Quiet Quitting

HughFreakingDillon said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I hate this term, "quiet quitting"
As I understand it, it is not actually quitting.  It is consciously doing the absolute bare minimum 

I agree with the VP of HR.  If you don't like your job  nobody is forcing you to stay.  There are so many options for people who want to work that I don't think it is good for people to stay somewhere they don't like and to put up something like this quiet quitting flag.

Have you looked around to see what other jobs may he open for you?  Perhaps there are options which might make you happier, or at least not joining a mass of people celebrating doing just enough.

To each their own, but I will not ever work at something where I don't give my all.  I don't have it in me.  Go 100% at everything I do, it is the only way I could ever be.

Hope you can find happiness in your work, or at least something more than you feel now.

I don't like the term either, but it's what's in the lexicon. 

the VP of HR can shove it. she's not there to say "you don't like it, there's the fucking door". she's there to listen to ideas on how to improve the corp. that is literally her fucking job. 

I don't dislike my job. I dislike the current culture. Culture can change. And it should change if the majority of the staff want it to. If they want to be a successful business that isn't wasting tens of thousands on turnover (ever heard the phrase "it's costlier to hire than to retain"?), then they are currently failing. 

Cropduster-80 said:

static111 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Isn’t the bare minimum filling your job description to the letter?

you don’t get paid 110% for putting in 110% particularly if you are salaried. Once you are no longer aggressively seeking promotions it makes total sense. 

If you think about it, it’s absurd people are criticising employees for doing their job. There are a lot of articles on this where people pile on pretty hard on these people. Doing their job is what they are doing though. All the extras aren’t their job.  Being “engaged” which they probably aren’t doesn’t necessarily preclude them from completing their assigned duties. 

I don’t like the term though.  It’s kind of like “de fund the police”. It’s not exactly representative of the position and it sounds terrible.  


Your employer isn’t and has never been loyal to you, they give you the bare minimum pay and benefits they can get away with in a competitive marketplace. Are they “quiet hirers?” 

Quiet Hirers! I love it!

This idea people have to love their job or something I’ll never understand 

I would wash dishes 8 hours a day if I got paid enough, I wouldn’t care.  I wouldn’t hate it any more or less than being an engineer or a banker. Loving your job to me is code for no hobbies and your job defines who you are as a person. 

My stepfather is that guy. He didn’t have a clue what to do when he retired. Putting in 80 hours a week in a white collar job was his life. I have exactly 1 family vacation as a kid to prove it. Missed my wedding too. 

Is that really the example we want as an ideal employee? I really hope not 

work is work. It’s not fun no matter what. If it is something is wrong. If you have a life outside the office it’s easier to realise 

American work culture has valued what is objectively unhealthy behaviours for a long time, the backlash was inevitable 

HughFreakingDillon said:

F Me In The Brain said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I hate this term, "quiet quitting"
As I understand it, it is not actually quitting.  It is consciously doing the absolute bare minimum 

I agree with the VP of HR.  If you don't like your job  nobody is forcing you to stay.  There are so many options for people who want to work that I don't think it is good for people to stay somewhere they don't like and to put up something like this quiet quitting flag.

Have you looked around to see what other jobs may he open for you?  Perhaps there are options which might make you happier, or at least not joining a mass of people celebrating doing just enough.

To each their own, but I will not ever work at something where I don't give my all.  I don't have it in me.  Go 100% at everything I do, it is the only way I could ever be.

Hope you can find happiness in your work, or at least something more than you feel now.

I don't like the term either, but it's what's in the lexicon. 

the VP of HR can shove it. she's not there to say "you don't like it, there's the fucking door". she's there to listen to ideas on how to improve the corp. that is literally her fucking job. 

I don't dislike my job. I dislike the current culture. Culture can change. And it should change if the majority of the staff want it to. If they want to be a successful business that isn't wasting tens of thousands on turnover (ever heard the phrase "it's costlier to hire than to retain"?), then they are currently failing. 

I still think the term is silly.  There are lots of things people say that I feel that way about.

Also disagree on what the job of a VP of HR is, as you describe your understanding of it.  Same on the majority of staff wanting something meaning it should be the case.  

Yes, I've heard the phrase you quoted but I've also heard the phrase "slow to hire, quick to fire", indicating how important it is to put the right people in place and hit eject as soon as someone is a problem.  

Up to you on what you do, which is great for you.  Sounds like they don't fire and provide amazing benefits.  The idea that this company pays people for 6 weeks of PTO sounds crazy, to me, but that seems great for the workers and culture.  Perhaps in Canada this is commonplace....it sure isn't here in the US 
Pension is also not something common here, any longer.  Sounds like they take good care of their people.  

The people I know who have these types of perks are mostly union workers here.  They often have the power to try and force what workers feel onto ownership. 

