Hacker News Reader

Comment by theshrike79 | Hacker News Reader

Quiet Quitting is just a new term for Work-to-rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule

> Notable examples have included nurses refusing to answer telephones, teachers refusing to work for free at night and during weekends and holidays, and police officers refusing to issue citations. Refusal to work overtime, travel on duty, or sign up to other tasks requiring employee assent are other manifestations of using work-to-rule as industrial action.

Basically you do what's required, no more. No (unpaid)overtime, no checking work stuff on your free time etc.

You know, the stuff we in Europe take for granted. American culture from the 50's and 60's was all "just work hard and The Company will see it you'll get that promotion!". It barely worked then, it doesn't work now - especially in medium to large corporations.

View on HN

This is the fastest I've seen a term fracture.

I've seen it both used as you describe (meeting expectations and doing nothing more) as well as to describe simply doing no work and waiting to be fired while collecting a paycheck for the time it takes for your employer to fire you.

This fracture has created a explosive discourse where each side calls the other side selfish idiots. If we can pivot this instead to "work-to-rule", which is less easy to fracture, then maybe we can get some actual productive discourse around unwritten and unpaid labor expectations that employers place on their employees.

I'm all for it. "quiet quitting" is a stupid name, because it simply doesn't fit the bill. You're not quitting. You're still working. Just not doing anything extra.

I'd say "defund the police" went real fast as well, but it was pretty poor marketing if it should have said "reform the police".

I think the Tang Ping movement in China really nailed it - lay flat probably captures the feeling best.

The difference with “defund the police” is that a sizable fraction of its supporters really did mean it literally, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...

If by "sizable fraction" you mean "one NY Times opinion columnist" then that is a good source. Nevertheless, I'm often surprised (but I guess not really) that when the time comes to actually shrink the government, people balk at it.

A large enough number of people believe(d) it that the editorial board of one of the biggest newspapers of record deemed it worthy of publication. This isn’t some random blog link, it’s the New York Times.

Interestingly, I suspect that the people who take the most issue with "defund the police" would also not see the NY Times as such an authoritative source as you seem to.

Nevertheless, the editors published the article with a byline of an individual author. Typically if they wanted to publish an opinion intended to speak for the entire organization, they would sign it as "The Editors" or something to that effect. Even then you'd have a survey of what, a few dozen journalists?

If you think only one nytimes columnist thought the police should be defunded, you’re wrong, it was much more popular than that.

Well, many people say they're for limited government until they're actually faced with it. On that I can certainly agree.

I wouldn't trust the opinion of NYT stenographer as far as I could throw them.

It feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. The Minneapolis city council tried to eliminate the Minneapolis police department. The voters shut them down. When that failed, the City Council removed $8 million from the policing budget.

Leftists in power tried to actually make this happen, it wasn't just "one opinion columnist" claiming so.

It's certainly possible I'm being obtuse, but it's not intentional. From your own example, it sounds like defunding the police is quite unpopular.

Defunding is unpopular with General population. It’s quite popular with far left.

Police abolitionism is a widespread idea in liberal academic circles, as well as among progressives in the most progressive American cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement

Think Columbia University faculty and students in NYC, not online trolls.

https://cccct.law.columbia.edu/content/abolition-practicum

https://socialwork.columbia.edu/student-experience/student-l...

https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/abolition1313/3-13-abolish-th...

Just google 'police abolition' + 'columbia' or 'berkeley' or any of the top liberal arts colleges that have a left ideological bent

To be honest, I really don't have much interest in the beliefs of the upper echelons of liberal academia, and how many actually believed in the literal definition of the movement name vs something else. From the responses here, it seems that I've somewhat unwittingly touched a nerve, though I suppose that might actually prove my point - that the movement fractured quite quickly.

I still think "lay flat" is about the best name for the phenomenon encapsulated here, which was my actual point.

And that's the least likely group of people to know anything about the lives of those most needing the police and most affected by the elimination of the police.

Put another way: people most likely to claim:

* they know "plenty of black people" because they once said hello to the black janitor

* they know "plenty of latinos" because they once hired a Mexico from the Home Depot parking lot to trim their trees

* they know "plenty of/about 'deplorables'" because they've driven through deplorable populations on the freeway or flow over deplorable states by plane

That's the same depth of understanding they have for "defund the police". Citing their articles is absolutely hilarious: akin to the above "proofs of knowledge".

The thing is, the term sounds like "just waiting to be fired" but every thought piece I've seen about it is "employees are just meeting expectations and that's bad." The first crop of articles, etc. about this were all of the "meeting expectations" variety. But folks who only glanced at headlines interpreted it the other way.

I would love it if people push back on this term and refuse to accept it. There's plenty of terms already in circulation that describe sandbagging or whatever. This is just another anti-worker trend that tries to blame workers for a rational decision to draw reasonable boundaries and refuse to do more work for the same money.

> describe simply doing no work and waiting to be fired while collecting a paycheck for the time it takes for your employer to fire you.

That's more like "rest-and-vest."

Another term I've seen jokingly thrown around is "inflation-adjusted effort" and I think it fits pretty well in the current environment.

"Acting your wage" is my favorite.

“What’s my wage again?”

It's not Work-to-rule, though. The intent is different and actions taken under the term "Quiet Quitting" are only a subset of Work-to-rule. With Work to rule the intent is to negatively affect the business in the context of labor relations as an alternative to a strike. With quiet quitting the intent is not kill yourself by giving free labor to your employer.

I find the whole discussion about "Quiet Quitting" absolutely absurd. "I'm hiring you to work 40 hours a week." "I accept." "I want you to work an extra 20 hours a week for free." "No." "What are you, 'Quiet Quitting' or something? You trying to go on strike?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com