# "Quiet Quitting"



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

I came across the term this morning in the news. It's funny how, knowing nothing about it, I first assumed it was about employees getting lazy, when in fact it's about doing your job and not going above and beyond (extra hours,...).

Am I the only one feeling it's crazy that today, just doing the job you're paid for gets you labelled as "quite quitter" ? I'm not saying people deserve a medal and their pictures on the wall for showing up in the morning either, but that seems very negatively connoted for something that should be the norm.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I've always tried to give my employer more than they demand or expect.

Some would call that being a sucker.

Maybe that's why I'm still working for the same company I joined in 1994, even though they closed the factory and offices here in Canada.

YMMV


----------



## Fred Gifford (Sep 2, 2019)

I agree with you 100% it seems like controlling B.S. too put it mildly .. pay no attention to what the man on the TV screens says


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

It’s a PR move to try and guilt people back into heavy exploitation. No thanks.


----------



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

Milkman said:


> I've always tried to give my employer more than they demand or expect.


So did I. But always because I'm a curious guy and I care about my professional and personal growth and doing a good job, not because it was silently expected from me.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Milkman said:


> I've always tried to give my employer more than they demand or expect.
> 
> Some would call that being a sucker.
> 
> ...


Employment in 94 isnt the same as employment in 2022. Many employers arent loyal. They dont pay well. Employee satisfaction is low.

There are way fewer instances of “above and beyond” actually being worth more than the overtime pay.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Derek_T said:


> I came across the term this morning in the news. It's funny how, knowing nothing about it, I first assumed it was about employees getting lazy, when in fact it's about doing your job and not going above and beyond (extra hours,...).
> 
> Am I the only one feeling it's crazy that today, just doing the job you're paid for gets you labelled as "quite quitter" ? I'm not saying people deserve a medal and their pictures on the wall for showing up in the morning either, but that seems very negatively connoted for something that should be the norm.


It is crazy man. We have put working ourselves to death as the pinnacle of success. I was in this death spiral myself for many a long years. Now, piss on that. I have "quietly quit" my work. I prefer to call it just not being a complete idiot and a slave to other peoples needs and desires. Life is finite, other peoples problems are infinite. The funny thing is how "shocked" the people I work with are over the whole thing. You should have seen their faces when I said I was only working 4 day weeks going forward.

That being said, I still perform to the best of my ability, but not beyond it. NO I won't work this weekend because YOU have too much work you sold and need a patsy to get it done for you. NO I won't work 12 hours today because you are an idiot and don't know how to run a project and are weeks behind. NO I won't stay late because your painters didn't finish on time and you have cabinets coming on Monday and its Friday afternoon, that isn't a me problem. 

I solve my problems and do the work I was contracted for, that is what I said I would do. I never agreed to give over my life for it.


----------



## Fred Gifford (Sep 2, 2019)

I always thought being punctual,not abusing breaks etc. and working your shift dilligently for your alloted time was what work was ? now if your not working "above and beyond" and working "extra hours" you are deemed the spawn of Satan. I always gave a consistent, good effort while on the clock but that's where it ended. Working all hours of the day and night overtime because the company is short-staffed? ie. they don't want to pay for extra workers ? I've done that trip my entire life ... people need lifes too ... so if you just like to do your time to the best of your ability and then go home to your life you are "quietly quitting?" sounds like blanketed intimidation tactics


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Its not quiet quitting, it’s working to rule.


----------



## Thunderboy1975 (Sep 12, 2013)

I think anyone who calls people "lazy" without knowing them deserves a punch right in the nose.


----------



## DaddyDog (Apr 21, 2017)

Odd how this phrase is being applied only to employees. How about companies who are "quiet quitting" on their employees? Ever had your benefits package reduced? I have. Ever had your firm stop paying for your internet and/or your phone? I have. Ever had your company stop paying for your car mileage for business travel? I have.


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

"Quiet Quitting" is the term used to try and disparage an entire generation/demographic of the workforce that doesn't fit the mold of another generation/demographic. 

I think many, many people during the pandemic came to the realization that killing yourself for work (not self employed) often does not come with the expected financial results.

The alternative term for this is "Working your wage", which is far more apt IMO. You want me to do work outside the contract we both agreed to? Pay more.

Anecdotally, the hardest working, never complain, do other people's jobs, take on all extra tasks co-worker I had at a major Canadian university was the last one to move from contract to full employment, and was the lowest salary grade compared to a bunch of us who were hired at the same time. Businesses are out to make a profit and the easiest way to do this is exploit the good intentions of it's workforce.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

I think the pandemic reframed life and work for many people. As was mentioned, life is finite, and suddenly people were confronted with their mortality decades before they might normally have considered it.

In my working life,I’ve observed there are more than a few people, who base their identity on their work, rank and social status in the corporate hierarchy. It’s interesting that these are the people that seem to be driving the discussion around returning to the old way of working. That’s where they excel, the pandemic robbed them of their playgrounds, while most people got savvy and decided the game wasn’t for them anymore.

The cat is out of the bag with remote or hybrid work, the game has changed.


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

In a 30+ year career in tech, exceed expectations or over and above is an institutionalized mentality. I have always been a do my job well, on or before time and do extra from time to time as there have always been peaks and valleys. I was slower to climb the corporate ladder because I valued work-life balance more than others who, while not actually producing considerably more than I did or not as efficiently as I did, would spend nights and weekends on a regular basis. I have been told I'd promote you now if you spent more time here and a boss who thought a 50-60 hour work week (paid for 40) was "normal" and executives who think that as "professionals" who are well paid that extra unpaid time is also expected. While those who spent considerable amounts of extra time at work perhaps rose the ladder quicker to the ranks of management or garnered higher pay raises, at the end of it all, they were not exempt from the eventual downturns and downsizing like anyone else and didn't receive anymore loyalty for their efforts. When they were shown the door may have been delayed, but in the end they were too. In many cases that may have been even more painful to have to live through cuts and seeing their friends and colleagues let go and the awful moral left in its wake.

At the higher end of the pay scale, I can see this to a certain extent, but only to a point. When one is at the lower end of the pay scale, say retail or service industry it would be a hard no. If a company's business plan relies on under or unpaid labour then that's not a viable business in my books.


----------



## Doug Gifford (Jun 8, 2019)

This morning in The Guardian:









‘Quiet quitting?’ Everything about this so-called trend is nonsense | Tayo Bero


The term suggests a norm where people do more work than they’re paid for. And guess who’s most likely to do that?




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

I don't believe anyone should do anything they aren't being paid for. That being said, the previous statement doesn't apply to those who work from home in the same way it does those who are required to work in person.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Derek_T said:


> I came across the term this morning in the news. It's funny how, knowing nothing about it, I first assumed it was about employees getting lazy, when in fact it's about doing your job and not going above and beyond (extra hours,...).
> 
> Am I the only one feeling it's crazy that today, just doing the job you're paid for gets you labelled as "quite quitter" ? I'm not saying people deserve a medal and their pictures on the wall for showing up in the morning either, but that seems very negatively connoted for something that should be the norm.


It's a buzzword, made popular by folks whose memory doesn't go as far back as 2015, and certainly no further back than that.

The first 15 years of this century were inundated with concern about "employee engagement": employees sinking themselves thoughtfully and enthusiastically into their jobs. Although the field of organizational psychology abounds with research on the determinants of work motivation, "engagement" was a slightly sexier term used by management consultants, and generally _only_ them. (Much the same way that mainstream psychology left Freud sitting in the dust generations ago but some areas like counselling and creative writing still keep his spirit alive).

There are many determinants of work motivation. One is certainly concrete reward for effort expended and quality of work. A second related factor is recognition, whether it comes from higher-ups, co-workers, or customers/clients. But there is also intrinsic motivation. rather than extrinsic rewards, perhaps best conceptualized by Deci & Ryan's "Self Determination Theory" ( https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf ), that includes the basic human need for a sense of competence. In the field of organizational psychology, SDT is pretty much the standard framework for examining work motivation these days, in addition to a host of other areas, like education. And jobs/positions that are better with respect to meeting the needs of self-determination exhibit greater "engagement", employee dedication and effort, and much less of the burnout and lack of motivation characterized by what gets called "quiet quitting". Conversely, we are seeing burnout and turnover in many areas of employment these days where circumstances are undermining and blocking the sense of self-determination people need. Effort at work always has to feel justified to the person, and when you feel like even your best efforts get you nowhere, that justification evaporates.

One of the areas that I think is underexplored is the long-term impact of earliest adolescent employment. We know from mountains of research that parental separation and divorce during childhood, and other forms of "dented" parental relationships (e.g., alcoholic or addicted parents, parental depression) can have long-term impacts on how people approach close relationships. The "inner mental template" they form of what they perceive as bound to happen when you get too close to people, as an outcome of those early experiences within the family, can influence every potentially close relationship for the rest of their lives.

So the question for me is: In an analogous way, do our earliest experiences with adolescent employment shape our attitudes and perceptions of our relationship with work and employers? Do those first jobs lead us to think about commitment, trust, and other essential ingredients of employee-employer relationships differently? Equally crucial, do those beliefs and attitudes end up being _*self-maintaining*_ because of how they frame our relationship with successive employers, the same way that "running away from" and wrecking potentially close personal relationships can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy?

When I was teaching psychology of adolescent development some years back, we spent some time covering the research on adolescent employment, including how much is the "right" amount, male/female differences, and the qualitative aspects of those first jobs when it comes to forming attitudes about work. One of the students in my class put it rather succinctly, when he said "They didn't give a shit about me, so why should I care about them?".

So, is the pop journalism notion of "quiet quitting" reflective of a workforce - or at least some portion of it - that is undermotivated, partly because they have an antagonistic approach to employee-employer relationships (i.e., screw them before they screw you)? Is it because they've never been in a job that facilitates "self-determination"? Do they simply not know what they want from work, and their employers have not helped them figure that out?

Whatever the case, I find it ironic that after some 15 years of foaming at the mouth about getting workers more "engaged" (and I had to design, analyze and report on surveys of "employee engagement" within the public service for a number of years), somehow employers can't seem to get it done. That tells me that either: a) the management consulting folks don't understand and didn't form the concept very well themselves, b) their clients nodded and smiled but didn't understand it either, or c) the suggestions offered were all wrong, or the clients were too preoccupied with efficiency or profit to take the suggestions seriosly and implement them properly and with commitment. You can't get "engaged" employees if management isn't similarly "engaged" in having an enthusiastic and committed workforce. Give a shit about them and they'll learn to give a shit about the organization and job.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I've always tried to give my employer more than they demand or expect.


That's exactly my philosophy. I've worked for 3 different employers in 27 years. I left the first 2 on my own terms. I hope to work for my current employer till retirement. I think giving more than they demand or expect is just doing a thorough, good job. This so called "Quiet Quitting" is an excuse to do a shit job.


