“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.
You may feel an urge to behave that way.
Branding matters, and work to rule and quiet quitting project different brands to my ear.