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

161–170 of 224 posts

Re: Quiet Quitting

#161

Post by itronitron »

The tenured boomer view of indifferent younger colleagues is just survivorship bias (or ageist hiring practices or both). Because the company is only hiring younger people each of the boomers that still work at the company remember the good old days. What appears to be a generational shift in work ethic in reality is just people that survived at the company for multiple decades telling tales about their work experience (and it's easy to say, or think, that you worked long hours when there is no one around to correct you.)

Point being, if the company hires boomers as new employees they will likely find that the indifference spans generations, and what does that tell you about the management and long term viability of the organization?

Re: Quiet Quitting

#162

Post by itronitron »

vaidhy wrote: post #23
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.

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

So many people do this already while spending all their time disrupting others and working long hours.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#163

Post by gsibble »

falcolas wrote: post #138
NeverFade wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your value to the company has increased from experience and institutional knowledge It's my understanding that regular raises used to be the standard practice in the private sector of the US employment market for this exact reason. Every year, you'd have your performance review, and assuming it wasn't bad, you'd get some sort of a raise. I'm not sure where this nonsensical "no-raise mentality" comes from, when clea…

> Every year, you'd have your performance review, and assuming it wasn't bad, you'd get some sort of a raise. Even when they do have this, those raises usually max out around 5%. Maybe 10% if you're utterly amazing. Problem is, you can get 20% just by moving, so unless the company is astonishingly employee friendly, you're always losing out.

And now, since the start of inflation, in the last year, the value of a dollar has eroded 13%. Have you gotten a 13% raise just to maintain your cost of living?

Re: Quiet Quitting

#164

Post by Maxburn »

NeverFade wrote: post #148
falcolas wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every year, you'd have your performance review, and assuming it wasn't bad, you'd get some sort of a raise. Even when they do have this, those raises usually max out around 5%. Maybe 10% if you're utterly amazing. Problem is, you can get 20% just by moving, so unless the company is astonishingly employee friendly, you're always losing out.

I agree completely. Everyone who worked in the big tech hubs knows you typically get the best raises by job-hopping. Still, 5-10% raises are at least trying to prevent that. I cannot fathom a company doing zero, as implied by the "no-raise mentality" comment.

A 2-3% is VERY common. Unacceptable even in the days of 2% inflation.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#166

Post by itronitron »

zokier wrote: post #53

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?

It's almost as if the ombudsman did the least amount of work necessary in writing the post...

Re: Quiet Quitting

#167

Post by fpierfed »

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.

These are the places where the person sitting next to you and doing pretty much the same job as you could be making half of what you are making simply because you have a CERN contract and they work for a contractor.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#168

Post by itake »

hotpotamus wrote: post #156
itake wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if they're experiencing mental health issues? Many can take years to resolve and some never will. Tying private health care to employment really creates some odd situations.

> What if they're experiencing mental health issues?

The people I know that do this use the time and money for a full time vacation as they travel the world. I am not sure public or private healthcare should fund people's (mental health) vacations.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#169

Post by Eumenes »

skyyler wrote: post #86
Eumenes wrote: post #56

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.

Does it though? The whole trend is because people don't feel like it's there. You haven't actually respond to them, all you have done is dismiss their thoughts as "stupid" or "nonsense"

The whole trend is manufactured outrage from places like reddit, twitter, and the dull corporate "journalists" that for some reason act as a megaphone for these "ideas". Its anything but organic. Ending work, doing the bare minimum at your job until you get fired? Very strange to me. Its participants are chronically online, angry, and very jealous. Of course they're opposed to meritocracy.

Re: Quiet Quitting

#170

Post by itake »

ryandrake wrote: post #132
adalacelove wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> But these people are so obviously detected it makes no sense. They are not even trying to hide. Why would they try to hide? If their employment agreement or their company's benefits clearly spell out a way to get 6-24 months of leave, how is it wrong to simply choose to do what's spelled out? How did "making use of benefits that are clearly written out and allowed" turn into "taking advantage of the system"? I take…

If the entire company fully utilizes their unlimited PTO, then open ended policies will become less open ended... Unlimited PTO and sick days become tracked PTO and sick days. Which brings us to the original point of employers tracking their employees more.
Post reply on HN