----------



## Rollin Hand (Jul 12, 2012)

I would simply call it having your priorities straight. No one lies on their deathbed thinking "I wish I could have spent more time working." Like the song says:

"Now you're climbin' to the top of the company ladder
Hope it doesn't take too long
Can't cha see there'll come a day when it won't matter
Come a day when you'll be gone."

I have been on stress leave once, and didn't like it. I try to do a great job when I am at work, but I don't take it home of at all possible. I make myself available for extra work on occasion, but rarely. And I don't kill myself trying to move up a level because I don't want the added expectations. I go get my kids from school. I cook dinner. My wife needs to keep advancing to stay interested (she also makes WAY more than me), so I absorb more of the home stuff. 

Time is a finite quantity. They only get so much of mine.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Budda said:


> Employment in 94 isnt the same as employment in 2022. Many employers arent loyal. They dont pay well. Employee satisfaction is low.
> 
> There are way fewer instances of “above and beyond” actually being worth more than the overtime pay.



You're right. The world has changed and isn't going to ever chnage back. Being able to adapt to those changes is a very valuable skill.

But, as I said, I still work for the same company and there are still companies that treat people with respect. You have to give it to get it.

While some people are suspicious and mistrustful of their employees, Others (like me) tend to trust until such time as that trust is not deserved.

Like I said, YMMV.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Milkman said:


> I've always tried to give my employer more than they demand or expect.
> Some would call that being a sucker.
> Maybe that's why I'm still working for the same company I joined in 1994, even though they closed the factory and offices here in Canada.





guitarman2 said:


> That's exactly my philosophy. I've worked for 3 different employers in 27 years. I left the first 2 on my own terms. I hope to work for my current employer till retirement. I think giving more than they demand or expect is just doing a thorough, good job. This so called "Quiet Quitting" is an excuse to do a shit job.


In the “old days”, hard work and extra effort _were_ rewarded. As @Milkman said, they closed their Canadian operations yet they kept him. Nowadays, this is often not the case. The workers who do their job _and_ the job of their co-worker (who left for a better employer) for no additional pay is the one they’ll keep stuck in that same position forever because it helps the bottom line.


Budda said:


> Its not quiet quitting, it’s working to rule.


The term I heard was “acting your wage”.


----------



## Jaime (Mar 29, 2020)

guitarman2 said:


> That's exactly my philosophy. I've worked for 3 different employers in 27 years. I left the first 2 on my own terms. I hope to work for my current employer till retirement. *I think giving more than they demand or expect is just doing a thorough, good job.* This so called "Quiet Quitting" is an excuse to do a shit job.


Ok, so say your current employer started asking you to do half of someone else's job for the same salary or hourly wage you make right now. Is that a doing a thorough, good job?

I agree with you in wishing more people were simply good at their jobs/gave a shit about what they were doing when they were doing it. I work in an industry where one fuck up on my end will obliterate my relationship with that client, so there's no room for it if I want to continue. These are two different things, however. If the scope of the project changes, I'll handle it, but we'll be discussing the budget first.


----------



## FatStrat2 (Apr 7, 2021)

I only heard of this PR term last week - and that's what it is, PR.

When I'm at work, I break my ass for my company and I will go 'above & beyond' once in a while - but generally I don't work for free. Who says my time isn't as valuable as my company's time?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Jaime said:


> Ok, so say your current employer started asking you to do half of someone else's job for the same salary or hourly wage you make right now. Is that a doing a thorough, good job?


All 3 IT jobs I've had I was the only one that did what I do. I did not have the skills to do someone else job. I did mine. This has been both a blessing and a curse. Blessing in that I've always had pretty good job security. Curse in that I'm the only one they could call when something went wrong. If you do you're job good enough you can minimize problems. As for having to do someone else job that left, I've never had that problem.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

LOL, I don't work for free either.

The funny thing is, having demonstrated dedication and abilities over the last few decades (as imodest as that may sound) I have learned that I never need to worry about that.

They take care of me, and I know if I incur some unexpected costs for which I feel I should be compensated, it's a simple matter of communication.

Has human nature changed so much since 1994?

Maybe, but I'm not so sure.


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

FatStrat2 said:


> I only heard of this PR term last week - and that's what it is, PR.
> 
> When I'm at work, I break my ass for my company and I will go 'above & beyond' once in a while - but generally I don't work for free. Who says my time isn't as valuable as my company's time?


There's a grey area that is occasional over and above vs. when extra time becomes expected or you working >100% is incorporated as part of the resource plan. 

Again, if a business plan relies on unpaid labour, they are understaffed an/or basically exploiting existing workers. I have heard so many stories at the service level where the employee is expected to serve customers for their paid hours but any prep, cleaning etc is done after the shift unpaid. That is wholly unacceptable.


----------



## elburnando (11 mo ago)

Problem is, theres always one guy whos willing to make the rest of the team look bad by working extra hours for free. Thats why unions were started. Ive always made sure to be paid for every second of work id completed(whether the boss knew it or not). I decided a few years ago i will never again work for another person(unless it was some dream job, of course).


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I spent so many years as a graduate student, working late and often 7 days a week, whether doing my own work or helping other students, that I've never charged an employer or expected compensation for overtime. I don't blame others for expecting fair exchange; I've just grown up not expecting it myself. Many have suggested I go into consulting, but I wouldn't know a billable hour if it jumped up, bit my nutsack, and drew blood (not that that's far to jump up)..


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

elburnando said:


> Problem is, theres always one guy whos willing to make the rest of the team look bad by working extra hours for free. Thats why unions were started. Ive always made sure to be paid for every second of work id completed(whether the boss knew it or not). I decided a few years ago i will never again work for another person(unless it was some dream job, of course).


In the past maybe the OT guy was seen as “making everyone look bad”. Now they would probably wouldnt work free OT.

Reminder: cost of everything except wages has gone up tremendously. Not doing extra unpaid work should not garner pearl-clutching.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I've always managed to do better outside of the Union camp.

Unions provide protection to those who need it most not those who deserve it most.

They do this by holding back those who prefer to work harder. Everybody is equal, LOL.

Meanwhile, some workers feel like it doesn't really matter what they do because extra effort is considered sycophantic.

Different strokes.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

I started seeing this term a month back or so. I took it to mean no longer working to get a raise or promotion, just do your job and coast. I believe it’s in response to burnout from working all kinds of odd hours during the pandemic.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

tomee2 said:


> I started seeing this term a month back or so. I took it to mean no longer working to get a raise or promotion, just do your job and coast. I believe it’s in response to burnout from working all kinds of odd hours during the pandemic.



That's how I understood the term as well.

But, in my opinion some will use it as a convenient excuse to dog it.

Not everybody is suited to working unsupervised at home.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

crann said:


> "Working your wage"


----------



## FatStrat2 (Apr 7, 2021)

It can be a slippery slope.

As an example, years ago when I was just starting out, I did extra work and took on extra tasks - I was not compensated. After doing this for a few months I found that it was not benefitting me and I was sacrificing my time while my super/manager was not appreciating it. Worse, when I stopped giving 110%, now down to 100% (which is still far more than many working there),I was now expected to do those extra tasks as part of my job only because I took it on in the first place.

If management appreciated this, then it would eventually be a good upward career move. They did not, so I moved on.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

FatStrat2 said:


> It can be a slippery slope.
> 
> As an example, years ago when I was just starting out, I did extra work and took on extra tasks - I was not compensated. After doing this for a few months I found that it was not benefitting me and I was sacrificing my time while my super/manager was not appreciating it. Worse, when I stopped giving 110%, now down to 100% (which is still far more than many working there),I was now expected to do those extra tasks as part of my job only because I took it on in the first place.
> 
> If management appreciated this, then it would eventually be a good upward career move. They did not, so I moved on.


Bingo.

Had I sensed at any time that management did not appreciate my extra efforts, I would have moved on quickly.

I never responded too well to the "slow down, you'll work yourself out of a job" mentality, but if I thought I was being treated like a mushroom by management I would have bailed long ago.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I reiterate: How has your earliest employment shaped your attitudes towards employers and your behaviour and expectations as an employee? Are your employers the sorts of folks who, themselves, had those same kinds of early employment experiences and view employees as untrustworthy adversaries, because they have a sense of what *they'd* do in your shoes?

Many of the comments here convey a harmful virus being perpetuated in workplaces. "They" crap on you, so when "you" rise up the ladder, "you" crap on those beneath you. Nothing especially productive or beneficial about any of it. You have to wonder what is being taught, or perhaps NOT taught, in business programs these days.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

I read “Quiet Quilting”… I thought you were soundproofing your studio space with Grandma’s old blankets. 

In seriousness… I had never heard that term till last week. I agree, it seems odd you’re looked upon as “getting ready to quit” if you just do your job. I can see if you stick to 9-5 and bare minimum it may hinder your growth potential, but a lot of people are very happy with the “if the paycheque clears Friday, I’ll see you Monday” approach. Which is fine. I’ve always tried to do a little above expectations just because. No reason other than staying gainfully employed! That’s a good reason though. Keep the lights on, and the doors open. I don’t think it should be viewed as bad. 
The cousin to this is “Quite Termination”. Doing less and less to work towards a severance. Nothing that gives the employer grounds for dismissal, but when the time comes, they get a buyout.


----------



## Doug Gifford (Jun 8, 2019)

A good friend taught a class in ethics to MBA students at York. And oh… the stories he could tell.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Time is a valuable commodity. Don’t believe me? Look at the detailed invoice next time you get any sort of job done. It also the one thing companies can’t make more of.

If you were to ask a company to give you their time for free, they’d laugh in your face. When you refuse to do the same, they start a media campaign about “people just don’t want to work anymore”.


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

mhammer said:


> I reiterate: How has your earliest employment shaped your attitudes towards employers and your behaviour and expectations as an employee? Are your employers the sorts of folks who, themselves, had those same kinds of early employment experiences and view employees as untrustworthy adversaries, because they have a sense of what *they'd* do in your shoes?
> 
> Many of the comments here convey a harmful virus being perpetuated in workplaces. "They" crap on you, so when "you" rise up the ladder, "you" crap on those beneath you. Nothing especially productive or beneficial about any of it. You have to wonder what is being taught, or perhaps NOT taught, in business programs these days.


The vast majority of those above me in tech (technical, not business side of the company) are not business majors at all, rather promoted technical people who have not received anything but internal management training. A small percentage of them decide to get formal MBA training, but most do not. Same stuff gets perpetuated over and over. Over my career, I have seen the same organizational "evolutions", "revolutions", and "innovations" a dozen times over, just with nicer, more elaborate PowerPoint presentations.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

ZeroGravity said:


> The vast majority of those above me in tech (technical, not business side of the company) are not business majors at all, rather promoted technical people who have not received anything but internal management training. A small percentage of them decide to get formal MBA training, but most do not. Same stuff gets perpetuated over and over. Over my career, I have seen the same organizational "evolutions", "revolutions", and "innovations" a dozen times over,* just with nicer, more elaborate PowerPoint presentations*.


