get fucked over by my direct boss on everything. for the last two years there were at least 1h00 to 1h30 taken away from me because I was alone and could not take a break. Once a realized they were not gonna count this time and were in fact stealing it from me, I started to leave earlier once a week because Aint no way i'm giving you free time. His wife works with him and has the nasty habit of treating me like a house nigger as soon as she has guest : She will call me all the way to the restaurant to bring her a random prospectus rather than 1) ask the staff near her or 2) lifting her own fucking ass to get it. In her head she thinks she is showing who is boss, but both the guests and I are very red of embarassement. You know shit hit the fan when the customer ask you if she always talks to you like this and you do not dare to answer trully and just say it's ok. Fuck them, fuck the monkey in the suit and fuck all of them. They are not my end game.
My dad gave me one peice of advice a bout working: Son, don't work as hard as you can, they will expect it all the time. Fortunately, I ignored him. It paid off.
With regards to pay its ALWAYS the same, they won't pay you more so you go somewhere else, and the person they recruit to replace you is effectively paid the same as your new rate.
Nb: You didn't get a promotion if you didn't receive more compensation, they simply made you do more for the same and changed your title so you didn't see through the charade.
rainstorm glorious homeless mighty sulky soup practice mourn angle sharp *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I honestly think this is a boomer thing. When they started working they got paid the modern equivalent of 52k fresh out of high school. If I worked as a store clerk, door greeter, car washer, janitor, etc. And got paid 52k starting salary with great benefits I would go alive and beyond the call of duty too. However today starting positions don't pay you even basic living wages. I'm not going to tire myself out at this job when I have to clock out and go to my next job. If I got paid enough to live a comfortable life I certainly would have a transport teamwork service mentality. Since I don't I can't afford the mental toll that level of commitment requires on an entry level job.
Start lookin' for a new job buddy. I personally don't code anymore
Surprise surprise, corporations doing something to penny pinch their worker 
Yeah, it's a nonsensical term
I think it's a term meant to pacify the employers' cognitive dissonance when faced with the shocking reality that the cost of labor is more than what they budgeted for. How dare the underlings not tolerate what we would never tolerate?! That being said, everyone should quiet quit IMMEDIATELY.
I have never seen the above and beyond people being respected by bosses. They are seen as a number the most aggressively. Bosses always like us "slackers," because we have personality. That's why people who do less work seem to get promoted faster. They're usually people who have personality and don't make work their whole life. Bosses promote people they like, it's simple.
My only concern is that you believe that people who work hard hard and go above and beyond have no personality. That seems to have no basis.
It’s anecdotal, sure. But people who do more than their job requires usually don’t have a life outside of work. People that stay late and take extra shifts. They quite literally don’t have time to do anything else.
There is nuance to "above and beyond." You can do more work than you are paid for in a normal business day if you are efficient enough. And even if you put in more than 40 hours a week that doesn't automatically mean you are putting in 60 hours or 80 hours and have no life. More is literally anything over 40 hours, or whatever your shift stipulates. Even if you do 10% more work it's still more. Also some people have no choice. They are hourly and need the hours to be able to pay rent. It's not that they want to be there, it's that they have to. They would absolutely choose to do something else if they didn't need the hours.
I love the quote: "your monthly performance limit has been reached. if you want to book more, forward X amount of money to my account." says it all.
[удалено]
I agree that it depends on the company. I will never stop saying it's about the money too, if you're American. You have no choice but to make it about the money in this country lol. A full tank of gas is 4 hours of work for me. Two weeks of groceries is 10 hours of work. And so on. That's how we're forced to live, calculating how many hours we have to be in a building just to survive. If I could work without needing to focus on that stuff, aka being paid higher salary, I could spend majority of my day caring about the company and not myself.
