To think that the “quiet quitting” trend is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to do their jobs?

[DandyLeader]

If you’re “quitting” without quitting, maybe you should just leave instead of draining the life out of the workplace.

So is quiet quitting just doing your job? That's just called working isn't it? That's what most people do at work. Why does there have to be a fancy name for it?

I did this once a realised that going above and beyond did not get you anywhere and they actually seemed to favour the employees that did very little. I soon learned that when you go the extra mile you are taken for granted.
Yet the employees who stepped up very little, when they actually did for once they got praised to the hilt. This was the same with 4 out of 5 jobs I have done.

the last straw in one job was going up against the bosses cousin in an interview. we had to put together a disability awareness presentation that could be used in future training.

The cousin was totally useless in his role to the point of actually being a danger to volunteers as he left them on their own to move his car 4 times a day (Didn’t want to pay for parking) yet they got the job

Even if I could have stomached this the thing that pushed me over was my boss asked if his cousin could use my interview presentation when he was running training events!!!!!

I will never put myself out in a job again. I will do what needs to be done and no more

I don't agree at all, nor do I think its a new trend, just a new buzzword.

I've known plenty of people, over the decades who do the bare minimum required of them in their job from day 1, and I think its a perfectly valid approach to take.

Maybe try not “draining the life” out of your workforce then?

”Quiet quitting” or working to rule as it’s commonly known is the result of piss poor leadership.

I take it to mean working the hours you’re paid for and not going over and above. I’m sort of doing this currently - was made redundant from Financial sector role and have got new position in a charity. It’s more senior, but not well paid at all - I work hard in my paid hours, but protect both myself and the team I manage by strictly policing our work capacity so it’s very rare anyone has to work overtime. i figure we aren’t paid enough for additional hours. If anyone has an issue with it, they are welcome to speak to me but I make sure the team is productive enough in their actual paid hours. Salary rises aren’t performance related, so there is little incentive to go above and beyond apart from wanting to do right by a very worthy charity.

It’s not a race to the bottom though. Things are going downhill generally, so when can we say it’s enough to be miffed about it? Do we have to wait until we need to send our 5 year olds to work again?

Also, people know about life 200 years ago, but they could SEE their parents and grandparents having a better standard of living. They can still see them enjoying the result of increased house prices while they themselves are struggling to get on the ladder or pay rent. It looks likely that by the time we retire there won’t be a state pension at all. So, we’ve basically got to look forward to a lifetime of hard slog with little return in sight. I can see why people don’t care to put the extra effort in.

I kind of get it. The economy is so bad these days that if you're unemployed, it's going to take you months to find anything else. What makes it worse is that promitions/bonuses tend to be so rare too that many people struggle to keep up with inflation. So why work your arse off for the 'potential' of more money when it's not likely to happen, and you're effectively trapped on this role anyway? You might as well just do the minimum to get by.

I totally agree and 100% could have written your post. Both me and my husband have worked in Local Government and Education - we like to think we've made a difference, but looking back at the personal toll it has taken, not sure we'd do it again. My husband particularly was treated appallingly be his Local Government employers - he was a dedicated, committed professional and if he hadn't got out when he did, would have had a breakdown.

The Social Contract of working for a living has been broken. For huge numbers of people, working doesn't provide them with the means to live independently. I do think "quiet quitting" is a real issue. Not sure what the solution is. In the past, low paying jobs has additional perks that made up for the low salary. But today, those perks don't exist either.

And with new emoyees now being given rights from day one, this issue will only get bigger.

Very few companies will be advertising jobs from now on. Keeping existing staff, no matter how bad they might be, or not replacing them when they leave, are better options than risking your business by hiring new staff who have full rights.

The job market is about to get brutal.

If they are quiet quitting whilst also not looking for other roles on the side to make things better for themselves then yeah it's just daft and an attitude problem.

I don't think you know what quiet quitting is.

It's doing the job you're paid to do, and no more. No extra duties, no extra unpaid hours. Interesting that employers and the media term this "quitting" instead of simply doing your job.

Like where I work, the young naive high flyers work their socks off. Until they realise that promotion and/or pay rises aren't guaranteed.

Then they vote with their feet ....

I’ve never worked for free!
I start on time.
I finish on time.
i don’t do overtime and I always take my break.
if my job can not be done in the hours that I’m employed to do it, then that is a company problem not my problem!

I think there is a little confusion between 'quiet quitting' (which might have been called 'working to rule' at one time) and 'presenteeism' (being at work, but not actually working).

Quiet quitting is not 'slacking'. Indeed, doing what is required (and no more) may enable employees to focus more on what they do and work more effectively and efficiently.

Problems arise when employers expect employees to work above and beyond their contracted duties as a matter of course, or when the work culture makes people who fulfil their duties and do no more feel like they are somehow not doing enough.

Mumsnet loves slackers and quiet quitters until they suffer bad service at the hands of one.
Imagine ringing up your utility company or similar and speaking to a slacker about your bill being wrong, for example. They aren't going to sort it. Too much work.
Everytime I've experienced excellent customer service it's been from someone going over and beyond.

Isn't it just working to rule by another name?

For me it's seeing colleagues who have been treated like shit by management despite many years of dedication and hard work. There's only so much of myself I'm willing to give to a workplace that doesn't give a shit about me.

I've never heard of this term until today so I've just googled it.

As other posters have pointed out it appears to be a new name for working to rule.

So I disagree with you OP, I don't think these people should quit because that would mean over 50% of the workforce would quit, and I also don't agree that they are draining the life out of workplaces.

I also disagree with the previous poster who called them slackers, they are not slackers, they are people just doing their job.

This

I suspect most of us Quiet Quitting are GenX or Gen Z.

GenX who have always been cynical and laid back about work, or are coming towards retirement and can’t be arsed to push themselves any more for a minimal or zero reward. Why should we?

GenZ who as PP pointed out, can’t even live independently despite getting university educated and working in full time professional roles.

Having a good work life balance is essential. I do a good job in a fraction of the time I am paid, because I am underemployed. I still out perform colleagues who work excessive hours so… whatever.

That's not what quiet quitting means.

Didn’t the term originally gain prominence in the pandemic, when we had a better appreciation of employees doing essential and undervalued work, such as retail and care work?

Some people watched others keeping the population safe, clean and fed, and realised that their job was a bullshit job, ie was not producing much of use to society, so they felt demotivated, but they still needed the salary to put food on the table. Hence Quiet Quitting.

Maybe this isn’t correct, but at the time I remember hoping it would result in essential but under valued roles being better appreciated and paid. Some hope!

The phrase ‘A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work’ comes to mind
I don’t believe in going above and beyond for an employer because nine times out of ten it is not appreciated and in fact becomes an expectation
I learned early on in my career that it was not worth running yourself ragged for any employer
I once did unpaid overtime for an employer . I would work for a couple of hours extra most days ( Monday to Friday ) for a few years
I asked my manager if I could work at home on one occasion ( it was for a one off and the role didn’t require my presence at the office )My manager refused .
I never did any unpaid overtime again.

”Quiet quitting” means stopping going over & above when it’s unappreciated, goes unnoticed and is not financially rewarded. It means doing your job description and only that. Not giving your life to your job in return for very little. I’m all for it!

I think a large part of the workforce have always done this, now influencers (or whoever) have given it a name. Over a 40 year career, there have always been driven, ambitious people, and those who are happy to turn up, do as much as they need to to keep their job and go home.