That brought a smile and chuckle to my face Been there, done that. Every new crop thinks there has never been anything before them. Kids. Feh!!


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

Doug Gifford said:


> A good friend taught a class in ethics to MBA students at York. And oh… the stories he could tell.


Few things frighten me more than an MBA with a “great idea”.


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

Milkman said:


> Unions provide protection to those who need it most not those who deserve it most.


I used to be anti union until fairly recently. I've never been in a unionized job. 

1. Unions are responsible for child labor laws, 5 day work week/weekends, overtime, health benefits etc.
2. I think most would agree with you, but that's not the fault of the union rather individuals who take advantage of unions. This extrapolation is pretty classic anti union propaganda that business owners float. In any contact negotiation there will be an imbalance, unions try and tilt it towards the worker (with some unintended consequences).
3. Business owners, executives etc want you to side with them rather than your unionized co-worker. A bit wild they can sell the idea of the billionaire victim vs the evil union workers making 35k.
4. There's a reason for the mass unionization efforts in the US (Amazon, Starbucks etc): record inflation, average employee productivity is 3.5 times higher than the early 80s vs today, wage stagnation since mid 70s mixed with record corporate profits. Businesses/corporations aren't evil or nice, they are beholden to their bottom line and will only change their pay/structure/benefits when it costs them less money than an alternative (strike, boycott etc)


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

elburnando said:


> Problem is, theres always one guy whos willing to make the rest of the team look bad by working extra hours for free. Thats why unions were started. Ive always made sure to be paid for every second of work id completed(whether the boss knew it or not). I decided a few years ago i will never again work for another person(unless it was some dream job, of course).


In a union its usually that one guy doing his job well that makes the rest of the team look bad.


----------



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

mhammer said:


> I reiterate: How has your earliest employment shaped your attitudes towards employers and your behaviour and expectations as an employee? Are your employers the sorts of folks who, themselves, had those same kinds of early employment experiences and view employees as untrustworthy adversaries, because they have a sense of what *they'd* do in your shoes?
> 
> Many of the comments here convey a harmful virus being perpetuated in workplaces. "They" crap on you, so when "you" rise up the ladder, "you" crap on those beneath you. Nothing especially productive or beneficial about any of it. You have to wonder what is being taught, or perhaps NOT taught, in business programs these days.


Individual experience are one side of the coins, there's also a cultural element to normality. What is a "normal" or "appropriate" level of engagement for an employee ? If it's not doing the job you're assign but more, how much more is enough ? Who sets the limits ? Who benefits from the limits ?

As much as individual experience contribute to shaping your idea of employee / employer relationship so is the culture you live in. Having worked in Europe and Canada, they have a different relationship to work independent of individual upbringing.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Milkman said:


> That's how I understood the term as well.
> 
> But, in my opinion some will use it as a convenient excuse to dog it.
> 
> Not everybody is suited to working unsupervised at home.


I learned this about a few people at work. They got nothing done unless constantly bugged about it.


----------



## diyfabtone (Mar 9, 2016)

Work to live, don't live to work. Do what you are paid to do.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

crann said:


> I used to be anti union until fairly recently. I've never been in a unionized job.
> 
> 1. Unions are responsible for child labor laws, 5 day work week/weekends, overtime, health benefits etc.
> 2. I think most would agree with you, but that's not the fault of the union rather individuals who take advantage of unions. This extrapolation is pretty classic anti union propaganda that business owners float. In any contact negotiation there will be an imbalance, unions try and tilt it towards the worker (with some unintended consequences).
> ...



I'm not anti-union. I just don't want to belong to one. I prefer negotiating my own deal. That works best for me.

A CA protects both the company AND the Union. That has advantages.

Yes, there was a time when Unions did a lot of good.

These days, I'm not so sure.

It's a poor parasite that kills its host. Walk a picket line in front of many companies and you won't have to worry about the next CA. They'll relocate.


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

Milkman said:


> It's a poor parasite that kills its host.


Sounds pretty anti union to me 🤷‍♂️, especially categorizing all of them as parasites.

No one is telling or asking you to unionize, but there are many reasons why a union still makes sense today, see Amazon, Star Bucks, Trader Joe's etc. I wouldn't be so presumptuous to prescribe a one size fits all labor agreement across all industries.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I've been helped by unions, and hurt by unions, although the latter was more a matter of administration exploiting loopholes in the collective agreement for their benefit.

In general, unions are a lot like firefighters and the military. You don't always need them, but when you need them, you _really_ _*really*_ need them. In between those periods of need, what do they do, or rather what do they occupy themselves with? Firefighters and military can always make sure their equipment and common understanding of playbook is in perfect working order so that they can respond well to emergencies. But what can a union do if everything is copasetic, and there's only the odd employee-supervisor dispute to attend to? And there is where, I think, the quality and character of union leadership matters. Some seem to make a point of fostering discontent where there is no need for it, just to make the union relevant to members. I don't blame them for wanting to remind the membership that their union matters, and not to take hard-won victories for granted as something that was always there. But there's ways of doing that and ways of doing that.

At the same time, it is management's obligation to demonstrate in clear terms that they care about employees, about employee motivation and development, about the welfare of the overall organization, and that they have no issue with lightening the workload of unions by behaving fairly and well themselves. But, much like teachers, doctors, lawyers, and bandmates, there are more management positions_ available_, and needing filling, than there are people who are truly cut out for that role.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

I still don't understand what the difference is between "Quiet Quitting" and "Work to rule". That's what this concept was always called as I've understood it. Work to rule is that you do only what's required of you during the allotted work hours and nothing more. Isn't it the same thing? 

Anyway, what 25 years in the workforce has taught me is that the more you do, the more they expect, and then the more they give you. Being an exceptional above and beyond worker only raises the bar for YOU and not anyone around you. So when you eventually burn out and decide it's not worth it and your performance regresses to the average that everyone else is doing, then you get labeled a slacker and get poor job performance ratings. 

Another part of this is if you do MORE than you're supposed to by working through breaks, starting early, leaving late, etc, then you're artificially inflating the expected output or productivity that management thinks can get done in a work day. It basically makes it worse on yourself and others in the long run. So let's say management decrees that they want 100 units a day completed. The max you can get done in the workday is normally 80. So you start 20 minutes early and you work through your breaks and only take half your lunch, and then you leave 20 minutes late - and you don't put in OT for any of it - but you get the work done, right? Great job! Now management expects that you can get 100 done every day. Forever. But you can't, can you? Not without putting in about an hour of YOUR time per day.

The other piece of advice I've heard and wish someone had told me sooner is, _*"Never make yourself invaluable in any position because they'll never let you do anything else."*_ If you're doing 2x the work of your coworkers, then WHY would they promote you when by taking you out of the role you're in would cause way more lost productivity than if they just gave it to someone else? 

Anyway, all my careers have taught me is that working to your full capacity just leads to burnout and eventual dissatisfaction. Now I just put in an honest day's work, and then when it's quitting time I leave unless there's overtime approved. If stuff doesn't get done, it doesn't get done. It can be picked up again tomorrow. If there's not enough workers to get it done by deadlines, then that's management's fault for not providing the required resources.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I've been helped by unions, and hurt by unions, although the latter was more a matter of administration exploiting loopholes in the collective agreement for their benefit.
> 
> In general, unions are a lot like firefighters and the military. You don't always need them, but when you need them, you _really_ _*really*_ need them. In between those periods of need, what do they do, or rather what do they occupy themselves with? Firefighters and military can always make sure their equipment and common understanding of playbook is in perfect working order so that they can respond well to emergencies. But what can a union do if everything is copasetic, and there's only the odd employee-supervisor dispute to attend to? And there is where, I think, the quality and character of union leadership matters. Some seem to make a point of fostering discontent where there is no need for it, just to make the union relevant to members. I don't blame them for wanting to remind the membership that their union matters, and not to take hard-won victories for granted as something that was always there. But there's ways of doing that and ways of doing that.
> 
> At the same time, it is management's obligation to demonstrate in clear terms that they care about employees, about employee motivation and development, about the welfare of the overall organization, and that they have no issue with lightening the workload of unions by behaving fairly and well themselves. But, much like teachers, doctors, lawyers, and bandmates, there are more management positions_ available_, and needing filling, than there are people who are truly cut out for that role.


One of the most poignant expressions I ever heard related to unions is: "Management gets the union it deserves."


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> Now I just put in an honest day's work, and then when it's quitting time I leave unless there's overtime approved. If stuff doesn't get done, it doesn't get done. It can be picked up again tomorrow. If there's not enough workers to get it done by deadlines, then that's management's fault for not providing the required resources.


In 1999, the federal government conducted the first of a succession of employee surveys. Initially every 3 years, but eventually on an annual basis. When 1999 results were compared to 2002, Treasury Board Secretariat had their knickers in a knot because it looked like there was this huge problem of "work/life balance", given how much things moved in a downward direction for a number of key survey items. One of my cleverer colleagues noticed however, that the former Revenue Canada had been included in the 1999 survey, but late in '99 had separated from the public service to become Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, such that they were not part of the 2002 results. When we reanalyzed the 1999 data without Revenue Canada, the differences between '99 and '02 vanished. Why? Because if you worked at Revenue Canada, when it was quitting time, you simply packed up the file you're working on, go home, and get back to it the next morning. Things hadn't gotten worse in the intervening 3 years. It was just that all those folks in the rest of the public service who had to work late to get documents ready for the minister or deputy minister for the next day constituted a larger share of the overall survey sample and the folks who pack up at 5:00 and start again at 9:00, were now a smaller share.

Some folks are lucky in their job that they CAN leave at quitting time, and put their work out of their thoughts. And other jobs follow you home. Teaching is certainly one of those, but there's others too.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

ZeroGravity said:


> The vast majority of those above me in tech (technical, not business side of the company) are not business majors at all, rather promoted technical people who have not received anything but internal management training. A small percentage of them decide to get formal MBA training, but most do not. Same stuff gets perpetuated over and over. Over my career, I have seen the same organizational "evolutions", "revolutions", and "innovations" a dozen times over, just with nicer, more elaborate PowerPoint presentations.


I just celebrated 20 years where I am, this sounds very familiar and is continuing. Always more with less, I think that phrase might not exactly be out of date but possibly falling out of favour, certainly in the work force


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

mhammer said:


> Some folks are lucky in their job that they CAN leave at quitting time, and put their work out of their thoughts. And other jobs follow you home. Teaching is certainly one of those, but there's others too.


