Anonymous wrote:Hey, it’s a better expression than “ lean in” or “lean out” which is all I was hearing pre pandemic.

I like the term quite quitting, and, I agree it’s not passive aggressive. The balance of power is so skewed against the worker, it’s just allowing them the mental power to set up work/life boundaries and to care less about work.

I have learned from the pandemic that I have to be mentally ready to quit or leave my employer at any time, even if I thought things world stay the same for many years. I should give less to them, because they will definitely give less to me, in a heartbeat.

But it's a negative term. Quiet implies the employee who isn't breaking their backs for the employer is being passive aggressive and quitting is negative - it implies they just gave up.

Why can't it be framed as, people have woken up and decided a job is a job, they give their best effort within reason but aren't willing to sacrifice their health and sanity to work tons of extra hours for no extra pay or recognition.

It equates to working harder, not smarter.

I've been doing this for years without such a negative label or any label at all, and what this should be is NORMAL.

Hey, it’s a better expression than “ lean in” or “lean out” which is all I was hearing pre pandemic.

I like the term quite quitting, and, I agree it’s not passive aggressive. The balance of power is so skewed against the worker, it’s just allowing them the mental power to set up work/life boundaries and to care less about work.

I have learned from the pandemic that I have to be mentally ready to quit or leave my employer at any time, even if I thought things world stay the same for many years. I should give less to them, because they will definitely give less to me, in a heartbeat.

It’s more like quietly setting healthy workplace boundaries to avoid burnout. It’s a new era for American employees, employers need to wake up!

Anonymous wrote:“Quiet quitting” is a dumb term that suggests abnegation. I look at the more like recalibrating the work-life balance. Putting more appropriate and balanced amounts of energy into work so that you have something left for the rest of your day.

Exactly. It's not "quiet quitting," it's "not giving your employer free labor." You're paid to do your job, 8 hours a day, 40 days a week. Not working unpaid overtime and not answering emails on weekends isn't doing "less" of anything, it's not doing more when you're not getting paid for it.

Anonymous wrote:It's actually passive aggressive behavior, not "quiet quitting". time to move on

It’s not “passive aggressive” for me to do my job.

Anonymous wrote:As a mid-level manager, putting in only what is required is probably the only way that any kind of lack of resources is going to get addressed. I’m surrounded by stressed out people, and it just isn’t healthy or sustainable. And when upper-level management thinks nothing of taking weeks to get back to us, why should I strive for better and better?

This! If someone quits and the remaining person does the work of two ...why would they replace the other person?

There have to be reduced goals and outputs when resources go away. Maybe you do parts of the absent person's job because they're vital ... but that means something else has to slip.

It's actually passive aggressive behavior, not "quiet quitting". time to move on

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the Today Show, but this had to be the dumbest segment they've ever done (and as someone who watches almost every day for years, this is saying A LOT). I mean this beats the time Camila Alves showed Matt Lauer had to make a cake stand by turning over wine glasses: https://www.today.com/home/camila-alves-shares-4-diy-projects-you-already-own-materials-t47071)

I especially loved how the hosts, who make 8 figures, were talking about how you should just work hard LOL

The whole premise of the American dream, that hard work leads to success is failing under the scrutiny of social media and the internet. We can track someones background much more closely now, and we realize so many people get to where they are because of who their parents were, what elite private high school they attended etc; the web of nepotism is basically publically available now via wikipedia and public information sites -- in the past you only knew about an executives bio from their corporate blurb. Now we see: "oh i see, I can't really just work hard and make it to that path" and decide to just accept our lot and live our lives.

I believe the quiet quitting is actually the reason for the work shortages -- if everyone is doing just 10% less, that means we have 10% less labor available all of a sudden!

NP. Perfect example of this - the first thing that comes out of this kid’s mouth will probably be ‘I went to Yale’. But he’s as dumb as rocks. If you ask him if he was a legacy admit and how much his father donated he’d be offended though. The next Congressman.

As a mid-level manager, putting in only what is required is probably the only way that any kind of lack of resources is going to get addressed. I’m surrounded by stressed out people, and it just isn’t healthy or sustainable. And when upper-level management thinks nothing of taking weeks to get back to us, why should I strive for better and better?

Anonymous wrote:I like the Today Show, but this had to be the dumbest segment they've ever done (and as someone who watches almost every day for years, this is saying A LOT). I mean this beats the time Camila Alves showed Matt Lauer had to make a cake stand by turning over wine glasses: https://www.today.com/home/camila-alves-shares-4-diy-projects-you-already-own-materials-t47071)

I especially loved how the hosts, who make 8 figures, were talking about how you should just work hard LOL

The whole premise of the American dream, that hard work leads to success is failing under the scrutiny of social media and the internet. We can track someones background much more closely now, and we realize so many people get to where they are because of who their parents were, what elite private high school they attended etc; the web of nepotism is basically publically available now via wikipedia and public information sites -- in the past you only knew about an executives bio from their corporate blurb. Now we see: "oh i see, I can't really just work hard and make it to that path" and decide to just accept our lot and live our lives.

I believe the quiet quitting is actually the reason for the work shortages -- if everyone is doing just 10% less, that means we have 10% less labor available all of a sudden!

I like the Today Show, but this had to be the dumbest segment they've ever done (and as someone who watches almost every day for years, this is saying A LOT). I mean this beats the time Camila Alves showed Matt Lauer had to make a cake stand by turning over wine glasses: https://www.today.com/home/camila-alves-shares-4-diy-projects-you-already-own-materials-t47071)

I especially loved how the hosts, who make 8 figures, were talking about how you should just work hard LOL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Quiet quitting” is a dumb term that suggests abnegation. I look at the more like recalibrating the work-life balance. Putting more appropriate and balanced amounts of energy into work so that you have something left for the rest of your day.

It was clearly called “quiet quitting” by corporate media because the idea of workers taking back whatever power, however minimal the effort and trivial the eventual result, is one that terrifies employers and needs to be given a negative connotation.

But I don’t think people are so easily manipulated anymore.

Totally agree. Doing your job and not doing extra work without compensation would only be considered quitting by the people at the top of the org chart.

And the people who got away with doing less work by foisting it off on hapless colleagues. Having boundaries, while still delivering, is not quitting. It’s being responsible for your duties only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Quiet quitting” is a dumb term that suggests abnegation. I look at the more like recalibrating the work-life balance. Putting more appropriate and balanced amounts of energy into work so that you have something left for the rest of your day.

It was clearly called “quiet quitting” by corporate media because the idea of workers taking back whatever power, however minimal the effort and trivial the eventual result, is one that terrifies employers and needs to be given a negative connotation.

But I don’t think people are so easily manipulated anymore.

Totally agree. Doing your job and not doing extra work without compensation would only be considered quitting by the people at the top of the org chart.