After ‘quiet quitting,’ here comes ‘quiet firing’
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
What a hideous dystopia.
I'm trying to come up with the alternative, because it turns out there must be a leader and he or she must set things up so there can be another way. Just has to be a virtuous leader who is virtuous because he wants to, like the ideal Confucian Korean King.
I'm considering how much to pay people for commuting, I can if I can afford it, just need a lot of profit from a lot of margin from a huge speedup. I know how to do that, that yes. The rest is highly speculative.
Corporations are indeed psychopathic monstrosities, but if they were trying to control the conversation with this term then it didn't have any mindshare prior to the backlash.
Unfortunately (working internationally, where English is not everyone's first language), this might go over 90% of people's heads :(.
Quiet quitting is about people who are doing below the bare minimum they’re supposed to do. Either because they knew they wouldn’t get fired during the labor crunch a few months ago, or because they were working multiple jobs and once again through they could get away with it.
The problem is that the “quiet quitters” who were interviewed for these articles didn’t present themselves in that way for obvious reasons. Instead they presented themselves as people who were just doing what they were required and not more.
Which describes 70-80% of the workforce for decades.
I really don't get why quiet quitting is even a term. It's just people not exceeding expectations as a default.
“Quiet quitting” is a labor-hostile way of describing what labor advocates call “work to rule”.
“Quiet quitting” has different connotations than “work to rule” which give the managerial class a handle to oppose the leverage knowledge workers gained during the pandemic vis-a-vis remote work.
Workers should counter the term “quiet quitting” with what it really is, “work to rule”.
Also, I'd say "work to rule" is also pretty bad from a branding/comprehension perspective, given the multiple meanings of the word rule. I suppose it's meant to mean "do the exact work required by the rules governing your job and no more" but grammatically the sentence reads as though it's referring to the verb form of the word - i.e. "work in order to become a ruler within the organization."
“Work to rule” is an elision, short for “work according to rule”.
That’s not “work to rule”. That’s straight up dereliction of duty.
Branding matters, and work to rule and quiet quitting project different brands to my ear.
You may feel an urge to behave that way.
It's ridiculous.
I always manage up, though. Most managers, not all, are going to take your feedback. I'll tell a manager that under no circumstances would I cancel a vacation or anything else for a job. And, most managers I've ever had would never expect that, nor expect me to work from 6 am to 8 pm every day.
They want to list an 'industry standard' job for $X per hour, but have verbal expectations of far more than that along with verbal and implied failures on the employees part that the employee is not meeting expectations.
If they wrote down the raised expectations in the first place most prospective employees would give them the middle finger and seek more fair compensation. Instead they love to feast on the type of employee that goes above and beyond at a standard level of compensation.
My wife recently left a job like this as a manager. She got a year end review that her performance was 'beyond expectations" and that her output and quality of work was the highest in the company. Not a month later they attempted to write her up on a PIP for not meeting expectations (which was interestingly right before they were assigning bonuses). She fought it, won, got the bonus and immediately left. The company then attempted to put my wife's workload on one of her subordinates with no title change or pay increase. Needless to say that employee quickly left too.
If there was some assumption that workers would give 110% for whatever, but now you know they'll give 100%, you're certainly free to raise the expectations next performance cycle.
Are you saying that's a violation of workers rights?
Give me the solution you seek to solve, we agree on a price, I do the solution, I get paid what we agreed. But, I'm not going to start cleaning the toilets every night because the manager wants me to "give 110%."
I mean, if for some reason the manager or owner asked me to fix the toilets because they are backing up, and I have the expertise, and there's a big client coming in tomorrow that will quadruple revenue, yeah, I'd do it. But that is not putting in 110%. That's just...common sense? But if they wanted me to do it every week, for 110%, no. Not hired to do that. I'm not working 110% for anyone. Unless we renegotiate my contract and I get paid more.
Have fun replacing me because color me gone.