That's the whole crux though my friend. There is no position on the planet where you are an employee and work should "follow you home". You are paid for your work, at work. When the confines of that agreement are breached, well at what point are you "not at work"? I get the practical perceived reasoning behind your illustration, but that mentality is exactly what people are "quietly quitting"

Or at least that is my opinion, which is worth about as much as the work I will do for free


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Mark Brown said:


> That's the whole crux though my friend. There is no position on the planet where you are an employee and work should "follow you home". You are paid for your work, at work. When the confines of that agreement are breached, well at what point are you "not at work"? I get the practical perceived reasoning behind your illustration, but that mentality is exactly what people are "quietly quitting"
> 
> Or at least that is my opinion, which is worth about as much as the work I will do for free



I understand and respect that opinion, but had I taken that position, I would have likely moved from company to company several times by now.

I deal with people all over the world and that means being responsive at (potentially) all hours of the day and night.

I don't expect others to do as I have done, but these people KNOW they can depend on me and that if someone needs to be in Japan tomorrow, I'm on a plane tonight.

It was not uncommon when I was travelling more frequently for me to be on my way home from Mexico and find out after landing in Atlanta, that I was now going to say Nebraska, instead of home.


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

If "Quiet Quitting" is indeed "just doing the job you're expected to do", I wouldn't call it that. I would call it being a good employee. Any employer knows just how difficult it is to find people who will do the job expected of them, let alone do it reliably and consistently. I've worked with WAY more people who didn't do their job and needed others needed to pick up the slack for them, than I have with people who did their job reliably, let alone people who were real "go-getters".

From an employer perspective... If you have an employee who is "just doing the job they're expected to do", you have a good employee. If you have an employee going above and beyond, acknowledge their investment in your business by investing more into them. But, don't raise the expectations you have of others based on their actions. That's a very slippery slope, which has been explored already in this thread. It's no different than in sports... You don't expect your bench warmers, second stringers, and alternate lines to perform at the same level as your starring line-up. In fact, you shouldn't do it. That's setting you up for disappointment and failure, and it's setting them up for disillusionment.

*SIDE NOTE*
I'm also one of those people who always gave my best for my employer, no matter my position or salary level. I imagine I'm like that because that's how my parents were, always going above and beyond for their employer. I think the culture of their age group and circumstances has a lot to do with it. They saw regular/reliable employment as a privilege, not a right. They believed they needed to earn that privilege and show their employer that they deserved to be there. They saw their job as an opportunity to excel, and always worked hard on improving their skill-set and knowledge to help them do the job better, faster, etc. It was great if it turned into a promotion or a raise, but that was never the goal. They worked hard for the reward of working hard. It provided a sense of pride and accomplishment.

At some point during my generation (Gen X) and afterwards, many started losing that sense of self-worth, pride, and sense of accomplishment derived from disciplined effort. I'm no expert, so I won't pretend to know why that is. Whatever the reason, many people no longer take pride in their work or their accomplishments. They are simply not able to derive self-worth through their accomplishments. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I'm one of those people. There is some research on this that points to the culprit being something so heavily embraced by modern society that no one would ever accept the conclusion (and the change required to correct it would be near impossible). But, that's a much longer conversation for another time.

Based on my limited time on this Earth, there is one thing I'm convinced of with regards to working for a living. You can tolerate (maybe even enjoy) ANY job, even one you are absolutely convinced you will hate, so long as the following are present:
1) You're actually qualified for it, are adequately trained, and there are clear and reasonable expectations of your performance.
2) You're doing it with people whose company you enjoy. Even the worst jobs can be pleasurable if done with the right people. Work culture is paramount to satisfaction in the workplace.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Mark Brown said:


> That's the whole crux though my friend. There is no position on the planet where you are an employee and work should "follow you home". You are paid for your work, at work. When the confines of that agreement are breached, well at what point are you "not at work"? I get the practical perceived reasoning behind your illustration, but that mentality is exactly what people are "quietly quitting"
> 
> Or at least that is my opinion, which is worth about as much as the work I will do for free


Most of my work throughout my working years WAS work that followed me home, simply because it was always involving intellectual and conceptual challenges I had pursued or at least been tantalized by. Doesn't mean I didn't have a life, but if you commit yourself to a research career, is it possible to stop finding some things fascinating? And if they're fascinating, can you stop yourself from thinking about them when an idea hits you?

Of course, if one grew up expecting that their working life would be endlessly intriguing and inspiring, and the fulfillment of their passions, and they find themselves making widgets for a living, I would imagine there's bound to be a hint of disappointment in there.

The proper role of "work", or rather "a job", in one's life is something that many will spend a lifetime trying to pin down, with many not succeeding. Personally, I still don't know if I've had a "career" or not.


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

Well, I guess we all agree that the feeling of well-being and elation that comes in with a wished new job helps make more than one has to. It has been my experience. And I fortunately proved many times I had a more than average capacity for the job, most probably because I was overqualified, but I took pleasure making a living through work. Many times the changing surrounding work atmosphere impacted my happiness at work : I do not believe I slowed down, but it is clear it made me take a glance out the window and move on to another job as my CV attracted jobs to me. But I have witnessed so many people shuffling to their desk and off work : Most would just take their paycheck waiting for vacations and retirement : I could not believe they were actually happy, but I rarely saw any move on to another job.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Most of my work throughout my working years WAS work that followed me home, simply because it was always involving intellectual and conceptual challenges I had pursued or at least been tantalized by. Doesn't mean I didn't have a life, but if you commit yourself to a research career, is it possible to stop finding some things fascinating? And if they're fascinating, can you stop yourself from thinking about them when an idea hits you?


Over the years when I had issues that would arise that weren't easily solvable my brain would still be working even when I slept. A few times I'd wake up with new fresh ideas from my dreams and many times solve the problem. I never thought of charging for that time in my sleep though.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

People have realized that there is no advantage to being dedicated to a company that, if they died, would have you replaced before your obit hit the papers. Besides, why work harder than the dog fucker next to you who does as little as possible for the same pay.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

jbealsmusic said:


> If "Quiet Quitting" is indeed "just doing the job you're expected to do", I wouldn't call it that. I would call it being a good employee. Any employer knows just how difficult it is to find people who will do the job expected of them, let alone do it reliably and consistently. I've worked with WAY more people who didn't do their job and needed others needed to pick up the slack for them, than I have with people who did their job reliably, let alone people who were real "go-getters".
> 
> From an employer perspective... If you have an employee who is "just doing the job they're expected to do", you have a good employee. If you have an employee going above and beyond, acknowledge their investment in your business by investing more into them. But, don't raise the expectations you have of others based on their actions. That's a very slippery slope, which has been explored already in this thread. It's no different than in sports... You don't expect your bench warmers, second stringers, and alternate lines to perform at the same level as your starring line-up. In fact, you shouldn't do it. That's setting you up for disappointment and failure, and it's setting them up for disillusionment.
> 
> ...


Again, I go back to the impact of earliest work experiences on one's conception of work, being an employee, etc. I view the late 1970s as a major historical inflection point. That saw a huge influx of fast-food "McJobs" where there was high youth employment, high turnover, low skill, and not much future, let alone competent management. People who went through that mill eventually became your boss 15 years later, assuming that their staff would ultimately screw them over, necessitating an adversarial relationship. I contrast that with first jobs where the individual is being developed from the ground up, in preparation for roles of increasing responsibility. A niece of ours is a manager in the "innovation cluster" at the former Industry Canada (a much longer name these days). Her own first student summer job, during high school, was working at the Atomic Clock at the National Research Council. First jobs shape you.


----------



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

mhammer said:


> simply because it was always involving intellectual and conceptual challenges I had pursued or at least been tantalized by. Doesn't mean I didn't have a life, but if you commit yourself to a research career, is it possible to stop finding some things fascinating?


It's true, my work also involve intellectual and conceptual challenges. And the thinking does not stop when I clock out unfortunately. When the topic pick my interest my brain just keeps working at it, and it's hard to shut-off.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Again, I go back to the impact of earliest work experiences on one's conception of work, being an employee, etc. I view the late 1970s as a major historical inflection point. That saw a huge influx of fast-food "McJobs" where there was high youth employment, high turnover, low skill, and not much future, let alone competent management. People who went through that mill eventually became your boss 15 years later, assuming that their staff would ultimately screw them over, necessitating an adversarial relationship. I contrast that with first jobs where the individual is being developed from the ground up, in preparation for roles of increasing responsibility. A niece of ours is a manager in the "innovation cluster" at the former Industry Canada (a much longer name these days). Her own first student summer job, during high school, was working at the Atomic Clock at the National Research Council. First jobs shape you.


That's true, but sometimes you learn hard lessons along the way. The organization doesn't give a fiddler's dink about you. At all. Everyone is replaceable. Anyone can be made redundant. All it takes is a budgetary decision and then it's just numbers.

I'm typically a highly efficient worker and I'm usually a leader in that I like to be challenged and take on additional responsibility. I have learned that I need to fight those natural tendencies in my work life because it has led to me getting used and taken advantage of by management. I'm the type where if I see a problem, I'll go out of my way to fix it.

As an example (I'll have to make this general as possible for privacy reasons): about 5 years ago I was in a role where I was just a worker. Over time I stood out as a leader and a high performer. I ended up taking on additional roles and responsibilities to the point where I was basically doing my job plus the job of a supervisor. When the supervisor job opened up, I ended up getting passed over - even though I'd basically been groomed for it. When I realized that all the extra shit I was doing was pointless, I stopped doing all the stuff that my superiors SHOULD have been doing in the first place and focused on my core role. WELL, boy did that not go over well. Suddenly I had a "bad attitude" and after I made my boundaries clear in that I was no longer going to step outside the responsibilities of my position, that just put a target on my back. Suddenly management was gunning for me because I was a problem employee. So I left. I've kept in touch with a few people from there in the 4 years since I've been gone and I'm told it's basically a revolving door and they can't keep anyone in my former position for longer than 6 months.

Now I view my experience, abilities, capacity, and capability as the cards in my hand. You never show all your cards.

As for your other comments about availability, that all depends on the expectations of the position as posted. If you apply for a job and they clearly state, "this requires that you be available 13 hours of the day and weekends if called upon", well then you signed up for it. However if the position is advertised as M-F, 9-5, and then they expect you're going to answer emails at 10pm on Saturday, no flippin way.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Jim DaddyO said:


> People have realized that there is no advantage to being dedicated to a company that, if they died, would have you replaced before your obit hit the papers. Besides, why work harder than the dog fucker next to you who does as little as possible for the same pay.


I work for pay and I work for me. Anything less than my best is personally not acceptable to me. If that means I'm working harder than the "dog fucker" next to me, well thats his issue and has nothing to do with me.


----------



## Doug B (Jun 19, 2017)

Budda said:


> It’s a PR move to try and guilt people back into heavy exploitation. No thanks.