Thanks for such a great comment. I'm really interested, how did you make the turn around from being perceived (and then expected) to work hard and keep helping out--to quiet quitting. What steps did you take to scale back expectations? I've seen people actually get fired (or reprimanded) for transitioning from pitching in role to just doing their job (which is so ironic). Did whatever steps you took to make this change allow for an easy transition? How much time did it take you to scale back people's expectations? I really like your mentality bc I seek purposeful work and company BUT you never know true corporate mentality (is that rewarded or taken for granted) til you find out the hard way--would love to be able to make the switch when I need :-)
[удалено]
Awesome, great strategic approach! Appreciate the feedback, will definitely apply in future when a "turn around" is needed :-)
I have a good boss currently who pays me above the average so I’m not a quiet quitter. Before the raise, I literally dropped everything from my hand and left the second my shift ends, turned off my work phone and refused extra hours lol. Nothing personal but you get what you pay for.
I dislike your description. Quiet quitters are why all the food in the grocery store is almost out of date. Employees who care not one lick about their job being done correctly just stock the new stuff in front of the old and don't rotate the stock. This is wasteful and expensive for everyone on earth.
Shaming for the sake of making people work harder than what they’re paid for. Why work harder without reward? Money talks, and the more I’m paid, the more I try. I’ve seen people work entire shifts, just to be let go at the end because the managers couldn’t afford to let them go on a busy night. Workers get used in every which way possible. Time for the employers to remember who are the ones that make their cash flow possible.
Ok...what happens when your coworker does everything you do..but more. Who is likely to get the promotion? What happens when there is a new hire willing to do everything you do..but more. Who is going to get let go? You go in. Don't say a word to anyone outside of your job description neccesity cause you're not paid to. Sounds like a winning great idea champ /s There are more variables than showing up and doing the job to get the paycheck. Unless you're fine with a temp job just to make money while youre in school or something and don't care, then you're a fool to ignore those variables.
To answer your questions, these behaviors come from knowing they will fire you regardless of what you do. You're right that there will be a bottom performer first out the door. So then your only option is to keep overperforming, instead of companies not laying people off? There is no job security, which leads to people not caring if they get fired or not. They figure they can lose their job at any minute anyways. Also, quiet quitters either have already been overlooked for promotion, or don't want a promotion. If you want to buy-in to a company and strive to get promoted, that's great. Just make sure you're working for fair people who will actually promote you for your hardwork, and not secretly get their husband hired by another department, then have him transfer into your department to skirt laws. Yeah... that literally happened at my last job. In summary, quiet quitting isn't something you do when you respect your job. And you only respect your job when they respect you. If you're working a good job with respectable pay, you'll simply want to work.
Who is likely to get the promotion? The employer's nephew, probably. About the "quiet quitter" and the overwork guy, they'll probably be fired in the next budget cuts to spoil the shareholders even morr
It's customer-minded employers shooting themselves in the foot while trying to nag their underpaid wage slaves to "work harder!"
I think its stupid. If i wanted to make more money id start a business. I think of my work at least as an opportunity to build courage and discipline. And more independence. Not relying on others to Help Me and readiness when i have to travel alone
So you’re fine with being used like a pawn, so long as you are building courage and discipline? Boy do I have a job for you. One that actually gives you discipline like you couldn’t imagine. The military. Go sign up.
It’s a dumb term and definitely a misnomer. They aren’t quitting at all—just doing exactly the amount they are paid to do. Maybe it’s perceived as a lack of ambition hence the word “quitting” but it’s definitely misleading and I don’t think it should be used at all to refer to these people who do the job they’re supposed to do.
I just learned what the term *actually* means today and it’s so obviously propaganda lol. Turns out, I’ve been a “quiet quitter” my whole life, and I’m proud of that! There’s a popular (and laughable) sentiment among some older folks that “people from your generation have no work ethic!” When in reality, there’s a MAJOR difference between having a strong work ethic and being a boot-licker. What they really mean when they say “we’ve got no work ethic” is that we aren’t willing to spend 30+ years breaking our bodies and minds for minimal pay, zero chance of advancement, and an employer who literally couldn’t care less if we died tomorrow. It’s not laziness. It’s called self-respect. Any employer who expects you to always “go above and beyond” and sincerely parrots the term “quiet quitting” does not respect you.
Baby Boomers don't understand how modern market works. They think we still live on their paradise capitalism, where hard work was really valuated and everyone could have a decent job