Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quiet Quitting

ombuds.web.cern.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 224 posts

Re: Quiet Quitting

#21

Post by blueflow »

ehnto wrote: post #7

Not mentioned at all is most people's salaries cannot buy you the same life that it was able to afford baby-boomers. The work-life balance re-assessment is partially based on a recognition that they are getting less benefit per hour spent at work, and for many the tradeoff is no longer worth it. If the best that people with degrees, trade qualifications or good ol' fashioned hard work can look forward to is just scra…

I do this by only working 20hrs a week while enjoying the legal worker benefits of my country. It works out financially without generating too much money.

If i need savings, i'm better off working for it in 10 years than doing three times the work now for the same money number.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#22

Post by traceroute66 »

neogodless wrote: post #3

It irks me that some people use this term to mean "doing your job, as expected." I would imagine it to mean "doing the absolute smallest amount you can get away with without getting noticed and subsequently fired." Fulfilling my duties but not doing overtime seems like "doing your job" rather than "quiet quitting."

Indeed, its a weird terminology to use. Quit/Quitting typically has only one well-understood meaning !

"Quiet quitting" strikes me as being more like what was traditionally called "Work To Rule" in union circles.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#23

Post by vaidhy »

neogodless wrote: post #3

It irks me that some people use this term to mean "doing your job, as expected." I would imagine it to mean "doing the absolute smallest amount you can get away with without getting noticed and subsequently fired." Fulfilling my duties but not doing overtime seems like "doing your job" rather than "quiet quitting."

"doing the absolute smallest amount you can get away with without getting noticed and subsequently fired."

That is an interesting phrase. Isn't this what is required of you to do? If you are failing at the job, you will at least get noticed.

So, what is quiet quitting? In my mind, it seems like not having ambition to grow in the corporate world is (negatively) called out as quiet quitting.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#24

Post by Udo »

neogodless wrote: post #3

It irks me that some people use this term to mean "doing your job, as expected." I would imagine it to mean "doing the absolute smallest amount you can get away with without getting noticed and subsequently fired." Fulfilling my duties but not doing overtime seems like "doing your job" rather than "quiet quitting."

> "doing the absolute smallest amount you can get away with without getting noticed and subsequently fired."

The delta between that and "normal work as required" depends hugely on the job type and company culture. If you're flipping burgers, that difference may well be zero - if you're working as a programmer, it may be huge.

Personally I suspect Quiet Quitting is a quasi-immune response to an employer's expectation that your job should be your life's main activity. Again, how well justified that expectation is comes in a huge spectrum.

In a recession, this response is (reasonably) heightened by an inability to enjoy the economic or personal benefits that an employee expects to come with "giving 110%" for the company.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#25

Post by mojzu »

peteradio wrote: post #6
neogodless wrote: post #3

It irks me that some people use this term to mean "doing your job, as expected." I would imagine it to mean "doing the absolute smallest amount you can get away with without getting noticed and subsequently fired." Fulfilling my duties but not doing overtime seems like "doing your job" rather than "quiet quitting."

Exactly. I don't know who created this term, but its a real bastard when the meaning is "doing your job".

It's a way for some people to try and reinforce the hustle culture status quo that doing unpaid labour for your employer, even to the detriment of your own physical or mental health is a moral or worthy goal that will definitely (maybe) be rewarded. Label/name it in a way that seems derogatory and many people will make the implicit assumption that it's derogatory for a good reason

Re: Quiet Quitting

#26

Post by matmatmatmat »

It's interesting to see this from CERN, which is essentially an institution that enables young people to work unlimited hours for next to no pay and virtually no chance of ever attaining significant recognition of their work.

In my brief time there, it was not uncommon to hear stories of people who had moved there and not even unpacked all of their belongings after a year or more.

On the plus side, if you love particle physics and/or the surrounding context, it's one of the best places to be. On the minus side, you'll have to give up everything else and be quite smart in addition to move ahead.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#27

Post by einpoklum »

> I tried to explain that, when I started to work, and throughout my career, I gave 200% of my energy to my job and it would never have occurred to me to question this.

It did not occur to the author that values above 100% of something may be excessive? Somehow, I don't find that convincing.

> I also shared with them my view that going “above and beyond your work” was the only way to continue learning and developing

That's a strong argument against investing effort and enthusiasm, right there. It's saying that even doing your job properly and well means no development and no "learning".

> it would pay off eventually

1. It.... probably wouldn't.

2. Today's labor market is much more precarious; chances of a person staying at the same workplace for more than several years are mediocre-to-low. So by the time "eventually" comes around, the employee will need to be someplace else, doing something else, i.e. no payoff.

3. Even if the employee stayed put - they will live in poor material conditions while waiting for that eventuality to materialize.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#28

Post by dry_soup »

> I read an interesting Korn Ferry article on the term that the newest entrants to the workforce have for not going “above and beyond” their specific work duties: they call it quiet quitting.

No they don't. Only opinion columnists call it that.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#29

Post by paradox242 »

neogodless wrote: post #3

It irks me that some people use this term to mean "doing your job, as expected." I would imagine it to mean "doing the absolute smallest amount you can get away with without getting noticed and subsequently fired." Fulfilling my duties but not doing overtime seems like "doing your job" rather than "quiet quitting."

I too found this definition perplexing, and I can only attribute it their knowing that "the minimum to not get fired, often including deceptions about the quality and quantity of work" sounds a lot worse, even if the reasons behind both attitudes are for generally the same reasons.

I am somehow a millennial despite being born in the early 80s and so I straddle the divide here somewhat. I share their cynicism and distrust of corporations and capitalism. Your employer is trying to minimize the amount they are paying you and maximize the amount of work you produce, so it only seems fair for a worker to have the inverse incentive.

At the same time, I can't really bring myself to do bad work or generally shirk my responsibilities. Part of this is due to the relationships with my bosses and coworkers, knowing that they are largely trapped in the same circumstances and that they will likely have to pick up the slack, and part of it is just a personal value on doing a thing as well as I can.

Post reply on HN