In the same ballpark as companies that try and tell you that they are one big family at work! 

"No thanks, I have a perfectly good family-and you ain't it!!! "


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I work for pay and I work for me. Anything less than my best is personally not acceptable to me. If that means I'm working harder than the "dog fucker" next to me, well thats his issue and has nothing to do with me.


In my experience, if you finish your work ahead of others because you worked your ass off, they just hand you more work.


----------



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> In my experience, if you finish your work ahead of others because you worked your ass off, they just hand you more work.


True, like the colleague who always complains about his workload just so he can stretch his work and not be bothered by additional tasks. So if you're efficient and discrete you're rewarded with more work, but if you're inefficient and loud about it you are "engaged".


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> As an example (I'll have to make this general as possible for privacy reasons): about 5 years ago I was in a role where I was just a worker. Over time I stood out as a leader and a high performer. I ended up taking on additional roles and responsibilities to the point where I was basically doing my job plus the job of a supervisor. When the supervisor job opened up, I ended up getting passed over - even though I'd basically been groomed for it. When I realized that all the extra shit I was doing was pointless, I stopped doing all the stuff that my superiors SHOULD have been doing in the first place and focused on my core role. WELL, boy did that not go over well. Suddenly I had a "bad attitude" and after I made my boundaries clear in that I was no longer going to step outside the responsibilities of my position, that just put a target on my back. Suddenly management was gunning for me because I was a problem employee. So I left. I've kept in touch with a few people from there in the 4 years since I've been gone and I'm told it's basically a revolving door and they can't keep anyone in my former position for longer than 6 months.


Yup, an all too common occurrence. This is where I disagree with the notion of "employee engagement" that all the bigshot management consulting firms were/are peddling, and why I advocate the notion of "justified effort". Many employees will allocate at least a little bit of time to how they'd make this or that decision about how things were done in their place of employment. One might describe it as "self-development" and self-grooming for higher level positions. And when those efforts are not only not acknowledged, but even actively stymied, and outsiders are flown in for the jobs one was actively learning how to do responsibly and productively down the line, NO effort is justified any more. Doesn't matter what raises, or achievement plaques they give you. You didn't value what I was trying to do for the company, so screw you.

Revolving doors are interesting. During the 1999, and I think 2002 surveys of federal employees, we asked people how many supervisors they had had during the previous 3 years, in addition to a number of questions addressing employee-supervisor relationships. Nobody else looked at that data, but I did. And what I saw was that the more supervisors people had in the same period of time, the less support for carer development they reported, the less encouragement they got to show initiative and be innovative, and the poorer their communication with their supervisor. Number of supervisors is not a perfect indicator of management turnover (e.g., in the Coast Guard you may have one supervisor during your stint on a ship, but another when you're back on land), but the management cadre _does_ tend to move around a lot, and underlings regularly find themselves with a new guy in charge as the previous one goes off to "exciting new challenges" (a phrase I'm glad I will never have to hear again, in retirement). What I drew from the data is that new managers/supervisors (who may be long-time employees themselves, but new to that position) hit the ground running, hoping to impress the people they report to, and keep their staff on a short leash in order to avoid mishaps/missteps. They don't know who to invest in among their staff, why to invest in them, or how to invest in them. That all takes time, and many managers are eager to move up the ladder before they have spent that time. People get left behind and can easily feel like their effort is *not* justified.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> In my experience, if you finish your work ahead of others because you worked your ass off, they just hand you more work.


One of the great lessons in life is that if you make something _look_ easy, or easily done, others will assume that it IS easy.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Yup, an all too common occurrence. This is where I disagree with the notion of "employee engagement" that all the bigshot management consulting firms were/are peddling, and why I advocate the notion of "justified effort". Many employees will allocate at least a little bit of time to how they'd make this or that decision about how things were done in their place of employment. One might describe it as "self-development" and self-grooming for higher level positions. And when those efforts are not only not acknowledged, but even actively stymied, and outsiders are flown in for the jobs one was actively learning how to do responsibly and productively down the line, NO effort is justified any more. Doesn't matter what raises, or achievement plaques they give you. You didn't value what I was trying to do for the company, so screw you.
> 
> Revolving doors are interesting. During the 1999, and I think 2002 surveys of federal employees, we asked people how many supervisors they had had during the previous 3 years, in addition to a number of questions addressing employee-supervisor relationships. Nobody else looked at that data, but I did. And what I saw was that the more supervisors people had in the same period of time, the less support for carer development they reported, the less encouragement they got to show initiative and be innovative, and the poorer their communication with their supervisor. Number of supervisors is not a perfect indicator of management turnover (e.g., in the Coast Guard you may have one supervisor during your stint on a ship, but another when you're back on land), but the management cadre _does_ tend to move around a lot, and underlings regularly find themselves with a new guy in charge as the previous one goes off to "exciting new challenges" (a phrase I'm glad I will never have to hear again, in retirement). What I drew from the data is that new managers/supervisors (who may be long-time employees themselves, but new to that position) hit the ground running, hoping to impress the people they report to, and keep their staff on a short leash in order to avoid mishaps/missteps. They don't know who to invest in among their staff, why to invest in them, or how to invest in them. That all takes time, and many managers are eager to move up the ladder before they have spent that time. People get left behind and can easily feel like their effort is *not* justified.


Management turnover is awful for employee engagement. I've had that happen where my manager has built me up, prepared me for additional responsibility for career development, and before the opportunity comes to take that next step, they leave and then another manager is parachuted in. Now they don't know me, they don't know the development work I've done, and now I'm back at square one. Even worse, they've come down on me BECAUSE I'm stepping outside my lane (because my previous manager encouraged it). Oh sure, the outgoing manager has briefed their replacement, or even handed off the files with notes, but more often than not the new manager wants to "make their own judgements" and ignores all of it. Even worse, you have a supportive and great manger and then they leave and their replacement simply worse for any number of reasons: lack of experience, attitude, arrogance, or even a narcissist. 

We're all sold the lie of "work hard, get rewarded". It's BS. The truth is, show up, on time, and don't do anything that could get yourself in trouble. As a coworker once put it to me, "Never give them the rope to hang you with."
Don't hang around waiting for the "right time" or "right job" or buy into any promises. If you see an opportunity, take it.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

Religion has worn off. Now they have to attack one’s soul to get them to hand it over to an institution or company.

I work really hard at making food, making love and making art.

I take my job seriously. Scratch that, I take the responsibility of my job and the individuals that I serve seriously, but I don’t break my mind for it. Because I don’t base my identity around it…Because I’m not a martial artist. And that’s the only job I’d be proud of if it existed. A hired material artist who shows up to warehouses full of Armenians and beats the shit out of everyone and then gets paid vast sums of money.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Always12AM said:


> that’s the only job I’d be proud of if it existed


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

laristotle said:


>


Kato!


----------



## pickslide (May 9, 2006)

This is garbage. You get hired to do a job within a specified range of time...that is what you are paid for. If you need some extra time here and there to get things done, well sure, ok, thats part of the work, but the expectation that employees should give their employers more than what the employer outlined in the job profile is nonsense to me. A job is a 2 way street where you agree to work for somebody given certain parameters for an agreed upon payment. Employees do not owe the employer more than doing the work the best they can. If the work requires a lot of extra time, then the previously agreed upon parameters need to be reevaluated. 

I say this with over 20 years of experience in receuitment as well as owning my own restaurant. Nobody should be told working hours are 8-5 and then scolded when the work takes way longer than that. The onus is on the company to make sure they have enough people to get the work done in a typical day. Extra work happens, but it should not be the expectation. A company will fire an employee at the drop of a hat if they need to so I do not see why employees need to bend over backwards by working much more than what was agreed upon. 

That said, I do know people who took jobs where the employer was upfront about the workload and extra time and they get compensation that is appropriate. Plus they are aware of the job requirements and can choose to accept or reject said job.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

pickslide said:


> This is garbage. You get hired to do a job within a specified range of time...that is what you are paid for. If you need some extra time here and there to get things done, well sure, ok, thats part of the work, but the expectation that employees should give their employers more than what the employer outlined in the job profile is nonsense to me. A job is a 2 way street where you agree to work for somebody given certain parameters for an agreed upon payment. Employees do not owe the employer more than doing the work the best they can. If the work requires a lot of extra time, then the previously agreed upon parameters need to be reevaluated.
> 
> I say this with over 20 years of experience in receuitment as well as owning my own restaurant. Nobody should be told working hours are 8-5 and then scolded when the work takes way longer than that. The onus is on the company to make sure they have enough people to get the work done in a typical day. Extra work happens, but it should not be the expectation. A company will fire an employee at the drop of a hat if they need to so I do not see why employees need to bend over backwards by working much more than what was agreed upon.
> 
> That said, I do know people who took jobs where the employer was upfront about the workload and extra time and they get compensation that is appropriate. Plus they are aware of the job requirements and can choose to accept or reject said job.


All true and reasonable. The construct of "quiet quitting", however, presumes that the individual is essentially doing the absolute _minimum_ amount of work that would get them perceived as "doing their job"; what some might refer to as "face time" ("Bob? Yeah he's here. I just saw him over at his desk...or was it by the printer?"). It is less than merely working to rule, without putting in extra effort. It's "quiet" quitting because they're here, but they're not _really_ here.

Although the reckless abandonment of employees by managers, as described by several here, IS a real thing, it is also the case that many hiring managers have a poor conception of what the job they're trying to fill really _needs_, and what sort of person they should be looking for, and advertising for. As I found in some extensive survey data we collected, applicants' notion of what managers were looking for, and on what basis they were hired or rejected, is often different from what managers told us they were looking for and chose on the basis of. The end result is that the person hired can be a poor fit, a disappointment to the manager, and the job a disappointment to the employee. Small wonder that people can find themselves looking at the clock, unmotivated by anything other than "How soon can I get out of here?", and managers ask themselves "What have I gotten myself into here?"..

So many hiring managers and employers approach hiring from the perspective of "Are YOU good enough to work for ME?", when what they should be approaching it as is "Is this going to be a job where you thrive, and your own growth helps this organization? If it's not a match/good-fit then please be well and happy somewhere else where you _can_ thrive."


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

mhammer said:


> All true and reasonable. The construct of "quiet quitting", however, presumes that the individual is essentially doing the absolute _minimum_ amount of work that would get them perceived as "doing their job"; what some might refer to as "face time" ("Bob? Yeah he's here. I just saw him over at his desk...or was it by the printer?"). It is less than merely working to rule, without putting in extra effort. It's "quiet" quitting because they're here, but they're not _really_ here.


Isn't the minimum most people are required to do? There's no maximum.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

The more I read these responses, the more ridiculous both the term and the criticisms of it become.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Okay Player said:


> The more I read these responses, the more ridiculous both the term and the criticisms of it become.


