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

111–120 of 224 posts

Re: Quiet Quitting

#111

Post by floor2 »

workerthrow632 wrote: post #33

I finally 'quiet quit' when I realized being a minority in tech means I'll never break the glass ceiling past senior engineer regardless of how hard I work or how visibly I help. Even in school I was shoved into secretarial work until I finally convinced professors to let me work solo and would smoke entire groups. People for some reason think I am good enough to interview for lead or architect then seem surprised wh…

I think you probably have some fundamental cause & effect arrows backwards here.

Specifically, every single tech recruiter and tech executive is doing everything they can to increase the diversity of their company. The fact that you're getting interviews for lead or architect but then being assessed as a better fit for senior shows that you're actually getting preferential treatment in recruiting stage and opportunities that an otherwise identical non-minority candidate wouldn't have even been interviewed for.

> It's weird as fuck that they are interested and crawling over me until they talk to me as a person

That's not weird at all. That's incredibly common. That's a sign that your resume looks good, but you interview poorly. Maybe you're the "talented jerk" who they fear will negatively impact other employees. Maybe you overestimate your abilities.

It's possible that the whole world is just out to get you and refuses to acknowledge your greatness. But it might be more likely that if many different groups of people have all been interested in you on paper but then you didn't meet expectations, that the common element here is how you interview and/or interact with others.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#112

Post by [deleted] »

axg11 wrote: post #62
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 think the basis of your comment is incorrect. Employees have never had more freedom. Work from home is now widespread. Working hours are more flexible than ever. Workplace benefits have improved drastically over the last 10 years. Percentage of workers with access to maternity/paternity leave is increasing year-over-year. > There has been an erosion and change in the nature of an employee-employer relationship. Thi…

[deleted]

Re: Quiet Quitting

#113

Post by adalacelove »

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.

> I feel like these "take advantage of the system people" are partially the cause of stricter monitoring and leeway.

But these people are so obviously detected it makes no sense. They are not even trying to hide. They could be the cause of stricter legislation, not monitoring.

I think everyone has a good measure about the value of the people they are directly in contact: direct coworkers, bosses and subordinates. You can ask other people when in doubt. I'm not claiming this solves every problem, my point is that monitoring is usually completely unnecessary and creates an oppressive atmosphere.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#114

Post by xani_ »

vasco wrote: post #57
ehnto wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

> 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.

Uh,no. It's usually getting more and more work coz someone left/got fired and employer goes "well, productivity looks the same" (coz everyone is working that bit more) "why hire more?".

Or frankly you just learned more and are more productive than you were year ago... for same wage.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#115

Post by [deleted] »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #109
matmatmatmat wrote: post #26

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 partic…

Here's my anecdote to balance your anecdote: I was getting paid very well in a junior position at CERN, rarely working more than 7.5 hours a day, doing interesting things, and with a hefty bonus when I took a three day long weekend business trip.

[deleted]

Re: Quiet Quitting

#116

Post by volfied »

> Loss of purpose, lack of fair recognition and the need to preserve work–life balance seem to be the main motives of the younger generations for quiet quitting.

The fact that the author is not even recognizing "how much less money earned is worth" summarizes the entire problem. I wish you could pluck these people from the castle they have built for themselves and throw them back into the real world as a fresh 20 year old and tell them to do everything they did the same, and see how it turns out for them.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#117

Post by xani_ »

xrd wrote: post #72

Can someone please explain to me how you work 200%? Does this mean that a person claiming this worked 16 hours days, and then in order to eat, skipped two hours of sleep time, so typically would only get 6 hours of sleep, and no other time off during the week? Or, that they decided not to see children (who need 10-12 hours of sleep a day, so that would clearly make it impossible to see them if you are not occupied by…

> Can someone please explain to me how you work 200%?

Just compare yourself to most useless coworker.

Same with the "10x programmer" myth, anyone can be 10x if they pick target to compare to that's low enough

Re: Quiet Quitting

#118

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

nordsieck wrote: post #67
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…

> Times used to be you'd be recognized for your hard work and get raises, bonuses, and promotions but those days are gone. Now you have to change jobs to get ahead. So why put in any extra effort at a temporary job? I guess it depends on what you're looking for. If you just want to chill, that seems reasonable. But if you're a climber, it seems reasonable to put in work and ask for extra responsibility that will help…

This translates into "Pad my resume" work.

Yes, I spearheaded a campaign which doubled the visitors to our store (I ran some google ad words).

Yes, I led a team which overhauled our public image leading to double digit growth. (I tweaked some CSS).

Yes, I reported directly to the CEO (we chatted about my project and the company a few times)

Re: Quiet Quitting

#119

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

Moissanite wrote: post #108

A phenomenal amount of words are being written about this topic but it seems far simpler to me than most are suggesting. People are sick of those who are already extremely wealthy capturing so much value from economic activity, without truly earning their wealth (by any reasonable definition of "earning"). Since people still need to eat, we are entering into a spite-centric model where I earn as much as I can, but in…

Why work hard when no amount of work can afford you a home?

This is the reality for all my friends who haven't gotten into tech, medicine, law, or found some other way to work a desk job for a corporation.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#120

Post by throwaway5947 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #61

I wonder if there's any interplay here with the "radically flat" organizations of our generation, especially in tech. For better or worse, when I first started out, and the first 2 companies I worked, there were something like 10-15 layers from me to the CEO. This created a hypothetical ladder of responsibilities and titles I felt I could climb, with rungs 3-5 years apart, getting wider the higher you go. In more rec…

Related hypothesis: https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2021/10/24/redistributin...
Post reply on HN