this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
1481 points (98.7% liked)
Work Reform
10045 readers
967 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see a lot of people complaining about the term "quiet quitting." In this thread there are people saying that that's exactly what they want in a job, that that's what they've been doing since before the term existed, etc..
I'm curious what other succinct terms people would use to describe the act of doing the bare minimum and not engaging beyond what is required and asked for.
I'm asking because I also dislike the term "quiet quitting", and I know such an activity has existed forever. At the same time it does seem useful because I can't think of a succinct way to describe what it explicitly describes. In the past it seems like such a behavior was implicit, but with modern "engagement" and "hustle" and "110%" work culture, it seems like we need a more explicit term.
So, is there another term we can use that people don't hate as much?
Acting your wage.
If you buy a monitor from Amazon, do you expect that they will thrown in another one for free?
What about if you hire a plumber to come fixe a leaky pipe, do you expect them to install a new set of water taps for free while they're at it?
Do you go to McDonalds and expect a posh table waiter, and a complimentary bottle of Beaujoulais wine along with lightly seasoned oregano and olive oil garlick bread, for the price of a Big Mac?
So why expect that workers will do more work than what they are being paid for?!
If it's only a business relationship, as those very same managers treat it when it's time for layoffs or when giving below inflation raises because the job market isn't tight and they can easilly find replacements, then it's only fair that workers too treaty it as only a business relationship and only provide the level of service they're being paid for.
If they want the haute cuisine Michellin Starred service they're gonna have to pay more than McDonald prices.
The whole calling it "quiet quiting" is just a reflection of the moneyed class wanting to, as the Brits would call it, eat the cake and still have it afterwards.
Working. Doing the job for which you were hired.
Perhaps these aren't punchy, but that's also why we're stuck with awful things like "quiet quitting". But these capture the correct (IMO) sentiment:
The last one is important. There's a concept of "modeling" in terms of providing strong examples of allowed/expected behavior in the workplace. If management really wants people to go above and beyond, that change starts with a show of the same on their part. I would bet that a lot of frustrated managers are themselves not putting in the extra effort, or do not make a show of it.
Work-to-rule
That implies malice though, which I don't like. What's malicious about doing exactly what we agreed I'm paid to do, nothing more, and leaving when the whistle blows? In a job market where promotions are a pipe dream and equitable raises not far from it, why should I waste my time trying to impress someone that won't reciprocate?
Quiet quitting is actually listed as a subheading on the work-to-rule Wikipedia page I linked, so I guess it's the non-malicious variation of your standard work to rule protest. If you look at the See Also section, there's some interesting related things. I think the Chinese Tang Ping suits exactly what you're saying too
high quality working. individuals really need to lower the bar. when I was young the expectation when hiring minum wage was if you got someone who showed up, on time, consistantly and was not drunk or on drugs. that was a high quality hire. workers need to learn to slack like the 80's.
Doing your job
Back in the big union days, this was called "work to rule", as in you worked exactly to the letter of your job and not an inch more.
It was a union tactic to fight back if the company wasn't playing fair or wasn't playing ball at the negotiating table
Being normal.