Just do yer fricken job. If going the extra mile in search of advancement isn’t your thing, better be prepared to be a drone all your life, barring exceptional circumstances. Nothing wrong with that, the world needs worker bees. Well, fewer and fewer as we automate and move to AI, but anyways.


----------



## elburnando (11 mo ago)

guitarman2 said:


> In a union its usually that one guy doing his job well that makes the rest of the team look bad.


No, its the one guy willing to work free, spend his own money on expenses, do the unsafe work that other guys refuse, work when ill and violate the other terms of a Union agreement. I gave up on Unions. In all but the very best of them(teachers, police, healthcare, etc) you have less recourse for mistreatment than ayou would not being part of one. "Making them look bad" wasnt just a reference to how the company views the rest of the team compared to that one worker, also how that one guy ruins everyones reputation and workplace rights.


----------



## elburnando (11 mo ago)

mhammer said:


> Most of my work throughout my working years WAS work that followed me home, simply because it was always involving intellectual and conceptual challenges I had pursued or at least been tantalized by. Doesn't mean I didn't have a life, but if you commit yourself to a research career, is it possible to stop finding some things fascinating? And if they're fascinating, can you stop yourself from thinking about them when an idea hits you?
> 
> Of course, if one grew up expecting that their working life would be endlessly intriguing and inspiring, and the fulfillment of their passions, and they find themselves making widgets for a living, I would imagine there's bound to be a hint of disappointment in there.
> 
> The proper role of "work", or rather "a job", in one's life is something that many will spend a lifetime trying to pin down, with many not succeeding. Personally, I still don't know if I've had a "career" or not.


Of course, and thats normal in almost every line of work that you dedicate years of education and training towards. I think most people have at least a general interest in the type of work they do, or who they work for.


----------



## Jim Wellington (Sep 3, 2017)

This isn`t a response to any post, just a general comment.

So where do you think civilization would be if we were all satisfied with the minimum? Excellent is what moves us forward as individuals and as a society. Not everyone`s an over achiever, yet I believe that as more people give their best, we all live more fulfilled and fruitful lives.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Jim Wellington said:


> This isn`t a response to any post, just a general comment.
> 
> So where do you think civilization would be if we were all satisfied with the minimum? Excellent is what moves us forward as individuals and as a society. Not everyone`s an over achiever, yet I believe that as more people give their best, we all live more fulfilled and fruitful lives lives.


But the minimum is what everyone is satisfied with…

the issue isnt people not doing their best. Its people not being compensated for going above and beyond.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

keto said:


> Just do yer fricken job. If going the extra mile in search of advancement isn’t your thing, better be prepared to be a drone all your life, barring exceptional circumstances. Nothing wrong with that, the world needs worker bees. Well, fewer and fewer as we automate and move to AI, but anyways.


It's fairly apparent to me that those most offended by the concept are those who are able to actually fulfill it. Many people simply aren't in positions where they have the privilege of saying "Oh, it's quittin time. See ya." That being said, the idea of someone being cast in a negative light for not wanting to fulfill obligations outside of an agreement is ridiculous.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Seems relevant:


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

But Homer did go to college......

Me thinks people need to brush up on their Simpson. Time, might I add, that would be available if folks spent less time at work


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Mark Brown said:


> But Homer did go to college......


After he paid for the house...


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

The house was not paid for in season 5, to my knowledge it is still mortgaged.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Al Bundy had an OK house sellin shoes and his wife never had to get off the couch and get a job .. lol

I've been self employed almost my entire life although I drove a truck for a few years when I went back to school for a kinda mid life career change. That was OK though, out on my own and just drop the fuckin trailer then bring another one back.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Mark Brown said:


> The house was not paid for in season 5, to my knowledge it is still mortgaged.


Technically hus dad won it on a crooked 70s game show, that being said, the point remains. They afforded it on his salary.


----------



## Skynyrds Innyrds (5 mo ago)

Derek_T said:


> I came across the term this morning in the news. It's funny how, knowing nothing about it, I first assumed it was about employees getting lazy, when in fact it's about doing your job and not going above and beyond (extra hours,...).
> 
> Am I the only one feeling it's crazy that today, just doing the job you're paid for gets you labelled as "quite quitter" ? I'm not saying people deserve a medal and their pictures on the wall for showing up in the morning either, but that seems very negatively connoted for something that should be the norm.



Yeah I don't get the 'quitting' part.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

elburnando said:


> No, its the one guy willing to work free, spend his own money on expenses, do the unsafe work that other guys refuse, work when ill and violate the other terms of a Union agreement. I gave up on Unions. In all but the very best of them(teachers, police, healthcare, etc) you have less recourse for mistreatment than ayou would not being part of one. "Making them look bad" wasnt just a reference to how the company views the rest of the team compared to that one worker, also how that one guy ruins everyones reputation and workplace rights.


My experience is quite different.

I've been a member of the I.A.M. and the C.A.W. both for just long enough to find suitable openings and get promoted to salaried positions in both companies.

The most distasteful element in both situations was the overwhelming pressure from other "brothers" to dog it every chance I got, I can't tell you how many times I have heard the old "Slow down, you'll work yourself out of a job" mantra.

I had no problem working harmoniously with unions as a member of management in supervisory roles, but the only way I would ever join one again would be with a gun to my head.

As far as striking goes, I've always felt that if I had to march up and down with a big sign saying how unfair my company was just to be treated fairly and with respect, why the fuck would I want to work for them?

If it was that bad I would change companies.


----------



## Griff (Sep 7, 2016)

Interesting to think about where we'd all be if it weren't for unions.


----------



## tdotrob (Feb 24, 2019)

Milkman said:


> LOL, I don't work for free either.
> 
> The funny thing is, having demonstrated dedication and abilities over the last few decades (as imodest as that may sound) I have learned that I never need to worry about that.
> 
> ...


Well it’s settled. Your employer is awesome so they all must be.
People should just open their eyes and realize if they bust ass and go above and beyond their company will just be like Milkman’s and keep you forever and compensate you with a little communication, that’s all.
Don’t forget, if your tired of being taken advantage of, it’s just an excuse for your desire to do a shit job according to the other dude lol


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

tdotrob said:


> Well it’s settled. Your employer is awesome so they all must be.
> People should just open their eyes and realize if they bust ass and go above and beyond their company will just be like Milkman’s and keep you forever and compensate you with a little communication, that’s all.
> Don’t forget, if your tired of being taken advantage of, it’s just an excuse for your desire to do a shit job according to the other dude lol


Hunh? I'm simply telling you how things are for me. I don't have any interest in converting others to that perspective.

Some folks always seem to think their employers are out to screw them. That seems sad and depressing to me, but again, YMMV.


----------



## tdotrob (Feb 24, 2019)

Milkman said:


> Hunh? I'm simply telling you how things are for me. I don't have any interest in converting others to that perspective.
> 
> Some folks always seem to think their employers are out to screw them. That seems sad and depressing to me, but again, YMMV.


That was my point, most people are suspicious their companies are out to screw them because their company wouldn’t hesitate to screw them at the end of the day. I think your experience is the exception not the rule is all.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

tdotrob said:


> That was my point, most people are suspicious their companies are out to screw them because their company wouldn’t hesitate to screw them at the end of the day. I think your experience is the exception not the rule is all.



Maybe, or maybe it' simply that I tend to wear rose coloured glasses or in other words, I see the cup as half full more often than half empty.

Maybe I've been screwed all these years and was too naive to know it.

I have to concede that may be possible. Or maybe I'm just lucky....

When I talk to my brothers about our childhood, it seems like I have selective amnesia. It's almost like we grew up in completely different homes and environments.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

The company will never tell you they are taking advantage of you.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Budda said:


> The company will never tell you they are taking advantage of you.



Does that mean they always are?

Depends on your attitude IMO.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Work smart, not hard.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Hold back the overachievers and lift up the underachievers.

Everybody is paid the same (depending on classifications). That reminds me of something I can't really discuss.....LMAO


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Skynyrds Innyrds said:


> Yeah I don't get the 'quitting' part.


I thought it meant spending more time posting on guitar forums from work. 😀


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Does that mean they always are?
> 
> Depends on your attitude IMO.


That depends on if you’re being compensated for what you’re doing, which is this entire thread.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Budda said:


> That depends on if you’re being compensated for what you’re doing, which is this entire thread.



If you want to rise above the lowest rung on the ladder, you should act like you're already on the next rung. For me, that has always meant doing more than was expected of me.

Nobody will tell you when they are screwing you, but it's funny how many people assume they are being screwed. To me that seems like a very adversarial mindset. I feel bad for nayone who feels the world is out to bleed them.


----------



## Griff (Sep 7, 2016)

Milkman said:


> If you want to rise above the lowest rung on the ladder, you should act like you're already on the next rung. For me, that has always meant doing more than was expected of me.
> 
> Nobody will tell you when they are screwing you, but it's funny how many people assume they are being screwed. To me that seems like a very adversarial mindset. I feel bad for nayone who feels the world is out to bleed them.


Not sure what commune you work for, but corporations ARE screwing ALL of us every day. Record profits and rising compensation for executives while everyone on the 'rungs' below that earns a stagnant wage or loses to inflation with less benefits.

Good on you for working hard, but you're making it seem like everyone else is a lazy sack of shit and deserves the poor treatment they might get from their employer.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Griff said:


> Not sure what commune you work for, but corporations ARE screwing ALL of us every day. Record profits and rising compensation for executives while everyone on the 'rungs' below that earns a stagnant wage or loses to inflation with less benefits.
> 
> Good on you for working hard, but you're making it seem like everyone else is a lazy sack of shit and deserves the poor treatment they might get from their employer.


Commune? Funny you should use that term.

Hmmmm did I touch a nerve? Methinks thou doest protest too much....

Weird that I'm the only guy who hasn't been screwed by his employer. Perhaps I'm just so naive that I don't know when I've been ripped off.

It's possible. The longer I live, the more I realize just how little I know.

Not everybody figures that out.

If conspiracy theories interest you, there are plenty of those to enjoy.


----------



## Griff (Sep 7, 2016)

Milkman said:


> Hmmmm did I touch a nerve?


Nope



Milkman said:


> I'm just so naive


Yeah, exactly.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Griff said:


> Nope
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, exactly.


Maybe better to be a bit naive than cynical and jaded.


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

Milkman said:


> Hmmmm did I touch a nerve? Methinks thou doest protest too much....


Maybe, but you seem to be defensive posting far more than anyone on this thread.

You're anti union, which is fine. But a key sign of arrogance is the inability to view problems from multiple perspectives. Unions may not be your thing (I'm not unionized and probably won't be), but to extrapolate your singular experience as the absolute narrative is naive.

