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

The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

blackentropy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#11

Post by matthewbauer »

dartos wrote: post #3

Idk what engineer gets paid 300k outside of giant tech companies and overvalued startups. I’m sure that level of pay doesn’t have many coasters. At $150k, I was coasting at a large company for a few years, but it wasn’t like I did _nothing_. I did my sprint work as assigned within the sprint.

In my experience, higher level of pay doesn't mean there's less coasters. Like, the $150k job could just as well have a lot more expectations than the $300k. Size of company seems like a much bigger factor: you can't hide your low productivity when there's only a few other engineers. And ironically, bigger companies can pay a lot more & get a lot less from their engineers for it.

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#12

Post by askonomm »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #6
askonomm wrote: post #5

Quiet quitting also known as gaslighting your employees for simply doing their job, and not overworking. Oh, Jimmy clocked out at 5pm like his contract said he could? Quiet quitter. Bob didn't stay online on the weekend to discuss sprint plans? Quiet quitter. The level of emotional abuse that many companies get away with baffles me. So many of them systematically destroy your confidence and brainwash you into thinkin…

It is unfair to generalize because not all companies do that, but the ones which do that should be shamed publicly. Actually when I think of that, it would be the only good use of LinkedIn.

LinkedIn where instead of a HR influencer cargo cult black void there would be honest feedback about companies (and maybe employees?) where we could all figure out how to best work together? One can dream.

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#13

Post by matthewbauer »

JohnFen wrote: post #4

My understanding of the term "quiet quitting" isn't that people doing that are avoiding doing any work, it's that they are only doing what is expected of them and not going above and beyond. With that definition, there's nothing unsavory about it.

I guess there's differing definitions. One definition was deciding you're going to quit, but not putting in any notice, and basically trying to delay getting fired as long as possible to collect a paycheck. Potentially even getting another job on top (overemployed), which sounds like it could be fraud.

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#14

Post by AlotOfReading »

dartos wrote: post #3

Idk what engineer gets paid 300k outside of giant tech companies and overvalued startups. I’m sure that level of pay doesn’t have many coasters. At $150k, I was coasting at a large company for a few years, but it wasn’t like I did _nothing_. I did my sprint work as assigned within the sprint.

"Large tech companies and overvalued startups" describes the employers for hundreds of thousands of people. There certainly are coasters in that group, even though I don't think it's a useful point of discussion.

Tech jobs on the whole are broadly easier than other industries like medical or legal. Even accounting for familiarity bias, I'm confident that my job is significantly easier than my doctor's or my vet's despite us being in similar income brackets. That doesn't make it easy, just closer to a sane workload.

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#15

Post by 0x000xca0xfe »

delichon wrote: post #9

It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care. It's a problem of motivation. If I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime. So what am I working for? My only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired. -- Office Space I think that the myth is that this is par…

Personally, I always had this mindset: I'm paid for 8 hours a day and when the day is over, the 8 hours are gone and absolutely nothing will bring them back.

So why don't I use them to do the absolute best I can as a software engineer because doing great work will improve my skills in the future. I'm losing nothing because 8 hours are 8 hours and doing nothing instead does not gain me anything either.

But by god this behavior is not rewarded by higher-ups. They just tended to see me as an loyal useful idiot even when that's not the case.

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#16

Post by tivert »

delichon wrote: post #9

It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care. It's a problem of motivation. If I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime. So what am I working for? My only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired. -- Office Space I think that the myth is that this is par…

That sentiment is event older than that. IIRC, it was fairly common for classical authors to complain bitterly about how lazy their slaves were. They thought they deserved more effort and enthusiasm from them, because they only considered things from their selfish elite perspective.

This blog post really made this type of error clear to me: https://acoup.blog/2024/08/16/fireside-friday-august-16-2024... (read the whole thing):

> [weakness with George R. R. Martin’s worldbuilding of the Night’s Watch]

> And sure, from the elite perspective, this all makes sense. Someone needs to stand on the wall, so we’ll send someone (over time, increasingly low-status, disposable someones) to do it, provide them very minimal comforts necessary for minimum survival and decree harsh punishments should they ever leave their military-penal colony. For a Warden of the North in Winterfell or a King in King’s Landing, that all makes sense.

> But consider it for a moment from the perspective of the brothers of the Night’s Watch. Sure, someone needs to stand on this wall, but it doesn’t need to be them. Fear of the Others or Wildlings is useless here: that answers why someone needs to be here, but not why I need to be here. Some people will self-sacrifice for the community with no thought to other rewards (money, prestige, status), but they are very, very few.

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#17

Post by dartos »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #14
dartos wrote: post #3

Idk what engineer gets paid 300k outside of giant tech companies and overvalued startups. I’m sure that level of pay doesn’t have many coasters. At $150k, I was coasting at a large company for a few years, but it wasn’t like I did _nothing_. I did my sprint work as assigned within the sprint.

"Large tech companies and overvalued startups" describes the employers for hundreds of thousands of people. There certainly are coasters in that group, even though I don't think it's a useful point of discussion. Tech jobs on the whole are broadly easier than other industries like medical or legal. Even accounting for familiarity bias, I'm confident that my job is significantly easier than my doctor's or my vet's des…

The ease of the job is relative.

If you work at ticket clinic, your job as a lawyer is probably pretty easy.

If you work in algorithmic trading at Jane street, your job is probably pretty challenging.

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#18

Post by tivert »

dartos wrote: post #3

Idk what engineer gets paid 300k outside of giant tech companies and overvalued startups. I’m sure that level of pay doesn’t have many coasters. At $150k, I was coasting at a large company for a few years, but it wasn’t like I did _nothing_. I did my sprint work as assigned within the sprint.

> At $150k, I was coasting at a large company for a few years, but it wasn’t like I did _nothing_. I did my sprint work as assigned within the sprint.

It's weird to count literally doing your job as requested as "coasting."

Re: The "Quiet Quitting" Myth Is Toxic for Tech

#20

Post by dogleash »

Slackers have always existed. So the prudent line of thought is to question what purpose the "quiet-quit" terminology serves?

The first thing I notice is that it replaces a description of behavior with an external assessment of a motivation. I already begin to suspect this is one of those slippery words that will be abused for their vagueness by people pretending not to. But for now we'll go get a description from googling. Pretty wide definition, but seems to encompass:

1. Minmaxing. Doing as little work as possible for as much money as possible.

2. Burnout.

3. Employee lets their responsibilities slip because they're busy applying and interviewing elsewhere.

4. Social behavior that is actively against office collaboration and comradery.

Those more specific issues translate to:

1. This is just wage negotiation. At the end of the day, someone performs to the standard of their role and remuneration, or they don't. If someone meets expectations without going above and beyond, calling it a "quiet-quit" is a management whinge.

2. Management is failing an employee.

3. Management has failed an employee.

4. Management has failed a workplace.

QED: This is an HR word for management types to talk about low morale without admitting to their fuckup.

Post reply on HN