Good luck with the culture change.

they do fire, actually, which is a nice change from the last regime. our last HR director was scared shitless of firing anyone because of one lawsuit that didn't go the corp's way, so she'd never sign off on it. it was awful. that's one thing I'll give the HR VP: her motto is "HR doesn't hire and doesn't fire, that's up to the leaders, and we help them along the way". Loads of trash was taken out the first couple years after that change. 

that's her job as far as executive has mandated as part of our mission statement. 

we start at 3 weeks vacation. it goes up after that by one week at different intervals; I'll be at 25 years next summer at 6 weeks. Managers get an extra week in lieu of OT pay. Our pension is defined benefit, which rocks. so yes, those are good things, but we also tend to pay right on the 50th percentile or a tad lower, so there's a balance there. 

basically our executive team has adopted a "personal accountability" mandate along with "it's not our fault; it' a BOD decision" so they are basically immune from criticism and responsibility where it comes to staffing issues. it's a cop out. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

F Me In The Brain said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I hate this term, "quiet quitting"
As I understand it, it is not actually quitting.  It is consciously doing the absolute bare minimum 

I agree with the VP of HR.  If you don't like your job  nobody is forcing you to stay.  There are so many options for people who want to work that I don't think it is good for people to stay somewhere they don't like and to put up something like this quiet quitting flag.

Have you looked around to see what other jobs may he open for you?  Perhaps there are options which might make you happier, or at least not joining a mass of people celebrating doing just enough.

To each their own, but I will not ever work at something where I don't give my all.  I don't have it in me.  Go 100% at everything I do, it is the only way I could ever be.

Hope you can find happiness in your work, or at least something more than you feel now.

I don't like the term either, but it's what's in the lexicon. 

the VP of HR can shove it. she's not there to say "you don't like it, there's the fucking door". she's there to listen to ideas on how to improve the corp. that is literally her fucking job. 

I don't dislike my job. I dislike the current culture. Culture can change. And it should change if the majority of the staff want it to. If they want to be a successful business that isn't wasting tens of thousands on turnover (ever heard the phrase "it's costlier to hire than to retain"?), then they are currently failing. 

I still think the term is silly.  There are lots of things people say that I feel that way about.

Also disagree on what the job of a VP of HR is, as you describe your understanding of it.  Same on the majority of staff wanting something meaning it should be the case.  

Yes, I've heard the phrase you quoted but I've also heard the phrase "slow to hire, quick to fire", indicating how important it is to put the right people in place and hit eject as soon as someone is a problem.  

Up to you on what you do, which is great for you.  Sounds like they don't fire and provide amazing benefits.  The idea that this company pays people for 6 weeks of PTO sounds crazy, to me, but that seems great for the workers and culture.  Perhaps in Canada this is commonplace....it sure isn't here in the US 
Pension is also not something common here, any longer.  Sounds like they take good care of their people.  

The people I know who have these types of perks are mostly union workers here.  They often have the power to try and force what workers feel onto ownership. 

Good luck with the culture change.

they do fire, actually, which is a nice change from the last regime. our last HR director was scared shitless of firing anyone because of one lawsuit that didn't go the corp's way, so she'd never sign off on it. it was awful. that's one thing I'll give the HR VP: her motto is "HR doesn't hire and doesn't fire, that's up to the leaders, and we help them along the way". Loads of trash was taken out the first couple years after that change. 

that's her job as far as executive has mandated as part of our mission statement. 

we start at 3 weeks vacation. it goes up after that by one week at different intervals; I'll be at 25 years next summer at 6 weeks. Managers get an extra week in lieu of OT pay. Our pension is defined benefit, which rocks. so yes, those are good things, but we also tend to pay right on the 50th percentile or a tad lower, so there's a balance there. 

basically our executive team has adopted a "personal accountability" mandate along with "it's not our fault; it' a BOD decision" so they are basically immune from criticism and responsibility where it comes to staffing issues. it's a cop out. 

I’ve seen structural shifts in HR over the last 10-15 years.

HR at least in my experience use to be the employee advocate to management and acted as the check on management’s unilateral decisions.  

Today they are more of a tool of management in order to carry out decisions based on management interests solely 

If I wanted to fire someone it use to be a fight with HR. That fight was probably good because I needed a solid, documented reason. Today it’s more like “sure do what you want” 

an employee use to go to HR if they had an issue with management. Today they don’t because HR is management.  That’s only if your HR isn’t outsourced which a lot are. So then you’ve got a 1-800 phone number to call to complain to some third party who doesn’t do anything. They just answer benefit questions 

this was something that struck me as well. during the pandemic, I had an issue with a decision that was being made about coming to the office when it wasn't needed, and asked repeatedly for clarification as to why. I kept getting stupid double speak, and sometimes I can speak quite candidly in print and in person if I have a dissatisfaction with an answer. A week or so later, after I had let it go and thought it was a done issue, my cowardly manager says to me "come with me for a sec" and he takes me to the board room where I was ambushed by MY HR REP. My cowardly manager said nothing the entire time. She started talking to me about my tone in emails. I just kept looking at him and he was still silent. My HR rep was acting as if I was being disciplined by her, which isn't under her authority to do so (it was bizarre to say the least). So after that meeting, I took it to her manager and asked WTF was that. First off, my manager never even had the balls to talk to me directly if he had an issue with how I spoke to him. Second, I thought my HR rep was to be MY support in any conflicts with management, not HIS. 