As for "screwing", employment is based on the idea that you produce more value than your wage. I'm all for capitalism and the risk takers being the ones to reap the rewards, but we all probably disagree to how big the gap can be before we call it "getting screwed".


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

crann said:


> Maybe, but you seem to be defensive posting far more than anyone on this thread.
> 
> You're anti union, which is fine. But a key sign of arrogance is the inability to view problems from multiple perspectives. Unions may not be your thing (I'm not unionized and probably won't be), but to extrapolate your singular experience as the absolute narrative is naive.
> 
> As for "screwing", employment is based on the idea that you produce more value than your wage. I'm all for capitalism and the risk takers being the ones to reap the rewards, but we all probably disagree to how big the gap can be before we call it "getting screwed".



The first part of that is your opinion, and we're all entitled to those.

This however makes some sense to me.

As for "screwing", *employment is based on the idea that you produce more value than your wage*. *I'm all for capitalism and the risk takers being the ones to reap the rewards,* but we all probably disagree to how big the gap can be before we call it "getting screwed".


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

elburnando said:


> No, its the one guy willing to work free, spend his own money on expenses, do the unsafe work that other guys refuse, work when ill and violate the other terms of a Union agreement. I gave up on Unions. In all but the very best of them(teachers, police, healthcare, etc) you have less recourse for mistreatment than ayou would not being part of one. "Making them look bad" wasnt just a reference to how the company views the rest of the team compared to that one worker, also how that one guy ruins everyones reputation and workplace rights.


I've never worked in a union and have never been mistreated in a work environment. I have never worked for free, spent my own money on expenses or did unsafe work. I guess I'm just lucky and these whining union people that never seem to stop complaining about everything are just unlucky and need special protection.


----------



## Jim Wellington (Sep 3, 2017)

Budda said:


> But the minimum is what everyone is satisfied with…
> 
> the issue isnt people not doing their best. Its people not being compensated for going above and beyond.


You just spoke for everyone by assuming that everyone`s satisfied with the minimum. I`m not so sure that`s a solid claim.

I haven`t navigated the work place with the intention of doing the "minimum" to get paid.

A man once told me if you focus on excellence in your work, opportunities will appear that will enhance your life. I found this to be true, and then the money started to take care of itself.

There were times I was undercompensated for my efforts, but opportunities did materialize which I could measure in ways that were meaningful, including more money, travel at company expense, and earned respect and responsibility.

Really, I think it comes down to this. If you feel underappreciated, or undercompensated, do things to build advantage for yourself, even if it means changing jobs. Or you could live feeling like a victim, harboring the resentment that may follow. Look within, instead of pointing fingers.

I found the biggest disadvantage to being ambitious, was the resentment from those who wanted to be stagnant in their careers.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

So what is the definition of minimum then…?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

tdotrob said:


> That was my point, most people are suspicious their companies are out to screw them because their company wouldn’t hesitate to screw them at the end of the day. I think your experience is the exception not the rule is all.


And my own point, made several times earlier, is that at least some of that perspective and mental framework, comes from the earliest employment many of us had, where some inept assistant manager, with little conception of how organizations thrive, wielded power over us. Those deeply held suspicions and contempts have to come from _somewhere_, and we would do well to recognize that we are shaping employees of the future when we treat first-job holders like crap. 

A little benevolence goes a long way towards making a better workforce. In the organizational psychology and management-science fields, there is a concept called "organizational citizenship behaviour" (OCBs for short: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_citizenship_behavior ). It refers to all the things one does or might do in the workplace that are not a part of your formal work duties and description but contribute to the functioning of the organization. Showing a co-worker how to unjam the photocopier or work the fax machine, or organizing the company picnic/Christmas party, or taking up a collection for a colleague who had experienced some sort of loss or trauma, are examples of things you weren't hired or expected to do, but you do because you view yourself as a "citizen" of your organization. High OCB counts are reflective of well-functioning organizations and low OCB counts reflective of dysfunctional ones. When we look at turnover, and the factors that might make another job pull you away, your current employer push you away, and your current position "sticky" enough to perhaps override those two, OCBs of coworkers are part of that stickiness. Plenty of folks stay in jobs they don't particularly like or aspire to, simply because their coworkers make each workday pleasant. And part of what makes it pleasant are the OCBs.

Do folks who are "quiet quitters" exhibit OCBs? Or are they detached enough that such a contribution is difficult to extract? Again, this is not necessarily stuff you do for your _employer_, but rather what you do for the people you work with (which could include a supervisor, but doesn't have to).

Justin/Buddha asks the question: "So what is the definition of minimum, then?". A fair and important question. Some research suggests that performance reviews by managers can be biased by an employee's OCBs. That is, your contractual work may be the bare minimum, and nothing spectacular, but your OCBs make you good for the organization. And, in some respects, that may not be a bad thing. If you make your coworkers happy and enthusiastic, and energize their work, but don't do your *own* specific tasks particularly well, have you contributed to the organization? Of course, being biased by OCBs can also be because of guilt and fear of resentment. "Well, they DID organize the Christmas party this year - something I'm glad I didn't have to do - so I can't come down TOO hard on them."


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I've never worked in a union and have never been mistreated in a work environment. I have never worked for free, spent my own money on expenses or did unsafe work. I guess I'm just lucky and these whining union people that never seem to stop complaining about everything are just unlucky and need special protection.


LMAO, must be a Brantford thing.

Of course when you live in a city that has lost so many major industrial jobs, it does tend to affect your point of view.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Apart from journalistic trendiness and the urge to assign buzzwords to things, "quiet quitting" is not something people aspire to do their entire working life. It refers to a phenomenon occurring at the _present_ time - a period in which, after an imposed pause, a great many are unsure about the role of work in their lives, what it means to "work from home", whether they really want the job they have now, whether it was "worth it" to go after that post-secondary training that cost so much and seemed to have delivered so little, etc. We have no long-term data on those who might describe themselves, or be depicted by others, as quiet quitting, to know whether this is a temporary state, harness to the pandemic and immediate post-pandemic period, or some sort of stable approach to work. There have always been lazy, shiftless, undermotivated people who live in their parents' basement or couch-surf. The QQ thing is a contemporary social phenomenon, to the extent that it is occurring in sufficient numbers to BE a "phenomenon".


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

Milkman said:


> As for "screwing", employment is based on the idea that you produce more value than your wage. I'm all for capitalism and the risk takers being the ones to reap the rewards*,* but we all probably disagree to how big the gap can be before we call it "getting screwed".


There has been a cultural shift in the past few decades where the wage gap between higher and lower income earners is now considered a form of inequity. More specifically, the gap between corporate executives and minimum wage workers in unskilled jobs. It's no longer considered the corporate latter, meant for working hard and climbing. It's considered the corporate boot, for you to suffer under. Sure, perspective does play a role, but we'd me remiss to ignore the very real issues that do exist.

Why should the top corporate executives of a company make several hundreds of times more than the lowest wage workers? With cost of living rising far higher than minimum wage standards (particularly in large cities), shouldn't the gap be a little more reasonable?

This is a very real problem that needs to be tackled. Unfortunately, the solution continues to elude us... Telling executives to pay themselves less will never work. Using the government to force a more equal distribution of wealth (via aggressive taxation, more wage laws, etc.) poses several problems. Corporations will simply automate more and/ore just take their money/business and leave, leaving massive amounts of people unemployed.

The theoretical solution requires us to end greed and get wealthy people to lower their excessively high living standards. As of yet, there is no real solution that won't cause as many problems as it solves. So, we continue on with the broken system we're stuck with...


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

My boss is a prick... always wanting more than I'm willing to give. Worse yet, I'm self-employed.


----------



## Jim Wellington (Sep 3, 2017)

Budda said:


> So what is the definition of minimum then…?


...from the Oxford Dictionary

"the least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.
"they checked passports with *the minimum of* fuss""

More to the point...When your tolerated for showing up instead of celebrated for taking responsibility and setting an example that represents excellence in what you`ve been tasked to do.


----------



## puzz (5 mo ago)

Interesting topic. Things have certainly changed over time and I don't think opportunities come as easily these days as they once did. There seems to be more separation than ever between employer and employee and the culture has changed from a working "family" dynamic to punch in and punch out while trying to squeeze every last bit out of a worker. It would be interesting to see some of the ones pushing for people to work harder try and enter the workforce fresh today. I'm betting attitudes would be different if they didn't have seniority, cushy positions or retirement on the horizon.


----------



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

jbealsmusic said:


> There has been a cultural shift in the past few decades where the wage gap between higher and lower income earners is now considered a form of inequity.


The inequality of wealth redistribution in capitalistic society has been an issue for more than a few decades: Das Kapital (1867) and Germinal (1885) to name a few.
I agree with your point about greed though, but not necessarily on the regulation part.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

When assessing the revenue sharing (gaps) , which I agree has serious flaws and trying to squeeze more production out of workers, it's important to also consider the reality of the global supply chain.

In our factories in NA, we must somehow compete with LCC regions making a fraction of what workers over here need and expect.

It's not the only reason for the productivity pressures and the top execs ARE in many cases overpaid by most of our standards, but trying to compete against companies with assembly in India, China and even Mexico is a real struggle.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Brian Johnston said:


> My boss is a prick... always wanting more than I'm willing to give. Worse yet, I'm self-employed.


Amen!

I finally got through to mine though.... even of he is me. Keep working at it man, he will come around.

I might have misrepresented my intentions on this matter. Being self employed I am my boss and while anyone who is self employed will understand that being self employed just means everyone is your boss ultimately you still have to make reasonable decisions centered on your work life.

When I spoke of my current "quiet quitting" if that is what we are collectively calling it, I simply meant to say I am removing myself from persistent availability. Work is there to provide for us, not necessarily for us to provide for work. The situation is (should) always be symbiotic and mutually beneficial however there is a tipping point where one can give too much of one's self to the whole ordeal.

I jave dialed back, if that fits the definition of what we are speaking of, then that is me. It doesn't mean I care less, or give less of myself to my work or do lesser work. It simply means that it will take less of my time and energy. 

