Quiet Quitting • Hacker News Board

Re: Quiet Quitting

#51

Post by PuppyTailWags » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:22 PM UTC

jenny91 wrote: post #13

There has been an erosion and change in the nature of the employee-employer relationship. Back in the day that the author initially started working, the nature of the relationship was probably much more balanced: the employee got a decent wage, was trusted to fulfil their duties with reasonable concessions and freedom (sometimes possibly doing overtime if necessary, but also being able to leave early on days when the…

I would also argue that this correlates with the weakening of pro-labor political blocs. This includes but doesn't necessarily only include labor unions. I'm also talking news reporting (muck-raking) and labor watchdog orgs. Companies stopped feeling like they are obligated to society (including their workers) and are now mandated to operate only to make more money for the select few owner class.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#52

Post by MonkeyMalarky » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:22 PM UTC

traceroute66 wrote: post #22

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.

I remember work to rule well. As a kid my teachers union were going through negotiations and on the verge of striking and we got to see first hand what that's like. Turns out all those sports and extra curricular activities your kids enjoy in school aren't in the contract. Same with staying late and providing any extra help, or supporting anything like a school dance. The contract is just show up, lecture, mark homework during prep. periods, leave. Parents were frustrated to say the least. Anyways, you can't expect your employees to go above and beyond for free. Any extra responsibilities need to be spelled out in the contract.

I can't imaging how that'd work for a developer. There can be an innumerable number of tasks different developers do and as they grow in a position, it can change enormously. I guess it would force contract and pay renegotiations every year? Otherwise your new team lead could just.. stop.. in the case where they were hired as just a senior developer.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#53

Post by zokier » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

Incredibly tonedeaf post from an ombud org; framing this phenomenon of setting boundaries and having healthy work-life balance as only negative thing and musing about how to eliminate it. Hey, how about considering that there might be good aspects there too?

Re: Quiet Quitting

#54

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

itake wrote: post #42

jenny91 wrote: post #13

There has been an erosion and change in the nature of the employee-employer relationship. Back in the day that the author initially started working, the nature of the relationship was probably much more balanced: the employee got a decent wage, was trusted to fulfil their duties with reasonable concessions and freedom (sometimes possibly doing overtime if necessary, but also being able to leave early on days when the…

I know people that try to extract the maximum amount of value from their job with the least amount of effort. This typically entails taking extended mental health leave. They get 6-24 months of 0-100% base pay, healthcare, pto, and rsu vests while providing negative value to the organization. I feel like these "take advantage of the system people" are partially the cause of stricter monitoring and leeway.

They're only partly responsible. Management has a tendency to optimize everything and big structures/corps are rarely fine grained, they like synthetic and uniform rules that are easy to monitor. It's a subtle cultural shift.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#55

Post by jarym » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

gsibble wrote: post #31

I worked 200% for over 15 years in Silicon Valley. You know how many raises I got without changing jobs? Zero. You know how many promotions I got? Zero. You know how many bonuses I got? Zero. You know how much more work I got assigned? A TON. Hard work only begets hard work these days and not further compensation. The old paths to higher compensation and career growth are dead, and employers killed them. There's no r…

> You know how many raises I got without changing jobs? Zero. You know how many promotions I got? Zero. You know how many bonuses I got? Zero. You know how much more work I got assigned? A TON.

And this is the problem - even away from SV. It was recently suggested to me that the only way to earn more in my current company is if I ended up managing a team (purpose not defined, reasoning unclear). I'm in a great company with great management by the way - or at least I think I am.

I asked, what if I make a material positive impact on the company or its finances? The initial answer was - everyone else is working hard too.

It didn't take long for me to find the exit, and the moment I did the tune changed. I think some managers/CEOs can also lose sight of the value of hard work especially when it can be linked to some positive gain for the company.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#56

Post by Eumenes » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

Alot of young people are being influenced by stupid trends on reddit (like /r/antiwork) or this 'quiet quitting' nonsense. Alot of young people also believe that meritocracy doesn't exist in the modern workplace, which is dangerous, because we all know it 100% exists.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#57

Post by vasco » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #16

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."

A term getting around at the moment is "Acting your Wage" which I like a lot better. Employers shouldn't be surprised when people do what they're paid to do.

That attitude is childish at best. If you're not happy with the wage, quit and go get it somewhere else. Employers would feel the pressure of "lack of labor" and wages would rise. Accepting a job and then deciding the wage is not enough for the duties you have to perform after the fact just slows the process down for everyone and usually puts extra work load on your colleagues.

I'm assuming of course that you mean what I ususally have seen which is "i arbitrarily decide how much work to do". If you mean this is just "not go above and beyond", then sure.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#58

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #32

jenny91 wrote: post #13

There has been an erosion and change in the nature of the employee-employer relationship. Back in the day that the author initially started working, the nature of the relationship was probably much more balanced: the employee got a decent wage, was trusted to fulfil their duties with reasonable concessions and freedom (sometimes possibly doing overtime if necessary, but also being able to leave early on days when the…

In general, the relationship between employer and employee has never been balanced. One thing that induced balance in the middle of the 20th century was the power of unions in the middle of high-demand industries; after World War II, manufacturing and transportation were massively valuable to rebuild tracts of the world bombed to bedrock, and this put bargaining power in the hands of labor because labor in e.g. heavy…

[deleted]

Re: Quiet Quitting

#59

Post by workerthrow632 » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:27 PM UTC

blamazon wrote: post #48

Humans have been doing this forever, just working hard enough to not be fired. If anything it's idealistic youth who tend to buck that trend and subscribe to hustle culture en masse. From the 1999 movie Office Space: > Peter Gibbons: The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care. > Bob Porter: Don't... don't care? > Peter Gibbons: It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass…

Companies need to figure out how to convert illiquid equity into actual liquidity. I don't get how it is fair founders get to sell their shares but employees don't. It's probably why startups are majorly lacking in really senior talent: only newbies think startups will do right by them.

That and focus on profitability to pay out employees with profit shares.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#60

Post by adament » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #27

> 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…

I had the same thought about the 200% thing. Actually I think it is either empty boasting or a difference of terminology. I understand giving 100% to mean: I give as much as I possible can. Giving 200%(or anything above 100%) sustainably for all your career sounds impossible by definition to me.

As an aside(since you used him for the author) I found it interesting that the author (according to her LinkedIn profile) is a woman. My initial prejudice was that giving so much more than everything to your work sounded like something that is only possible if you have a partner taking care of everything at home. And I immediately assumed this must be due to traditional family roles.