I got the runaround with that too. So you're right in that HR used to be the employee advocate, and that has changed. 

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

F Me In The Brain said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I hate this term, "quiet quitting"
As I understand it, it is not actually quitting.  It is consciously doing the absolute bare minimum 

I agree with the VP of HR.  If you don't like your job  nobody is forcing you to stay.  There are so many options for people who want to work that I don't think it is good for people to stay somewhere they don't like and to put up something like this quiet quitting flag.

Have you looked around to see what other jobs may he open for you?  Perhaps there are options which might make you happier, or at least not joining a mass of people celebrating doing just enough.

To each their own, but I will not ever work at something where I don't give my all.  I don't have it in me.  Go 100% at everything I do, it is the only way I could ever be.

Hope you can find happiness in your work, or at least something more than you feel now.

I don't like the term either, but it's what's in the lexicon. 

the VP of HR can shove it. she's not there to say "you don't like it, there's the fucking door". she's there to listen to ideas on how to improve the corp. that is literally her fucking job. 

I don't dislike my job. I dislike the current culture. Culture can change. And it should change if the majority of the staff want it to. If they want to be a successful business that isn't wasting tens of thousands on turnover (ever heard the phrase "it's costlier to hire than to retain"?), then they are currently failing. 

I still think the term is silly.  There are lots of things people say that I feel that way about.

Also disagree on what the job of a VP of HR is, as you describe your understanding of it.  Same on the majority of staff wanting something meaning it should be the case.  

Yes, I've heard the phrase you quoted but I've also heard the phrase "slow to hire, quick to fire", indicating how important it is to put the right people in place and hit eject as soon as someone is a problem.  

Up to you on what you do, which is great for you.  Sounds like they don't fire and provide amazing benefits.  The idea that this company pays people for 6 weeks of PTO sounds crazy, to me, but that seems great for the workers and culture.  Perhaps in Canada this is commonplace....it sure isn't here in the US 
Pension is also not something common here, any longer.  Sounds like they take good care of their people.  

The people I know who have these types of perks are mostly union workers here.  They often have the power to try and force what workers feel onto ownership. 

Good luck with the culture change.

they do fire, actually, which is a nice change from the last regime. our last HR director was scared shitless of firing anyone because of one lawsuit that didn't go the corp's way, so she'd never sign off on it. it was awful. that's one thing I'll give the HR VP: her motto is "HR doesn't hire and doesn't fire, that's up to the leaders, and we help them along the way". Loads of trash was taken out the first couple years after that change. 

that's her job as far as executive has mandated as part of our mission statement. 

we start at 3 weeks vacation. it goes up after that by one week at different intervals; I'll be at 25 years next summer at 6 weeks. Managers get an extra week in lieu of OT pay. Our pension is defined benefit, which rocks. so yes, those are good things, but we also tend to pay right on the 50th percentile or a tad lower, so there's a balance there. 

basically our executive team has adopted a "personal accountability" mandate along with "it's not our fault; it' a BOD decision" so they are basically immune from criticism and responsibility where it comes to staffing issues. it's a cop out. 

I’ve seen structural shifts in HR over the last 10-15 years.

HR at least in my experience use to be the employee advocate to management and acted as the check on management’s unilateral decisions.  

Today they are more of a tool of management in order to carry out decisions based on management interests solely 

If I wanted to fire someone it use to be a fight with HR. That fight was probably good because I needed a solid, documented reason. Today it’s more like “sure do what you want” 

an employee use to go to HR if they had an issue with management. Today they don’t because HR is management.  That’s only if your HR isn’t outsourced which a lot are. So then you’ve got a 1-800 phone number to call to complain to some third party who doesn’t do anything. They just answer benefit questions 

this was something that struck me as well. during the pandemic, I had an issue with a decision that was being made about coming to the office when it wasn't needed, and asked repeatedly for clarification as to why. I kept getting stupid double speak, and sometimes I can speak quite candidly in print and in person if I have a dissatisfaction with an answer. A week or so later, after I had let it go and thought it was a done issue, my cowardly manager says to me "come with me for a sec" and he takes me to the board room where I was ambushed by MY HR REP. My cowardly manager said nothing the entire time. She started talking to me about my tone in emails. I just kept looking at him and he was still silent. My HR rep was acting as if I was being disciplined by her, which isn't under her authority to do so (it was bizarre to say the least). So after that meeting, I took it to her manager and asked WTF was that. First off, my manager never even had the balls to talk to me directly if he had an issue with how I spoke to him. Second, I thought my HR rep was to be MY support in any conflicts with management, not HIS. 

I got the runaround with that too. So you're right in that HR used to be the employee advocate, and that has changed. 

Never go to HR. They only exist for the benefit of the organization and senior management. I know you didn't go to them and were ambushed but HRs have been subsumed as another profit center for corporate. If it ever gets to a point of the BS, as you described, contact an employment attorney. Its not a bad practice to request a copy of your personnel file on an annual basis, just to keep them "honest."

josevolution said:

I’m retiring next year!