I think a lot of the discourse around this conversation in this thread somehow assumes people will simply stop going their job, or stop being good at it or some such thing. I would assume that is an incorrect assumption based on the criteria. People don't usually set out to do poorly, most people want to do their best and give their best. The metric here is how much of all of you you can give before it is simply too much. I like to assume that this is not a case of people perhaps giving less, just giving less of their best


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)




----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

jbealsmusic said:


> There has been a cultural shift in the past few decades where the wage gap between higher and lower income earners is
> 
> This is a very real problem that needs to be tackled. Unfortunately, the solution continues to elude us... Telling executives to pay themselves less will never work. *Using the government to force a more equal distribution of wealth (via aggressive taxation, more wage laws, etc.) poses several problems. Corporations will simply automate more and/ore just take their money/business and leave, leaving massive amounts of people unemployed.*


Thats exactly what a socialist system does. It canabilizes itself until there is nothing left. (Venezuela) To me its crazy talk to suggest top executives of a company should share their wealth with low wage earners. At my company you have people walk off the street in to the plant, join the union and they're making bigger money than I think they deserve. 
I spent years educating and experience to learn my skills. I'm not in a union and I know I get paid what I'm worth. The president of the company probably makes double (triple?) what I make, comes in at 9-10 am leaves at 3-4 pm. I rarely see him in the office on a Friday. As an outsider looking in, to me, it looks like he has the easy life and gets paid way more. I have no idea where he is on Friday. Maybe working from home, maybe on the road. I have no idea how hard he works but I do know his responsibility is far greater than mine. (Maybe I am responsible for the security of all the company data) But thats how most union workers see it. They just think all these executives make tons of money and they need to share it with them not because these workers earned it but just because they think they're owed. No merits with which to back up their claim as to why their owed other than "we make your widgets". Not realizing with out the owner\executives, etc, theres no machines to make the widgets, theres no building to make the widgets. These executives can be walked out of the company with no notice or no reason. And I've seen lots of managers get walked right out. I sound anti-union and I guess to some extent I am but I'm not really. I'm not saying we should abolish unions. Just that the whining and complaining that I see from my experience tells me they're mostly never happy no matter how much you give em. I imagine if you switched their wages with the top executives they'd be happy for a month then find something else to complain about.


----------



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

guitarman2 said:


> Thats exactly what a socialist system does. It canabilizes itself until there is nothing left. (Venezuela)


That's exactly what a socialist system does. It growths until it becomes the 2nd largest economy in the world. (China) 

(PS: not arguing for or against anything here, I just could not pass on some humour)


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Derek_T said:


> That's exactly what a socialist system does. It growths until it becomes the 2nd largest economy in the world. (China)
> 
> (PS: not arguing for or against anything here, I just could not pass on some humour)





> Du and Xu concluded that China is not a market socialist economy, but an unstable form of capitalism.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#:~:text=Du%20and%20Xu%20concluded%20that,an%20unstable%20form%20of%20capitalism


.


----------



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

guitarman2 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#:~:text=Du%20and%20Xu%20concluded%20that,an%20unstable%20form%20of%20capitalism
> 
> 
> .


 Damn ! It seems even Wikipedia cannot agree with itself on that one.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

Milkman said:


> When assessing the revenue sharing (gaps) , which I agree has serious flaws and trying to squeeze more production out of workers, it's important to also consider the reality of the global supply chain.
> 
> In our factories in NA, we must somehow compete with LCC regions making a fraction of what workers over here need and expect.
> 
> It's not the only reason for the productivity pressures and the top execs ARE in many cases overpaid by most of our standards, but trying to compete against companies with assembly in India, China and even Mexico is a real struggle.


This 100%. And it's not just lower worker wages, it's also real estate cost, energy costs, taxation at the various levels of government and well as costs associated with health and safety and local environmental regulations, the list goes on. It's not just about cheap wages.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarT said:


> This 100%. And it's not just lower worker wages, it's also real estate cost, energy costs, taxation at the various levels of government and well as costs associated with health and safety and local environmental regulations, the list goes on. It's not just about cheap wages.


And lest we forget, Tariffs and other protectionist policies which impact costs and competitiveness.


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

guitarman2 said:


> my company you have people walk off the street in to the plant, join the union and they're making bigger money than I think they deserve.


Damn, you really hate your fellow man huh lol. I think I was the one who tilted the thread to wage gaps so I'll make a few points and see where it goes.

Those who take risks should also reap some of the reward, but modern day trans national companies don't actually bear much risk. With their ability to write off depreciating assets, hide profits through Irish shell companies and lay off workers to move production elsewhere, what risk do they actually have? Take toys r us for example. Private equity firms buy it out (take on all the risk right?), run it into the ground, liquidate, pay board members giant bonuses (17 million for bankrupting a company doesn't seem too risky), and the workers lose pension, severance benefits etc.

As for wages, execs have somehow convinced a large segment of the population that inflation is due to wage increases specifically minimum wage increases (and as always those pesky immigrants). If inflation is around 7-8%, and corporate profits for s&p500 companies have increased year over year well beyond that for the past decade, what does a worker deserve? Should a company pride itself on paying workers as little as possible? I think there's a lot of middle ground between the Chinese style capitalism 2.0 and Venezuelan communism you suggest as the two options.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

crann said:


> Damn, you really hate your fellow man huh lol.


I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a believer in "Equal Opportunity" and not "Equal Outcome". I don't believe in a system where everyone is equal regardless of effort. Does that make me "hate my fellow man" or just the lazy ones?


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

guitarman2 said:


> I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a believer in "Equal Opportunity" and not "Equal Outcome". I don't believe in a system where everyone is equal regardless of effort. Does that make me "hate my fellow man" or just the lazy ones?


Chill out on the Jordan Peterson my man. Usually any large scale social engineering doesn't go the way the idealists think it would, Communism being a great example, but there's a lot of ground for systems other than the brutalist form of capitalism with child labour (did you know there's a fight brewing in the states to repeal child labour laws?) and Marxist communism. Modern headlines make us think in dichotomies but there's a lot more out there than those two, and most people have more in common with one another than you might think.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

crann said:


> Chill out on the Jordan Peterson my man. Usually any large scale social engineering doesn't go the way the idealists think it would, Communism being a great example, but there's a lot of ground for systems other than the brutalist form of capitalism with child labour (did you know there's a fight brewing in the states to repeal child labour laws?) and Marxist communism. Modern headlines make us think in dichotomies but there's a lot more out there than those two, and most people have more in common with one another than you might think.


Sounds like you might be more comfortable in China. Have at it.


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

guitarman2 said:


> Sounds like you might be more comfortable in China. Have at it.


I apologize for bringing up your demi-God JP into the conversation. I used to be interested in his ideas but then I graduated high school and moved on (that's a joke). In any case, I see you're quick to anger and not ready to constructively talk ideas so I'll book my ticket to China and upon my return we can chat some more, toodles!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Using Jordon Peterson as a negative example?....


I guess there's nothing worse than making sense.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

When someone starts citing Peterson as the good guy, Im out.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Funny how he became world known because he was being labelled a bad guy.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Is Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ilhan Omar more your speed?


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

I started to read this thread, but after slogging through a few very long and somewhat boring posts I quietly quit.*



*This is a joke post. No members were harmed in making this post. The long posts are actually interesting and informative.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

player99 said:


> I started to read this thread, but after slgging through a few very long and somewhat boring posts I quietly quit.


.... but if you tell everyone, it isnt quiet


----------



## Griff (Sep 7, 2016)

Who knew doing your job and not working for free was so "left wing"?


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

A friend of mine from the last place I worked was a qualified and worked Set-up. Changing over and doing fixes to the machinery. Proprietary computer controlled machinery.

Well, the company thought it was spending too much in labour costs, they have too many people, so they figured they would lay off a bunch of people in higher paying positions on the floor. My friend was one of several dozen that got laid off, permanently. Paid out all that needed to be paid out etc.

3 months later he gets a call from the company. They are hiring, they need people, if he wants to come back to work for the company he can, as an operator, at about 2/3 of what he was making before. Of course a lot of the people laid off got the call too.

So now he works as an operator, because he wants the benefits, such as they are, for his family, and it's a few extra dollars from his farming income. He is operating the machines he used to work on. 

Guess how many times he fixes them when something goes wrong (which is fairly often)? 

If you guessed exactly zero, you would be right. 

If something goes down, he calls the "qualified" person to do the job. Which there are now fewer of because of the layoffs, and if they are already busy working on some other line...well, you can only be in one place at a time, wait your turn...When confronted about it he just states that if the company thought he was qualified to fix things, they would pay him the rate people get to fix things. They have a lot more down time these days, but he doesn't mind picking up an overtime shift at time and a half or double time for Sunday now and then to get production caught up. He figures roughly that the company is now paying more for labour now than before (at least that's the complaint at "team/motivation/bullshit meetings") as overtime requires a full compliment of operators, set-up, and maintenance to run.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Yup. Effort has to feel justified.


----------



## JBlaze (12 mo ago)

player99 said:


> I started to read this thread, but after slogging through a few very long and somewhat boring posts I quietly quit.


and everyone is so darned SERIOUS lighten the eff up


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Jim DaddyO said:


> "team/motivation/bullshit meetings"


Times like that, it's nice to just sit back and enjoy the chaos.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Reading some of this stuff. I’m really glad that Ive never worked in the main-stream job kinda world apart from a few years driving which weren’t that bad. A lot of people that I met along the way, their ambition was to get some kind of a job like the post office or GM and they would admit that their intention was to do as little as possible when they got there. UIC ski team and so on. All of that is fine with me. And I think that communism could be sold here pretty easily. You will have nothing but the dear leader will inspire you to be happy anyway…lol


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Wardo said:


> I think that communism could be sold here pretty easily.


What is the difference between communism with a party leading it, and communism with corporations leading it? I would say nothing. I think corporations and big contributors with lobbyists have things pretty much wrapped up in a neat little package that benefits themselves these days. With the deck stacked like that, it's no surprise that a lot of people just go "fuck it" and just don't want to participate in something with little to no benefit to themselves, while others reap rewards big time. Perhaps "quiet quitting" is just a symptom of globalism and corporate takeover of just about everything.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

If people knew what was coming down the pipe, they would sell off whatever they could... invest in gold and silver... start stockpiling non-perishable foods, etc. Maybe even look into a generator with a huge propane tank.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

And a few thunder sticks to help deter others from seizing the generator, propane tanks and cans of dog food.,,lol


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Jim DaddyO said:


> What is the difference between communism with a party leading it, and communism with corporations leading it? I would say nothing. I think corporations and big contributors with lobbyists have things pretty much wrapped up in a neat little package that benefits themselves these days. With the deck stacked like that, it's no surprise that a lot of people just go "fuck it" and just don't want to participate in something with little to no benefit to themselves, while others reap rewards big time. Perhaps "quiet quitting" is just a symptom of globalism and corporate takeover of just about everything.


“Corporations leading it” can’t be communism by the definition of the concept. If the people don’t own the means of production, it’s something else. It would be more like oligarchy, corporatocracy or something along those lines. Pretty close to what we have right now. Every political/economic system has been used by a greedy, corrupt few to further their own interests.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

I’m loudly quitting (retirement) but agree with the sentiment. However, North American productivity is not very high so perhaps that extra time makes up somewhat for times when you’re supposed to be working but are daydreaming, chatting, surfing the web, etc.

I’ve been on unpaid on-call 24/7 for 25 years now and it’s one of the reasons why I’m getting out. Not complaining, I enjoyed my job but hell, 25 years tied to a pager or cell phone is too much.


----------

